Ranger's training thread

[mrfit]

AT, TR, and AN rowing never made anyone better over 2K.


ranger

{Buzzer Sound on Jeopardy}



Alex Trebek: "Yes, mrfit"

mrfit: What is "Bad advice?"

Alex Trebek Correct, "Bad Advice"

[ranger]

I did a half hour of FM training myself this evening...
'I should be able to go the whole way in just about a month... of Sundays that fall on February 29th'

Aerobic Low Intensity: kept Hr & Spms low
= 120 bpm avg (73%♥) & 20 spm steady (preseason #2 began today (12 weeks))

30:00.0 - 7326m - 2:02.8 - 20 - 120 ♥

06' @ 2:05.2 - 20 - 114♥
12' @ 2:03.2 - 20 - 117♥
18' @ 2:02.0 - 20 - 120♥
24' @ 2:01.2 - 20 - 125♥
30' @ 2:02.6 - 20 - 124♥

It's easy to take it easy

Rowed with higher drag... perhaps 125df

I don't think that rowing a lot of meters at 9 SPI is good for anyone.

If you do this, you just train yourself to be bad.

At low rates, 13 SPI is rowing well for a lightweight.

That is almost 50% more watts per stroke than 9 SPI.

ranger

[ranger]

What is "Bad advice?

Do you have an instance, from personal experience or otherwise, where working exclusively on AT, TR, and AN rowing has made you (or anyone else) better over 2K, after you have been fully trained one or more times, that is, after you have already done AT, TR, and AN rowing to the max one of more times during race preparation?

AT, TR, and AN rowing just help the complete novice, someone who has never done this sort of rowing before.

Once you have done this rowing, its contribution to your 2K score is predictable and fixed.

You can't improve it.

Foundational rowing (LTR) and UT rowing are entirely different.

They can be improved--substantially, even radically, year after year, for many years, perhaps in even an open-ended way, for decades.

ranger

[ranger]

You are not going to get faster in a shorter row if you can't do the longer row.

For me, at least, and for you, too, it seems, "double the d, add 3" is a pretty rigid guideline.

I love this. There's just as much truth in saying "you are not going to get faster in a longer row if you can't do the shorter row", particularly if you think that 'double the d' is a rigid guideline, rather than a casual observation that breaks down at the extremes and in many other cases.

No, not at all.

"Double the d, add 3" only works from the top down.

It doesn't work the other way.

If you do a 2K in 1:40/6:40, it doesn't mean that you can do 60min @ 1:49.

But if you can do 60min @ 1:49, if you do some good sharpening, you can do 2K @ 1:40.

Sure, you can blow off distance rowing if you'd like.

But if you do, you just hurt your 2K.

You underachieve.

You fall short of your potential.

The 2K is 80% aerobic (skeletal-muscular and technical).

You can do it without developing your aerobic (skeletal-muscular and technical) capacities to the max, just focussing on your anaerobic capacities.

But if you do, you just parade your ignorance.

You don't know how to train.

ranger

[KevJGK]

We all know this already – but it’s worth reiterating what a pointless exercise any dialogue with ranger is.

He isn’t doing any of the training he claims; he probably has a mental illness and he’s certainly a compulsive liar.

Whatever session he’s called out on, he’ll just say he can do it - but he’ll never demonstrate it, - he’ll always revert to his stock answer “my goals are much greater than that.”

He says his full marathon; which he’s presently hiding behind is still a “month or so” away. Needless to say it’s been a “month or so” away for a while already and it will never get any closer.

[ranger]

He isn’t doing any of the training he claims

What training haven't I done, Kev?

To demonstrate my work on overall fitness (750 "ultra" sessions?), I pulled three straight WR 50s lwt 2Ks: 6:30, 6:29, 6:28, when I was 52 going on 53, and even so, as a complete novice, not knowing how to row, rowing badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.).

No one has ever pulled three straight WRs. In fact, in recent times, no male WR-holder, 40-70 has ever gotten better--at all.

To demonstrate my work on skeletal-motor capacity and technical effectiveness (LTR), I pulled 500r30 @ 1:30, 1Kr24 @ 1:38, 1Kr20 @ 1:42.5, and 2Kr20 @ 1:46--and posted the screen shots. I also pulled a sub-6:30 2K @ 12 SPI, without even preparing for it, when I was 55. No one my size has even come anywhere near pulling sub-6:30 when they were 55.

Sure, I can't demonstrate what I haven't gotten to yet, but presuming that I should is unreasonable.

I am now getting ready to demonstrate my work on efficiency and anaerobic capacity (UT) with distance trials.

Then I will sharpen and demonstrate my work on anaerobic capacity.

Then I will race, rowing (pretty darn) well (11.7 SPI) at low drag (100 df.), fully prepared: 1:34 @ 36 spm.

ranger

[KevJGK]

...it’s worth reiterating what a pointless exercise any dialogue with ranger is

To demonstrate my work on overall fitness (750 "ultra" sessions?), I pulled three straight WR 50s lwt 2Ks: 6:30, 6:29, 6:28, when I was 52 going on 53.

[ranger]

...it’s worth reiterating what a pointless exercise any dialogue with ranger is

To demonstrate my work on overall fitness (750 "ultra" sessions?), I pulled three straight WR 50s lwt 2Ks: 6:30, 6:29, 6:28, when I was 52 going on 53.

I don't understand this response.

Are you implying that you don't need to work on overall fitness to pull a good 2K?

On the contrary, I would say that you need to work on overall fitness to even be able to train effectively for rowing.

You can't do a proper rowing stroke if you don't have excellent full-body power (and things like quickness, flexibility, balance, coordination, etc.).

And you can't row hard and long when you are training for rowing unless you already have excellent aerobic capacity and full-body power.

Rowing works by dynamic rather than static resistance.

In rowing, you only get out of the activity what you put into it.

So how do you get better when you can't put much into it?

You can't train ourself to row well by rowing poorly.

You can't train yourself to row fast by rowing slow.

Etc.

ranger

[KevJGK]

I don't understand this response.

When are you going to do your FM trial?

[ranger]

I don't understand this response.

When are you going to do your FM trial?

I have already said--repeatedly.

In about a month.

It takes quite a while to prepare for a quality FM.

But the rewards are great.

In the end, this preparation for a FM is most of what you need to do to prepare for all of the other distance events, too, and your FM score predicts your scores on all of the other events, including 2K.

A FM displays your effectiveness, efficiency, and endurance, relative to your aerobic capacity.

In training for rowing, that's just about all she wrote.

Add a little sharpening, and you are ready for a quality 2K.

A FM is done at 2K + 14, steady state, with, at most, a middlin' UT1 HR.

My target is 1:48.

That will break the 60s _heavyweight_ FM WR by six seconds per 500m, eight _minutes_.

It will be faster than the 60s lightweight FM WR by a full twelve seconds per 500m, sixteen minutes.

It will equal Slocum's 50s hwt FM WR, which hasn't been touched, or even approached, for a decade.

ranger

[mrfit]

You did not say exclusively.

[JimR]

I don't understand this response.

When are you going to do your FM trial?

I have already said--repeatedly.

In about a month.

It takes quite a while to prepare for a quality FM.

Holy Crap! The Truth From Ranger!!!

Two points related to the truth ...

1) I think your use of the word "repeatedly" is an understatement ... you have said the FM at 1:48 is "soon" thousands of times in the past 7+ years.

2) It has been 7+ years since you started with the 1:48 FM ... since you haven't done one yet it must take quite a while.

Which sets me to wondering ... do you think Mattais spent 7+ years getting ready to do his FM?

JimR

[PaulH]

"Double the d, add 3" only works from the top down.

It doesn't work the other way.

Can you not even read? "Double the d, add 3" is explicitly from the bottom up. If it was from the top down it would be "Halve the d, take 3".

(Top tip: if you're playing ranger-bingo stick that one on your card, I've a feeling ranger will be repeating it some...)

[ranger]

For the veteran rower, at least, I suspect that the basic tasks in rowng--(1) developing and maintaining superior fitness, (2) learning to row effectively, and (3) learning to row efficiently--are just about equal in difficulty/magnitude.

Therefore, it is easy to develop one or more of these without developing the other(s).

Those veterans who have not remained active physically since their 20s will have _great_ difficulty developing the overall fitness needed to row well and be fast in rowing when they are in their 50s and 60s.

Similarly, those veterans who did not row when they were younger will have _great_ difficulty learning to row effectively and efficiently when they are in their 50s and 60s.

It also seems that those who are naturally effective at rowing are not at all naturally efficient, and those who are naturally efficient at rowing are not at all naturally effective.

So it goes.

ranger

[mikvan52]

AT, TR, and AN rowing never made anyone better over 2K.


ranger

{Buzzer Sound on Jeopardy}



Alex Trebek: "Yes, mrfit"

mrfit: What is "Bad advice?"

Alex Trebek Correct, "Bad Advice"

BTW: Did you hear that Cureton tries to watch Dumb & Dumber everyday while he ergs?... but he can't seem to find it on his radio.


If you do the opposite of what ranger says is good training, that will be just about right.
"Distance Trials" ~ha!


and Rich: We'd still like to see even one monitor shot reviewing one of your longer distance 1:48 pace (FM prep) workouts .. at UT.
Don't you tire of merely saying you are going to do something with no intention of completing such a trial?