Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

My weight is _very_ good.

At BIRC 2010, I suspect that I'll weigh in at 160 lbs.

At WIRC and BIRC 2003, where I pulled 6:30 and 6:28, I weighed in at 162 lbs.

ranger

[snowleopard]

Then, I will try to grind that 1:34 down to 1:32 by Thursday of next week, when I get on the plane for Birmingham.

A. You can't do 8 x 500m @ 1:34. You might just squeak 1:38 but I doubt it.

B. Given that you could do 1:34, by what alchemy do you propose to find another 30 watts per rep in less then a week?

You haven't thought this through, have you

[PaulH]

The monitor measures the work you do on the flywheel by pulling on the chain. "Letting the boat run" as you like to say is beneficial only insofar as it allows your body some extra time to get more oxygen and glucose to those muscle cells before the next effort, and get rid of some of the metabolic waste products. You do not do any work on the flywheel during the recovery.

Indeed.

(1) With a long, effective stroke, you do a lot of work on the flywheel by pulling the chain. If you row at low drag, this work, if quick enough, produces a _very_ bried, "snappy" drive, despite its length, especially if you are a short, little lightweight like me. At 120 df., my drive at 13-14 SPI is now only .5 seconds. When I rowed at max drive and only pulled 10 SPI, my drive time was as long as .8 seconds.

(2) If you lower the rate and let the boat run, you then get a lot of rest before the next stroke, and not just from the lower rate. You also get rest from the shorter drive produced by the good work you do in (1). At low drag, the wheel spins more freely. It doesn't slow down as fast. So, as you are waiting for the next drive, you get more credit for both the work you have done in (1) and the lower rating, both of which increase the recovery time relative to the drive time, raising the ratio. Amazingly, given how I used to row, at 120 df. and 13-14 SPI, given my short little legs, when I am at my race rate, which is now 30 spm, I am in a 3-to-1 ratio. Given that the drive is only .5 seconds and the stroke cycle is 2 seconds, the recovery is 1.5 seconds, three times the drive time. So, sure. During this long recovery, you indeed "get more oxygen and glucose to those muscle cells before the next effort." That is, the work you have done in (1) is not only unusually effective, but for other reasons, becomes unusally efficient, too.

And then this logic is self-reinforcing. The more you improve what you do in (1), the more credit you are given for the effort by an increase in (2). And so on, and so forth, until you are rowing are well as you can, however many years it takes you to get there. As an older rower, your fitness is always declining, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, once you give your best effort, from year to year, you _can't_ improve. You can only get worse and worse.In your late 50s, if you don't improve your technique by (1) and (2), getting more effective and efficient converting the work you do into the pace you can achieve, over 2K, you get worse by a couple of seconds a year--inevitably.

On a more personal note, it is also exciting to me that working on these technical matters is especially beneficial to my rowing, relative to the rowing of my competition, both present and historical. In 2003, I rowed at max drag, not just high drag or medium drag. So my benefit from rowing at low drag, if I have the skill to do it, is maximal. As a short lightweight, rather than a big, tall heavyweight, I also get a maximal benefit from a shortened drive. Given that he is 6'4", I suspect that Paul Hendershott's drive time was quite a bit longer than .5 seconds, even if he also pulled 13-14 SPI. I suspect that Paul also used a drag that was higher than 120 df., which would increase his drive time even further relative to mine now. For the same reason, I suspect that Jon Bone's drive time when he is racing is more like .75 seconds rather than .5 seconds. He is a tall heavyweight rowing at a higher drag.On the other hand, other short, old lightweights, like Mike VB and Rocket Roy, while they also row at low drag, only pull 9.5 SPI and therefore also have a much longer drive time and therefore much lower ratio when they race. To compensate for this weak drive, they also raise the rate, trading rate for pace, further penalizing themselves, shortening the recovery time even further by shortening the time of the stroke cycle as a whole. Stroking naturally, Mike VB rows 1:35 pace at 43 spm, not 30 spm, as I am doing now. This is especially damaging to older rowers with declining aerobic capacity, who, relative to younger rowers, have a special need "to get more oxygen and glucose to those muscle cells before the next effort, and get rid of some of the metabolic waste products," a need that grows, with increasing insistence, as the years go by.The normal decline with age from 50 to 60, for both lightweights and heavyweights is 17 seconds over 2K. My goal this year is to pull a lwt 6:16, 14 seconds better than I pulled when I was 52 in 2003. So, if I accomplish this, the swing in times due to my technical improvement over the last seven years will be right around 28 seconds over 2K, seven seconds per 500m, an improvement of four seconds a year. My fitness was maximal in 2003. Since then, I haven't been able to do anything to improve it, and like others, it has been declining with age.No improvement that I have made since 2003 can be attributed to fitness. In 2003, I broke the 55s lwt WR three times in a row, pulling a lwt 6:30, then a lwt 6:29, then a lwt 6:28, without even knowing how to row, short-sliding at max drag, hauling anchor with my back and arms, dragging my legs behind. In 2003, I rowed these 2Ks at 36 spm, raising the rate to over 40 spm over the last 500. Pulling at max drag, with a sluggish drive of .75 seconds, this means that I raced in a 1-to-1 ratio, with very little rest between drives.Given the dynamics of rowing, this was massively ineffective and inefficient. Finally, there is this: My aerobic capacity is _very_ high for my age. My max HR is still 190 bpm, some thirty beats per minute above the average for someone my age. But back in 2003, I wasted most of this _huge_ physiological advantage relative to my competition with ineffective and inefficient rowing. Sure, back in 2003, I was _very_ good over 2K, nonetheless, but it is clear: if I can make full use of this physiological advantage by rowing well (13 SPI), or even _very_ well (14 SPI) at low drag (120 df.), I can be much better yet.

ranger

I quote this as convincing evidence of just how rattled ranger is. Has anyone seen paragraphs that large from him before?!

[mikvan52]

by what alchemy do you (ranger) propose to find another 30 watts per rep in less then a week?

You haven't thought this through, have you

Prayer?

Job 1:21

" Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away"

Rich and I have to admit that we're in the "taking away" interval...

Can't you see us all at 90?

TSO: "Sonny... I'm much better than that now. Remember back in 2003? (I can't)"

sobering idea.

Another sobering idea: ranger... naked... Well, he will be "naked" at the BIRC.

My remaining question: When will he decide to NOT go out at 1:34-1:35 pace/& 30 spm in the 1st 500m....
Bizarre!

[ranger]

BTW, I should be able to do the 8 x 500m (3:30 rest), 1:34 @ 32 spm (13 SPI, 10 MPS).

I now row well.

No need to trade rate for pace--at all.

I can do the 500s at 10 MPS.

50 strokes.

120 df.

ranger

[ranger]

Why not (after the dust settles from BIRC) we go mano-a-mano on all the ranking marks for the 55-59 lights?

Sure, it would be fun to do all the races between BIRC and WIRC, even though you are not doing BIRC.

But I am puzzled that you think the results are in doubt.

If I pull 6:20 at BIRC 2010, the results of the races we will do are _entirely_ predictable.

I will do them right around seven seconds per 500m faster than you, because I will row 2K at 6:20 but you will row 2K at 6:50.

ranger

[snowleopard]

But I am puzzled that you think the results are in doubt.

If I pull 6:20 at BIRC 2010, the results of the races we will do are _entirely_ predictable.

Anyone spot the internal contradiction? A ranger 6:20 at BIRC is _not_entirely_predictable.

[mikvan52]

I am puzzled that you think the results are in doubt.

If I pull 6:20 at BIRC 2010, the results of the races we will do are _entirely_ predictable.

You are puzzled that I am doubtful based on an "if (you) do" something ......

Once again: Here's a suggestion:
Just give us 800+ watts for 100m and I'll hold my tongue...
I cannot hold over 750m for 5 strokes...(for instance)....
and you would have us believe that you are 6% stronger than me for 300% of the distance?

Sorry, I fail to compute....

[Byron Drachman]

At low drag, the wheel spins more freely. It doesn't slow down as fast. So, as you are waiting for the next drive, you get more credit for both the work you have done in (1) and --snip--

A splendid example of Ranger-physics.

[hjs]

At low drag, the wheel spins more freely. It doesn't slow down as fast. So, as you are waiting for the next drive, you get more credit for both the work you have done in (1) and --snip--

A splendid example of Ranger-physics.

Indeed

Action = reaction

So if the reaction is more freely wheelspin, what should the action be. Dangy doesn't this is never rowed a decent 2k at low drag. He always nee4ds to whack the drag up to close to max.
What he will do this season

[mikvan52]

At low drag, the wheel spins more freely. It doesn't slow down as fast. So, as you are waiting for the next drive, you get more credit for both the work you have done in (1) and --snip--

A splendid example of Ranger-physics.

Indeed

Hi Henry!

Thanks for the link the other day.
Here's some follow up ideas:

http://fitforrowing.livecast.dk/index.p ... 0100201666
(henry's link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wo ... _in_rowing

http://www.universalsports.com/premium/index.html

http://worldrowing.com/index.php?pageid=91

on Nov. 11th at 2:18 pm (Lake Karipiro, NZL)
Event: Lwt Men 1x

Result:
7:05.82 Miani (6:13 2k erg in 2006)
beat
7:11.28 Stephansen (6:58 2k erg)

also note that the WB* in the lwt 1x is held by Zac Purchase who is a 6:14 2k erg.
*6:47.82 (wind aided)
GBR
At Eton in 2006 (when he was 19)
Zac Purchase

Stephansen was 17 then and pulled a 6:15.9 erg..

So we can conclude: Stephansen got faster on the erg… but what about the water?
Miani and Purchase are clearly faster there and remain so…

How can this be explained?
Well, perhaps we aren’t seeing Miani’s or Purchase’s best erg scores… but they are not under 6:00 like Henrik Stephansen.

I provide a Universal Sports link above (you have to pay to see in the USA) but if you look at the final from Lake Karipiro, you will see Miani and Stephansen in the same race (w/no favored lanes).
It is clear to me why Miani wins by such a large margin over HS…
Stephansen has an erg stroke. His body does not stay in the bow long enough through the release. An erger is rewarded for this; a sculler is not.

Does Stephansen ever say "I'm much better than that now" ?

[mikvan52]

At low drag, the wheel spins more freely. It doesn't slow down as fast. So, as you are waiting for the next drive, you get more credit for both the work you have done in (1) and --snip--

A splendid example of Ranger-physics.

In a "NUT"-shell...
According to TSO... ALL YOU NEED is One big STROKE and you've got a WR on the erg.

"little" Richard is truly "Tutti Frutti"

[aharmer]

I particularly like his idea of losing 5 pounds the final week before the biggest race in 7 years. He's doing everything in his power to sabotage himself so he has an excuse for failing. Any day now we'll get The Post. The bombshell post explaining the tragedy preventing him from traveling to BIRC. Ranger, what airline and flight number are you currently booked on?

[snowleopard]

I particularly like his idea of losing 5 pounds the final week before the biggest race in 7 years.

While gaining 30W/500m

[auerli]

Ranger, what airline and flight number are you currently booked on?

...and what´s the name of the unlucky travel cancellation insurance company which will have to pay for your DNT (Did Not Travel)?