The Two Types of Training

[snowleopard]

The Danes & Italians row at 39 plus spm on the water.

Er, so what? Assuming you're talking about the lwt 4- they all do -- French, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Poles. Although the rating is a couple of pips lower in the middle of the race.

In case you missed it btw, the Germans are the current lwt 4- world champions.

[Nosmo]

It is totally plausible to me that someone who doesn't do any interval work and does a lot of distance could have a significantly lower "Paul's constant".

Freed's program does contain repetitions.

The difference is that the repetitions are harder and longer.

Most rowers trudge along at low rates, which of course results in very little intensity over distance.

I stand corrected on Freed's plan. Nevertheless, The same applies to very long intervals. They will result in a lower "paul's constant" then what I was doing. I still dispute that doing things like 4x5K significantly harder then doing shorter intervals all out. It is a different type of pain and one I find mentally and physically more difficult.

Most masters OTW rowers I know do a lot of things like 19' pyramids, 3x 15' and intervals for much of the year, and also do a lot of high rate 250s,500s and 1000s for the sprint season. These are high rate rating. I have yet to meet any OTW rower who would can row above 30 spm for much over 5K. It is very difficult to do that in boat and maintain good technique. To be fast in a single one must match the speed of the recovery with the speed of the boat otherwise there is too much variation in boat speed within the stroke. Younger world class athletes can rate higher for two reasons--higher ratings require higher aerobic capacity and efficiency at high rating correlates with higher boat speeds, so faster boats rate higher.

[ranger]

higher ratings require higher aerobic capacity and efficiency at high rating correlates with higher boat speeds, so faster boats rate higher.

Indeed they do.

But Mike VB will disagree with you.

He says that he rates low _in order to_ go fast and _because_ of his good aerobic capacity.



Silly stuff.

And you point out, he rates low because of his low aerobic capacity, which makes it so he _can't_ go fast.

ranger

[johnlvs2run]

No John, that's an assertion, not evidence.

It is observation of reality.

Asserted or not, misconceptions are misconceptions, evidence is evidence, truth remains truth.

Evidence would be a survey of rowers or coaches, video from a great number of competitions, perhaps a scientific study.

Whatever. Did you wait for "evidence" or scientific studies to stop smoking?

You saying the same thing repeatedly is essentially worthless.

Worthless to those with closed minds.

[johnlvs2run]

Training, especially intense training, is very specific.

I agree entirely.

So, if my goal is a 2K, 1:34 @ 36 spm (11.7 SPI), what kind of training at 8 MPS would you have me do?

To race at 8mps, like the Danes & Italians, I would have you train intensely at 8 mps.

A 2k at 6:16 and 8 mps would be @ 40 spm.

I would base it on your current 2k time @ 8 mps, and then keep moving it along to go faster.

If you can do 20 race pace 500s, paddling a 500m in between, you can do a 2K at that pace.

That would work, as long as it would be at 8 mps.

If Freed wanted to do a 2K in 6:16, rather than 6:38, as I am sure he did, why didn't he do some _specific_ training of this sort?

Maybe he was interested more in the distances. His training was not directed to a 2k.

There is a big difference between training for a 2k and training for a 10k or half marathon distance.

30min rows are not _specific_ training for a 6min row.

Agreed. This is one reason why 2k specialists do not row hard over distance.

If Freed had tried some _specific_ training, he would have found out that what he was doing was inadequate, woefully inadequate.

Maybe he was not fast enough for the 2k, in fact he said so, that he lacked speed. So he focused on the distances.

All the more power to him for doing so.

Freed could barely do _one_ 500m at 1:34.

Actually, 1:32. Like I said, maybe he was not fast enough, to go faster.

He had an ineffective stroke.

It was quite effective over distance.

He maybe did not have the body mechanics, short legs, long torso, to go faster.

He needed to do a lot of low rate training at high stroking power to expand his range of effectiveness.

That would be lazy-man training. Freed was not lazy. He trained hard.

Most people can't train hard over distance.
So they train for the 2k, and do WP or PL for their distance.

[johnlvs2run]

I have yet to meet any OTW rower who would can row above 30 spm for much over 5K. It is very difficult to do that in boat and maintain good technique.

Exactly. No one said it was easy.

Most people can't do it.

[snowleopard]

He maybe did not have the body mechanics, short legs, long torso, to go faster.

Don't be daft. He rowed a 5K almost at his 2K PB pace. He had aerobic capacity in spades. Of course he could go faster.

The problem was that on the evidence[sic] of his longer rows he should unquestionably have been the 2K world record holder. But that would need to be witnessed. Better to be an enigma at the official distance than to be called out.

[lancs]

Given their 2Ks, I assume that Mike VB and Rocket Roy could only do 20 x 500m @ 1:42.

If I can get this done at 1:34...

Do you have any evidence you could do even 8 of these?

[johnlvs2run]

Of course he could go faster.

Faster than 16:47?

Well who knows. What we do know is that he rowed a 16:47 and no one else has been close.

The problem was that on the evidence[sic] of his longer rows he should unquestionably have been the 2K world record holder.

6:39 was pretty good but not quite the best. Others have done faster for a 2k.

No one else has rowed a 16:47 for the 5k as a 50+ lightweight.

Better to be an enigma at the official distance than to be called out.

Yes, indeed. Quite ironic isn't it.

[Nosmo]

Nosmo--

Why are you talking to a bunch of 60-year-olds?

Entertainment, strictly entertainment.
For example, can you demonstrate that you figured out the relationship between pace and speed yet?

[Byron Drachman]

Why are you talking to a bunch of 60-year-olds?

Question for the day: When Ranger turns 60 will he say he is 61?

[ranger]

A 2k at 6:16 and 8 mps would be @ 40 spm

Been there, done that.

That's 10.5 SPI.

That's what I did in 2003.

Yes, I trained quite a bit at 40 spm, and I finished my 2Ks at 40 spm.

For instance, I did 20 x 500m, 1:36 @ 40 spm.

The results of the training were very good, too (a lwt 6:28 2K)--up to a limit.

And when you get to that limit, then what?

As it turned out, I couldn't do a 2K at 40 spm.

I could only get to 36 spm.

I tried again and again and again.

When I pushed the first 1K even as fast as 1:36, I collapsed in the second 1K.

I am not 20 years old; I am 60.

No elite veteran rower has ever done a quality 2K at 40 spm.

Not enough aerobic capacity to make it to the end.

ranger

[ranger]

6:39 was pretty good but not quite the best. Others have done faster for a 2k.

No, John.

Given his distance times, 6:39 is a wretched 2K for Freed.

Others have done better?

Indeed!

Now, 14 seconds better.

And that won't be the end of it, I'm sure.

14 seconds is a _gigantic_ margin in an 2K race.

10 boat lengths?

ranger

[ranger]

This is one reason why 2k specialists do not row hard over distance.

2K is the only official race in the sport.

If we participate fully in the sport, we are all 2K specialists.

ranger

[ranger]

Most people can't train hard over distance.

I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with rowing at 8 MPS, I think.

It has to do with (1) having a high aerobic capacity and (2) being able to perform sustained bouts of complex, skilled work in a relaxed and efficient way with your HR flat at your anaerobic threshold.

Not easy.

Freed said that he finished his 30min rows with a HR of 190 bpm.

And he did 2 x 30min in his distance sessions.

That is indeed working hard.

ranger