Ranger's training thread

[snowleopard]

Those who can't "dick around on the bike" for a couple of hours with a heart rate riding in the 160s don't have a hope in hell of doing 8 x 500m @ 1:32.

So if I can pedal for a couple hours with my HR around 160 I'm good for a 6:20 2K. I didn't know that but heck I'm sure glad I do now

Mind you, my max isn't as high as yours so I guess that means I need to ride at around 145 HR for a couple of hours to row a 6:20. I think I'll get that 6:20 done tomorrow.

I never realised that UT1 cycling was such a good 2K rowing predictor. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. You really know your stuff eh?

[ranger]

Now try to row a 10k as hard as you can. Chances are you're going to rate something more like 26 spm

Yea, close.

But I think I would prefer 27 spm.

At 12.5 SPI, that's 1:41.3 for 10K.

Nice!

5 x 2K at 6:45--no rest.

That predicts a 6:16 2K--at least.

ranger

[ranger]

So if I can pedal for a couple hours with my HR around 160 I'm good for a 6:20 2K.

Naw.

But if you were me, or someone else with a natural stroking power of 12.5 SPI, you would be.

Sure, you have to have the requisite technical and skeletal-muscular capacities, too, as I have.

Aerobic capacity (max HR, anaerobic threshold, etc.) is not the only thing, but it is an important thing.

ranger

[ranger]

I never realised that UT1 cycling was such a good 2K rowing predictor.

Naw, not a predictor.

A preventer, if you can't do it.

ranger

[ranger]

Mind you, my max isn't as high as yours so I guess that means I need to ride at around 145 HR for a couple of hours

Ah.

Then you fail the test.

Your biking prevents you from rowing 6:20.

ranger

[lancs]

Hi Prof.

I'm looking for some evidence that your 'natural stroking power' is 12.5spi.

I can't find any.

Not one single shred of evidence.

Can you provide any?

Anything at all?

[snowleopard]

Mind you, my max isn't as high as yours so I guess that means I need to ride at around 145 HR for a couple of hours

Ah.

Then you fail the test.

Your biking prevents you from rowing 6:20.

Ah.

For a minute there I thought you actually knew something about exercise physiology.

You fail the test.

C'est dommage.

[ranger]

We've been waiting for years for a demo of the stupendous ranger aerobic capacity.

Well, at just shy of 53, I pulled a lwt 6:28, rowing badly at max drag.

No 53-year-old lwt has done anything of the sort.

Rowing well at low drag, I think, is worth about four seconds per 500m, with no additional effort, when compared to rowing badly at max drag.

That means that 6:28, rowing badly at max drag, is the equivalent of 6:12, rowing well at low drag.

I now row well (12.5 SPI) at low drag (120 df.).

Hmm.

No other 53-year-old lightweight has ever pulled sub-6:30, and as it looks now, this situation is not likely to change any time soon.

ranger

[ranger]

Hi Prof.

I'm looking for some evidence that your 'natural stroking power' is 12.5spi.

I can't find any.

Not one single shred of evidence.

Can you provide any?

Anything at all?

Nope, not yet.

But BIRC will be the proof.

Baltimore, back in 2006, was proof that my natural stoking power was 12 SPI back then.

I am quite a bit better than that now.

I now row well (12.5 SPI) at low drag (120 df.).

ranger

[snowleopard]

Well, at just shy of 53, I pulled a lwt 6:28, rowing badly at max drag.

No 53-year-old lwt has done anything of the sort.

You plonker. Who is the current WR holder in that age group? Just because you rowed it like a Duracell bunny on acid does not somehow make you better.

[Byron Drachman]

Well, at just shy of 53, I pulled a lwt 6:28, rowing badly at max drag.

No 53-year-old lwt has done anything of the sort.

You plonker. Who is the current WR holder in that age group? Just because you rowed it like a Duracell bunny on acid does not somehow make you better.

Snowleopard, rather than argue with our intrepid hero, we should agree with him and embrace the concept.
You see, he did a 6:28 but that was rowing badly. If he had rowed well he would have done a 6:12. Here is the exact quote:

That means that 6:28, rowing badly at max drag, is the equivalent of 6:12, rowing well at low drag.

Isn't this wonderful? If you used to row badly but now know how to row, you are also entitled to adjust your recorded times.

[NavigationHazard]

Why not just post a video other than one of the short pieces you have on youtube?

Long videos take a lot of memory, take a long time to load, and are over the time limits of standard uploading sites.

That is, they are a pain in the ass to make available.

ranger

Translation: "I haven't actually done anything other than a minute here and a minute there, with paddles PLUS handle-down rest in between...."

Here's this morning's fast bit - 8 x 500, seriously negative-splitted:



Look upon it, Ranger, and weep. Beating my time at BIRC by 20 seconds, as you've claimed (more than once) you're going to do, might take something under 6:00. In case you're wondering, my spi in the last rep was 14.6. At 38 spm. To put the 1:25.8 in perspective, the fastest stand-alone 500m piece ranked by a 55-59 MHW since 2001-02 has been 1:24.8. Last season's best was Steve Krum's 1:25.1. My 1:25.8 was on rep #8.

[scribewicz]

Jesus.

I can't believe this thread is still going on.

I'll check back in a year.

[whp4]

Well, at just shy of 53, I pulled a lwt 6:28, rowing badly at max drag.

No 53-year-old lwt has done anything of the sort.

You plonker. Who is the current WR holder in that age group? Just because you rowed it like a Duracell bunny on acid does not somehow make you better.

Snowleopard, rather than argue with our intrepid hero, we should agree with him and embrace the concept.
You see, he did a 6:28 but that was rowing badly. If he had rowed well he would have done a 6:12. Here is the exact quote:

That means that 6:28, rowing badly at max drag, is the equivalent of 6:12, rowing well at low drag.

Isn't this wonderful? If you used to row badly but now know how to row, you are also entitled to adjust your recorded times.

Better yet, you don't even have to do anything more than claim that you now know how to row and are much better now — no demonstration required! It also looks like you get to claim your best times from many years ago (after adjustment for learning to row) as current ability...

[Bob S.]

It's rather incredible that this is the largest topic on the forums. It's kind of entertaining to read. That's all - I have nothing valuable to add

Has anyone ever added anything valuable to this thread? If so, it didn't belong here.

Bob S.