6:28 2K

[ranger]

And yet, despite this blinding realisation you think you can row a 2K time that would qualify you for national selection.

Has the penny dropped yet?

It has now been determined that the minimal decline in 2K times with age is .3 seconds per year.

.3 x 40 = 12

By whom? Where is the peer reviewed study?

It was indeed a standard scientific study, done by professionals.

ranger

[ranger]

And as strong as when you were 20? How do you know that? Objectively?

I can still do 30 pull ups, bench press the same pathetic amount, pull 500mr30 at 1:30 (16 SPI), do twenty extension jpress ups, do 50 jacckknives off the floor, 1000 sit ups, etc.

Upper body is just as strong.

Core is just as strong.

My back has always been a beast.

Legs are still the pathetic things they have always been.

I am only a lightweight.

I was never that strong to begin with.

But you are right.

You indeed lose it if you don't use it.

The standard loss of full-body strength from 20 to 60 is 50%.

This is just neglectt, though, lifestyle.

It doesn't have much to do with necessary decline, as with aerobic capacity.

My stroke now is just the same as Stephansen's.

The only difference between us, I think, is aerobic capacity, and even there, the difference approaches the minimal loss with age.

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

I suspect that Stephansen's is no higher.

His max HR is probably a lot higher, though, as much as 30 bpm, I suspect.

220 bpm?

Mine is only 190 bpm.

ranger

[ranger]

BTW, I am now doing 1:48 @ 24-26 spm with a HR of 145-155 bpm.

Low UT1

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

So the game is won.

I just need to keep doing it until I get to a FM.

This is almost 20 bpm better than I used to do at 1:48 back in 2003--an entire training band.

I am now much more effective and efficient.

Why?

I now row well.

I am pulling right around 11 SPI on these long UT1 rows.

ranger

[snowleopard]

It has now been determined that the minimal decline in 2K times with age is .3 seconds per year.

.3 x 40 = 12

By whom? Where is the peer reviewed study?

It was indeed a standard scientific study, done by professionals.

So where is the study? Let's have a reference, professor.

[ranger]

By whom? Where is the peer reviewed study?

It was indeed a standard scientific study, done by professionals.

So where is the study? Let's have a reference, professor.

The reference showed up on the British forum. You can search for it there, ephebe.

ranger

[ranger]

In terms of HR, I think that Mike Caviston's Level 3 rowing is really UT2 rowing, not UT1 rowing.

Level 4 rowing is done at (maximal!) UT1 HRs--"threshold" rowing.

Interestomg.

In terms of HRs, UT1/"threshold" rowing is "foundational," preoccupying 80% of training time.

UT2 is more peripheral, something to be done in coordination with Level 2 and Level 1 rowing, resting, done as second sessions or on "off" days, just to maintain endurance, technique, stroking power, aerobic capacity, relaxation, etc.

When Mike did 30K at 1:48 back in 2002, I suspect that he did it at UT2, or _very_ low UT1.

FM pace.

High end UT1 is only 10K/60min/HM pace.

That's Level 4 rowing.

ranger

[snowleopard]

It was indeed a standard scientific study, done by professionals.

So where is the study? Let's have a reference, professor.

The reference showed up on the British forum. You can search for it there, ephebe.

Come on ranger, you can do better than that. You had the numbers at your fingertips. For starters, where on the UK forum will I find it?

You're an academic. You surely took a note of the reference because you will doubtless want to bring it up again.

[ranger]

So where is the study? Let's have a reference, professor.

The reference showed up on the British forum. You can search for it there, ephebe.

Come on ranger, you can do better than that. You had the numbers at your fingertips. For starters, where on the UK forum will I find it?

You're an academic. You surely took a note of the reference because you will doubtless want to bring it up again.

Seek and ye shall find, ephebe.

There are no slaves here.

Do you own work, bubba.

ranger

[snowleopard]

The reference showed up on the British forum. You can search for it there, ephebe.

Come on ranger, you can do better than that. You had the numbers at your fingertips. For starters, where on the UK forum will I find it?

You're an academic. You surely took a note of the reference because you will doubtless want to bring it up again.

Seek and ye shall find, ephebe.

There are no slaves here.

Do you own work, bubba.

OK so you're lying. That's fine. Just wanted to establish that, again

[hjs]

Maybe it´s a good time to stop reacting people, let´s await his racing results 2010, that will give us fresh amo.

For the moment let´s ignore his clueless ramblings.............

[ranger]

Maybe it´s a good time to stop reacting people, let´s await his racing results 2010

If you mean by "stop reacting," stop spouting shit, feeling sorry for yourself, nay-saying, etc., then, sure, you should stop it.

You should have stopped it long ago.

But don't stop "reacting"!

I would love to be encouraged, supported, cheered on--to my lofty goals and winners circles.

Heck, if I pull a lwt 6:16, it will be--by far--the best row in the history of the sport.

It will break the 60s lwt WR by 26 seconds.

It will break the 60s hwt WR by 8 seconds.

It will break the 55s lwt WR by 22 seconds.

It will break the 55s hwt WR by 2 seconds.

It will break the 50s lwt WR by 9 seconds.

Itj will break the 50s lwt WR by 2 seconds.

Six WRs in one row.

Nice.

If I pull 6:16, in essence, Mike Caviston, Graham Watt, Dick Cashin, Roy Brook, Paul Hendershott, and Brian Bailey all lose their places on the Indoor Rowing WR leader board.

Wish me luck!

ranger

[philrow]

Last January or thereabouts Washburn pulled a 6:18.1 (1:34.5/500m) 2k and a 20:07.8 (1:40.7/500m) 6k, and thus his 6k time was at 2k + 6.2" pace as opposed to the guideline of + 6.0"

Plenty close enough for practical purposes. All rows vary with conditions and a host of other issues.

It is nice to know that 6K is in and around 2K + 6.

For me, it is just this, too.

So (in trying to disprove it), you prove my point.

If you row a 1:40/6:40 2K, it is unlikely that you'll row a 1:40/6:40 6K.

Right?

ranger

Ok buddy, I don't know why you'd respond with hostility by making assumptions about what you think I'm trying to do or 'prove,' particularly when I'm one of very few if any people who is not constantly violently assailing your rowing and you personally. I simply asked you to consider something. The point was that a high-performance, well-conditioned, well-balanced, young and active national-team-caliber competitor roughly at the threshold of USRowing qualifying times is still not necessarily absolutely symmetric as a rower. Even a slight difference between expected and actual 6k pace relative to 2k pace suggests significant potential for increasingly greater discrepancies at the further distance extremes, e.g. 500m and HM. Age only further complicates interpolation and extrapolation. Additionally complicating is the fact that your supposed training is not balanced, either. I wouldn't think it unlikely that you are capable of an impressive 60' or HM but an utterly lackluster 2k.

In light of your negative response:

1) Hence to, 'So the game is won,' no.

2) 'Heck, if I pull a lwt 6:16, it will be--by far--the best row in the history of the sport.' I say! Actually, I think you'd still have a ways to go. For instance, I think Waddell's 5:36.6 is probably widely recognized as the best row in the history of the sport, and I doubt anyone will be challenging that particularly soon. Stephansen's 5:58.5 is pretty way up there too, you know, but honestly it can't even compare to Waddell's performance. Sure, a lightweight pulling 1:29.6/500m (487W) is impressive and is adjusted to about 5:18.6 OTW using the C2 weight adjustment calculator while Waddell's 1:24.5/500m (580W) is adjusted to 5:23.9. So despite the fact that Waddell's 2k required over 100W greater effort on average - ~20% higher wattage - in a sense it is 'like' Stephansen is faster. But in reality, Waddell is unquestionably faster. The greatest indoor rower ever? The most powerful rower ever? Hm.

[eliotsmith]

Wish me luck!

Who needs luck when he has an incredibly unmatchable amount of foundational training?

[ranger]

Even a slight difference between expected and actual 6k pace relative to 2k pace suggests significant potential for increasingly greater discrepancies at the further distance extremes, e.g. 500m and HM. Age only further complicates interpolation and extrapolation.

Sure.

Sorry I was unclear in my response.

Yes, I am happy to admit that these projections are approximate.

One rower will do 6K at 2K + 6.2; another, at 2K + 6.

But the issue is this: For those with balanced and complete training, 6K is not usually, say, 2K + 3, or 2K + 9; although I realize that there are some exceptions to this, too.

ranger

[ranger]

2) 'Heck, if I pull a lwt 6:16, it will be--by far--the best row in the history of the sport.' I say! Actually, I think you'd still have a ways to go. For instance, I think Waddell's 5:36.6 is probably widely recognized as the best row in the history of the sport, and I doubt anyone will be challenging that particularly soon. Stephansen's 5:58.5 is pretty way up there too, you know, but honestly it can't even compare to Waddell's performance. Sure, a lightweight pulling 1:29.6/500m (487W) is impressive and is adjusted to about 5:18.6 OTW using the C2 weight adjustment calculator while Waddell's 1:24.5/500m (580W) is adjusted to 5:23.9. So despite the fact that Waddell's 2k required over 100W greater effort on average - ~20% higher wattage - in a sense it is 'like' Stephansen is faster. But in reality, Waddell is unquestionably faster. The greatest indoor rower ever? The most powerful rower ever? Hm.

Sure, I am exaggerating.

But given that no 40s lwt has come within a stone's throw of Caviston's 40s lwt WR for almost a decade now, a 60s lwt 6:16, which would best Caviston's 40s lwt WR by two seconds, would be pretty astonishing.

In a recent race, I see that Eskild E. pulled 6:16.

Eskild is, what, 35?

The average decline with age is about a second a year over 2K.

That would put Eskild at 6:41 when he is 60, just under the present lwt 60s WR of 6:42.

At that rate of decline, a lwt 5:58 at 20 becomes a lwt 6:38 at 60.

ranger