The Two Types of Training

[hjs]

you have steadily gotten slower

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

ranger

Did you pull those 6.5x and those 7.xx like you did the last few years also in 2003

[ranger]

s he actually testing himself?

Appropriately, rather than prematurely?

That is, at the levels of training that I am passing through?

Yes.

In terms of improvement, a 2K is entirely determined by your overall fitness and UT training, your effectiveness and efficiency, given your talent for and commitment to the sport (sports background, genetic endowment, time and energy devoted to training, etc.).

While you indeed have to do it, the contribution of your AT, TR, and AN training to your 2K is pretty much fixed.

This means that doing a lot of fully sharpened races is not relevant to my project.

Been there, done that.

ranger

[hjs]

s he actually testing himself?

Plenty, how many 2k races has he done the last 7 years? dozens, we lost count.

[ranger]

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.

Even though I have had the best 55s lwt 2K now for two years, so far this year, by six seconds, a _huge_ margin in a 2K, and as one of the oldest rowers in the age division, now a few months from 60 years old, just rowing the races for the sake of participating, without even preparing for them?

Hmm.

That's a pretty harsh statement about the other rowers in the age and weight division, and since my times, right now, are pretty much in line with historical standards, with veteran erging more generally, as least, as it has been done historically.

ranger

[ranger]

Really, who cares?

No need for to care about rowing at all, much less veteran rowing.

But this forum, I assume, is for those who _do_ care about it.

You don't have to have our interests.

Why do you think you do?

You clearly don't know anything about rowing and are no good at it.

So why not do something else?

There are lots of equally interesting things to care about.

For instance, I've done a lot of sports, but I don't care much about curling, because I don't know much about it and have never done it.

But I don't get on curiing chat lines on the internet and talk ignorantly about the sport, abusing those who are great at it and do care.

That's just being ridiculously inappropriate.

That's just being a troll.

Why don't you do something more productive and admirable with your time.

ranger


ranger

[ranger]

f 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.

I'm not.

I am rowing at WR levels for 2K without any anaerobic training at all.

As I have been saying, pretty much, your 2K is determined entirely by your overall fitness and your UT rowing.

The contribution of sharpening (AT, TR, and AN) rowing to a 2K is only about a predictable dozen seconds.

10% of 420 watts is 42 watts, or about three seconds per 500m, 12 seconds over 2K.

So my goal has been to try to get to 6:28, my former pb, before I sharpen, given that my 2K target is 6:16.

I think I still might do this (e.g., by the end of the month).

My distance trials will be a second confirmation that I have reached this pre-sharpening goal.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a 2K race, both the experience of getting through one and the time that you achieve when you do, anaerobic training is pretty important, no?, especially if your interest is in records.

12 seconds is a huge margin in a 2K.

If, out of the blue, someone rowed a lwt 5:46 (or hwt 5:23), people would be pretty impressed and surprised, no?

A 2K is also just a difficult thing to do without anaerobic training.

Like it or not, prepared or not, when you do a 2K, you challenge your anaerobic pathways.

If those pathways don't respond, you suffer pretty badly, in some cases, so badly, you don't succeed.

ranger

[hjs]

f 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.

I'm not.

I am rowing at WR levels for 2K without any anaerobic training at all.

As I have been saying, pretty much, your 2K is determined entirely by your overall fitness and your UT rowing.

The contribution of sharpening (AT, TR, and AN) rowing to a 2K is only about a dozen seconds.

10% of 420 watts is 42 watts, or about three seconds per 500m, 12 seconds over 2K.

So my goal has been to try to get to 6:28, my former pb, before I sharpen, given that my 2K target is 6:16.

I think I still might do this (e.g., by the end of the month).

My distance trials will be a second confirmation of this goal.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a 2K race, both the experience of getting through one and the time that you achieve when you do, anaerobic training is pretty important, no?, especially if your interest is in records.

12 seconds is a huge margin in a 2K.

If, out of the blue, someone rowed a lwt 5:46 (or hwt 5:23), people would be pretty impressed and surprised, no?

ranger

You have sharpened you as off this winter this gave you a very good 6.41.
You only ranked a 2k and you will not rank any other distance.

[ranger]

You have sharpened

No, I haven't.

I haven't done even one 8 x 500m workout, much less a bunch of 20 x 500m sessions.

I haven't done one 4 x 1K session.

I haven't done one 4 x 2K session.

I haven't done one distance trial, much less 5K and 6K trials.

I have just done some free format faster rowing, to get mechanically used to rating 30 spm or so, which I needed to do to pull 6:41.

Fully trained, I will rate 36 spm in a 2K, but I will need to have some anaerobic capabilities to do that.

I haven't yet done the work needed to tune up my anaerobic capacities.

I haven't done any maxHR rowing or extended distance rowing over my anaerobic threshold (AT).

In fact, it has been just over the last week or so that I have gotten my HR up _to_ my anaerobic threshold for extended periods.

My hope (and hunch) is that, if I do enough rowing at threshold levels, I will indeed pull 6:28 for 2K.

Then I will be ready to sharpen.

At 12 SPI, my present stroking power, I only have to rate a solid 32 spm, rowing well, to pull 6:28.

ranger

[hjs]

by ranger » January 26th, 2010, 9:22 am

Ah, yes, there are two nearby regattas now on the 21st of February--one in Cleveland and one in Columbus.
Great.
I'll register for one of these two.
I will do six races between this weekend and March 6th.
Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Boston, Columbus, Chicago, Detroit.
And so I now have six more weeks of sharpening before the end of the indoor racing season.

Perfect.

I usually get a couple of seconds a week over 2K during sharpening.

You have sharpened

No, I haven't.

ranger

So you saying you where lying then ? read this thread and you told numerous of times you where indeed sharpening. Whatever that may be hahahaha.
The point is cheating old douchbag you will never ever have the gut's to show what you are really doing, you don,t have the balls for that.

YOU WILL NOT POST ANY RANKING DISTANCE THIS SEASON. WANNE BET AND LOOSE AGAIN

[ranger]

Beautiful distance stroke now 1:43 @ 29 spm, tucked in under my anaerobic threshold.

That's my pb 5K pace.

1:43 for 5K predicts a 6:32 2K.

1:43 for 10K predicts a 6:20 2K.

1:43 for 20K predicts a 6:08 2K.

Hugely effective and efficient rowing.

And that's all she wrote, really, for high achievement in rowing.

The rest is just sharpening, which any lazy, unskilled, incapable dolt can do just as well as the best rowers in the world--and for the same benefit.

1:43 @ 29 spm is 10MPS, the most efficient ratio, and 11 SPI is a pretty substantial stroking power.

Now I just have to keep doing it, day in and day out, until I get to a HM.

For a FM, I would lower the rate to 26 spm.

For a 5K, I would raise the rate to 32 spm.

For a 2K, I would raise the rate to 36 spm and raise the stroking power to 12 SPI.

For a lightweight, rowing well at low rates is 13 SPI.

Rowing well when racing is 12 SPI.

Rowing well over long distances is 11 SPI.

Elite lightweights can do 18K for 60min, but no lightweight of any age this year has even logged in 17K/1:46 for 60min.

17K is the 50s _heavyweight_ WR for 60min.

1:43 is Mike VB's 2K race pace.

So this distance rowing at 1:43 is indeed excellent.

Challenging stuff.

Pushes my HR right up to my anaerobic threshold, 172 bpm.

Time for a few years of threshold rowing--again.

That's what I did when I first took up rowing back in 2001.

I just didn't know how to row, so when I was wretchedly ineffective and inefficient at it.

At my anaerobic threshold, I only went 1:48.

I now row well.

So I am five seconds per 500m better at the same task.

Rate is about the same, but my stroking power is up 2 SPI.

I have learned how to use my legs and heels/gluts/hams.

I have learned how to sequence my levers.

I have learned how to maintain a proper ratio.

And I now row at a normal drag (145 df.).

I now longer do distance rowing at 9 SPI.

I do it at 11 SPI.

Mission Accomplished.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, the HR associated with 'anaerobic threshold' is not the immutable constant you seem to think it is. It will tend to decline with age because cardiac response in general declines with age. It moves up or down depending on training. And even at a given training level it may vary according to ambient conditions; hydration level; duration, intensity and other exercise-specific demand factors; hormonal and circadian-cycle factors; stimulants such as caffeine in the blood; etc. In short it's an artifact, not a cause.

You can believe all you want that you have right now an anaerobic threshold associated with a HR of 172 bpm. You also can believe that throwing virgins in the volcano will ensure good harvests. Neither belief will make it so.

If you really want to know what your threshold-associated HR is at your current age and training level, you can trundle over to the School of Kinesiology at Michigan and find someone to test you. Or you can Google "Ann Arbor + lactate test" and find someone outside the University who'll test you. Or you can buy a Lactate Pro machine and test yourself. Or you can do a non-invasive step test yourself as described on the UK site.

You won't, of course, since you really don't want to know the truth. It would immediately tumble the whole house of cards you've constructed.

Alternatively, you could sit down on the erg today and actually try to do 4 x 1k on 3:30 rest at 36 spm and 1:34 pace. Rep #2 would give you a pretty good idea of just where your threshold-associated HR actually is these days, if you even get that far. My guess is that you won't get past 750m of rep #1.

[ranger]

You can believe all you want that you have right now an anaerobic threshold associated with a HR of 172 bpm.

It doesn't matter what I believe about these technical things.

Now, I am just doing.

My thinking is over.

My training is almost over, too.

Now, I just need to row a lot of 1:43 @ 29 spm.

So that's what I'll do.

I'll leave the thinking to you.

If, in a trial, I end up doing a HM @ 1:43 with my HR riding flat at 172 bpm, I think that would be the best proof imaginable that 172 bpm is my anaerobic threshold.

You can't row for a HM with your HR above your anaerobic threshold.

All you can do is keep it right there.

But if you do indeed keep it right there, you can row for a HM.

This is top-end UT1.

ranger

[ranger]

f you really want to know what your threshold-associated HR is at your current age and training level, you can trundle over to the School of Kinesiology at Michigan and find someone to test you.

Testing my anaerobic threshold in a lab is entirely unnecessary.

My distance rowing will be the best test.

Nothing else matters.

If you believe that you can get better by thinking about distance rowing rather than doing it, you're in for a surprise.

I have forty years of experience with training at my anaerobic threshold.

No need for "science" to tell me what's up when I am doing it.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

Now, I am just doing.

Not if "doing" means "actually performing as advertised, whether a race or a predictor workout or something illustrating HR or for that matter anything you've claimed to be able to do."

If "doing" is a synonym for "bloviating" then maybe.

And as I said. You won't actually establish a threshold-associated HR because you're afraid of the truth.

[mrfit]

Ranger Ranking Countdown:

30 days