Ranger's training thread

[NavigationHazard]

As a very rough rule, if you want to train/habituate for a target distance by doing equal work/rest intervals do double the target distance at target rating. 2k thus is 4 x 1000, 8 x 500, 16 x 250. The same general principle applies to timed pieces: 7 minutes thus is 4 x 3:30, 8 x 1:45, 16 x :52.5. Longer work intervals will be harder to do than shorter. Also the longer the target distance/total work duration, the harder it gets both physiologically and mentally.

Empirical research by Astrand and others suggests that 30" on/30" off is probably about optimum if what you want to do is carry on as long as possible. My own extensive experience with this sort of thing suggests that nominal 2k pace can be sustained for up to half an hour work duration (or more) depending on the work/rest duration you're using.

So let's see. 20 x 500m @ 1:37 is 10k total work distance. On equal work/rest I would expect it to be doable at nominal 5k pace (10k is 5k x 2). In this case that's a 16:10 5k -- 14 seconds under the longstanding MHW 5k record, set by the great Tore Foss when he was in 6:09 form at the age of 50. Alternatively, Paul's Law suggests that 5k is roughly 2k pace + 5. That suggests that 20 x 500m @ 1:37 on equal work/rest ought to suggest 6:08ish form.

Conclusion: not doable by Fraudster on equal work/rest. Not then, not now, not ever.

As for doing 20 work reps @ 1:37 punctuated by 500m paddles, everything depends on your definition of "paddle." Elsewhere Fraudster has suggested an average of 3:30 for the 500m paddles. He might be able to do it, barely, if his 5k form is around 17:00. But to put the requisite effort in perspective, the standing 60s MLW record for 5k is Brian Bailey's 17:26.3. Alternatively, 8 x 500m/3:30 rest is roughly associated with 2k pace -3. Just 8 reps at 1:37 would thus suggest a 6:40 2k (and be roughly equivalent effort). How he proposes to do 2 1/2 times that many while underrating quite escapes me....

[mikvan52]

Lots of.......................
............................... breakfast.

Now, I'll ride my bike until the sun comes up in a couple of hours.

Then I'll do 10K OTW.

No coordination of time with distance.
Worthless babble.
sort of like saying "I rowed for an hour at 23 spm" w/o mentioning pace or whether you took breaks or not.

So... I assume ... "lots" of breaks

5 days until another bragged about deadline passes (Sept 1st).. sic transit gloria ranger
All hail our poster-boy of procrastination!


The soap opera continues...



Just like the drunken DB at the bar, we are all divorced from reality here on this thread
... and nobody loves us for who we really are

I'll tune in later, "Gloria" Weight.

[ranger]

Alternatively, Paul's Law suggests that 5k is roughly 2k pace + 5.

Sure, 5K is 2K + 5.

But that's not "Paul's Law."

Paul's law is "Double the d, add 5."

So, 16K is 2K + 15, etc.

Wildly wrong.

ranger

[ranger]

Worthless babble.

Oh well.

More of the same.

ranger

[ranger]

[removed]

ranger

[ranger]

to put the requisite effort in perspective, the standing 60s MLW record for 5k is Brian Bailey's 17:26.3. Alternatively, 8 x 500m/3:30 rest is roughly associated with 2k pace -3. Just 8 reps at 1:37 would thus suggest a 6:40 2k (and be roughly equivalent effort). How he proposes to do 2 1/2 times that many while underrating quite escapes me....

How?

Well, that depends on some other things.

My other project is 60min, 1:48 @ 21 spm, perhaps even 30K, 1:48 @ 21 spm, perhaps even a FM, 1:48 @ 21 spm.

So we'll have to see how that goes, too.

No 60s lwt has ever done better than 16K/1:52 for 60min, free rate.

If a FM is done at 2K + 14, the best a 60s lwt has been able to do for a FM is 1:54.5 pace, free rate.

And actually, the 60s lwt WR for a FM is 2:00 pace.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

All right; I have no objection to accuracy in numbers. Paul's Law is "double the distance + add 5." For a 1:37 2k pace that suggests a 5k capacity at 17:16.1 (1:43.61 pace). Still well under the standing 60s MLW record, right around your all-time PB, and far far better than you can do now at any rate and any level of sharpening you presume.

I revise my earlier opinion. You cannot now (or evermore) do 20 x 500m r27/ paddle a 500 in </= 3:30 at 1:37 average r27. Not as a heavyweight; even less so as a bona fide pre-workout-weighed-in lightweight.

Why do you persist in announcing ridiculous targets? True; it's all moot, as you won't attempt the session anyway. You'll rationalize it by saying that you have to do some other silly piece first, and then not do that either. Ad infinitum.

Fraud.

[whp4]

Worthless babble.

Oh well.

More of the same.

ranger

Once again, you've gotten the attribution wrong! A corrected version follows:

Worthless babble.

Oh well.

More of the same.

ranger

[ranger]

Still well under the standing 60s MLW record, right around your all-time PB, and far far better than you can do now at any rate and any level of sharpening you presume.

Total speculation.

We'll have to wait and see what I can do for 5K.

Now that I row weIl at low drag, I think I'll do at least 16:40 for 5K, perhaps as fast as 16:30.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

If we have to wait and see what you'll do for 5k, by definition it won't be what you can now do for 5k. You can't apply a future fantasy to a real present. You're proving my point about rationalizing your failure to do row X by saying 'I need to do Y first.' And when it's time to do Y you say you need Z. And when it's time to do Z you need A prime. Ad infinitum.

As for the chances of your doing a 16:30 5k:

http://new.wavlist.com/soundfx/006/horse-donkey3.wav

Hee. Haw.

[hjs]

This 1.21 rate 27 500 s you are talking about can,t simply be done.

So you say.

But you also say that a lwt 6:16 at 60 can't be done.

Not sure about that.

True, no one has ever done better than 26 seconds slower, but I am not sure that is convincing evidence.

It is just historical accident.

ranger

Just because you type something doesn,t mean that I can be done.

I can say I can run the 100 m in 9.00. That it's not been done is just an "historical accident"

[hjs]

The (humane?) situations aren't the same.
The predictive training sessions are the same.
Nobody here has said anything different.

Funny stuff.

ranger

Those are not my words, quoting is not easy..............

[becz]

As a 20-year-old, running a 6:00 mile can be as easy as pie. Doesn't take any training, and can be done without breaking a sweat.

As a 100-year-old, running a 6:00 mile is nearly impossible, even if you train all day, and when you race, break your heart trying.

Anyone who equates the two situations, humanely, is dead from the neck up.

ranger

Rich,

Look at what you wrote above and compare it to this:

As a 20-year-old elite lightweight, erging a sub 6:30 2k can be as easy as pie. Doesn't take any training, and can be done without breaking a sweat.

As a 60-year-old elite lightweight, erging a sub 6:30 2k is nearly impossible, even if you train all day, and when you race, break your heart trying.

Anyone who equates the two situations, humanely, is dead from the neck up.

Explain to me why these two are different.

[ranger]

As a 20-year-old, running a 6:00 mile can be as easy as pie. Doesn't take any training, and can be done without breaking a sweat.

As a 100-year-old, running a 6:00 mile is nearly impossible, even if you train all day, and when you race, break your heart trying.

Anyone who equates the two situations, humanely, is dead from the neck up.

ranger

Rich,

Look at what you wrote above and compare it to this:

As a 20-year-old elite lightweight, erging a sub 6:30 2k can be as easy as pie. Doesn't take any training, and can be done without breaking a sweat.

As a 60-year-old elite lightweight, erging a sub 6:30 2k is nearly impossible, even if you train all day, and when you race, break your heart trying.

Anyone who equates the two situations, humanely, is dead from the neck up.

Explain to me why these two are different.

I don't understand what you want me to explain.

The difference between the Open divisions and the 60s divisions is 45 seconds over 2K.

The prediction is this:

A guy who pulls 6:30 when he is 20, given the same commitment and effort, will pull 7:15 when he is 60.

A guy who pulls 5:58 when he is 20, given the same commitment and effort, will pull 6:43 when he is 60.

My claim is just this:

The guy who pulls 6:30 when he is 20 doesn't really understand what it takes to pull 6:30 at 60.

He misses it by 11 seconds per 500m.

ranger

[macroth]

The prediction is this:

A guy who pulls 6:30 when he is 20, given the same commitment and effort, will pull 7:15 when he is 60.

A guy who pulls 5:58 when he is 20, given the same commitment and effort, will pull 6:43 when he is 60.

My claim is just this:

The guy who pulls 6:30 when he is 20 doesn't really understand what it takes to pull 6:30 at 60.

He misses it by 11 seconds per 500m.

ranger

This can only make sense if written as follows:

"The smurf is this:

A Smurf who smurfs 6:30 when he is 20, given the same smurf and smurf, will smurf 7:15 when he is 60.

A Smurf who smurfs 5:58 when he is 20, given the same smurf and smurf will smurf 6:43 when he is 60.

My smurf is just this:

The Smurf who smurfs 6:30 when he is 20 doesn't really smurf what it smurfs to smurf 6:30 at 60.

He smurfs it by 11 smurfs per 500 smurfs.

Dishonest Smurf"