Ranger's training thread

ranger · Post by **ranger** » March 4th, 2011, 4:00 pm

MRapp wrote:Not sure, but later today, I'll see if I can shoot and post a video of my PM4 for 2K of "Steamrollering," with the music, so you can have it in real time.

Now that we're back to posting off-topic, I want to visit this one again. Ranger, if and when you do this please wear the HRM. It would be interesting to see how a consective 2k at 1:48/23 affects your HR.

Sure, I always wear a HR monitor now, given that the most important thing in FM training, really, is _lack_/ease of effort, which the HR monitor quantifies for you.

No, it does you no good at all to do the 10 x 2K workout as Mike VB did, driving your HR up to AT on each interval.

You can't do that when you row a FM.

In fact, you can't even do a FM at high UT1.

You also can't do a FM if you can't do some pace steady state, as Mike clearly couldn't, even though he was pulling 1:58.

To hit my FM target, I need to row 1:48 @ 23 spm, steady state, at 155 bpm (or less), middlin' UT1.

The effort needs to be constant so that the HR stays constant.

Of course, my HR will rise on a 2K, 1:48 @ 23 spm, _until_ it is around 155 bpm, but it shouldn't go beyond that.

And it shouldn't go beyond that if I continued on without a break.

Not after 4K, not after 8K, not after 16K, not after 32K.

Not at all.

ranger

Gus · Post by **Gus** » March 4th, 2011, 4:20 pm

ranger wrote:
To hit my FM target, I need to row 1:48 @ 23 spm, steady state, at 155 bpm (or less), middlin' UT1.

The effort needs to be constant so that the HR stays constant.

Of course, my HR would rise on a 2K, 1:48 @ 23 spm, _until_ it was around 155 bpm, but it shouldn't go beyond that.

And it shouldn't go beyond that if I continued on without a rest.

Not after 4K, not after 8K, not after 16K, not after 32K.

Not at all.

ranger

It is physically impossible to exercise at a constant workload for a period of more than an hour and have a constant heart rate. There's such a thing as cardiac drift that everyone, including you, experiences.

whp4 · Post by **whp4** » March 4th, 2011, 4:26 pm

Gus wrote:
ranger wrote:
To hit my FM target, I need to row 1:48 @ 23 spm, steady state, at 155 bpm (or less), middlin' UT1.

The effort needs to be constant so that the HR stays constant.

Of course, my HR would rise on a 2K, 1:48 @ 23 spm, _until_ it was around 155 bpm, but it shouldn't go beyond that.

And it shouldn't go beyond that if I continued on without a rest.

Not after 4K, not after 8K, not after 16K, not after 32K.

Not at all.

ranger
It is physically impossible to exercise at a constant workload for a period of more than an hour and have a constant heart rate. There's such a thing as cardiac drift that everyone, including you, experiences.

Gus, you're forgetting about ranger's special case: he exercises at a constant workload with no cardiac drift, because his constant workload is effectively 0 (posting on the forum won't induce cardiac drift).

MRapp · Post by **MRapp** » March 4th, 2011, 4:27 pm

Excellent. So we should expect to see this today right?

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » March 4th, 2011, 4:44 pm

the liar wrote:to do the 10 x 2K workout as Mike VB did, driving your HR up to AT on each interval.

Rich:

Nice!
Excellent!!
Perfect lying troll statement. I applaud you. A+ for mendacity!!! ☺

Now go to page 690 of this thread. Read. Weep.

by mikvan52 » February 24th, 2011, 5:10 pm

View Detail
10x2000m/1:00r
Feb 24 2011

....time......meter..../500m....s/m...♥
1:18:37.1 --- 20000 ---1:57.9 --- 23

7:43.9 - 2000 - 1:55.9 - 23 - 137
7:47.6 - 2000 - 1:56.9 - 23 - 137
7:49.7 - 2000 - 1:57.4 - 23 - 140
7:51.9 - 2000 - 1:57.9 - 23 - 142
7:50.7 - 2000 - 1:57.6 - 24 - 140
7:54.3 - 2000 - 1:58.5 - 23 - 140
7:54.5 - 2000 - 1:58.6 - 24 - 139
7:54.5 - 2000 - 1:58.6 - 24 - 139
7:54.8 - 2000 - 1:58.7 - 23 - 141
7:55.3 - 2000 - 1:58.8 - 23 - 142
r425

Never once did I reach AT..

When is RIch going to post one of these?
Never....

Does anyone remember his brag?
to the effect:
"I think I'll row 20k this weekend (February 26, 27, 2011) at 1:46 pace and 23 spm. holding my hr at UT and I'll post it.."

Rich: You cannot row a single solitary 2k at 1:46 /23 spm /UT and post it as a IND_V.. much less 10 of them w/1:00 rests.
You thought, erroneously, that no one would be foolish enough to do the workout you specified. Again, as usual, you were wrong...>>> I "called you out".
Result? >>> Egg on ranger-face once again.

Want a brand-new challenge? Row the 10x2k/1:00r workout at 23 spm ON SLIDES at 107 drag factor AT MY SLOW PACE...(1:57.9)
I'D LIKE TO SEE YOUR HR DATA..

I know you won't. Just thought I'd throw this out there. The balls in your court!

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » March 4th, 2011, 4:54 pm

Rich: You know, there's a solution for guys like you and me... the one's who are getting older to the point of getting slower:

It's known as aging gracefully. I avoids being seen as a jerk, as people regard you.

You are a fast erger. However,Your training has clearly failed to keep you on top of the WR heap. Why not just admit it and move on to better training instead of making weak attempt to fake workouts and posting one-stroke screen shots? It would be the emotionally stable thing to do and people might start to respect you again.
Or, has your troll-like existence captured your weakened imagination? Has it stunted your ability to grow with your slowing times..?

Maybe you are training well and this whole on=line persona is just a ruse... I hope so, for your sake.

Tinpusher · Post by **Tinpusher** » March 4th, 2011, 5:14 pm

Gus wrote:It is physically impossible to exercise at a constant workload for a period of more than an hour and have a constant heart rate. There's such a thing as cardiac drift that everyone, including you, experiences.

I think this is true to a point. In this 20Kr18 session, beyond the 60 minute mark, I had no HRs above 140 but the average was slightly higher on each split. So you can get close to no drift. This was before I broke my ankle back in November. I was very fit back then.

http://concept2.co.uk/forum/blog.php?u=6665&b=79180

Code: Select all

    Total    Total    Total    Total      Avg     Avg     Avg    Max
    Dist     Time     Dist     Time       Pace    SPM     HR     HR 
    20000   78:14.4   20000   78:14.4   01:57.4   17.5   135.8   140.0
                         
    EDist    ETime    SDist    Split     SPace    SPM    AvgHR   MaxHR
    02000   07:49.4   02000   07:49.4   01:57.4   17.5   126.9   136.0
    04000   15:38.9   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.5   134.9   137.0
    06000   23:28.3   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.5   136.6   139.0
    08000   31:17.7   02000   07:49.4   01:57.3   17.6   136.8   139.0
    10000   39:07.2   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.8   136.7   138.0
    12000   46:56.5   02000   07:49.3   01:57.3   17.8   136.3   138.0
    14000   54:45.9   02000   07:49.4   01:57.4   17.5   136.0   138.0
    16000   62:35.5   02000   07:49.6   01:57.4   17.4   137.2   140.0
    18000   70:25.0   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.3   138.4   140.0
    20000   78:14.4   02000   07:49.4   01:57.4   17.1   138.8   140.0

Interesting to note the slight drop in HR in the middle 6K.

Citroen · Post by **Citroen** » March 4th, 2011, 6:16 pm

MRapp wrote:Excellent. So we should expect to see this today right?

Don't hold your breath waiting. Everything Rangers posts consists of vapid lies. He's not done any ranking workout in six years or more. The only time he does a 2K is at the races (with a mass of dehydration to get to LWT).

ranger · Post by **ranger** » March 4th, 2011, 7:19 pm

Tinpusher wrote:
Gus wrote:It is physically impossible to exercise at a constant workload for a period of more than an hour and have a constant heart rate. There's such a thing as cardiac drift that everyone, including you, experiences.
I think this is true to a point. In this 20Kr18 session, beyond the 60 minute mark, I had no HRs above 140 but the average was slightly higher on each split. So you can get close to no drift. This was before I broke my ankle back in November. I was very fit back then.
http://concept2.co.uk/forum/blog.php?u=6665&b=79180
Code: Select all
    Total    Total    Total    Total      Avg     Avg     Avg    Max
    Dist     Time     Dist     Time       Pace    SPM     HR     HR 
    20000   78:14.4   20000   78:14.4   01:57.4   17.5   135.8   140.0
                         
    EDist    ETime    SDist    Split     SPace    SPM    AvgHR   MaxHR
    02000   07:49.4   02000   07:49.4   01:57.4   17.5   126.9   136.0
    04000   15:38.9   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.5   134.9   137.0
    06000   23:28.3   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.5   136.6   139.0
    08000   31:17.7   02000   07:49.4   01:57.3   17.6   136.8   139.0
    10000   39:07.2   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.8   136.7   138.0
    12000   46:56.5   02000   07:49.3   01:57.3   17.8   136.3   138.0
    14000   54:45.9   02000   07:49.4   01:57.4   17.5   136.0   138.0
    16000   62:35.5   02000   07:49.6   01:57.4   17.4   137.2   140.0
    18000   70:25.0   02000   07:49.5   01:57.4   17.3   138.4   140.0
    20000   78:14.4   02000   07:49.4   01:57.4   17.1   138.8   140.0
Interesting to note the slight drop in HR in the middle 6K.

If this is just natural stroking, then it is _waaay_ below UT2.

Sure, your HR drfits upward there--steadily.

Mine does, too.

You are just heating up, although, even so, you don't get maximally hot and reach some sort of equilibrium.

Different matter if you row at middlin' or high UT1.

At higher paces and rates, you heat up maximally, and after a point, you don't heat up any more.

At that point, your heart rate levels off.

At a middlin' UT1 HR, for me, that point comes at about an hour.

For a top-end UT1 HR, that point can arrive after 30min (or less).

On my bike, for the first hour or so, my HR climbs from 135 bpm to 155 bpm.

If I continue for another hour (at exactly the same speed), my HR stays at 155 bpm.

My heart rate does exactly the same thing on a stepper, on an erg, running, etc.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » March 4th, 2011, 7:28 pm

mikvan52 wrote:However,Your training has clearly failed to keep you on top of the WR heap

I am not training to pull 6:42.5.

I am training to pull 6:16.

I have pulled 6:27.5.

My goal has been to get (quite a bit) better, not worse.

We'll know soon whether I have succeeded.

My FM pb is 1:54, although I suspect I could have done 1:51, if I had worked on it.

In any event, if I now pull 1:48 for a FM, I will have succeeded in getting quite a bit better.

1:48 for a FM is six seconds under the 60s _heavyweight_ FM WR; a full _twelve_ seconds per 500m under the 60s lwt FM WR.

1:48 for a FM predicts a 6:16 2K.

A FM is done at 2K + 14.

ranger

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » March 4th, 2011, 7:42 pm

broken record wrote:
mikvan52 wrote:However,Your training has clearly failed to keep you on top of the WR heap
I am not training to pull 6:42.5.

I am training to pull 6:16.

I have pulled 6:27.5.

My goal has been to get (quite a bit) better, not worse.

We'll know soon whether I have succeeded.

"broken record" ~ ironic, ain't it.

What you MEAN to say is " I am talking about thinking that I might consider training someday but I won't give myself a deadline to decide the first step..."

Rich: (&) you won't define "soon"
As lancs sez: "It's over."
No 6:16
No 6:20
No 6:30
No 6:40

If you had the steps for a 6:16, you could row 6:40 every day & Sunday... at will.
Everyone knows that.

you've painted yourself into a corner

"1:46 for 20k = (ranger) UT"
then 1:40 would be mild AT... 80-85% effort for you... But it not.
1:45 pace empties your tank in 500m....

Keep it coming though..
You are like clock work...

Very entertaining.

Is it true you and Rosy Ruiz used to be an item?

Tinpusher · Post by **Tinpusher** » March 4th, 2011, 9:06 pm

ranger wrote:If this is just natural stroking, then it is _waaay_ below UT2.

How could you determine that without knowing my max HR? Is my max 200 or 160 or somewhere in between. It makes a difference.

ranger wrote:At a middlin' UT1 HR, for me, that point comes at about an hour.

Care to furnish us with a screenshot of this phenomenon? Didn't think so.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » March 4th, 2011, 9:19 pm

Tinpusher wrote: Care to furnish us with a screenshot of this phenomenon? Didn't think so.

Every single one of ranger's posts can be boiled down to the same thing....

"no"

ranger · Post by **ranger** » March 5th, 2011, 2:56 am

mikvan52 wrote:What you MEAN to say is " I am talking about thinking that I might consider training someday but I won't give myself a deadline to decide the first step..."

I am training for a FM trial.

No timetable on this training, but I assume it will have an endpoint before the OTW rowing season rolls around.

A FM is a great 2K predictor (give it a try, you'll see).

So it will be entirely adequate to measure my progress (or lack thereof).

If my 2K is now 1:45/7:00, at my best, I should pull 1:59 for a FM.

If my 2K is now 1:40/6:40, at my best, I should pull 1:54 for a FM.

If my 2K is now 1:35'/6:20, at my best, I should pull 1:49 for a FM.

Etc.

A FM is done at 2K + 14.

I don't have any problem with the distance itself, so that shouldn't interfere with the results, although, as I mentioned, as with all races, it takes a few tries to do your best. You need to get used to the distance and how you can pace yourself early on in order to survive through the middle to the end.

And sure, if it turns out that I can only do 1:59 for a FM, with my HR soaring up to my anaerobic threshold, as yours does, I don't have a hope in hell of reaaching my goals and won't mention them again.

My hope is that my improved technique has made me faster, because more effective and efficient, even though I am now a decade older that when I set my pbs.

I am certainly not going to reach any ambitious goals from here on out by improving my fitness.

My fitness has been maximal (and declining) for a decade.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » March 5th, 2011, 3:08 am

mikvan52 wrote:you've painted yourself into a corner

I certainly hope so.

Pulling 6:16 at 60 is a hard spot to get to, but it is the corner that I have chosen to live in.

ranger

Concept2 Forum

Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread

Re: Ranger's training thread