6:28 2K

[ranger]

For sprints, a natural stroke is emerging for me at 1:33 @ 36 spm.

Heck, that's fine for now, perhaps fine all the way to the end of January.

Then I can try to lift the rate up toward 40 spm for the last month of the racing season.

Back in 2003, I did lots of 500s, 1:36 @ 40 spm (10 SPI).

1:33 @ 36 spm is right about 2 SPI stronger--12.09 SPI.

This is much more organized rowing--more controlled rate, more power per stroke.

This stroke is still considerably lighter that 10 MPS, though.

9 MPS

So it is still a nice racing stroke that trades quite a bit of rate for pace to maximize speed rather than just maximizing effectiveness, as you want to try to do in foundational rowing, and/or efficiency, as you want to try to do in distance rowing.

I do foundational rowing at 13 SPI; distance rowing, at 11 SPI.

I will split the difference when I race and pull 12 SPI.

8 x 500m (3:30 rest) at 1:33 would be a pb for me and would predict a 6:24 2K.

6:24 is the 60s _heavyweight_ WR.

So that is the sharpening target I will aim for from now until my first race on the 30th.

1:43 @ 29 spm (10 MPS, 11 SPI) has also emerged nicely as my cadence for threshold distance rowing.

I will also keep working on this threshold rowing from day to day, hopefully getting naturally to some distance trials.

I am not quite up to my anaerobic threshold in my steady state distance rowing and I don't want to do distance trials until I am.

There just isn't any point.

In distance trials, you ride along at your anaerobic threshold and then push your HR on up and beyond as much as you can, given the distance.

You can do most of 5K up beyond your anaerobic threshold but you can only do a K or so beyond your anaerobic threshold when you row 60min/HM. The other distance rows fall in between.

A FM can only be done at low-end UT1.

ranger

[ranger]

BTW, I have mentioned it before, but at 36 spm and a 1.66-to-1, golden ratio, pulling right on the beat, this is the meter/rhythm of my racing stroke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5D07c0dJuQ

If I just play "wipe out" in my head, I pull 1:33 @ 36 spm (9 MPS, 12.1 SPI)

No need for a monitor to tell me what I am doing.

If you give the stroke cycle 16 beats, right on the snare of the drum solo, the legs get three beats; swing the back on beats 4 and 5; pull with the arms on beat 6; recover the arms on beat 7; recover the back on beat 8. Then take the whole second half of the cycle to recover the legs (i.e., beats 9-16).

The ratio is 10/6, 5/3.

1.66

Golden Ratio

http://images.google.com/images?q=golde ... CCIQsAQwAw

[ranger]

This morning: 90min erg, 157min bike (22.2 MPH)

ranger

[PaulH]

I've just found some extra scope for improvement in your stroke - the golden ratio is actually 1.62 (to the two dp you're using). Imagine how much better it will be when you speed it up by 0.04!

[ranger]

I've just found some extra scope for improvement in your stroke - the golden ratio is actually 1.62 (to the two dp you're using). Imagine how much better it will be when you speed it up by 0.04!

Again, you get things backwards.

Nature is not mathematical; math is natural.

ranger

[PaulH]

I've just found some extra scope for improvement in your stroke - the golden ratio is actually 1.62 (to the two dp you're using). Imagine how much better it will be when you speed it up by 0.04!

Again, you get things backwards.

Nature is not mathematical; math is natural.

ranger

So the golden ratio needs to be adjusted to 1.66, to match your 'natural' stroke?

[snowleopard]

I've just found some extra scope for improvement in your stroke - the golden ratio is actually 1.62 (to the two dp you're using). Imagine how much better it will be when you speed it up by 0.04!

Again, you get things backwards.

Nature is not mathematical; math is natural.

On the contrary, nature is highly mathematical. Have you ever considered why the Fibonacci sequence occurs everywhere in nature? You even linked to pictures of natural objects that obey the proportions of the golden section. In what way is nature not mathematical?

nature = biology = chemistry = physics = mathematics.

It's all maths in the end.

[ranger]

I've just found some extra scope for improvement in your stroke - the golden ratio is actually 1.62 (to the two dp you're using). Imagine how much better it will be when you speed it up by 0.04!

Again, you get things backwards.

Nature is not mathematical; math is natural.

On the contrary, nature is highly mathematical. Have you ever considered why the Fibonacci sequence occurs everywhere in nature? You even linked to pictures of natural objects that obey the proportions of the golden section. In what way is nature not mathematical?

nature = biology = chemistry = physics = mathematics.

It's all maths in the end.

Sure, math can represent the Fibonacci sequence, but there is nothing in math that would predict that nature might be ordered this way rather than some other way.

On the other hand, I suspect that everything in math has at least its beginnings in representations of nature.

So math is natural, sure.

But nature is not mathematical.

First, nature; then math.

We can all kinds of surreal things with our heads, including math, but these things all have their sources in nature, not the other way around.

We are also natural, not mathematical, exercise physiology notwithstanding.

When we row, we don't follow numbers.

Exercise physiologists (and internet bloggers!) use numbers to try to follow us.

ranger

[snowleopard]

Again, you get things backwards.

Nature is not mathematical; math is natural.

On the contrary, nature is highly mathematical. Have you ever considered why the Fibonacci sequence occurs everywhere in nature? You even linked to pictures of natural objects that obey the proportions of the golden section. In what way is nature not mathematical?

nature = biology = chemistry = physics = mathematics.

It's all maths in the end.

Sure, math can represent the Fibonacci sequence, but there is nothing in math that would predict that nature might be ordered this way rather than some other way.

Since mathematics can [and does] predict the existence of sub atomic particles, predicting things at the macro level is not so tough. There is, however, no need for prediction at the macro level since observation is sufficient. Mathematics is only required when things get complicated, or until observational scientists get tools with sufficient resolution.

[Rocket Roy]

just do a bloody row that you can report.

No more if this and if that, stuff the IF!!!!

[ranger]

just do a bloody row that you can report.

No more if this and if that, stuff the IF!!!!

Training is much more important than racing, Roy.

Training makes you better.

Racing slowly and reporting the result exactly does not make you fast.

It just makes you more accurate about how slow you are.

And so it goes...

Those who race their training avoid their weaknesses, take a pass on their opportunities to improve, as so just get worse, and worse, and worse.

By concentrating on my training, rather than on racing, I am improving by leaps and bounds, as we will soon see.

You'll know on the 30th how good I now am at 2K.

BTW, weight loss is coming along great.

167 lbs. this morning.

That means that I probably will stand on the scales at 160 lbs. next Monday when my wife Cathy gets home from Illinois.

I am burning a _crapload_ of calories a day--and not eating much, certainly nothing very caloric, just salads, vegetables, legumes, grains, etc.

The cross-training on my bike, which I do each day _after_ a hard session of rowing, is just burning off the fat like a a torch, about a pound a day.

I have no problem now doing three hours on my bike, with little effort and no after-effects, other than weight loss.

I am cross-training like an Olympian!



Now, if I could only row like an Olympian.



ranger

[ranger]

Mathematics is only required when things get complicated

No, just the opposite.

At the moment, math can only represent things that are simple, and even so, spatial.

Math is still pretty useless as a representation of systems, and most of the complex things around are systematic.

Math doesn't model time at all.

And most of the important things in human experience (culture, language, art, etc.) are temporal in source and organization.

Math is just a spatial logic, as Bergson pointed out long ago.

Clock time is not a temporality.

It is just a convenience for keeping track of things in space.

ranger

[snowleopard]

Mathematics is only required when things get complicated

No, just the opposite.

At the moment, math can only represent things that are simple, and even so, spatial.

Math is still pretty useless as a representation of systems, and most of the complex things around are systematic.

Math doesn't model time at all.

And most of the important things in human experience (culture, language, art, etc.) are temporal in source and organization.

Math is just a spatial logic, as Bergson pointed out long ago.

Clock time is not a temporality.

It is just a convenience for keeping track of things in space.

Yes, well, Bergson would be right up your strasse:

"A man who seeks to further science can hardly commit a greater sin than to use the terms of his science without anxious care to use them with strict accuracy; it is not very gratifying to my feelings to be classed along with a Bergson who seems to be doing his utmost to muddle all distinctions.”

[ranger]

Mathematics is only required when things get complicated

No, just the opposite.

At the moment, math can only represent things that are simple, and even so, spatial.

Math is still pretty useless as a representation of systems, and most of the complex things around are systematic.

Math doesn't model time at all.

And most of the important things in human experience (culture, language, art, etc.) are temporal in source and organization.

Math is just a spatial logic, as Bergson pointed out long ago.

Clock time is not a temporality.

It is just a convenience for keeping track of things in space.

Yes, well, Bergson would be right up your strasse:

"A man who seeks to further science can hardly commit a greater sin than to use the terms of his science without anxious care to use them with strict accuracy; it is not very gratifying to my feelings to be classed along with a Bergson who seems to be doing his utmost to muddle all distinctions.”

No Bergson wasn't muddling his claims about temporality.

Sounds as though you don't know anything about temporality, either.

Science is concerned with space.

Problem is: in many, many things, we aren't.

Thus, the critique of science.

ranger

[Nosmo]

I race about five times as often as my immediate competition.

In fact, this year, my immediate competition (the WR-holder in my age and weight division, Rocket Roy) isn't racing at all.

My other main competitor, Mike VB, I assume, will just race once--at WIRC.

MVB did one ERG race in the begining of his season six months before he peaked for the national championships sculling, and 10 months before the Head of the Charles. He raced more times in one weekend at the Nationals then you did all year.

He started rowing very well and continued to improve throughout the season. His technique was beautiful in the beginning of the summer and just got better and better.

He may be one of your main competitors, but you are a long way from one of his.