The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

Again, you *must* have covered that distance in training (not racing) for you to have hit your targets.

I didn't say that I had hit my targets.

I said I was rowing _at_ them.

At the moment, I am training, not racing.

Racing your training gets you nowhere.

ranger

[ranger]

It's inconceivable that you have the ability to row for 1-2 hours at such a heart rate

Been there, done that.

Nothing is as "inconceivable" as fact.

No?

I did my 60min pb with my HR flat at 172 bpm.

Looks as though I am there again.

My HR was in and around 172 bpm for my entire session this morning.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

I did my 60min pb with my HR flat at 172 bpm.

As has been pointed out many many times, and as you yourself have admitted maybe half as many times, you did no such thing. You started out with something akin to a walking-around heart rate. It climbed over the next 7 or 8 or 9 minutes to something approaching a plateau. And by your own words, you 'kicked it in' over the last 1k (3:30 or so) during which your HR rose rapidly. Thus even if we ignore the medical improbability that your HR and your pace/rate stayed constant over the middle portion of your row, by your own description a minumum of somewhere between 1/6 and 1/5 of it (17-20%) WASN'T at a constant HR.

[rjw]

Rich - you so freely throw out numbers without even paying attention to the math - that is 400 runs a year. I for one think you are stretchin the truth here

It works perfectly OK in Rangerland using Rangermath and a Rangerclockcalendar. Remember that the length of the second, minute, hour and day are different due to the time dilation effects of Rangerphysics.

The time dilation effects also account for the variable, incomprehensible HR bands and Ranger's ability to get a HR of 190 bpr (beats per Rangerminute).

Thanks Dougie - how silly of me. Unlike poetry, math makes sense and you make sense out of Rangermath

[PaulH]

It's inconceivable that you have the ability to row for 1-2 hours at such a heart rate

...

My HR was in and around 172 bpm for my entire session this morning.

I'll skip over the deliberate taking of my quote out of context, and move to the meat of your argument, which happily your misquote reinforces.

1. You rowed at 172bpm for 2 hours today.
2. You rowed at 12.5spm
3. These two things will allow you to row a 5k at your target.

And yet in all of that you didn't manage to row for around 17 minutes continuously, i.e. to actually row that 5k? *That* is what is inconceivable.

[mikvan52]

"If I's" & "predicts" just doesn't do it for me anymore

How about this one?

If you still had an anaerobic threshold of 172 bpm, you'd pull 16:30 for 5K.

ranger

how about this one:

Anaerobic threshold OCCURS at a certain bpm range in every athlete but it IS NOT anaerobic threshold per se.

You seem to have forgotten (or not learned) exercise physiology.

Also Anaerobic Threshold does not predict performance.

Someone like you may have a a higher bpm rating and a better current 2k score than I do: (6:41 vs 6:47) But this is many times coincidental.
Think for instance of my wife whose AT is at a higher BPM than mine... She's post 8:54 for 2k OTErg...

anyway: Your AT is undocumented. Mine is lab tested at 143 bpm in 2007

At the same time: It seems that (for 5k) I am faster than you... explain (?)

BTW: Varying performance in percentile performances are the rule across varying distances in every sport. IOW: NO ONE is the best at all distance from 500m through 10k OTErg.... comment (?)

[ranger]

I did my 60min pb with my HR flat at 172 bpm.

As has been pointed out many many times, and as you yourself have admitted maybe half as many times, you did no such thing. You started out with something akin to a walking-around heart rate. It climbed over the next 7 or 8 or 9 minutes to something approaching a plateau. And by your own words, you 'kicked it in' over the last 1k (3:30 or so) during which your HR rose rapidly. Thus even if we ignore the medical improbability that your HR and your pace/rate stayed constant over the middle portion of your row, by your own description a minumum of somewhere between 1/6 and 1/5 of it (17-20%) WASN'T at a constant HR.

No, I didn't start out at 172 bpm. Who would choose to do that?

Yes, my HR reached 172 bpm, pretty quickly, only 1/10 of the way to the finish.

Yes, my HR was _above_ 172 bpm for 1K or so at the end.

How is this relevant?

My HR was at 172 bpm for 13K.

I suspect I could have extended that to 20K, but just didn't choose to.

ranger

[mikvan52]

"I suspect I could have ...." (only one person sez "stuff" like this)

so: "round up the usual suspects"

[snowleopard]

No, I didn't start out at 172 bpm. Who would choose to do that?

Your "walking-around heart rate" is 172 bpm? See a doctor.

[jliddil]

Isn't pointing out ranger statement inconsistencies like shooting fish in a barrel with grenades?

[mikvan52]

Isn't pointing out ranger statement inconsistencies like shooting fish in a barrel with grenades?

All ranger data is good...... +/- 100%

Last year he revealed that his heart never displays any cardiac drift... It remains constant at what ever level he chooses throughout any long workout pulled at a constant pace....

[ranger]

It seems that (for 5k) I am faster than you... explain (?)

Yes, anything is faster than nothing.

I haven't raced 5K yet this year.

My pb, back when I didn't know how to row, was 17:10.

We'll know what I can do for 5K now by the end of the month.

When I get around to it, I suspect I will row a FM at your 5K pace.

A FM is done at 5K + 9.

ranger

[ranger]

anaerobic threshold does not predict performance

For those the same gender, size, resting HRs, technique, experience, and fitness--like us?

Yep, it does.

Of course, to counter, you pick someone (your wife) of a different gender, size, resting HR, etc.

Your example has no bearing on this issue.

ranger

[ranger]

I'll say it again:

What I am predicting is not limited to me.

It applies to anyone of a similar size, physiology, fitness, skill, etc.

If you had an anaerobic threshold of 172 bpm, as I do, rather than 143 bpm, as you do, you would do 5K on the erg in 16:30, rather than 17:50, eight seconds per 500m faster, as many younger lightweights with an anaerobic threshold of 172 bpm regularly do.

ranger

[ranger]

Varying performance in percentile performances are the rule across varying distances

Not in lightweight erging.

The opposite is the rule.

The best lightweight ergers are the best at all distances, 500m to FM.

Uniformity is the rule.

ranger