The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

... Dang, you're _really_ a senile s.o.b. ... Memory like a sieve ...

Too funny.

The context was that Roy argued you would not weigh-in as an LWT. The burden was on you to be at the venue, weigh in and be a LWT. You didn't.

Roy was right.

I doubt Roy ever thought you would honor a bet ... hjs should probably not expect you to honor a bet you lost either.

But pretending there is a bet and hjs should honor it even when you haven't tells much about you.

JimR

No, that wasn't the bet all.

ranger

[hjs]

The bet was that you would not weigh in as a lightweight.

So I weighed in as a heavyweight?

The bet you state above presupposes that I weigh in.

ranger

Nope that was not stated, if so there was no bet and there was, you know at the venue if you are lightweight or not, you would only weigh in and race if you would made the limit. So it was on you to do that.
You failed like you failed at everything from 2003 on.



So you LOST

[ranger]

you would only weigh in and race if you would made the limit

The bet wasn't about my making weight. I was about my making weight at 158 lbs.

I was at weight, in fact, I might have been 158 lbs., but I wasn't there to weigh in.

The rules are that you can row even if you don't make weight.You just can't have your time count as a lighweight.

Now you are wrong on _three_ counts.

Stop digging.

You're just putting yourself in a bigger and bigger hole.

ranger

[hjs]

you would only weigh in and race if you would made the limit

The bet wasn't about my making weight. I was about my making weight at 158 lbs.

I was at weight, in fact, I might have been 158 lbs., but I wasn't there to weigh in.

The rules are that you can row even if you don't make weight.You just can't have your time count as a lighweight.

Now you are wrong on _three_ counts.

Stop digging.

You're just putting yourself in a bigger and bigger hole.

ranger

The fact that do are trying to explane that 2 plus 2 = 4 says again a lot.

The simple fact is you always loose and always lie old man.

We pay our bets

April 30, 2009:
Yea, time has run out.

2Ks hurt pretty badly if you aren't ready for them.

Hey, hjs

One last cry for mercy!

[mrfit]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8630 ... graphs.png

OK,

Here are my rowing HR and Power relationships. Note my threshold HR for rowing (170) is lower than cycling, because threshold is trainable AND sports specific and well, I'm a cyclist with quite a bit more time training at threshold levels than I ever have rowing on my erg (used mostly to cross train for cycling in the off season).

[ranger]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8630 ... graphs.png

OK,

Here are my rowing HR and Power relationships. Note my threshold HR for rowing (170) is lower than cycling, because threshold is trainable AND sports specific and well, I'm a cyclist with quite a bit more time training at threshold levels than I ever have rowing on my erg (used mostly to cross train for cycling in the off season).

Thanks, but it is impossible to interpret unless you include a signature line with your height, weight, age, and pbs for a few races, including 500m and 2K.

It would also help to have the _rate_ you are rowing at for the 6500m.

When you row 2:00 pace or so, your HR is flat at your anaerobic threshold, 170 bpm, and your performance is declining steeply from moment to moment throughout the row, even though you only row 26 minutes?

Yikes.

Don't know _what_ to say about _that_.

Maybe you just have to row some more until you get used to it.

Have you checked your technique?

No matter what age, all the way up to my age, 60 years old, most rowers who are serious athletes can pull 2:00 pace, free rate, with a HR in the 120s.

The best rowers might have no problem rowing all day at 2:00 pace with their HR flat and well below UT2 (for me, 145 bpm).

ranger

[mikvan52]

HERE'S A SUGGESTION FOR THE FUTURE:
Let's bet w/o money!
None of ever really thought ranger would make good on any wager.

Nonetheless, FWIW:
My general opinion: If you "bet" the same way the 'Bat does you'll lose.
\
Examples
/
1: 6:16 2k in the C2 2010 year (lost)
or even a
(2:) 6:28 2k (same period) (lost)
3: Hard sharpening completed (lost)
4: complete set of distance trials is now on the way to being (lost)
5: posting a 5k workout or longer in splits w/heart rates (lost) (none ever posted)

Let's let bygones be bygones: We know who were dealing with here: a loser ~ payment or no payment

Do we need to "beat a dead horse"? Pages of the same exchanges on the subject are getting dreary. We all know this story by heart.

[ranger]

We know who were dealing with here: a loser

Yea, I suppose all 60-year-olds who are trying to do a sport in a serious way, especially a sport as physically demanding as rowing, are wretched losers.

It's fun, though, no?



After yesterday, Tom Watson might agree.

I guess I am just happy to be doing well relative to those my own age and weight (or older).

I will be doing especially well relative to those my own age and weight (or older) if I can push my 2K time down to 6:16, which I am still on track to do.

RANKING RESULTS 2010

Indoor Rower | Individual and Race Results | 2000m | Men's | Lightweight | Custom Age Range (59–70) | Current 2010 Season
1 Rich Cureton 59 Ann Arbor MI USA 6:41.4 RACE
2 Hugh Pite 65 Sidney BC CAN 7:02.7 RACE
3 Robert Lakin 61 Wichita KS USA 7:03.6 RACE
4 Gregory Brock 62 Santa Cruz CA USA 7:03.9 IND
5 Rolf Meek 59 Oslo NOR 7:05.4 IND
6 Jerry Lawson 62 USA 7:06.0 RACE
6 Gerald Lawson 62 Winona MN USA 7:06.0 IND
8 Leif Petersen 64 DEN 7:08.5 RACE
9 Peter Francis 61 Denver CO USA 7:09.3 RACE
10 Roger Prowse 65 GBR 7:10.3 RACE

That will be satisfying enough for me.

No need to take on the best.

I can just compete against all of the other 60s "losers."

ranger

[mikvan52]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8630 ... graphs.png

OK,

Here are my rowing HR and Power relationships. Note my threshold HR for rowing (170) is lower than cycling, because threshold is trainable AND sports specific and well, I'm a cyclist with quite a bit more time training at threshold levels than I ever have rowing on my erg (used mostly to cross train for cycling in the off season).

Thanks, but it is impossible to interpret unless you include a signature line with your height, weight, age, and pbs for a few races, including 500m and 2K.

Impossible?
Spoken like a true exercise physiologist who believes that HR = aerobic capacity?

Let's take a step back here!
.
.
.
mrfit:

Implicit in ranger’s request to comply with information standards is that he is exempt from providing detailed information about his own training. He asks you questions expecting direct answer but there's no reciprocality.. hmmm(!)

Anyway:
Why would anyone be encourage to comply w/information that is not pertinent to your statements or line of questioning?

I'd advise him to stay on topic.

This is a training forum after all… one’s max times is not pertinent to good training or exercise physiology.
For example: What is a person were just training for health and great endurance, or for one’s own standards of personal satisfaction.
This is not a competition thread.

(Funny though that ranger requests a recent 500m time when he doesn't do so himself )

ranger has a history of browbeating people with "your no good anyway" statements... IMHO: Beware! Trolls like trying to get under people's skins with comments about their "worth"......
A troll know that competitors like talking about themselves. They turn this against those they like to torment....
Talk about ill will!

[mikvan52]

We know who were dealing with here: a loser

Yea, I suppose all 60-year-olds who are trying to do a sport in a serious way, especially a sport as physically demanding as rowing, are wretched losers.

It's fun, though, no?



After yesterday, Tom Watson might agree.

Stay on topic RIch!

Examples
/
1: 6:16 2k in the C2 2010 year (lost)
or even a
(2:) 6:28 2k (same period) (lost)
3: Hard sharpening completed (lost)
4: complete set of distance trials is now on the way to being (lost)
5: posting a 5k workout or longer in splits w/heart rates (lost) (none ever posted)

I'm not interested in age-ism or Tom Watson... or changing the topic.

What have you done that you said you were goping to do before too long....
WR 55-59 lwt? No.
6:28? No.
Sharpen? No.
Distance Trials? No.
Posting HR data No.

Why not admit that you have no intention of doing these things... to be truthful for a change?

[mikvan52]

Custom Age Range (59–70)

Now this is REALLY FUNNY!

In two years: Will this change to 61-70?

[ranger]

Wouldn't it be fun to enter a 6:16 into _these_ standings?

RANKING RESULTS 2010

Indoor Rower | Individual and Race Results | 2000m | Men's | Lightweight | All Ages | Current 2010 Season
Average Time

1 Henrik Victor Stephansen 21 DEN 6:03.4 RACE
2 Tamas Varga 31 HUN 6:08.1 RACE
3 Steffen Bonde Jensen 20 DEN 6:08.3 RACE
4 Morten Jørgensen 24 DEN 6:10.1 RACE
5 Jeremie Azou 20 Avignon Sn FRA 6:11.3 RACE
6 Christian Hochbruck 20 GER 6:12.6 RACE
7 Maxime Goisset 24 Dole Ac FRA 6:12.7 RACE
8 Mario Gyr 24 CHE 6:13.0 RACE
9 Lucas Tramèr 20 CHE 6:15.2 RACE
10 Eskild Balschmidt Ebbesen 37 DEN 6:15.8 RACE
11 Thomas Baroukh 22 Versailles Cn FRA 6:15.9 RACE
12 Brice Menet 30 Lille Un FRA 6:16.0 RACE
13 Patrik Joye 22 CHE 6:17.2 RACE
14 Mark Mitchell 35 Mad Team / Bexhill RC East Sussex GBR 6:18.1 RACE
15 John Preston 20 Reading Uni GBR 6:18.2 RACE
16 Silvan Zehnder 22 CHE 6:18.5 RACE
17 Simon Niepmann 24 CHE 6:18.8 RACE
18 Greg Flood 20 Notre Dame IN USA 6:19.2 RACE
19 Austin Meyer 19 Cohoes NY USA 6:19.9 RACE
20 Michael Wales 18 Seattle WA USA 6:20.6 IND

A bunch of 20-somethings, mainly, with a couple of "loser" 30s rowers, like that nutty guy named Eskild.

The first American, a 20-year-old, is 18th at 6:19.2.

ranger

[bloomp]

Fallacious.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... d=0CAYQkAE

based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information; "fallacious hope"

[NavigationHazard]

How do you figure mrfit rowed for 26 minutes? He rowed 2000m to get his HR up to threshold-associated bpm, then rowed 6500m as in the graph with his HR basically flat at that rate. Total work time was more like 34-35 minutes. More importantly: his power output steadily declined over those 6500m at threshold-associated HR, just as the the studies I've cited say must happen. What part of "it's ineleuctable human physiology" do you fail to comprehend? Wait, wait. Don't tell me. All of it!

As for entering a 6:16 into the standings, nothing's stopping you from posting one. It'll be just as real as your 20 x 500m at 1:36, or your alleged hour at 1:48 with a flat [sic] HR of 172 bpm, or Rod Freed's unwitnessed unverified times, or space aliens from the planet Kruton, or the Enron balance sheet, or the face of Elvis that appeared in a bowl of Wheatena in Fair Lawn NJ two years ago.

[ranger]

Why not admit that you have no intention of doing these things... to be truthful for a change?

Au contraire.

I _intend_ to do _everything_ I talk about.

But you don't give a flying f..k about _intentions_.

You want it all _done_--now.

CHOOSE (you say)!

RACE--or DISGRACE!

Sorry.

I beg to differ.

ranger