Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Can we expect you to drop the drag factor below 100 anytime soon?

Who is to say?

108 df. seems perfect--at the moment.

I can't how it can get better.

But then again, that just might be my own limited imagination/experience/skill/etc.

I am _very_ comfortable with the drag at 108 df.

_Very_ effective and efficient--both, simultaneously.

ranger

[ranger]

If I indeed pull a lwt 6:16 at 60, as I think I will, that is done with a VO2max of 76.

Check the V02max calaculator.

See how accurate it is.

Eh? You have no idea how accurate it is as you haven't had your V02max measured in a lab.

Fritz Hagerman did the research on the correlations between 2K time, weight, and VO2max.

The correlations are _very_ high.

ranger

[mrfit]

If you have a sky-high aerobic capacity, as I do, the whole secret to fast distance rowing is the combination of effectiveness and efficiency you can achieve with your technique.

ranger

Sky high aerobic capacity? I just about choked on my bagel there!

Where???


(and do not say you measured it with your HR or I will forward the answer to your brother who'll laugh so hard he too might choke on his bagel)

Check the V02max calaculator.


ranger

Well you went off a little on the HR thing, but I'll leave Kirk to enjoy his breakfast since I do agree that performance over 6-7 minutes is very close to predicting V02max. I would not bet against your 70ml/min/kg estimate. That measure however is very much in the past and you are using the present tense that your aerobic capacity is sky high. Anyway, You caught me at a good moment as this sparked me to schedule a V02max at a nearby performance center lab (thanks T.C. for this novel idea!). I'm on for 11:00am Thursday and I'll report back!

[ranger]

2:05-2:06 pace

Yikes.

Really?

I'm shocked--and surprised.

ranger

[ranger]

I do agree that performance over 6-7 minutes is very close to predicting V02max. I would not bet against your 70ml/min/kg estimate. That measure however is very much in the past and you are using the present tense that your aerobic capacity is sky high

No, it is not "very much in the past."

I suspect that my aerobic capacity is pretty much what it was five years ago when I pulled sub-6:30, unprepared, hauling at max drag, still struggling with technique.

Furthermore, given my inefficiency and ineffectiveness as a rower back in 2003, I suspect that my lwt 6:28 misrepresents my 2K, at least for purposes of calculating aerobic capacity.

Rowing well at low drag, as any experienced, elite rower would, I think I would have pulled sub-6:20 as a lightweight, as I will now.

If Stephansen rowed at max drag with the technique I used back in 2003, he wouldn't pull 6:00, either that's for sure.

He wouldn't even pull 6:10.

I didn't use my legs!

You have to master the basic skills in a sport to do your best.

Back in 2003, I was a complete novice.

I didn't know how to row.

ranger

[bellboy]

BINGO!!!- MAX DRAG. Howver there is no struggling with technique on the card. Come on lads get it sorted. I calculate that i am in 3rd place at the mo.

[mikvan52]

BINGO!!!- MAX DRAG. Howver there is no struggling with technique on the card. Come on lads get it sorted. I calculate that i am in 3rd place at the mo.

Not to throw a bucket of cold water on the bingo board, but don't you young-uns realize?
ranger... has "_retired_" from erging now.
All he does now is post wild assertions on this thread....

How can he be "strugglin' " with technique if he's not even rowing...

In the last year his assertion about spi has dropped from 13 to 12

In the last month his assertion about his 6:16 2K attempt has disappeared.

ranger... is.... vanishing... his mojo has been vanquished...

":So :it :goes : )"

[ranger]

ranger... has retired from erging now

Maybe when I am 100 years old or so.

But not much before that.

I am keeping an eye of John Hodgson's 2K WRs.

They seem soft to me.



40 years should be enough time to get around to some hard sharpening.

You don't want to get in a hurry with these things.

Go with the flow.



ranger

[ranger]

Do you think OTW rowers learn a new stroke every time they spin to row upstream/downstream or when the water temperature changes

I assume experienced OTW rowers know how to row well.

I am just learning to row well.

That makes my case pretty different, I think.

I didn't start rowing when I was 17.

I started rowing when I was 50.

And even then, I rowed badly for several years.

So I have had both a late start and bad habits to overcome.

I would guess that many older ergers are in a similar situation, but for various reasons, they just don't bother to do anything about it.

My case is different there, too.

I had three WR 2K races, right off the bat, even though I rowed badly.

So I have tried to get better at rowing in hope that I might be able to get even faster yet.

For those who aren't very fast anyway, learning to row well might seem too much trouble for the worth.

I have also enjoyed learning to row well because, even back in 2003, my fitness was maximal.

To get faster, I couldn't do anything else there.

ranger

[ranger]

In the last year his assertion about spi has dropped from 13 to 12

For long distances, like a FM?

Nope.

It's dropped all the way to 11.7 SPI.

Sure.

Everyone uses a somewhat lighter stroke to race long distances, trading some rate for pace.

Rocket Roy did his FM pb at 8 SPI, but he rows his 2Ks at 9.5 SPI.

The other issue is that I am now rowing at 108 df.

Sure, I am also willing to give up some power per stroke if the drag is that light.

Getting 12 SPI @ 108 df. is great stuff.

The drive time is _very_ short, and so ratios at all rates are _very_ high.

You don't work very long.

Then you get get to rest much longer than you would expect.

ranger

[Byron Drachman]

May 1, 2004: Technique is now set.

Nov 8, 2005: Yep. Technique is now fixed. Muscular adjustments are also complete, I think. Stroke is completely set ....

Fri Oct 20, 2006: Last year I was still struggling with technique. Now my technique is fixed.

Nov 28, 2006: My technique problems are now solved. I am now doing full sharpening and distance rowing.

Jan 16, 2007: I have now sorted out my technique, and I am doing both free rate distance rowing and full sharpening.

Feb 8, 2007: My work on technique is now done, though. Stroke is great.

Feb 11, 2007: My work on technique is over. Stroke is set.

February 3, 2008: My technique is certainly fixed. it's now a joy to use. Now, I just need to train it up.

April 21, 2008: I now row _very_ well.

June 12, 2008: My stroke is now a dream to use, entirely relaxed. –snip--so my erging and OTW rowing have merged perfectly. My stroke is the same both OTW and off.

November 7, 2008: My technique is now entirely fixed.

Dec 19, 2007: My stroke is entirely fixed. No more worries about technique.

May 27, 2008: I now row well (but it has taken me five years to get there!).

June 5, 2008: I now row well.

May 5, 2009: I am doing trials at the other distances this spring and summer. If I can't reach my goals in those trials, then I'll pay up for the bet I lost. My attempt to get better has involved improving my technique. That work is done. I now row well (13 SPI).

June 4, 2010: My work on technique is now done.

June 28, 2010: There is no longer anything wrong at all with my rowing on the erg or OTW.

July 18, 2010: My work on technique is now complete

August 5, 2010: My problems have been with technique. At least on the erg, those problems are now solved.

August 18, 2010: Given these developments, there is certainly nothing else that needs to be done on technique and stroking power.

Dec 4, 2010: I no longer have any interest in changing my stroke. My technique is ideal.
I am now just preparing to race.

Dec 28, 2010: I have now completed my work on technique, and I am now preparing to race. I now row well (13 SPI)

Feb 28, 2011: I am working on my technique. Sure, when the improvements I have made in my technique are entirely consolidated, I will prepare to race the various distances –snip--

March 5, 2011: Clearly, my technical problems are now resolved. I now have a stroke to use. 13 SPI, 120 df. And I am now preparing to race.

March 22, 2011: I am just learning to row well.

[bellboy]

As ever Byron, we kneel before thee. You are like Renoir with a razor blade!

[ranger]

I enjoy Byron's documentation of my gradual crafting of an effective and efficient stroke.

It's fun to see the history!

Sure, each technical advance felt better, and therefore like the last one needed.

So, the list that Byron cites is just a record of the extent of my improvement.

I am indeed _much_ better.

Oh, I don't know, but I suppose that there are fifty or more things about the rowing stroke that you can work on improving--drag, length, relaxation, timing, sequencing, balance, recoveries, preparation, footwork, coordination, posture, angles of leverage, rhythmicity, smoothness, precision, consistency, etc.

Most people don't work on technique at all, much less constantly for a long period as a major focus of concern, as I have.

They just row badly--and don't care.

No veteran has ever rowed well.

This disregard for technique is a pretty big loss, if you care about going fast.

It looks as though, for me, it makes a difference of as much as ten seconds per 500m, e.g., in a FM, 1:48 rather than 1:58.

ranger

[JimR]

I enjoy Byron's documentation of my gradual crafting of an effective and efficient stroke.

It's fun to see the history!

Sure, each technical advance felt better, and therefore like the last one needed.

So, the list that Byron cites is just a record of the extent of my improvement.

I am indeed _much_ better.

Oh, I don't know, but I suppose that there are fifty or more things about the rowing stroke that you can work on improving--drag, length, relaxation, timing, sequencing, balance, recoveries, preparation, footwork, coordination, posture, angles of leverage, rhythmicity, smoothness, precision, consistency, etc.

Most people don't work on technique at all, much less constantly for a long period as a major focus of concern, as I have.

They just row badly--and don't care.

No veteran has ever rowed well.

This disregard for technique is a pretty big loss, if you care about going fast.

It looks as though, for me, it makes a difference of as much as ten seconds per 500m, e.g., in a FM, 1:48 rather than 1:58.

ranger

This is interesting ... since Byron also can produce a similar list that shows you claiming you would do an FM at a 1:48 pace for the same dates as well.

So if this list shows you have been getting better for the past 5 years it also implies ...

a> In 2006 there was no chance of you pulling a 1:48 FM ... or

b> In 2011 you should be far better than a 1:48 FM ...

So which is it ... (a) or (b)???

JimR

[ranger]

So if this list shows you have been getting better for the past 5 years it also implies ...

a> In 2006 there was no chance of you pulling a 1:48 FM ... or

b> In 2011 you should be far better than a 1:48 FM ...

So which is it ... (a) or (b)???

No need to go with either.

Normal decline with age among veterans is two seconds per 500m every five years.

1:48 for a FM at 60 is _much_ better than 1:48 for a FM at 55.

The 50s hwt FM WR is 1:48; the 60s hwt FM WR is 1:54, _six_ seconds per 500m slower, a decline with age of 3 seconds per 500m every five years.

This has been my general strategy.

If I had worked on it, I suspect I could have done 1:51 for a FM when I was 50, rowing badly at max drag.

But now, rowing well at low drag, I think I'll do 1:48 for a FM even though I am ten years older.

My technical improvement is overcoming decline with age--and then some.

Ten years ago, my 2K was 23 seconds slower than the 50s hwt WR.

Now, ten years later, If I pull a lwt 6:16 at 60, my 2K will be 8 seconds _faster_ than the 60s hwt WR.

None of this 31 second swing in my 2K time will be due to improvements in fitness.

ranger