Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

For a lightweight of any age to row under the Open lwt WR for a FM (1:46.3/2:30), they need four things.

These are just the normal training levels, 1-4:

Level 1 Efficiency (Racing)

Level 2 Endurance (Training)

Level 3 Physiological capacity (Cross-Training)

Level 4 Technical and skeletal-motor capacity and skill (Learn to Row)

You get what you need at level 4 by learning to row well (13 SPI for lightweights; 16 SPI for heavyweights), just stroking naturally. If you do this, it should be no problem to hold 23 spm for a FM.

You get what you need at level 3 by a lifetime of good physical habits, maintained with a high level of cross-training. I think that four hours of physical work a day is perfect, but 2-3 hours will probably do the trick. 30min on your lunch hour won't do the trick. If you only do physical work for 30min a day, you never even warm up, much less develop a high physiological capacity.

You get what you need at level 3 by a lot of sport-specific training, rowing well. I suppose the basic training plans for rowing are fine to follow in order to get this done.

You get what you need at level 1 by getting up to speed, habituating yourself to the target pace and rate, learning to relax with the effort, and then racing the target distance, with a maximal effort, frequently enough to master it to the limits of your ability.

ranger

[ranger]

BTW, the problem with all of the basic training plans for indoor rowing, and for the rest of those in the erging community here who like to race indoors in the winter, is that they elide levels 4 and 3 entirely.

Most people who participate in the sport never bother to learn to row well.

And most people who participate in the sport don't have good physical habits. In fact, physical activity isn't something that they even enjoy. They just do it because they have to in order to stay healthy (or whatever, sane), the less the better. They aren't athletes, who love rowing and therefore would rather do it than almost anything else; they are something else and are just getting some exercise on the side, like taking an aspirin for a headache.

Given this, most people who participate in the sport don't have any foundation of technical skill and physiological capacity to underpin their training. They start at level 2 and, not liking it very much in the first place, rush on to level 1, which is more entertaining and social and therefore has more to offer to them, because they are more oriented toward socializing and entertainment anyway. Training is the purpose and racing is the fun; rowing (in particular) and athletics (more generally) don't have anything to do with it.

ranger

[JimR]

If you'll be getting up to speed on the 500's over the next couple weeks, that means we'll be seeing proof of FM, HM, 60 mins, 10k, 6k, 5k distance trials before that in the next couple weeks?

... When you "get up to speed," you just get used to a cadence over some distance, habituating to the mechanical and technical demands, physiological and psychological stress, etc., so that you can relax with it ...

Funny ... "getting up to speed" sounds a lot like rowing with breaks and nothing like sharpening (as everyone does it).

JimR

[JimR]

BTW, the problem with all of the basic training plans for indoor rowing, and for the rest of those in the erging community here who like to race indoors in the winter, is that they elide levels 4 and 3 entirely.

Most people who participate in the sport never bother to learn to row well.

As a heavyweight soing 13spi it seems you are just not that good either. I'm thinking the major problem with your training plan is two-fold ... (a) you don't have one and (2) you don't follow one.

JimR

[ranger]

Most folks think that they are training for rowing when they follow one of the standard training plans for rowing for a few weeks and then race--but they aren't really.

Why?

They haven't taken the time and effort to learn to row, and they haven't modified their general physical habits so that they have the needed physiological capacities.

As a lightweight, it is a pretty different affair to row for a couple of hours each day, 1:45 @ 23 spm (300 watts, 13 SPI) than it is to row for 90min, 2:15 @ 23 spm (142 watts, 6.2 SPI).

ranger

[ranger]

One of the (many) reasons SPI is problematic as a stand-alone metric is that it's a fraction. Other things equal, high spi values are desirable. However you can raise SPI artificially: not by raising the watts but by lowering the rating. Suppose you produce 250w at 25 strokes/minute. That's an spi of 10. You can raise it to 11 either by rowing at 275 watts and 25 strokes/minute OR by rowing at 220 watts at 20 strokes/minute. The former is an accomplishment. The latter is simply gaming the numbers to make it look like you're doing something impressive. For SPI to have any useful significance in training it needs to be contextualized in terms of rating and also duration, such that you're comparing roughly similar pieces.

Well, we'll soon have a test of this.

Rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.), I think I will now row a "Steamroller" FM, 1:46 @ 23 spm (12.6 SPI).

Rowing poorly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.), my FM pb, set almost ten years ago, is 1:54 @ 26 spm (9 SPI).

The improvement in pace will be 8 seconds per 500, even though there is a reduction in rate of 3 spm.

That is, with better technique (i.e., much more effective and efficient stroking, together with a higher ratio, which gives you much more rest between strokes, no matter what the rating), I will row the FM _vastly_ faster (8 seconds per 500m) using a significantly lower rate (3 spm).

No, improving your technique (i.e., increasing your natural stroking power) is not just a juggling of numbers.

Although it is indeed entirely neglected in and around this forum, becoming better at rowing is the most effective and available way to get faster--at all distances.

In fact, the situation is much more dire than that.

It is known, for a fact, that beyond your 30s, if you _don't_ get better at rowing, but try to get better by just concentrating on getting fitter, or working more, etc., inevitably, you just get worse/slower.

BTW, the FM is a pretty good 2K predictor, especially for lightweights.

The FM is done at 2K + 14.

ranger

[JimR]

One of the (many) reasons SPI is problematic as a stand-alone metric is that it's a fraction. Other things equal, high spi values are desirable. However you can raise SPI artificially: not by raising the watts but by lowering the rating. Suppose you produce 250w at 25 strokes/minute. That's an spi of 10. You can raise it to 11 either by rowing at 275 watts and 25 strokes/minute OR by rowing at 220 watts at 20 strokes/minute. The former is an accomplishment. The latter is simply gaming the numbers to make it look like you're doing something impressive. For SPI to have any useful significance in training it needs to be contextualized in terms of rating and also duration, such that you're comparing roughly similar pieces.

Well, we'll soon have a test of this.

Rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.), I think I will now row a FM, 1:46 @ 23 spm (12.6 SPI).

Rowing poorly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.), my FM pb, set almost ten years ago, is 1:54 @ 26 spm (9 SPI).

The improvement in pace will be 8 seconds per 500, even though there is a reduction in rate of 3 spm.

The irony here if if you are actually able to do this FM at 1:46 and 23 spm you will prove NavHaz right ... and if you can't you will prove him right too.

Crazy isn't it?!

JimR

[ranger]

I'm thinking the major problem with your training plan is two-fold ... (a) you don't have one and (2) you don't follow one

I don't have any problems.

I am going to do 6:16 for 2K at 60.

As I have just explained above, but you have missed, over the last eight years, you are right, I have not been following a training plan.

Been there, done that.

I have been learning to row well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.).

I have been learning to become better as a rower.

The standard training plans for rowing have nothing to say about this, even though, in a race, rowing well vs. rowing poorly can mean as much as 50 watts, across the board.

At race rates and a substantial pace, that 50 watts is about four seconds per 500m in a 2K, e.g., the difference between 400 watts (1:36) and 450 watts (1:32).

At lower rates and less substantial paces, as in FM, that 50 watts is worth much more in terms of pace, in fact, twice as much, e.g., the difference between 240 watts, or 1:54 pace, and 290 watts, or 1:46 pace, eight seconds per 500m.

As a veteran, if you follow traditional training plans, it is known for a fact that, over eight years, you get 3.5 seconds per 500m _worse_, e.g., the difference between 1:32/6:08 and 1:35.5/6:22.

ranger

[redzone]

I think I will now row a FM, 1:46 @ 23 spm (12.6 SPI).

How on earth do you arrive at that figure? Your last free rate 2k was only just quicker than that (1.45.5/500)

http://concept2.co.uk/birc/result_analy ... c_id=37858

Absolute BS.

[ranger]

I think I will now row a FM, 1:46 @ 23 spm (12.6 SPI).

How on earth do you arrive at that figure?

Absolute BS.

From my training, the only significant fact that bears on racing.

Glory lightweight rowing, and even so, at a foreign venue and only partially prepared, is not the same as rowing fully hydrated, fully fed, fully trained, fully rested--as we will see when I race this winter, multiple times, as a heavyweight.

I will do my first four races this winter (Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Boston) as a 60s heavyweight.

I will only do my last two races (Chicago, Detroit) as a (glory) 60s lightweight.

ranger

[ranger]

BTW, the 60s hwt WR for a FM is T.J. Osterling's 1:54/2:40.

1:46 would best that by 8 seconds per 500m.



The 60s lwt FM WR is 2:00 pace.

The 50s hwt FM WR is 1:48 pace.

ranger

[ranger]

The irony here if if you are actually able to do this FM at 1:46 and 23 spm you will prove NavHaz right ... and if you can't you will prove him right too.

Is this just stupid?

Or am I missing something?

How will a FM, 1:46 @ 23 spm, done now, eight years later, against the background of a FM pb, 1:56 @ 26 spm, done eight years ago, prove NavHaz right?

ranger

[ranger]

Of course, this is the rub:

It is _very_ hard to train yourself to row well.

In my experience, it can't be done in a few weeks.

It takes years--of concentrated effort, on just this goal and no other.

So most don't bother; and many who try, fail.

That's why these things are never mentioned in the standard training plans for rowing.

You know.

Leave no child behind.

In the West, at least, it has become politically incorrect to recommend some course of action that could end up in failure.

Failure makes you feel bad.

But we are want to feel good.

So we are all "winners."



ranger

[jliddil]

I don't have any problems.
I am going to do 6:16 for 2K at 60.
ranger

Can we presume that it will be a recorded race effort or an IND_V?

[JimR]

The irony here if if you are actually able to do this FM at 1:46 and 23 spm you will prove NavHaz right ... and if you can't you will prove him right too.

Is this just stupid?

Or am I missing something?

How will a FM, 1:46 @ 23 spm, done now, eight years later, against the background of a FM pb, 1:56 @ 26 spm, done eight years ago, prove NavHaz right?

ranger

I really thought you were smarter than this ... apparently living in denial makes one stupid?

JimR