6:28 2K

hjs · Post by **hjs** » December 5th, 2009, 1:50 pm

ranger wrote:
hjs wrote:You will never ever show your erg training
I can't post a time if I don't time myself.

ranger

Every time you erg, the pm times you unless you disconect the pm and that you don,t, so again a lie.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 5th, 2009, 2:37 pm

hjs wrote:
ranger wrote:
hjs wrote:You will never ever show your erg training
I can't post a time if I don't time myself.

ranger
Every time you erg, the pm times you unless you disconect the pm and that you don,t, so again a lie.

No, machines are at our disposal, if we want to use them.

They do not use us.

Right?

No need to time anything when you erg.

But, sure, if you _want_ to time something, you can.

I always wore a watch when I ran, but I never timed a daily, 10-mile training run.

Why bother?

You just run, warming up for the first coupe of miles, negative-splitting as the juices start to flow, running hard in the middle of the run, and then finishing as hard as you can at the end.

Then you do it again the next day.

When I first took up rowing, I didn't even use the PM3 for pacing.

I used the calorie counter.

In my first race, I was four seconds under the 50s lwt WR for 2K.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 5th, 2009, 2:43 pm

hjs wrote:
ranger wrote:
hjs wrote:what teh F*** are you doing , you are racing your work outs.
No racing.

Just leisurely rides.

I ride pretty much the same speed, no matter what.

My HR is around 130 bpm when I ride.

ranger
show a 130 bpm erg then hahahahaha that will be 2.10/500 oopsss

No, 2:00.

UT2 (145 bpm) is now 1:48 @ 25 spm.

Back in 2002-2003, when I didn't know how to row, 1:48 was 172 bpm, my anaerobic threshold.

Nice improvement in effectiveness and efficiency.

ranger

rjw · Post by **rjw** » December 5th, 2009, 3:27 pm

Ranger wrote:
No, 2:00.

UT2 (145 bpm) is now 1:48 @ 25 spm.

How do you know this if you don't time anything? Obviously you time things or you couldn't say that you are on track! That reminds me of the saying - "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it".

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 5th, 2009, 4:51 pm

rjw wrote:How do you know this if you don't time anything? Obviously you time things or you couldn't say that you are on track! .

No, you don't have to time things to know you are on track.

You would have to be brain dead to miss how you are doing (better, worse, stronger, weaker, smoother, easier, etc.) when you row.

No?

How fast you are going is the last thing you want to be thinking about when you row.

There are much more substantial things to think about.

You should only think about pace if, in general, you don't try very hard and need some spur to work harder.

I don't have that problem.

Checking your times as much as possible doesn't have anything much at all to do with getting better at rowing.

If you time everything you do, you just find out more exactly and more frequently how bad you are--and that you still don't have a clue how to get better.

ranger

rjw · Post by **rjw** » December 5th, 2009, 5:15 pm

ranger wrote:
rjw wrote:How do you know this if you don't time anything? Obviously you time things or you couldn't say that you are on track! .
No, you don't have to time things to know you are on track.

You would have to be brain dead to miss how you are doing (better, worse, stronger, weaker, smoother, easier, etc.) when you row.

No?

ranger

No!

I have rowed several pieces covering feedback from the PM3 and it is very difficult to say what the split is based on "feel" and I do not consider myself brain dead. I think that it is instructive to do this once in a while as it takes expectations out of the equation and let's one row by feel.

Surely, with the way you throw around numbers and your potential, etc. I would have thought you would have more to go on. I guess I was mistaken.

I would say that it would be a pretty safe bet that when you finally time a piece that you will yet again extend horizon by yet another year.

chgoss · Post by **chgoss** » December 5th, 2009, 6:51 pm

Troll: A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

rjw · Post by **rjw** » December 5th, 2009, 7:25 pm

chgoss wrote:Troll: A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Sorry Chad

Nosmo · Post by **Nosmo** » December 5th, 2009, 9:33 pm

chgoss wrote:Troll: A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

No, no. no, you got it all wrong. This thread is all about ranger and provoking responses. Anything about him or any reaction to what he writes is on topic. Calling him a troll is entirely off topic so you are the troll here! Keep the comments coming. With any luck we can keep this tread going for at least a year (and maybe not pollute other threads).

chgoss · Post by **chgoss** » December 5th, 2009, 9:53 pm

rjw wrote:
chgoss wrote:Troll: A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
Sorry Chad

Raoul!, not you man, Ranger's the troll.. I agree with everything you've said

chgoss · Post by **chgoss** » December 5th, 2009, 9:57 pm

Nosmo wrote:
chgoss wrote:Troll: A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
No, no. no, you got it all wrong. This thread is all about ranger and provoking responses. Anything about him or any reaction to what he writes is on topic. Calling him a troll is entirely off topic so you are the troll here! Keep the comments coming. With any luck we can keep this tread going for at least a year (and maybe not pollute other threads).

I guess... I dont think it's possible to provoke a response from a troll (ranger), who already knows he's lying most of the time.. Incredibly annoying person..

rjw · Post by **rjw** » December 6th, 2009, 1:54 am

chgoss wrote:
Nosmo wrote:
chgoss wrote:Troll: A troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
No, no. no, you got it all wrong. This thread is all about ranger and provoking responses. Anything about him or any reaction to what he writes is on topic. Calling him a troll is entirely off topic so you are the troll here! Keep the comments coming. With any luck we can keep this tread going for at least a year (and maybe not pollute other threads).
I guess... I dont think it's possible to provoke a response from a troll (ranger), who already knows he's lying most of the time.. Incredibly annoying person..

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 6th, 2009, 4:24 am

rjw wrote:I have rowed several pieces covering feedback from the PM3 and it is very difficult to say what the split is based on "feel" and I do not consider myself brain dead.

Perhaps you need to reconsider your diagnosis.

Do you know when you are at your UT2 pace?

Do you know when you are at your anaerobic threshold?

Do you know when you are in between these two?

Do you know when you are below the former?

Do you know when you are above the latter?

Do you know when you are at your 2K race pace?

Do you know when you are at your 1K race pace?

Do you know when you are at your 500m race pace?

If you know these, well, sure, you don't know _exactly_ how fast your are going, but for all practical purposes, you know enough.

When I was doing marathon running, I could guess the pace I was running within about 5 seconds per mile, that is, within an error range of perhaps +/- 1%.

On the erg, that's within 1 second per 500m.

I don't even look at the monitor much when I row a 2K.

I never know my splits after a race.

During the race, I just check the meters rowed as I approach the end so that I know when I need to go into an all out sprint.

I sprint at 300m to go.

If I counted strokes, as many do, I wouldn't even have to do that.

If you are completely trained, 2Ks aer automatic.

You know what your 2K pace feels like and you just do it--flat splits, end to end, for 2000 meters (altered only with a few fast strokes at the start and an all out burst at the end).

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 6th, 2009, 4:34 am

BTW, as for mnay older/experienced rowers, I suspect, UT1/distance training is so important because, with a reduced max heart rate but elevated anaerobic threshold, top-end UT1 pace can approach 90% HRR.

That's where mine is.

172 bpm

My max HR is 190 bpm.

My resting HR is 40 bpm.

So 172 bpm is 87% HRR.

Fully trained up for distance rowing, I can row for an hour with my HR flat at 172 bpm--87% HRR.

Quality stuff.

Now that I know how to row, it looks as though this is 1:43 @ 29 spm (10 MPS, 11 SPI).

According to the IP plan, 1:43 is top-end UT1 for a 6:12 2K.

UT1 training rows can be long--up to 30K.

If you can do them with your HR pushing up close to 90% HRR--well--what else is there to do in order to train for rowing?

A little sharpening.

Then race.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 6th, 2009, 5:10 am

The secret to good distance rowing, I thihk, is learning how to rate 30 spm rather than doing distance rowing at some wretchedly low trudge near 20 spm.

OTW, the best head racers rate 30 spm.

They keep it snappy.

ranger