Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

If technique makes no difference OTErg, then I find it hard to explain why, even though I am almost a decade older, in my everyday training, rowing well at low drag (119 df.), I now go along 1:44 @ 26 spm (12 SPI) with a middlin' UT1 HR (e.g., 160 bpm) while back in 2002-2003, in my everyday training, rowing poorly at max drag (200+ df.), I used to go along 1:54 @ 26 spm (9 SPI) with the same HR.

The difference is 75 watts (310 vs. 235) and 10 seconds per 500m (1:44 vs. 1:54).

I don't know about you, but that difference seems significant to me.

With more and more of this training at 26 spm, rowing well at low drag, I think I'll do it continuously for a FM.

Like everyone, I can do a FM with a middlin' UT1 HR.

The 60s lwt FM WR is 2:00 pace.

Of course, this difference is not only going to transform my racing.

It is also transforming my training.

The best training to do for rowing (and most other endurance sports) is steady state work over significant distances (e.g., 20K-30K) at a FM pace and HR (middlin' UT1).

ranger

P.S. My FM pb from back in 2002-2003 is 1:54/2:40.

[ranger]

I need to race (workouts, other distances, the target distance itself, etc.), fully prepared and fully relaxed and competent with my new technique, to know for sure what I can do for 2K.

But you've already said for sure what you can do - you *will* do 6:16. If you weren't sure you'd say something like "I think I'll do". But you didn't, you said that you *will* do 6:16.

Well, in endurance sports like rowing, training predicts racing in pretty predictable ways.

As I say, I am happy to discover that I am wrong.

But a lifetime of experience in endurance sports of many sorts (skating, swimming, running, canoeing, etc.) is telling me otherwise.

ranger

[ranger]

OTErg, 1:44/6:56 is the 60s lwt 2K American record.

A FM is done at 2K + 14.

ranger

[ranger]

Post removed due to factual inaccuracies.

[PaulH]

Yea, if I end up unprepared again and just pull a lwt 6:41, breaking the 60s lwt WR, I'll be crushed.

As well you should be - for somebody who *will* do 6:16, 6:41 is a terrible result.

[stroke]

Then again, I don't yet have any evidence that I am right and you are wrong.

We'll certainly have a good test of this as I go forward in the sport, though.

It will be interesting how the facts of the case turn out.

This is the clear reason why we shouldn't feed the troll. He's not had any evidence despite eight years of blathering, bloviating and outright lying. He's not "going forward", that's just a bullshit bingo phrase he's picked from the air. His case won't "turn out", he could go SUB 6:40 (if he sacked his coach), he won't go SUB7 (rowing with breaks).

Everyone, please stop feeding this troll.

Why would a so called moderator continue to make posts like this? Is he reserving all the fun for himself? Does he not understand that this is an internet forum? Seems to me people vote with their mouse finger. Like him or loath him at least he is entertaining and not a bad erger to boot. There is nothing wrong with raging against the ravages of time, indeed the older we get the better we were

[ranger]

Ah, confirmation that your failure to get anywhere near a sub 6:30 row will merely be due to the fact that you 'didn't even prepare for it'. Again...

Why do you think that I won't get anywhere near 6:30?

I pulled sub-6:30 when I was 55 years old, without even preparing for it, still struggling with technique.

Given a decline with age of 1.7 seconds a year over 2K, that predicts 6:38 for this year--rowing poorly, unprepared.

So, now that my problems with technique are sorted out, I might pull sub-6:30 without even preparing for it.

Given my stroking power rowing well at low drag, to do sub-6:30, I only have to rate 30 spm and pull for 2K, straight through.

ranger

[Citroen]

Why would a so called moderator continue to make posts like this? Is he reserving all the fun for himself? Does he not understand that this is an internet forum? Seems to me people vote with their mouse finger. Like him or loath him at least he is entertaining and not a bad erger to boot. There is nothing wrong with raging against the ravages of time, indeed the older we get the better we were

You must be new here or have a much higher boredom threshold. Ranger could be a good erger but his narcisstic personality disorder spoils everything. He's unpleasant, he won't stand on the podium and accept his medal, he won't pay his debt, he won't listen to folks who try to offer suggestions on how to improve - therefore he deserves to be ignored.

His trolling on this forum does nothing. His advice to other rowers is worthless. As Al says, "He's a complete waste of oxygen".

[claus hansen]

Does Rangers posting do any harm? I think not. Ok, he´s raging, and when he's pulling fast times it's by not doing what hes claiming to do (fx low drag factor). I understand that some people get offended, especially those fast ergers he was/is/will be competing against considering WR but still, attacking his personality with theories of alcoholism, critisizing his professional work (students evaluations of him) etc. seems worse to me than his raving about/lying/not documenting his training practice. And yes, I understand that he has not payed his dept, will not take advice etc. But look at his texts in the light of his professional career in poetry and litterature. His texts represent much more fiction than reality until he proves them. I think he sometimes gives hints to this, saying future results are based on dreams, aspirations, thought of remodeling yourself (your training) etc.

[stroke]

Why would a so called moderator continue to make posts like this? Is he reserving all the fun for himself? Does he not understand that this is an internet forum? Seems to me people vote with their mouse finger. Like him or loath him at least he is entertaining and not a bad erger to boot. There is nothing wrong with raging against the ravages of time, indeed the older we get the better we were

You must be new here or have a much higher boredom threshold. Ranger could be a good erger but his narcisstic personality disorder spoils everything. He's unpleasant, he won't stand on the podium and accept his medal, he won't pay his debt, he won't listen to folks who try to offer suggestions on how to improve - therefore he deserves to be ignored.

His trolling on this forum does nothing. His advice to other rowers is worthless. As Al says, "He's a complete waste of oxygen".

No I am not new here and obviously everybody who comes to this particular thread has a high boredom threshold, the last 4 or 5 years have been nothing if not more of the same however I find your continual calls to not feed the "troll" mildly annoying when you have done just that over a lengthy period both here and on the UK forum. Just my opinion

[ranger]

when he's pulling fast times it's by not doing what hes claiming to do (fx low drag factor)

Not at all true.

Rowing along 1:44 @ 26 spm (12 SPI), 119 df., 3.5-to-1 ratio, with a middlin' UT1 HR is astonishing stuff for a 60s lwt.

Top-end UT1 is 2K + 10.

As I mentioned, I did similar rowing, 1:54 @ 26 spm (9 SPI), 200+ df, 2-to-1 ratio, back in 2002-2003.

ranger

[ranger]

for somebody who *will* do 6:16, 6:41 is a terrible result

No, it's not.

Good 2K racing requires quite a bit of specific preparation: habituation to high rates, anaerobic intervals, etc.

This specific preparation is worth about a dozen seconds over 2K.

So, an unprepared 6:41 is the equivalent of a well-prepared sub-6:30.

I am also getting used to a new technique and so I have not yet used it for trials at other distances.

Distance trials are also an essential part of race preparation.

Distance trials are also worth a good chunk of time over 2K.

Anyone who does a 2K on the basis of just UT rowing is a _long_ way from their best 2K.

In the summer of 2002, just on the basis of UT rowing, I pulled 6:42.

After a couple of months of distance trials, I pulled 6:32.

After a couple of months of anaerobic intervals, I pulled 6:27.5.

ranger

[PaulH]

for somebody who *will* do 6:16, 6:41 is a terrible result

No, it's not.

Good 2K racing requires quite a bit of specific preparation: habituation to high rates, anaerobic intervals, etc.

This specific preparation is worth about a dozen seconds over 2K.

So, an unprepared 6:41 is the equivalent of a well-prepared sub-6:30.

I am also getting used to a new technique and so I have not yet used it for trials at other distances.

Distance trials are also an essential part of race preparation.

ranger

Exactly, so even assuming that this theoretical 12 seconds gets added to another theoretical 12 seconds from sharpening (and let's remember that it's not clear that they are cumulative, and nobody has ever achieved either one of those gains following your method of training, let alone both), you're still 2 seconds off the time you say you *will* row, and all while your potential is diminishing by over 1/8 second per month.

[ranger]

you're still 2 seconds off the time you say you *will* row

Yea, it will be a shame if I only pull 6:18 and break Caviston's 40s lwt WR.

I'll cry myself to sleep every night.

If I only pull 6:18, it would indeed be embarrassing that I have shot my mouth off for so long about pulling 6:16.

Predictions made ten years out from a performance should be much more precise than +/- two seconds.



ranger

[goblin]

for somebody who *will* do 6:16, 6:41 is a terrible result

No, it's not.

Good 2K racing requires quite a bit of specific preparation: habituation to high rates, anaerobic intervals, etc.

This specific preparation is worth about a dozen seconds over 2K.

So, an unprepared 6:41 is the equivalent of a well-prepared sub-6:30.

I am also getting used to a new technique and so I have not yet used it for trials at other distances.

Distance trials are also an essential part of race preparation.

Distance trials are also worth a good chunk of time over 2K.

Anyone who does a 2K on the basis of just UT rowing is a _long_ way from their best 2K.

In the summer of 2002, just on the basis of UT rowing, I pulled 6:42.

After a couple of months of distance trials, I pulled 6:32.

After a couple of months of anaerobic intervals, I pulled 6:27.5.

ranger

Someone capable of pulling a 6:16 would go close to 1:40 for a 6k. Pulling a 2k at your 6k pace is not a good result. Similar to you pulling a 7 minute 2k when you were capable of a 6:27.