Ranger's training thread

[luckylindy]

At the Head of the Charles, all of the best boats rate about 30 spm.

But the younger rowers beat the Veteran rowers by a dozen seconds per 500m.

What's the difference?

Stroking power.

The best Veteran boats pull about 6.7 SPI; the best younger boats 9 SPI.

ranger

Stroking power IS NOT the difference. Any of these athletes can pull FAR harder than they do doing a race. I'll bet that almost anyone on here can get on a rower and pull 15SPI or higher at very low SPM (10-12). That has nothing to do with our 2k ability - if it did I'd be rowing a 5:30 2k. Using SPI as a predictor is silly - no less so than using deadlift performance to predict 1500m/mile running performance.

The more you lower your SPM, the higher your SPI (and higher SPM result in lower SPI). Physics dictates this. You cannot provide the same force to a fast spinning wheel as one that is at rest or moving slowly - our bodies have performance limits that prevent doing so (our limit being our minimum drive time with 0 drag). This is also why it's easier to pull a fast 100m at high drag than low drag - applying large forces is far easier on a slow moving wheel than a fast one. It's the same mechanics that dictate that EVERY car accelerates from 5mph to 60mph FAR faster than they do from 65mph to 120mph.

Have you ever wondered if maybe your training approach ISN'T ideal? That maybe you have far greater potential than what you're showing, but by following a training philosophy that is different from every other top athlete's that you are limiting yourself? I've competed extensively in multiple aerobic sports (biking, running, swimming), and have never seen someone follow a similar approach ... my suspicion is that you probably could go 6:20 at some weight class, but you fail to step back and have the humility to realize that your unconventional training program is not ideal.

[ranger]

Have you ever wondered if maybe your training approach ISN'T ideal?

This is no longer a question.

It has been answered.

As a 60s lwt, I now pull 13.5 SPI, just naturally--at all rates and paces.

My training over the last eight years has increased my natural stroking power 3 SPI, from 10.5 SPI to 13.5 SPI.

At WIRC 2011, I will pull a 6:16 2K at 31 spm.

I will be 60 years old.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

In this world, or any other world, I can't think of a more convincing demonstration of the _phenomenal_ effectiveness of a training plan.

Can you?

In recent times, other than me, no male WR-holder, 40-70, has ever improved--at all.

If I pull 6:16, I will have improved 14 seconds over 2K, eight years later.

Better yet, at 60, I will now row like like this 37-year-old:


By null at 2010-09-21

If I row a lwt 6:16 at 60 at WIRC 2011, I will break six WRs simultaneously: 40s lwt, 50s lwt, 55s lwt, 55s hwt, 60s lwt, 60s hwt.

ranger

[ranger]

my suspicion is that you probably could go 6:20 at some weight class

Sure, as a lightweight.

That's the goal for BIRC 2010.

My weight is great.

I won't have any problem making weight on the 21st.

ranger

[ranger]

Just checked out the result of the GB rowing trials the fastest in the 2k erg test was 23rd in the otw test ..the best on the erg are the best on the otw?

My claims are about Senior and Veteran rowers, in particular, Veterans.

ranger

[ranger]

Just checked out the result of the GB rowing trials the fastest in the 2k erg test was 23rd in the otw test ..the best on the erg are the best on the otw?

Sure, OTW technique is an important issue.

It just is no longer an issue with Mike VB.

He already rows OTW at 12 seconds per 500m over his erg times--the ideal.

Mike can only improve his OTW times if he improves his erg times.

ranger

[mikvan52]

As a 60s lwt, I now pull 13.5 SPI, just naturally--at all rates and paces.

repeat after all of us:

"I, ranger, am not 60 years old. I have never pulled a 2k in competition at 13.5 spi."

Really, Rich! You are getting beyond pathetic with this.. What brand are you drinking this afternoon, anyway? Thunderbird or Boone's Farm?

[NavigationHazard]

Perhaps this Soviet era cocktail, from Erofeev's definitive Moskva-Petushki, known as "B!Tc#'$ Brew":

"Zhigulevskoe" beer 100 gms
"Sadko" brand shampoo 30 gms
Anti-dandruff medication "Resol" 70 gms
Anti-fungal foot powder 30 gms
Small-bug killer 20 gms

Steep over cigar tobacco for 1 week and serve chilled.....

[bellboy]

Have you ever wondered if maybe your training approach ISN'T ideal?

This is no longer a question.

It has been answered.

As a 60s lwt, I now pull 13.5 SPI, just naturally--at all rates and paces.

My training over the last eight years has increased my natural stroking power 3 SPI, from 10.5 SPI to 13.5 SPI.

At WIRC 2011, I will pull a 6:16 2K at 31 spm.

I will be 60 years old.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

In this world, or any other world, I can't think of a more convincing demonstration of the _phenomenal_ effectiveness of a training plan.

Can you?

In recent times, other than me, no male WR-holder, 40-70, has ever improved--at all.

If I pull 6:16, I will have improved 14 seconds over 2K, eight years later.

Better yet, at 60, I will now row like like this 37-year-old:


By null at 2010-09-21

If I row a lwt 6:16 at 60 at WIRC 2011, I will break six WRs simultaneously: 40s lwt, 50s lwt, 55s lwt, 55s hwt, 60s lwt, 60s hwt.

ranger

NO_YOU_DONT

[jliddil]

Have you ever wondered if maybe your training approach ISN'T ideal? That maybe you have far greater potential than what you're showing, but by following a training philosophy that is different from every other top athlete's that you are limiting yourself? I've competed extensively in multiple aerobic sports (biking, running, swimming), and have never seen someone follow a similar approach ... my suspicion is that you probably could go 6:20 at some weight class, but you fail to step back and have the humility to realize that your unconventional training program is not ideal.

heretic, blasphemer, infidel!

[luckylindy]

Perhaps this Soviet era cocktail, from Erofeev's definitive Moskva-Petushki, known as "B!Tc#'$ Brew":

"Zhigulevskoe" beer 100 gms
"Sadko" brand shampoo 30 gms
Anti-dandruff medication "Resol" 70 gms
Anti-fungal foot powder 30 gms
Small-bug killer 20 gms

Steep over cigar tobacco for 1 week and serve chilled.....

That drink started out sounding alright but went downhill quick.

[ranger]

The standard decline with age among veteran ergers who have WR rows is 1.7 seconds per year.

So, given my first lwt WR row at WIRC 2003 (6:30), the prediction is that at BIRC 2011, I'll pull 6:43.6.

As a result, if I pull a lwt 6:16 at WIRC 2011, relative to historical expectations, the unusual improvement that can be attributed to my (original, unusual, RWBs) training regimen over the last eight years will be 27.3 seconds over 2K, right around 7 seconds per 500m.

There's that seven seconds per 500m again!



At the moment, other than me, no 55s lwt, much less 60s lwt, can even row 6:43.6 for 2K, much less 6:16.

Right now, Mike VB might be the best other 55s lwt, and at WIRC 2010, he will struggle to pull 6:50 in the 55s lwt race.

I will row as a 60s lwt at WIRC 2011.

The lwt 60s race at WIRC 2010 was won in 7:04.

ranger

[Citroen]

The standard decline with age among veteran ergers who have WR rows is 1.7 seconds per year.

Prove it. Where's your evidence? What's your sample size? Where's your data? Where's your written up thesis?

Why don't you fit that postulation? What makes you so special and different to the standard?

[luckylindy]

So, given my first lwt WR row at WIRC 2003 (6:30), the prediction is that at BIRC 2011, I'll pull 6:43.6.

As a result, if I pull a lwt 6:16 at WIRC 2011, relative to historical expectations, the unusual improvement that can be attributed to my (original, unusual, RWBs) training regimen over the last eight years will be 27.3 seconds over 2K, right around 7 seconds per 500m.

Have you rowed anywhere close to a 6:16? You keep comparing yourself to your performance in 2003, which was still 14 seconds slower, yet in your own signature you state that you've only pulled a 6:41.4 this year. I find that time far more relevant to your likely performance than your own formulas used to extrapolate times based on SPIs (which is bunk from a physics perspective).

Looking through the C2 rankings, it appears that 2002-2004 were great years for you - staying within the 6:28-6:30 range, right? All 3 years were top 10 times in your age group (ignoring weight), and 2003 set a LWT record, if short lived. However, after that, you've never rowed close to 6:30 in a competition. In fact, your race times decreased FASTER than 1.7 seconds per year after 2004. But how could that be? Could it be that your "unique" training started sometime after 2004, and actually HURT your performance?

Many of the exceptional rowers here train using methods proven by research and countless OTW/OTE wins. Similar methods are utilized in other aerobic exercises, and are equally as proven. Discounting those methods outright, while introducing your own "unique" approach that includes such oddball ideas as 2 hours of cross training and utilizing a sweep stroke, only hurts your performance.

Sure, if you get a 6:16 at BIRC you'll be vindicated (although you still won't gain the respect such a time deserves, just as you do not now based on your antics). However, if you don't get such a time (and past performance indicates that you will not, no offense), will you step back and ask yourself the hard questions? Or will you find some excuse and continue to add ruinous training practices? You obviously have the ability to set the 60s LWT WR (6:42.5) at WIRC, but every year you waste it will become harder and harder. Why waste time now?

[jliddil]

Sure, if you get a 6:16 at BIRC you'll be vindicated (although you still won't gain the respect such a time deserves, just as you do not now based on your antics). However, if you don't get such a time (and past performance indicates that you will not, no offense), will you step back and ask yourself the hard questions? Or will you find some excuse and continue to add ruinous training practices? You obviously have the ability to set the 60s LWT WR (6:42.5) at WIRC, but every year you waste it will become harder and harder. Why waste time now?

Son. I say son. You obviously fail to understand the depths of ranger's ignorance. You are oh so silly to suggest such things. Excuses? We don't need not stinkin' excuses. He won't pull 6:20 , can't pull 6:20 never will pull 6:20 at BIRC. I'd make him a bet but he would never ever ever ever pay it. C2 should put him up as the posterboy of fair play and sportsmanship and feature him in thier blog. Will they? Nooooooooo. Their loss. Personally I'll laugh as the 21st arrives and he DNS, DNFS, 6:40s or what ever and Casey WIL strike out.smile. Better to use your conseling at a homeless shelter, community psych facility or other public mental health facility. ranger needs and intervention and his family is obviously acting as enablers and won't take that first important step.

Oh and I SUCK as an erger. I'm slow and row like sh!t. I'd drown OTW even before flipping my boat.

[ranger]

Have you rowed anywhere close to a 6:16? You keep comparing yourself to your performance in 2003, which was still 14 seconds slower

Yes, my best races so far have been about 14 seconds off of 6:16, the latest done in 2006 (6:29.7), not 2003.

Times can only be compared under similar conditions, though.

In 2006, I didn't sharpen. So, that sub-6:30 row was done without any anaerobic training.

I also was still working on technique and so had a few more things to iron out.

I also pulled that 2K at high drag, which is quite a bit less effective and efficient than rowing at low drag (120 df.) as I do now.

Everyone gets about a dozen seconds over 2K from a couple of months of hard sharpening.

I'm not sure what rowing well at low drag is worth (compared to rowing poorly at high drag), but I would suspect quite a bit.

So, it will be interesting to see what I can now do for 2K rowing well at low drag, fully sharpened.

Given these considerations, 6:16 is a very reasonable estimate.

ranger