The Two Types of Training

[whp4]

Besides me (in 2003), no 2K male WR-holder, 40-70 years old, has ever gotten better, much less substantially better, in the entire history of the sport.

Really, who cares? This "sport" of very recent invention, yanking on the chain of an upside-down bicycle? Are males 40-70 the bulk of the erging population? No. Are males 40-70 at the top of the performance spectrum? No. Did your "substantial improvement" come after you had spent any appreciable time in competition? No again. You started out as a very fit individual in a niche activity and abused the the lightweight weigh-in procedures to your benefit. After getting to your peak, and now that you are no longer able to skirt the weigh-in procedures, you have steadily gotten slower and have come nowhere near your old marks as a lightweight, much less improved upon them.

Once you are a WR-holder, getting substantially better is all about smart, informed, careful, focussed, dedicated, ambitious, creative, difficult training.

Well, there's the explanation for why you haven't gotten substantially better! First, you're not a WR holder. You are neither smart nor informed about the matters at hand. Your frequent inability to compete effectively demonstrates your carelessness when it comes to preparation (and booking travel), your constant alteration of drag, layback, etc. shows the lack of focus and dedication, and your ambition and creativity are seen only in your ridiculous posts. You may or may not do difficult training, but your unwillingness to tell the truth makes it impossible for us to know.

For someone like me, winning races is a cinch.

No challenge at all.

As long as you keep entering events where you are the only one in your age/weight class, sure. In serious competition (WIRC, EIRC, BIRC) you've been blown out repeatedly.

[johnlvs2run]

Missing a lift is not like handling down in an erg race.

Rich is aiming for WR's, not trying to win races.

Based on what I've seen, most WR attempts are not successful, and most of those don't even come close.

[JohnBove]

Perhaps you'd like me to dig up your quotes?

Here, let me post it again for you.

You are mixed up about my opinion on birth control, as I feel women are entitled do as they wish with their bodies, and the same for anyone else. It is none of your business, just as what I do is none of your business.

Hopefully this time you'll be able to comprehend what it says.

Here's a cut and paste from the women's forum. The quote is yours, the response mine.

Let's see, you mistreated and mutilated at least three women ...

The post that began as abbreviated above, is the single most offensive thing I've read on this site. And punctuated with cartoon faces, no less.

I was wrong to think you the figure of mockery and easy laughs that you're seen as by most of the people who post here; you're a vile and quite vicious human being.

End of cut and paste.

If you deny that as your quote, you're lying.

[Nosmo]

Rich is aiming for WR's, not trying to win races.

He is aiming for WRs, "without sharpening" and "without preparing" for them, because "these things can't be rushed". He is "getting ready to do distance trials" and will have them done by the "end of the month" (i.e. in a few hours).

Is he really aiming for WR's or is he aiming for a 6:28 or a 6:16, the greatest erg performance ever?

Is he actually testing himself and finding out what he can do or is he providing a built in excuse for failing?

He should have gotten the WR a few years ago. He is physically capable but he blew it. He will probably get one next year, with something like a 6:41. Ranger is an superb age group natural talent, but he mostly races poorly and always has an excuse and is never "prepared". Sorry but that is not racing well. It is not even finding out how fast he can be.

[johnlvs2run]

Is he really aiming for WR's

Well he says that he is, and he certainly has the ability.

Rich has bettered the 2k WR a few times already, which none of the naysayers have done.

And what he does is his own concern anyway.

[johnlvs2run]

The post that began as abbreviated above, is the single most offensive thing I've read on this site. And punctuated with cartoon faces, no less.

[rjw]

I also remember three WR age-group rows.

WOW! That is some good memory. I had forgotten that.

[NavigationHazard]

It's not that good a memory:

Besides me (in 2003), no 2K male WR-holder, 40-70 years old, has ever gotten better, much less substantially better, in the entire history of the sport.

As you were reminded on 2 March -- in this same thread:

At the 1995 Crash-Bs, the great Paul Hendershott (52) took 10 seconds off his own 50+ MHW record. And John Doyle broke his own 50+ MLW record but finished 2nd to a new WR set by the dieted-down Jean-Paul Tardieu. That was over 2500m, with heats. In 1996 they switched to 2k; perforce the year's best times were new WRs. At the 1997 Crash-Bs, Paul Hendershott took 4 seconds off his year-old WR in the 50+ HWs.

[chgoss]

Perhaps not, but it certainly tells you what you can do today, given where you are at right now

.......
I think that my distance rowing has been going well, but we'll have to wait for the results of my distance trials this month to see how well.
........

if you want to know how far it has progressed to date, do a timed piece.. simple!

[Nosmo]

Is he really aiming for WR's

Well he says that he is, and he certainly has the ability.

Rich has said a lot of things. He said he was sharpening for weeks then the next day said he hasn't started. He said he would be doing 4x2K every day. He said his weight would never go above 163 again and he would get down to 153, etc, etc, etc,
He also says he is aiming for 20 seconds above the WR. Which is it? He has predicted breaking the WR for a few years and has not done so. He certainly has the physical talent but has not come through.
And he certainly does not have the physical talent to do a 6:16.

Rich has bettered the 2k WR a few times already,

Yes more then six years ago, despite being "much better then that now"

which none of the naysayers have done.

Naysayers? Like Roy?

And what he does is his own concern anyway.

And we are free to respond to his internet post as we wish.

No one doubts Ranger is talented and very fast. The reaction Ranger gets is because of the provocative, offensive and stupid things he says. I believe he will have the ability to break the 60-65 WR by a couple of seconds (NOT 25seconds). He has demonstrated that he lacks the self awareness and knowledge to break the 55-59 while at the same time claiming he is the only erger age 50 and above in history to "row well".

[johnlvs2run]

what he does is his own concern anyway.

And we are free to respond to his internet post as we wish.

Sure you are welcome to be hysterical and look like a fool if you wish.

It remains though, that what he does is his business not yours.

The reaction Ranger gets is because of the provocative, offensive and stupid things he says.

Nothing he says bothers me.

[jliddil]

When done well, the 2K is wildly anaerobic.


ranger

OK so we agree glycolysis plays little role here. So my challenge to you and anyone else is to row full out for 2 minutes with a full face mask on that allows no air to be breathed in. Or how about a fullout 2k simple holding your breath.

[Nosmo]

Sure you are welcome to be hysterical and look like a fool if you wish.
....
Nothing he says bothers me.

And nothing he says bothers me either. I'm here strictly for the entertainment.
Think I look much less hysterical or and look like much less of a fool then some others.
Most of my posts have been responses to people besides Ranger.

[NavigationHazard]

When done well, the 2K is wildly anaerobic.

ranger

OK so we agree glycolysis plays little role here. So my challenge to you and anyone else is to row full out for 2 minutes with a full face mask on that allows no air to be breathed in. Or how about a fullout 2k simple holding your breath.

I'd missed this gem. Here's a quote from deCampos Mello et al., Energy systems contributions in 2,000 m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers and water. Eur J Appl Physiol (2009) 107:615–619.

The [relative contributions] of the aerobic (WAER),anaerobic alactic (WPCR) and anaerobic lactic (W[La-]) systems were calculated based on the oxygen uptake, the fast component of excess post-exercise oxygen uptake and changes in net blood lactate, respectively. In the water, the metabolic work was significantly higher [(851 (82) kJ] than during both ergometer [674 (60) kJ] and ergometer with slide [663 (65) kJ] (P B 0.05). The time in the water [515 (11) s] was higher (P\0.001) than in the ergometers with [398 (10) s] and without the slide [402 (15) s], resulting in no difference when relative energy expenditure was considered: in the water [99 (9) kJ min-1], ergometer without the slide [99.6 (9) kJ min-1] and ergometer with the slide [100.2 (9.6) kJ min-1].

The respective contributions of the [aerobic] WAER, [anaerobic alactic] WPCR and [anaerobic lactic] W[La-] systems were:

water = 87 (2) [% aerobic], 7 (2) [% anaerobic alactic] and 6 (2) % [anaerobic lactic],
ergometer = 84 (2) [% aerobic], 7 (2) [% anaerobic alactic] and 9 (2) % [anaerobic lactic],
and ergometer with the slide = 84 (2) [% aerobic], 7 (2) [% anaerobic alactic] and 9 (1) % [anaerobic lactic].

The number in parentheses is standard deviation in %, e.g. +/- 2% at 95% confidence level.

The rowers in question averaged 6:38 over 2k r 35 on slides, 6:42 r32 on a grounded erg and 8:35 OTW in a 1x (rate not recorded). According to the authors, "there was no statistically significant difference between the situations in any of the measurements of contributions when those were reported relative to the time to complete 2,000 m, independently of the energy system." As they point out, this implies that a 2500m erg test is probably a better approximation of what you'll get OTW in a 1x than is a 2000m piece. The standard erg 2k is more reflective of results OTW in (say) a viii.

They go on to say:

When we compare the results of the present study with the previous studies that investigated the contribution of
the systems, we find similarities with the most recent ones. For example, Pripstein et al. (1999) estimated that 88% of the energy contribution during the 2,000 m on the ergometer came from the aerobic metabolism, leaving 12% for the anaerobic metabolism. In addition, Russel et al. (1998) found values such as 84% of aerobic contribution and 16% of anaerobic contribution. On the other hand, older studies (Hagerman et al. 1978; Mickelson and Hagerman 1982) reported a smaller participation of the aerobic system, 70 and 72%, respectively. The difference among the present study and other studies (Russel et al. 1998; Pripstein et al. 1999) compared with older studies (Hagerman et al. 1978; Mickelson and Hagerman 1982) is probably due to the difference in the rowing ergometers used, the method used to estimate the contribution of the energy systems as well as the equipment used to measure the _V O2.

The ergometers used in the old studies had an exclusively mechanical system where the load was preadjusted,
resulting in a constant load during the test, independently of the power applied by the rower. These ergometers also did not allow the use of the distance mode, and consequently the tests were executed with fixed time (6 min). The rowing ergometer Concept 2, used in this study and also in the studies by Russel et al. (1998) and Pripstein et al. (1999) is a closer simulation of what happens in the water. Its air resistance system generates the increase in resistance to be exponentially proportional to the increase in the power input by the rower (Gluckman 2005; Concept 2 2008a).

The other possible explanation to the difference in the results is related to the methods used to estimate the energy
systems contributions. The studies conducted by Hagerman et al. (1978) and Mickelson and Hagerman (1982) used the oxygen debt during 30 min after the test to estimate the anaerobic contribution. This method has been criticized
because oxygen debt can be not solely associated with the anaerobic metabolism, which can result in an overestimation of this energy system contribution (Hagerman 1994). In addition, the fact that the studies measured the _V O2 only after each minute may not show reliably the behavior of this variable during the performance, as the behavior of the _VO2 for each breath is not being taken into account.

The studies by Russel et al. (1998) and Pripstein et al. (1999) used the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit
(MAOD) to estimate the contribution of the anaerobic system, which is well accepted for this purpose, however is
not applicable to the performance in the water because it would be necessary to measure the external loads. In
addition, both the AOD and the MAOD estimate the contribution of the aerobic and the anaerobic systems without
separating the lactic or alactic systems. Thus, the present study brings the possibility to make this distinction, which
can be useful in training prescription.

This last boils down to the proposition that differences in equipment, measurement and procedure affected the results of earlier studies such that they tended to overestimate the contribution of anaerobic pathways. Even then, the aerobic contribution was found to be in the 70-75% range.

If you're still with me, I'm struck by how small the role of the anaerobic lactic system turns out to be for these rowers. That's the pathway responsible for the 'muscle burn' and contractile-performance degradation you get during a flat-out 2k. As such, it's what most people commonly think of when they think "anaerobic." Yet it contributes only around 10% of the total energy used.

[ranger]

you have steadily gotten slower

No, as I have just pointed out, my unsharpened 2K is just the same, right around 6:40.

ranger