Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Rowing at 22 spm for long distances, as in my "Steamroller" sessions, is fine and dandy, but the most important sort of training for the 2K, I think, when row well at low drag and are trained up for it, is "base pace" rowing, steady state, with your HR just under your anaerobic threshold, in and around 27 spm, ideally, I think, for 60min/HM.

Despite the pretty high rate, and therefore if you row well, high pace, at low drag (119 df.), this rowing for me is still in over a 3-to-1 ratio, so when you get used to it, it is still _very_ comfortable in terms of its rest-to-work ratio.

It isn't a frenetic affair at all.

It certainly might take some rowers a while to get used to it, but if you have a lot of experience in endurance sports (swimming, running, biking, skating, etc.), as I have, you can also train yourself so that is not uncomfortable at all to work for an hour or so on the erg with your HR just under your anaerobic threshold (top-end UT1).

27 spm is so useful because it sits right in the middle of the higher rates that you need to achieve to race for 2K (e.g., 32 spm) and the lower rates you can use to rest over longer distances (e.g., 22 spm).

So, once you are comfortable doing 60min @ 27 spm, rowing well at low drag, everything else follows in pretty good order.

With a little higher aerobic cost (raising the rate 5 spm), you are racing; with a little less aerobic cost (lowering the rate 5 spm), you are resting.

ranger

[ranger]

Great rowing Rich, how many metres do you actually do

Around 20K, usually, but no set distance.

I just go with the flow and quit when I feel as though I've had enough, given the energy that I have that day.

ranger

[ranger]

A total oxygen thief.

Indeed.

Nice way to put it.

If you can improve your technique at all, much less massively, as I have, you can steal quite a bit of oxygen, in fact, more than you could have ever imagined.

Rowing is technical, full-body, repetitive, and intermittent; therefore, rowing well is all about technical and skeletal-motor effectiveness and efficiency--balanced and precise leveraging, sequencing, and timing; length; quickness; relaxation; high rest-to-work ratios; low ratings, etc.

ranger

[ranger]

Sure, it takes a lot of oxygen to row fast, no matter how you do it, but my aerobic capacity is still _very_ high for my age.

My maxHR is still 190 bpm (with a resting pulse of 40 spm).

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

Sure, if your maxHR is in and around 160 bpm, as Mike VB's is, you are never going to row very fast, no matter how well you row.

No question.

You don't have the aerobic capacity.

ranger

[Steve G]

Great rowing Rich, how many metres do you actually do

Around 20K, usually, but no set distance.

I just go with the flow and quit when I feel as though I've had enough, given the energy that I have that day.

ranger

Rich
You missed the main part of the quote off, see below!


Great rowing Rich, how many metres do you actually do at the at pace without a break? You could perhaps rank some of them, is it at least 2K, if so that is a 6.48 2K, pretty good rate restricted! Decent time for a 60+ HW

[ausrwr]

A total oxygen thief.

Indeed.

Nice way to put it.

If you can improve your technique at all, much less massively, as I have, you can steal quite a bit of oxygen, in fact, more than you could have ever imagined.

Rowing is technical, full-body, repetitive, and intermittent; therefore, rowing well is all about technical and skeletal-motor effectiveness and efficiency--balanced and precise leveraging, sequencing, and timing; length; quickness; relaxation; high rest-to-work ratios; low ratings, etc.

ranger

As has been stated before, you have no idea of technique, only a loose and unrealistic idea that you row "well" in either form or function.

You start the stroke with a shove of your shoulders, slide your arse out because you instantly lose connection, then try and finish with a massive heave of the shoulders.

It gets better.

The sequence doesn't happen in recovery, the knees break before the hands reach them and the hands have to rise over the knees, then you rush the catch like you're trying to kill it, and your body takes a massive dive into the catch. Explains why you're so damn slow on the water. You do pretty much everything that's guaranteed to kill boat run.

You aren't "much better now". You've barely changed at all from when you started. Your youtube shows it. Watching you warm up at BIRC shows it.

So, you are wasting oxygen. In pretending your technique is better, in debating it, and in pretending you know what you're doing. You were better when you had no idea and didn't over-complicate things.

Rowing's a simple sport made complicated by stupid people. Erging even more so.

And you are the most stupid rower it's been my displeasure to encounter.

[ranger]

Great "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" rowing this morning at 26 spm, 119 df., and 12.7 SPI, "base pace."

Given the pace (1:42), the 3.5-to-1 ratio in this rowing is _stupidly_ large.

It is so large that I can come to a full stop in prep position before I break my legs and go down the slide to the catch.

No muscular distress with this rowing at all.

I only do 20K a session now, but as time goes on, I think I could do this rowing for twice that.

This is the rowing that I will do now for most of my meters.

No more "Steamrollering" at 22 spm.

This "base pace" rowing should now lead naturally to distance trials and ranked pieces.

In fact, as I have mentioned, just going along, 1:42 @ 26 spm (12.7 SPI), as I do, I would only need one HM row to break all of the 60s hwt WRs from 5K to a HM along the way, by crescendoing margins, with the HM as a whole being eight seconds per 500m under the 60s hwt WR for a HM (Osterling's 1:50).

A HM at 1:42 would equal, or even best, Tore Foss's 50s hwt WR and would log 17.7K for the first 60min.

That would predict a 6:08 2K.

When Tore Foss pulled 1:42 for a HM, he pulled 6:11 for 2K.

A HM is done at 2K + 10, top end UT1.

According to the IP plan, a top-end UT1 pace of 1:42 predicts exactly that: a 6:08 2K.

The Open lwt 2K American record is Steve Warner's 6:07.1.

ranger

[ranger]

As has been stated before, you have no idea of technique, only a loose and unrealistic idea that you row "well" in either form or function.

I am happy with 1:42 @ 26 spm (12.7 SPI) at top-end UT1.

That's six seconds per 500m better than I could do ten years ago.

Given the normal physiological decline with age (i.e., four seconds per 500m per decade), that's a ten seconds per 500m improvement in my technique over the last ten years, a second per 500m per year.

Sure, it's not the best, but it is fine for me.

It is the best I can do--and pretty darn good relative to my competition.

In fact, it is right around a dozen seconds per 500m faster than any 60s lwt has ever rowed.

I am happy with this level of technical effectiveness and efficiency.

Wouldn't you be, if you were me?

As a 60s lwt, it is rowing like a young National Team heavyweight.

I consider that a significant accomplishment.

At WIRC 2010, the 60s lwt hammer pulled 2k at 1:46/7:04.

ranger

[ranger]

As I have been reiterating, the most glaring problem with the rowing of 60s lwts is stroking power.

At best, Mike VB pulls 10 SPI, not 12.7 SPI.

At 30 spm, 2.7 SPI is worth 81 watts, about 7 seconds per 500m.

420 watts for 2K is 1:34/6:16.

340 watts for 2K is 1:41/6:44.

There's that seven seconds per 500m again!

ranger

[ranger]

A total oxygen thief.

Sure, by improving my technique, I have "stolen" a lot of oxygen.

This needs to be recognized, though:

"Thievery" is usually something that is done without a lot of time and effort.

It has taken me nine years and about 60 million meters of rowing, 20K a day for three thousands days, to improve my technique as I have.

3000 days, 20K a day, is not an inconsiderable amount of the time and effort.

So, if you consider it as such, this technical improvement has been a pretty odd sort of "thievery."

I would prefer to call it a labor of love, but perhaps talk of this sort is just repugnant to you.

So it goes.

To each his own.

ranger

[ausrwr]

I'll rephrase that, so that even the thickest may understand:

You, ranger, are a WASTE of oxygen.

Understood now?

UT1 at 1:46... you're wasting oxygen talking about it. You'll never know it, never did.

Edit: I misread your previous idiocy. 1:42 at UT1? You are joking. That is a better UT1 split than me - physiologically measured in solid form. That was in solid sub 6 form. You're a minute plus worse than that.

You have totally lost it. Have you consumed your entire medication cabinet at once today, or have you come off medication?

[ranger]

1:42 at UT1?

Yep.

Back in 2002-2003, I did 1:48 @ 28 spm at top-end UT1, but that was rowing badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.).

I now row well (12.7 SPI) at low drag (119 df.).

So I am much more effective and efficient getting the work done, given the effort expended.

I now do 1:42 @ 26 spm (12.7 SPI) at top-end UT1.

3.5-to-1 ratio

.5 seconds for the drive.

1.75 seconds for the recovery.

ranger

[mikvan52]

Correction:

Mike VB pulls....

ranger doesn't


Hey: I see you've thrown in the towel and registered as a hwt (60-65) for Crash-B >>> w/o a free ride.

Now we'll get to see what you're made of w/o all the dehydration foolishness you've been putting yourself through.
What pace are you going to go out at in Boston?
Don't lie.

If you go out at 1:40 you won't medal.
If you go out at 1:34.5 (6:18 pace) you won't finish.

I'm a volunteer cox this year. Maybe C2 will assign me to your machine .
See you in Boston (for the 1st time !)

[ranger]

No 60s lwt has ever done better than 1:54 at top-end UT1.

The 60s lwt HM WR is Hodge's 1:54 pace, right around 1:20/80min.

ranger

[ranger]

I'm a volunteer cox this year. Maybe C2 will assign me to your machine .
See you in Boston (for the 1st time !)

I'd be delighted to have you cox me.

Maybe you can put in a request.

See you there.

I just registered for the 60s hwt race, even though I might be at weight.

If I am at weight, I'll get a lightweight stamp for the hwt race, just as I did in 2006, so that the row will count as a 60s lwt WR if I do better than 6:42.

Then I will row as a lightweight for my last two regattas this year, in Chicago and Detroit.

ranger