Challenge to John Foy!!

ancho · Post by **ancho** » March 5th, 2008, 8:38 pm

John Foy wrote:
ancho wrote:Hey, Foyboy!
I now weigh 1kg less than you, am 15 years older, and have no own fitness club.

But I'd challenge you for a 10k (or for an HM).
I think I've seen some pics of your house, and I like it!

eoinom: If you go sub40, you have a free beer anytime you come to Barcelona!
John Foy: same thing for you!
I can't get near you Ancho but please feel free to take part.
My house is not part of the deal though!

But a beer is a deal?!

michaelb · Post by **michaelb** » March 5th, 2008, 9:22 pm

RowtheRockies wrote:
Hate to drag an old scandal from the closet but could this have played any role itn the DA/Chad saga?

Although we won't know for sure, my memory is that only one 2k piece rowed by Dwayne was PM3 verified; the other 3 were witnessed before a C2 rowing official; 2 of which were time trials for the USIRT. Further, my guess is that at least one of those trials and possibly two predate the use of the PM3 and certainly predate the use of the verification code (I am doing all of this from memory, but I think the verification code was introduced a year or so after the PM3). Dwayne and everyone else was sent a PM3 one of the years on the USIRT, but he sent it back and didn't use it because he preferred the PM2 display.

eoinom · Post by **eoinom** » March 6th, 2008, 4:28 am

yeah john im still up for it , i'll try my first real 10k tomorrow and see how it goes then i'll have to try get to the gym as much as possible over the next month to get the time down hopefully

Citroen · Post by **Citroen** » March 6th, 2008, 4:52 am

RowtheRockies wrote: Hate to drag an old scandal from the closet but could this have played any role itn the DA/Chad saga?

It's one of the most likely explanations. Since the PM3 defaulting to the wrong model (without warning) when the batteries go flat isn't going to be a rare event.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » March 7th, 2008, 1:42 pm

eoinom wrote:yeah john im still up for it , i'll try my first real 10k tomorrow and see how it goes then i'll have to try get to the gym as much as possible over the next month to get the time down hopefully

That's the spirit!

I rowed in various gyms for about 18 minths before I got my own and did a lot of progress. I remember my first sub 40 10k, I think I almost went blind

I also want to beat you in a month time, so I will also join. Mostly so I can claim that free beer in Barcelona!

John Foy · Post by **John Foy** » March 8th, 2008, 9:17 am

How did you go on in your first session with the monitor fixed mate?

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » March 8th, 2008, 11:04 am

John Foy wrote:How did you go on in your first session with the monitor fixed mate?

Well, considering that with the PM3 set wrong I paddled through 2 consecutive 2k's at in 2:4x.x each, without getting out of street clothes, a similar 28 minute 10k might translate to be a very long time with the PM3 set up correctly... A V E R Y L O N G T I M E.....

Indicated boat speed was 2.5 times a fast as it should have been, so 28min x 2.5 = 70 minutes or a 3:30 Pace, but that also means being able to sit on the machine for that long rowing at the same pace. Perhaps the "awakening" killed off your competition.

eoinom · Post by **eoinom** » March 8th, 2008, 2:34 pm

hey there john first real 10k done just this morning had to work late last night , i have to say it was tougher than expected started off two quick i was aiming for your pace average of 1:56 and i kept with that for 34mins then i died a bit in the end and managed a 40min 35seconds, i think i need to work on the stamina .

michaelb · Post by **michaelb** » March 8th, 2008, 2:36 pm

40:35 is a great time for a new user. Congrats. Going under 40 in the next month is certainly a reasonable target.

That row should have given you an idea of why people jumped on your claim of rowing the 10k in 28 minutes too.

eoinom · Post by **eoinom** » March 8th, 2008, 2:40 pm

hell yeah man it was tough i just didn't start too well had to many figures in my head and didnt want to let the figure go over 2 it was 1:45 to 1:58/59 mostly and for the first 30 mins i was doing ok , stamina was a killer after that and my pace slipped to about 2:10 , if i pace myself better then i reckon i could knock a couple of minutes off that ,as it was my first time rowing that long.

Bob S. · Post by **Bob S.** » March 8th, 2008, 2:50 pm

eoinom wrote:hell yeah man it was tough i just didn't start too well had to many figures in my head and didnt want to let the figure go over 2 it was 1:45 to 1:58/59 mostly and for the first 30 mins i was doing ok , stamina was a killer after that and my pace slipped to about 2:10 , if i pace myself better then i reckon i could knock a couple of minutes off that ,as it was my first time rowing that long.

Not bad at all! I just hope that you haven't been turned off by some of the crap that has gone on on these forums. The C2 is an excellent exercise machine and you won't go wrong by getting hooked on it.

Pacing for any piece is tricky and it takes a few times to zero in on just what pace you can hold for any particular time or distance.

Another very important item is technique. The action required on an indoor rower seems simple enough, but there are a lot of ways to go wrong. For many people who are new to the Concept 2 indoor rower, an early correction of technique can knock lots of time off their scores.

Bob S.

eoinom · Post by **eoinom** » March 8th, 2008, 2:53 pm

yeah i must have a look at my technique it is a great piece of machine for a cardio workout, but i reckon my form went as i tired because i finished up with a sore lower back , and after 40 mins i was finished too tired to try any other exercises just hit the sauna and then i was dreading my cycle home

Fair play to everyone here , you are athletes looking at your times.

coggs · Post by **coggs** » March 8th, 2008, 4:46 pm

That's a very respectable time eoinom. Now you have a decent benchmark to know where you stand for future wokouts.

Couple of good rules of thumb if you have not stumbled across them already:

For different length/distance workouts:
Your ending average 500 meter pace for the entire workout should slow about 5 seconds for each doubling of distance - or speed up by 5 for each half distance. It remarkably accurate for most people.
IE
A 1K @ 1:50 translates to a person being capable of:
2K @ 1:55
4K @ 2:00
8K @ 2:05
Etc.

Pick a reasonable pace for a workout. Start a little slower than the target average and try and do each split a little faster than the other.
IE for a 10K
0-2500M @2:03
2500-5000 @ 2:02
5000-7500 @ 2:01
7500-9250 @ 2:00
last 750 - whatever you have left!

Others say settle into your target pace early and hold it. Bottom line is nobody wins a race or sets a PB in the first 1/4 of a piece, but plenty of people blow any chance in that period. As you found out - fly and die is seldom a plan for success.

Keep at it and read up all you canand you will be sub 40 minutes in a few weeks time.

eoinom · Post by **eoinom** » March 8th, 2008, 4:53 pm

Hey coggs , thanks for taking the time to reply with all that information , i'll definitly take that advice on board.

I'll try that timing strategy and see how it works , i found it very hard to get into a rythmn it must of took a good five minutes to get into a steady pattern.

What setting would you recommend to have the rower on ??? I had it on 5 no reason for this , just haven't tried any other settings yet, does the weight of the person using it have a factor on what setting you should use?

Citroen · Post by **Citroen** » March 8th, 2008, 6:51 pm

eoinom wrote:What setting would you recommend to have the rower on ??? I had it on 5 no reason for this , just haven't tried any other settings yet, does the weight of the person using it have a factor on what setting you should use?

You need to use the monitor to find a value called "drag factor" rather than simply saying damper lever on 5. (We already know your machine isn't well maintained.)

Search on here for "drag factor" its a FAQ.

Leaving it on five should be mostly OK, since you nearly made sub 40 for your first real 10K.