Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

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

True.

But you are in the _heart_ of Kansas with your rowing, no?

Why?

What's the problem, if your maxHR is 195 bpm?

Strength?

Length?

Flexibility?

Quickness?

Timing?

Leveraging?

Rhythmicity?

Training?

If you would list your current height, weight, age, and current 2K in your signature line, it would help us know your accomplishment in rowing.

This is a training forum for indoor rowing, not biking.

The 40s lwt WR is 6:18; the 40s hwt WR is 5:57.

ranger

[ranger]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Your memory is short.

My major goal this fall and winter is 6:16 OTErg.

Yours is even shorter. A couple of pages back you wrote that you don't have any short term goals.

6:16 is not a short-term goal.

It is the upper limit of my potential, the best I can be.

It is the ultimate long-term goal.

I can't row any better than perfectly, and at my age, rate any higher than 34 spm for 2K, if I hold my technique steady.

ranger

[snowleopard]

6:16 is not a short-term goal.

Ah how I love the fall. The season in which we now find ourselves that will shortly decay into winter.

If your major goal this fall and winter is a 6:16 then that is, indisputably, a short term goal. Something that you hope to achieve during the next several months.

Which bit of "short term" are you struggling with?

[ranger]

Given my stroking power now (12.5 SPI) at low drag (118 df.), if I can rate 28 spm for 5K, I'll pull 16:20/1:38.

Time to start working on this.

It would also be nice to get so that I can do a solid 28 spm for 5K OTW.

At 7.4 SPI, that's 1:59 pace.

ranger

[PaulH]

After three straight WR rows and the most consistent racing imaginable:

6:27.5, 6:28, 6:28.5, 6:29, 6:30, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:33, etc.?

6:27.5 (Elkhart 2002)
6:28 (BIRC 2003)
6:28.5 (WIRC 2002)
6:29 (Detroit 2003)
6:30 (WIRC 2003)
6:32 (EIRC/Paris 2003)
6:32 (St. Catharines 2003)
6:32 (Ann Arbor 2002)
6:32 (Ann Arbor 2003)
6:33 (Elkhart 2003)
6:36 (Toronto 2003)

etc.

Interesting that the first etc. hides the slowest time in the list. So remind me, what does the second etc. stand in for?

[mrfit]

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

The 40s lwt WR is 6:18; the 40s hwt WR is 5:57.

ranger

I'm just saying the resistance is quite a bit different and that the speeds you saw on the Cyclops are not the speeds you'll see on the Kurt Kinetic as I'm sure you've discovered. I've perhaps overstepped my welcome with all the cycling and the screenshots of actual watts and HR. I'll bow out.

[mikvan52]

Mike--

If you want to get better OTErg, you need to pay the price.

To this point, you have done nothing of the sort.

You don't get something for nothing.

Rich:
What part of my current 5k OTErg at 17:56 do you not understand?

Give us any of your IND_V or RACE times for 5k OTErg...
Oh, that's right! you only can be weighed in for 5 minutes at a time 4 times a year... and have never done and will never do one.

{subject change}
You still haven't answered the question as to why you said
"2:05 pace ?" for the Head of the Grand...
Must be like
"utimate goal 6:16 for a lwt 2k OTErg"

Rich: (again) What pace are you going to go out at witht hat perfect stroke of yours?

IOW.... total BS

[mikvan52]

My major goal this fall and winter is 6:16 OTErg.

6:16 is not a short-term goal.

Funny how the juxtaposition of these two statements diminishes the value of using the word "goal" .

I've never heard that "goal" = "unrealizable potential"

We should concede that, in ranger-speak, TSO is "potentially" 20 years old and ready to take on EE in the lwt 4- in Beijing....& Henrik S. at 2k at Crash-B.

Ever notice the phenomenon that only graying-male types frequent this thread?.... Our group is focused on past performance and future fantasy. Grays, myself included, love wistful fantasy about their bygone days. Witness ranger-emphasis on what he did 7 years ago and our tolerance to listen to that broken record!
And as for his detractors: we're reacting to something which in the cold light of morning has absolutely no chance of ever happening.... for anyone.

No 55+ lwt has gone under 6:37 for 2k on the erg. A drop to 6:18 would require more than 15% additional power.... Think about it... The underlying premise of what ranger is saying is that a 6:40 erg becomes 20% more powerful if you RWB and post a whole lot... albeit, to a bunch of non-believers...

Young athletes won't put up with this BS. They want this season's results not extrapolation from something that happened 7 years ago...
A youthful rowing enthusiast wants to know:
Is Synek going to beat Drysdale? ..based on what they are doing this year (I speak of World's this month)
or
Is Tracey going to beat Stolper? (in the GM division at the HOCR) based on their current fitness...

most definitely not: "What about what Waddell did in the 2000 edition of Crash-B?" based on that, is the question now "Will he win this year?"
Hate to tell you but he ain't gonna erg at Crash-B this year...


Time to move on... not back.

[ranger]

I'm just saying the resistance is quite a bit different and that the speeds you saw on the Cyclops are not the speeds you'll see on the Kurt Kinetic as I'm sure you've discovered.

As I said, yes, the resistance of the Kurt Kinetic is indeed quite a bit higher, but, no, I didn't slow down; I just rode with a higher heart rate.

Actually, I was looking for an upgrade of this sort.

I couldn't get enough resistance out of my Cyclops and so wasn't working as hard as I would like.

I enjoy the higher resistance of the Kurt Kinetic.

ranger

[ranger]

I've never heard that "goal" = "unrealizable potential"

The "unrealizable" here is your judgment, not mine.

To each his own, I guess.

And no matter.

The goal, realizable or not, has determined how I have trained over the last seven years, and that training is now done.

So the whole issue is moot.

Now, I am just preparing to race.

I can't do anything else with my training.

My training, such as it was, has been a complete success.

I now row perfectly (13 SPI) at low drag (118 df.).

That's what I set out to train myself to do.

ranger

[hjs]

That really is the most consistent racing imaginable, because you're imagining it, aren't you? That list isn't in order (required to demonstrate consistency), and it misses out all the DNFs, DNSs, and 7:0x times in between. That's an impressive lie even by your standards.

Nope.

These were all done in a year two-year span, 2002-2003, without any DNFs, DNSs, and 7:0x times in between.

6:27.5 (Elkhart 2002)
6:28 (BIRC 2003)
6:28.5 (WIRC 2002)
6:29 (Detroit 2003)
6:30 (WIRC 2003)
6:32 (EIRC/Paris 2003)
6:32 (St. Catharines 2003)
6:32 (Ann Arbor 2002)
6:32 (Ann Arbor 2003)
6:33 (Elkhart 2003)
6:36 (Toronto 2003)

etc.

Why?

I prepared to race.


ranger[/quote]


This is new for me, great in the obove periode we see a decline in performance, so not even did Ranger Pb in his first ace ever, but right from that moment on the decline did set in. In a short while from 6.27.7 tot 6.36 is quit soem slowing down.
Looking at this his 6.4.x the did last winter was very good

[mrfit]

I'm just saying the resistance is quite a bit different and that the speeds you saw on the Cyclops are not the speeds you'll see on the Kurt Kinetic as I'm sure you've discovered.

As I said, yes, the resistance of the Kurt Kinetic is indeed quite a bit higher, but, no, I didn't slow down; I just rode with a higher heart rate.



ranger

Whatever. You've got no credibility on these matters of cycling and are now obfuscating to cover your story. I've got better things to do. Carry on though. It's funny.

[NavigationHazard]

You've got no credibility on these matters of cycling....

Too much predicate....

[rjw]

Mike--

If you want to get better OTErg, you need to pay the price.

To this point, you have done nothing of the sort.

You don't get something for nothing.

It took Mike C. five years of double sessions OTErg, working on stroking power, rarely missing a day, to get a dozen seconds bettter over 2K.

It has taken me seven years.

Rich - this statement is not true for Mike C. He did talk about his training regime at one point and you have miss-represented it.

You also say - "it has taken me seven years" yet you have done nothing that shows that you have improved. BIRC will show us what 7 years brings. No surprises there.

[ranger]

This is new for me, great in the obove periode we see a decline in performance, so not even did Ranger Pb in his first ace ever, but right from that moment on the decline did set in. In a short while from 6.27.7 tot 6.36 is quit soem slowing down.

No.

Races are done in various states of preparation.

In the summer and fall of 2001, I did two at-home time trials, first, 6:42 in August, then (after sharpening some) 6:32 in November. Then I pulled 6:27.5 and 6:28.5 in my two winter races at Elkhart and BIRC.

The 6:36 in Toronto in 2003 was just my first race of the season, and my first lightweight race. I followed that with 6:33 (at Elkhart), 6:30 (at WIRC), 6:32 (at St. Catharines), 6:29 (at Detroit), 6:28 (at BIRC), and 6:32 (at EIRC/Paris).

So, no.

I wasn't declining.

Clearly, like most folks who are fully trained, I wasn't getting any better, or any worse.

My 2K time just plateaued.

That's why I started to work on technique and stroking power.

I couldn't improve my fitness.

I could only get better if I improved my technique, which was wretched.

At the time, I pulled 10 SPI at max drag, rowing primarily with my back and arms, dragging my legs behind.

As it turns out, the training that I have done over the last seven years to improve my technique has been a complete success.

I now row perfectly (13 SPI) at low drag (118 df.) and so am again preparing to race.

It will be interesting to see how this affects my 2K, once I am again fully prepared to race.

I haven't sharpened since EIRC 2003.

ranger

P.S. I rowed 6:29.7 in 2006, without even preparing for it, was quite a bit better than the 6:32 I pulled in my last race in 2003 at EIRC and still faster than my WR row at WIRC 2003. So I don't see any evidence of decline at all.