Ranger's training thread

[KevJGK]

I said I don’t believe you can currently do a 500m free rate in 01:30. Is there any particular reason you posted a 3+ year old screenshot of a 01:30.9 r 30–33?

The rate is 30 spm.

Sure, the shot is three years old, and done at max drag, rowing poorly.

I am much better than that now.

I now row perfectly at low drag (118 df.) for a lightweight of any age.

The experiment of pulling hard at high drag was useful, though, and in part, has made it possible for me to be where I am now in terms of technical effectiveness and efficiency.

Learning is a process.

ranger

If the rate is 30 what does that 33 number mean?

So my suggestion that you cannot currently do 500m in 01:30 free rate is correct?

[ranger]

Rowing at low drag only helps you if you can train yourself to be quick and precise with your leverage, quick with your recoveries, and controlled with your management of the slide.

If you can't do this, or can, but can't be arsed to work on it, then, sure, rowing at low drag doesn't help you a whit.

ranger

[ranger]

If the rate is 30 what does that 33 number mean?

The average rate is given at the top of the screen.

It isn't 33 spm.

It's 30 spm.

33 spm is just my highest rate, a rate that I hit in _one_ of the 100m segments.

Three were capped at 30 spm.

One was capped at 29 spm.

ranger

[hjs]

Drag makes not much difference, I know that form experience

Sure, futzing with the drag can't make up for lack of skill, talent, and training.

So, you could throw a hell of a party, if you wanted to, but you don't have a hope in hell of winning a regatta.

Over 2K, you are off the pace by 30 seconds.

ranger

I don,t win ? hahaha I win 50% of my races. And always finish in the top. Do i win form 6.6/6.8 guys half my age, no. But guys my age and height are never much beter if any. I am not much bigger then you.

[ranger]

[removed]

[ranger]

I am not much bigger then you.

Then, row as a lightweight.

I can get to 155 lbs., if I get maximally lean (5% body fat).

ranger

[hjs]

I am not much bigger then you.

Then, row as a lightweight.

I can get to 155 lbs., if I get maximally lean (5% body fat).

ranger

If I stopped my fitness and loss my upperbody muscle and went to 5% body fat I would be around 78/80 kg I guess. I am currently around 12% bodyfat, weigh 91 kg. So don,t think ligtweight will happen soon .
Plus I absolutely don,t see the point doing so. I have no eating and drinking problems like you, don,t gain 10 kg after the season, dispite doing 3 hours training like you. I train maybe 6 hours a week. And row 50 km a week, no more on average. I am fine with that.
No need for me to pump up my ego to ludricras virtual proportions like you do. I simply let the facts speak.

[NavigationHazard]

@KevJGK:

The PM displays strokes/minute rounded to a resolution of 1 spm. IIRC there's some debate over whether it truncates displayed time splits to 0.1 second or rounds them to the nearest 0.1 second. The most likely explanation for the stroke rate numbers in the screenshot posted looks like this:

100m 18.3 1:31.5 pace 30 spm: 9 strokes, nominal stroke rate 29.508 rounded up to 30
200m 18.2 1:31.0 pace 30 spm: 9 strokes, nominal stroke rate 29.670 rounded up to 30
300m 18.1 1:30.5 pace 30 spm: 9 strokes, nominal stroke rate 29.834 rounded up to 30
400m 18.0 1:30.0 pace 33 spm: 10 strokes, nominal stroke rate 33.33 rounded down to 33
500m 18.4 1:32.0 pace 29 spm: 9 strokes, nominal stroke rate 29.348 rounded down to 29.

500m 1:30.9 30 spm: 46 strokes, nominal stroke rate 30.363, rounded down to 30.

In other words: no single 100m segment was actually at 1:30 r30; he evidently faded somewhat in the latter stages due to lactate buildup despite claiming at the time the rowing was wholly aerobic*; and without the extra stroke in the fourth segment the result probably would have been more like 1:31.3-1:31.5. Plus it was done as a HW, not as a credibly weighed-in LW.

This related screenshot from 2007 also is illustrative:



It was reported at http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... 88#p336788 as "I got to over 400m, 1:26.8 @ 34.5 spm today but felt a bit weak on the final few strokes [sic] and cut it off there." IOW the wheels fell off the bus and he tied up in the last 100m during a flat-out effort, but probably was capable at the time of a 1:27.5 or so with no stroke-rate restriction. None of this stopped him from proclaiming that he would row a 1:22 r44 or some such within days -- and then somehow never actually doing the attempt.

To put this lunacy in perspective: the 50-59 male heavyweight WR for 500m at the time -- the category he is still in today -- was my 1:20.8. It's since been lowered to 1:18.5. The 60-69 MHW record is James Castellan's 1:22.0.


* See original post

[mikvan52]

"Ol' Nether Wind" can't seem to get it right:

Mike VB pulls right around 1:30.9 for 500m--at 46 spm!

Point of information... As ranger's memory is failing him in his old age:
It wasn't "1:30.9"!
It was 1:30.2... This year (february)... and it wasn't "46"... it was 42 spm.

BTW: Look at my weight: I was light weight... ranger was a heavy




Here's part of the post from last winter:

Here's my IND_V performance

121 drag factor
159 lbs: weighed-in w/o shoes
fan stopped.
Oldies Radio station "Can't get next to you, babe"

~ well maybe that wasn't playin' just then

500m
Feb 26 2010

1:30.2 - 500m - 1:30.2 - 42 bpm - 477 watts

• 0:17.7 - 100m - 1:28.5 - 44 bpm - 505 watts
• 0:17.8 - 200m - 1:29.0 - 37 - 496 good rate, should have held it!
• 0:17.9 - 300m - 1:29.5 - 44 - 488 I sprinted too early!
• 0:18.1 - 400m - 1:30.5 - 43 - 472 Next time: Dig-in and sit up!
• 0:18.7 - 500m - 1:33.5 - 42 - 428 I remember a couple bad strokes

COMMENT:
The goal was to go out at 1:29.x in the first 100m... I was too fast (again)
Perhaps if I have Mary ring a cow bell with twenty strokes to go I can break the 1:30 barrier

Other Notes:
I purposely did a short warm up:
5' at 1:57.6 pace to get used to higher drag @ 22 spm (1275 meters)
I then did 2 x 100m/2'r to establish race pace and paddled the 2' rests (920m total)
Then I did the 500m after 3-4 minutes of rest

Cool down was 10' at 1:56.0 - 22 spm (2586m)

HISTORICAL NOTE
it was nearly two years ago when rowed exactly the same time (1:30.2) I think avg'ed a 46... have to look it up.

Actually, the old one was:

from 12/30/2007

1:30.2 --- 500 --- 1:30.2 --- 43spm
0:17.6 --- 100 --- 1:28.0 ---44
0:17.5 --- 200 --- 1:27.5 ---45
0:17.9 --- 300 --- 1:29.5 ---40
0:18.3 --- 400 --- 1:31.5 ---46
0:19.0 --- 500 --- 1:35.0 ---41

weight before workout: 160 lbs.
Drag set at 126

What can we conclude from all this self-absorbed crap on my part?.....
#1: I am the current calendar year (2010) lwt 55-59 leader at 500 meters... not ranger...

#2: Rich (ONW) has a hard time making weight and always will.

[KevJGK]

If the rate is 30 what does that 33 number mean?

The average rate is given at the top of the screen.

It isn't 33 spm.

It's 30 spm.

33 spm is just my highest rate, a rate that I hit in _one_ of the 100m segments.

Three were capped at 30 spm.

One was capped at 29 spm.

ranger

I don’t know if you are aware of how the PM4 reports data but the rate shown for each split is simply the recorded spm at the end of each split rather than the max spm during each split. Notwithstanding any of that, your posting of a 3+ year old screen shot to substantiate your current claims only adds weight to my impression that you are no longer capable of a 01:30 free rate 500m which lets face it would be pretty amazing anyway.

Best of luck with your training.

[ranger]

your posting of a 3+ year old screen shot to substantiate your current claims only adds weight to my impression that you are no longer capable of a 01:30 free rate 500m

As Dennis Hastings and Paul Hendershott have illustrated as they approached 60, if you continue to train maximally, decline with age is slight.

Both Dennis and Paul were faster at 60 than they were at 55.

Then there is this:

If you improve your skills substantially as you age, you can actually get better as time passes, as I have, _substantially_ better.

The shot I posted is _not_ a free rate 500m.

Anyone who can row 1:30.9 @ 30 spm (15.5 SPI) for 500m can row 1:25 (or faster) for 500m, free rate.

So your "impressions" have no foundation, unless you can explain what they might be.

ranger

[ranger]

With a drive duration of .55 seconds, as I have now rowing at low drag (118 df.), I am in _exactly_ a 2-to-1 ratio at 36 spm.

.55 seconds for the drive.

1.1 seconds for the recovery.

1.65 seconds for the stroke cycle as a whole.

So.

That's the groove I will want to lock into for my AN work (IK trials, 8 x 500m, etc.).

13 SPI @ 36 spm is 1:31 pace.

2-to-1 is an ideal ratio, and surprising high, it seems to me, for rowing at such a stiff rate and fast pace.

ranger

[ranger]

WIth a drive of .55 seconds, a 1-to-1 ratio would be 54.5 spm.

1.1 seconds for the stroke cycle as a whole.

Perhaps _that's_ what I should now shoot for in a 500m trial.

That's how I used to do 500m, back in 2003.

54.5 spm @ 11 SPI is 1:24.

54.5 spm @ 12 SPI is 1:21.2.

54.5 spm @ 13 SPI is 1:19.1.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

His impressions have plenty of foundation, inasmuch as the screenshot is more than 40 months old (meaning you're 40 months older); at the time you weren't able to complete a 1:27.5 r35 as claimed. let alone a sub-1:25 unr; you've given no indication you're capable RIGHT NOW/ANY MORE of doing a comparable 500m piece in 1:30.9 at r30.3 (46 strokes). There's also the LW/HW bit. Moreover,

With a drive duration of .55 seconds, as I have now rowing at low drag (118 df.), I am in _exactly_ a 2-to-1 ratio at 36 spm.

.55 seconds for the drive.

1.1 seconds for the recovery.

2.65 seconds for the stroke cycle as a whole.

More fraudger maths. Last I looked, 60/36 was 1.67, not 2.65..... And the ratio isn't "exactly" 1:2, but 1:2.03. Rounded.

Please do video yourself erging at 54.5 spm. The world could use a good laugh.

[ranger]

More fraudger maths. Last I looked, 60/36 was 1.67, not 2.65..... And the ratio isn't "exactly" 1:2, but 1:2.03. Rounded.

Yea, sorry.

1.65 (rounded), not 2.65.

ranger