6:28 2K

[ranger]

Since you are clearly struggling to make weight

Watching what I eat is "struggling"?

I don't see why.

It is just watching what I eat.

I still eat plenty.

My energy is sky high.

I am just burning fat.

I am at weight right now.

WIRC is still almost a month away.

From now until then, I will burn over 100,000 calories in my cross-training, most of them from fat.

All my cross-training is UT2.

In the general population, fewer than 1% of 60-year-old males are 8% body fat, and most of those who are, I would guess, couldn't row a lick, even if they tried.

They are beanpoles or skinny runts.

They don't carry around any muscle mass.

Getting down to 8% body fat will be good preparation for the OTW racing season.

OTW, if you are lighter, you are faster.

ranger

What part of 'at UT2 levels of exertion, somewhere in the range of 50-60% of the energy you expend is going to come from fat, and 40-50% from carbohydrates' is so difficult for you? Even if you're actually doing the cross-training you claim you are, which would be a first, you are NOT burning 'mostly fat.' At most it's a slight preponderance.

If you continue to pile up the cross-training time as you get ready for your no-show racing schedule, even given optimum nutrition you are likely to run down the glycogen stored in your muscles. You may think you'll be reducing body fat substantially. You won't be. And if/when this happens (and it may already be happening), your performance must suffer.

Drastically ramping up your training volume in the run-up to a major competition is fraught with danger. We tell you this every year, yet you pooh-pooh the advice, willfully persist in self-destructive behavior, and end up underperforming as a direct result.

My training volume has been pretty stable for 10 years, if you have been paying attention to it.

My cross-training is _very_ comfortable and doesn't affect my hard rowing at all, including my racing.

If anything, it is an asset, not a liability.

It aids recovery, relaxation, endurance, fitness, etc.

Invaluable.

I used to jump rope for an hour and do an hour of sit ups before I rowed.

I no longer do this at all.

I just row.

Then I bike/step.

Same difference.

No change in training volume at all.

I have been doing this for a decade.

ranger

[ranger]

If you are in the habit of eating too much, your non-fat body mass is directly affected.

??

Say what?

Got me on this one.

When I lose weight, I retain all of my non-fat body mass.

Back in 2002-2003, at 195 lbs., I pulled 6:27.5 and then 6:28.5.

Then the next year, at 161 lbs., I pulled 6:30, 6:29, and 6:28.

No difference.

Just due to aging, I have lost some non-fat body mass since then (about 8 lbs., I think).

So I can now race well with my weight in the 150s.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

Your posting volume has been stable. Little else about you shows obvious signs of stability.

If you lose a pound a week on your present training volume, and it's been constant over the past ten years, you must have weighed 685 lbs or so back in 2000. You didn't. So either you don't lose weight as you claim, or else your training volume hasn't been constant, or both.

[ranger]

Your posting volume has been stable. Little else about you shows obvious signs of stability.

If you lose a pound a week on your present training volume, and it's been constant over the past ten years, you must have weighed 685 lbs or so back in 2000. You didn't. So either you don't lose weight as you claim, or else your training volume hasn't been constant, or both.

What I gain or lose depends on my eating habits, not my training habits.

True.

My eating habits can vary enormously.

But that is just dietary indulgence or discipline.

No big deal.

Can I eat bags of chips, bowls of ice cream, pies and cakes, butter and fatty meat, rich cheeses and breads, chocolates and sugar, etc.?

Sure.

But I don't have to.

No one does.

It is just a choice that depends on my purposes.

If my purpose is to be maximally lean, I eat rice and vegetables.

If my purpose is to consume a lot of pleasurable, tasty food, I eat fats and sugars.

You carry around tons of weight (75 lbs. of fat? more?).

So your purposes are clear, and it appears, unchanging.

You obviously don't have any interest in being 8% body fat, although you certainly _could_ be that lean, if you wanted to be.

To get there, you wouldn't have to change your training a whit.

You would just have to change your eating.

This racing season, I am going to get down to 14 lbs. of fat, like Mike VB.

If you had 14 lbs. of fat, I suspect you would weight 210 lbs. or so, perhaps even 200 lbs.

Then you would have the body composition of an elite young heavyweight.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

Let's try this again. If (and it's a very big if) you're expending the caloric equivalent of a pound of body weight per day, over and above your baseline metabolism, you're burning maybe 5500 calories. To >gain< weight under those circumstances, which you had to have done to need to lose it now, you'd have to have been eating >more than< 5500 calories/day.

That's 7 1/2 McDonalds double quarter-pounders with cheese/day. Four with a super-size french fries. Just to get to 5500 calories/day. You expect us to believe your quotidien intake was more?

[ranger]

Let's try this again. If (and it's a very big if) you're expending the caloric equivalent of a pound of body weight per day, over and above your baseline metabolism, you're burning maybe 5500 calories. To >gain< weight under those circumstances, which you had to have done to need to lose it now, you'd have to have been eating >more than< 5500 calories/day.

That's 7 1/2 McDonalds double quarter-pounders with cheese/day. Four with a super-size french fries. Just to get to 5500 calories/day. You expect us to believe your quotidien intake was more?

Sure, eating a lot of rich food is easy--and great.

Tasty!

Who wouldn't if they could?

You know this well--obviously.

What is your non-fat body mass?

How much fat do you carry around?

ranger

[snowleopard]

Sure, eating a lot of rich foot is easy

Ah, who needs pedals when you eat your own feet

[ranger]

Let's try this again. If (and it's a very big if) you're expending the caloric equivalent of a pound of body weight per day, over and above your baseline metabolism, you're burning maybe 5500 calories. To >gain< weight under those circumstances, which you had to have done to need to lose it now, you'd have to have been eating >more than< 5500 calories/day.

That's 7 1/2 McDonalds double quarter-pounders with cheese/day. Four with a super-size french fries. Just to get to 5500 calories/day. You expect us to believe your quotidien intake was more?

I am down to about 20 lbs. of fat.

Where are you, piggy?

Another piece of pie, perhaps?

Another glass of wine?

More Hollandaise on that broccoli?

Another donut, cream-filled?

Fanny--May?

ranger

[hjs]

that can only mean that he eats like a pig.

When I want to, sure.

When I don't want to, not.

So, when I don't eat like a pig, I lose weight hand over fist.

I am now at weight.

I am burning a pound of calories a day, just with my cross-training.

I am watching what I eat.

Result: I will lose seven pounds of fat by the end of February--no problem.

When I do, I will be 158 lbs. and 8% body fat.

I am almost six feet tall and have 144 lbs. of non-fat body mass, like Mike VB, an ideal size for a lightweight.

ranger

The simple fact remains that after 2003 you had trouble making weight every year, you often didn,t make weight for a race or had to dehydrate drasticly to make weight.

You also have been saying that you would not have trouble to make weight, every year, just like you are saying now. So what you are saying now is worth very little, history often repeats itself, so a very poor first race result is very likely, cause you have to starve yourself in the last few days before the race, so you are glycogeen depleted and will be dehydrated.

If on the other hand you would have kept your weight under controll, lets say 80kg all year round you wouldn,t have those troubles.

And if you gain weight while training you always gain musclemass and if you loose weight you always loose muslemass. And although a very strange one this rule applies to all mammals including you

[hjs]

You pulled 6:50, fully trained.

That's not true is it. Mike doesn't follow your training regime and, ipso facto, neglects key aspects of his training.

The same must also apply to Rocket Roy, and indeed to any > 50s lwt erger since yours is the only way to train and everyone else's training is deficient in some or other area (your analysis not mine).

Any erger that does no train as you do cannot be fully trained and you cannot claim that they are, otherwise you are admitting that their training is more comprehensive than yours and produces a fully trained athlete.

We can conclude, therefore, that Mike pulled 6:50 while not fully trained. And Roy Brook pulled the WR while not fully trained.

That's very solid logic rich..

To logic for the nutty pro so it has to be ignored

[ranger]

The plan is this:

Indianapolis, 33 spm
Cincinnati, 34 spm
Boston, 35 spm
Chicago, 36 spm

As I sharpen harder and harder, faster and faster, I'll push up the rate, keeping my technique constant.

ranger

[Byron Drachman]

I am down to about 20 lbs. of fat.
Where are you, piggy?
Another piece of pie, perhaps?
Another glass of wine?
More Hollandaise on that broccoli?
Another donut, cream-filled?
Fanny--May?

I don't have Chad's list in front of me. Isn't that number five?

I know you are but what am I?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

[NavigationHazard]

Let's try this again. If (and it's a very big if) you're expending the caloric equivalent of a pound of body weight per day, over and above your baseline metabolism, you're burning maybe 5500 calories. To >gain< weight under those circumstances, which you had to have done to need to lose it now, you'd have to have been eating >more than< 5500 calories/day.

That's 7 1/2 McDonalds double quarter-pounders with cheese/day. Four with a super-size french fries. Just to get to 5500 calories/day. You expect us to believe your quotidien intake was more?

Sure, eating a lot of rich foot is easy--and great.
Tasty!

Who wouldn't if they could?

You know this well--obviously.

What is your non-fat body mass?

How much fat do you carry around?

ranger

Unedited repost - Ranger actually wrote this. Poor Rich, born with a lead foot in his mouth. No wonder you have trouble making weight.

[Rocket Roy]

Sure, eating a lot of rich foot is easy--and great.

Tasty!



ranger

That would help explain all your foot in mouth utterances then....

[PaulH]

I have three WR rows.

Enough said.

ranger

Oh, if only.