Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

1:34 @ 34 spm (12.5 SPI), the race rate and pace I am working with now, is 2 SPI stronger and 2 spm lower than the 1:37 @ 36 spm (10.5 SPI) that I pulled back in 2002-2003.

Drag, drive time, and ratio are _wildly_ different.

In 2002-2003, I raced at max (200+) drag in a 1-to-1 ratio.

.83 seconds for the drive; .83 seconds for the recovery.

I will now race at 118 df. in a 2-to-1 ratio.

.58 seconds for the drive; 1.16 seconds for the recovery.

Drive time is significantly shortened; recovery time is significantly lengthened.

The difference in quickness between drive and recovery is emphasized.

Snappy drive, leisurely recovery.

ranger

[ranger]

The drive I am using now for racing is 30% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any other top 55s/60s lwt (9.5 SPI), 15% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any top 50s lwt (11 SPI), equal to the drive used historically for racing by the best 40s lwts (12.5 SPI).

Rowing is mechanical and repetitive.

Mechanics limits maximally efficient racing rates (spm) to narrow ranges.

In fact, for those of the same age height, weight, and training, mechanics limits maximally efficient racing rates to virtually no range at all but to the same rate, exactly.

Repetition places ultimate value on the effectiveness of each individual stroke (SPI), given the same effort.

Pace = SPI x spm.

At 35 spm, even slight differences in effectiveness (SPI) are hugely significant given they are magnified 35 times.

Each .1 SPI of effectiveness is worth about a second over 2K.

The rower with the strongest, most effective, stroke wins.

ranger

[Rockin Roland]

The drive I am using now for racing is 30% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any other top 55s/60s lwt (9.5 SPI), 15% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any top 50s lwt (11 SPI), equal to the drive used historically for racing by the best 40s lwts (12.5 SPI).

ranger

So are you saying that in your current form you are just as good as Mike Caviston was when he raced in his early 40s?

[ranger]

Well.

So:

If the best 40s lwts race at 34 spm and the best 60s lwts race at 34 spm, but the best 40s lwts pull 12.5 SPI while the best 60s lwts pull 9.5 SPI, what is the major difference between the racing of the two age groups, rate (spm) or stroking power (SPI), efficiency (spm) or effectiveness (SPI)?

Duh.

Uh.

Duh.

Uh.

Dunno.

It's foggy in here.

Murky.

I can't see straight.

Whadda _you_ think, Coach?

Time for sprints, Coach?

Let's see how fast we can go.

Now.

Pump up that rate!



How about 500m trials?

Cummon, Coach.

I'm tired of goin' slow.

Gimme a break.

Let's go for a real thrash.

ranger

[ranger]

So are you saying that in your current form you are just as good as Mike Caviston was when he raced in his early 40s?

Heck no.

In order to row the same at 60 as Mike did when he was 40, I have to be _hugely_ better than he was (and is) at rowing.

The difference over 2K between the two age groups is 24 seconds, six seconds per 500m.

My rowing 6:16 is like Mike at 40 rowing 5:52.

When you are younger, you can just muscle the handle and use your substantial aerobic capacity to absorb the waste and damage.

You can also train more mildly and reasonably, given that you still retain a lot of your youthful full body strength, energy, and quickness--just naturally.

You can't do that when you are 60.

I will be happy to see what Mike pulls for 2K when he is 60, although we will have to wait a decade to find out.

As I remember, last time out, when he was still short of 50, he pulled 6:36.

In the 40s lwts, that wasn't even good enough to qualify for WIRC.

From year to year, normally, about ten 40s lwts row better than 6:36 for 2K.

The prediction at the moment is that Mike will pull about 6:50 when he 60.

That's still _very_ good for a 60-year-old lightweight.

Only one or two 60s lightweights in the history of the sport have pulled 6:50.

The American record for the 60s lighweights is Greg Brock's 6:56.6.

So 6:50 is _waaay_ better than the American record.

Last year, at WIRC 2010, the 60s lwt hammer pulled 7:04.

So, if Mike does indeed pull 6:50 at 60, there will be kudos all around.

But 6:50 is not 6:16.

Different world.

At 34 spm, you can pull 6:50 with a stroke that is only 9 SPI.

Historically, 60s lightweights have had no problem with that.

ranger

[ranger]

The drive I am using now for racing is 30% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any other top 55s/60s lwt (9.5 SPI), 15% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any top 50s lwt (11 SPI), equal to the drive used historically for racing by the best 40s lwts (12.5 SPI).

ranger

So are you saying that in your current form you are just as good as Mike Caviston was when he raced in his early 40s?

In 2003, when I pulled a lwt 6:28 for 2K at just shy of 53, I was _already_ much better than Mike at rowing, even though I was a complete novice, rowing like shit at max drag.

In response to this situation, Mike was nasty, dismissive, ridiculing, etc.

_Very_ poor show--but typical.

Mike VB now reacts in a similar way.

Old foggie rowers circle the wagons.

They are "clubby" snobs who attack anything that disturbs their unreal world of privilege and prestige.

Professionalism of this sort is ubiquitous, and is similarly lamentable wherever it occurs.

ranger

[ranger]

My new Kurt Kinetic bike trainer does indeed offer more resistance that my old Cyclops and so is a perfect upgrade for my present purposes.

Probably just because of motor habit, I do about the same cadence on the Kentic as I did on the Cyclops, but now my HR rides as high as 175 bpm rather than 155 bpm.

That's perfect.

This means that time trials on my Kurt Kinetic will be a nice way to measure my max HR.

I just need to go along for a couple of hours with my HR at 175 bpm and then kick it up as hard as I can and ride to exhaustion.

That should give me my maxHR.

I can't imagine that my maxHR is less than 190 bpm if I can ride along at 175 bpm for a couple of hours.

Wow.

Maybe my maxHR is still 200 bpm.

Wouldn't _that_ be something?

Driving my HR to 200 bpm repeatedly OTBike would be a great way to get my cardiovascular system ready for hard anaerobic sharpening OTErg, especially given that I do my daily bike riding _after_ 20K OTErg and before 10K OTW.

ranger

[mrfit]

The drive I am using now for racing is 30% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any other top 55s/60s lwt (9.5 SPI), 15% stronger than the drive ever used for racing by any top 50s lwt (11 SPI), equal to the drive used historically for racing by the best 40s lwts (12.5 SPI).

ranger

So are you saying that in your current form you are just as good as Mike Caviston was when he raced in his early 40s?

In 2003, when I pulled a lwt 6:28 for 2K at just shy of 53, I was _already_ much better than Mike at rowing, even though I was a complete novice, rowing like shit at max drag.

In response to this situation, Mike was nasty, dismissive, ridiculing, etc.

_Very_ poor show--but typical.

Mike VB now reacts in a similar way.

Old foggie rowers circle the wagons.

They are "clubby" snobs who attack anything that disturbs their unreal world of privilege and prestige.

Professionalism of this sort is ubiquitous, and is similarly lamentable wherever it occurs.

ranger

Anyone else want to stir up the Mike C. topic?

[ranger]

No wonder I have always felt that my cross-training is the most important thing that I do when I prepare to race!

OTBike, if I am driving my HR up to 175 bpm and holding it there for a couple of hours, that sure helps _other_ things--especially when the logic of the situation is _both-and_ rather than _either-or_!

ranger

[mrfit]

My new Kurt Kinetic bike trainer does indeed offer more resistance that my old Cyclops and so is a perfect upgrade for my present purposes.

Probably just because of motor habit, I do about the same cadence on the Kentic as I did on the Cyclops, but now my HR rides as high as 175 bpm rather than 155 bpm.

That's perfect.

This means that time trials on my Kurt Kinetic will be a nice way to measure my max HR.

I just need to go along for a couple of hours with my HR at 175 bpm and then kick it up as hard as I can and ride to exhaustion.

That should give me my maxHR.

I can't imagine that my maxHR is less than 190 bpm if I can ride along at 175 bpm for a couple of hours.

Wow.

Maybe my maxHR is still 200 bpm.

Wouldn't _that_ be something?

Driving my HR to 200 bpm repeatedly OTBike would be a great way to get my cardiovascular system ready for hard anaerobic sharpening OTErg, especially given that I do my daily bike riding _after_ 20K OTErg and before 10K OTW.

ranger

See...you're not in Kansas anymore. Did you have to drop to the little chain ring to keep your cadence?

Oh, and you're gonna a need a really big fan with the Kurt Kinetic.

[ranger]

See...you're not in Kansas anymore.

No shit.

On the road again.

Kansas-Schmansas

Michigan-Schmichigan.

On the road again.

As Dorothy put it:

There's no place like home.

There's no place like home.

No more Kansas.

Somewhere over the rainbow:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/859392/ju ... he_rainbow

The wicked witch is dead!

The wicked with is dead!

ranger

[ranger]

It's kind of a buzz now, riding my bike.

22.5 MPH on my Kurt Kinetic trainer is 320 watts, the equivalent of 1:43 pace OTErg, right about Mike VB 2K race pace, which he can only do for seven minutes.

ranger

[PaulH]

No wonder I have always felt that my cross-training is the most important thing that I do when I prepare to race!

OTBike, if I am driving my HR up to 175 bpm and holding it there for a couple of hours, that sure helps _other_ things--especially when the logic of the situation is _both-and_ rather than _either-or_!

ranger

Impressive bit of rangerism - it's pretty much assumed that he can ramp up his HR from 155 to 175 for a couple of hours, despite any evidence for it at all.

[snowleopard]

No wonder I have always felt that my cross-training is the most important thing that I do when I prepare to race!

OTBike, if I am driving my HR up to 175 bpm and holding it there for a couple of hours, that sure helps _other_ things--especially when the logic of the situation is _both-and_ rather than _either-or_!

ranger

Impressive bit of rangerism - it's pretty much assumed that he can ramp up his HR from 155 to 175 for a couple of hours, despite any evidence for it at all.

ranger,

What model of Suunto watch do you have?

[ranger]

No wonder I have always felt that my cross-training is the most important thing that I do when I prepare to race!

OTBike, if I am driving my HR up to 175 bpm and holding it there for a couple of hours, that sure helps _other_ things--especially when the logic of the situation is _both-and_ rather than _either-or_!

ranger

Impressive bit of rangerism - it's pretty much assumed that he can ramp up his HR from 155 to 175 for a couple of hours, despite any evidence for it at all.

There was no "ramping up" involved.

I just rode my bike on my new Kurt Kinetic trainer with pretty much the same cadence that I have been using on my Cyclops trainer, and 45min or so into the session, I checked my Suunto watch and my HR was riding along at 175 bpm rather than 155 bpm, as it does on the Cyclops.

Clearly, the resistance is higher on the Kurt Kinetic.

ranger