Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Good for you Kev. It only points to a 7:02 2K. Ruinous

Really?

Sure, 7:02 is just a paddle for me. When I am fully prepared for it, I'll do 1:45 for a HM.

A HM is done at 2K + 10.

Nonetheless, this should be recognized:

If you are a 60s lwt, as I am, a 7:02 2K would be pretty near the best, if not the best, bar none.

Last year, no 60s lwt pulled 7:02.

RANKING RESULTS 2010

Indoor Rower | Individual and Race Results | 2000m | Men's | Lightweight | Ages 60-69 | 2010 Season

1 Hugh Pite 65 Victoria BC CAN 7:02.7 RACE
2 Robert Lakin 61 Wichita KS USA 7:03.6 RACE
3 gregory brock 62 santa cruz ca USA 7:03.9 IND
4 Jerry Lawson 62 USA 7:06.0 RACE
4 Gerald Lawson 62 Winona MN USA 7:06.0 IND
6 Leif Petersen 64 DEN 7:08.5 RACE
7 Peter Francis 61 Denver CO USA 7:09.3 RACE
8 Roger Prowse 65 Isle of Wight GBR 7:10.3 RACE
9 Rick Bayko 62 Newburyport MA USA 7:12.5 RACE
10 Michael Brownjohn 61 Upminster Essex GBR 7:12.8 RACE

And a 7:02 by a 60s lwt would have earned a silver medal at WIRC 2011.

When Mike VB is 60, he might well have a hard time pulling 7:02, rowing as well as he can, fully trained.

No wonder.

Mike's top-end UT2 pace is 2:05!

That predicts a 1:50/7:20 2K.

For those with balanced training, UT2 is 2K + 15.

ranger

[snowleopard]

Mike's top-end UT2 pace is 2:05!

That predicts a 1:50/7:20 2K.

For those with balanced training, UT2 is 2K + 15.

The LTB spreadsheet gives 2:05 as UT2 for a 6:37 2K (where UT2 is 50% of 2K watts).

That puts your own training band BS in perspective I would say.

[ranger]

Mike's top-end UT2 pace is 2:05!

That predicts a 1:50/7:20 2K.

For those with balanced training, UT2 is 2K + 15.

The LTB spreadsheet gives 2:05 as UT2 for a 6:37 2K (where UT2 is 50% of 2K watts).

That puts your own training band BS in perspective I would say.

MIke is defining UT2 as 70% HRR, not 50% of 2K watts.

For Mike now, 50% of 2K watts is 155 watts, or 2:11.

Not sure why anyone would want to row at 50% 2K watts.

Even if my 2K were already 420 watts (6:16), that would be 1:58.

At the slowest, I row 1:52, and try to stay 1:48 or faster.

ranger

[snowleopard]

At the slowest, I row 1:52, and try to stay 1:48 or faster.

Largely irrelevant given that you stop every two minutes

[ausrwr]

I don't understand this response.

When are you going to do your FM trial?

I have already said--repeatedly.

In about a month.
ranger

And you say that every month... You're never going to post an FM anyway, as it won't meet your unrealistic standards.

Why do you continue to waste so much oxygen?

[Fred]

MIke is defining UT2 as 70% HRR, not 50% of 2K watts. For Mike now, 50% of 2K watts is 155 watts, or 2:11. Not sure why anyone would want to row at 50% 2K watts.
Even if my 2K were already 420 watts (6:16), that would be 1:58.
At the slowest, I row 1:52, and try to stay 1:48 or faster.
ranger

Rich, the logical fallacy in statements like: "Mikes UT2 is 2:11, mine is 1:52" is that you are equating a hybrid session of 41:40 10k (2:05) with a steady state 37:20 10k (1:52). Those two pieces are absolutely not the same

I for one think that your personality disorder blinds you to this fact and you arent really consciously aware of the irrationality of it.

To compare apples to apples UT2 you/Mike, you would need to:
1. objectively establish your max heart rate using any number of simple tests, or even easier, just look at your PM and see what the max HR was for the last year.
2. erg a session where you HR stays at roughly 70% of max, for the duration, and report the time and distance covered

Now, ask yourself. Why, right now as you read this, is your mind recoiling from doing #1 and #2, and instead conjuring up all manner of alternative "extrapolations"?

If we were to ask you to simply take a screen shot of this mornings erg session and post it. why does your mind recoil from that request, and instead retreat to all manner of "you just watch, I'll do 'X' and 'Y' real soon, then you'll see what I can do"

[ranger]

You're never going to post an FM anyway, as it won't meet your unrealistic standards.

The standards are not unreasonable at all.

I suspect that I could have done a FM at 1:51 back in 2003, if I had worked on it.

That was 2K + 14.

But back in 2003, I rowed poorly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.).

1:48 is only three seconds per 500m faster, which is easily made up by the fact that I now row well (13 SPI) at low drag (100 df.).

Technically, I am much more effective and efficient than I was back in 2003.

ranger

[ranger]

To compare apples to apples UT2 you/Mike, you would need to:
1. objectively establish your max heart rate using any number of simple tests, or even easier, just look at your PM and see what the max HR was for the last year.
2. erg a session where you HR stays at roughly 70% of max, for the duration, and report the time and distance covered

Sure.

That's what a FM trial is, really.

I'll row a FM trial in about a month and track my HR as I do it.

Then, you'll have it.

I'll do the FM @ 1:48 with a middlin' UT1 HR.

I suspect that Mike couldn't do a FM at better than 1:58 pace, even if he did such things.

That's right around 2K + 14 for him.

My maxHR is 190 bpm.

Top end UT2 is 145 bpm.

155-160 bpm is middlin' UT1.

Top-end UT1 is 172 bpm.

ranger

[ranger]

Now, ask yourself. Why, right now as you read this, is your mind recoiling from doing #1 and #2, and instead conjuring up all manner of alternative "extrapolations"?

I am not doing UT2 rowing.

I am just fiddling with a new technique.

I am getting used to rowing at 100 df., after rowing at max drag (200+ df.) for 10 years.

That's a different project entirely.

For instance, at FM rates and paces, I suspect that ratios at 100 df. are twice ratios at 200+ df.

Cycles of work and relaxation are radically different, as are aspects of timing and sequencing.

I'll do this work on habituation for another month or so.

Then the FM trial will be some UT2 (or middlin' UT1) rowing using this new technique, as UT2 rowing is normally done, against the clock, time over distance rowed, etc., tracking my HR as I go.

This FM race preparation is coming along just fine.

At the moment, I am doing my UT2 HR training on my bike, as I have been reporting.

ranger

[Fred]

To compare apples to apples UT2 you/Mike, you would need to:
1. objectively establish your max heart rate using any number of simple tests, or even easier, just look at your PM and see what the max HR was for the last year.
2. erg a session where you HR stays at roughly 70% of max, for the duration, and report the time and distance covered

Sure. That's what a FM trial is, really. I'll row a FM trial in about a month and track my HR as I do it. Then, you'll have it.

your response was predicted: "instead retreat to all manner of "you just watch, I'll do 'X' and 'Y' real soon, then you'll see what I can do"

Surely you must at some level be aware of the avoidance patterns you demonstrate with posts like the one quoted above.

[Gus]

If we were to ask you to simply take a screen shot of this mornings erg session and post it. why does your mind recoil from that request, and instead retreat to all manner of "you just watch, I'll do 'X' and 'Y' real soon, then you'll see what I can do"

Can you do 50 jackknives, 25 extension press ups, and 30 pull ups?

If so, post a video for us.

ranger

[Fred]

Now, ask yourself. Why, right now as you read this, is your mind recoiling from doing #1 and #2, and instead conjuring up all manner of alternative "extrapolations"?

I am not doing UT2 rowing.

well:
1] If you arent doing UT2, then you would be comparing what you "think" would be your UT2 erging, with what Mike is actually doing. A logical fallacy.
2] why do you have a problem posting your "fiddling" session (time, distance and HR)?

pervasive in your responses is the pattern of avoiding presentation of quantifiable data.
yes, you have raced a great deal, and done extremely well, but time and time again, you make grand claims, but recoil from posting time/distance/HR on any workout session. why? really, your responses are always either "it's coming soon", "here's a pic of 100m, isnt my force curve awesome" or "you're an idiot for asking to see it"

[ranger]

why do you have a problem posting your "fiddling" session (time, distance and HR)?

What you list--time, distance, and HR--have nothing to do with the fiddling.

It isn't a report of what I'm doing.

You don't time work on technique.

It's counterproductive.

When you work on technique (and things like relaxation and habituation), you attend to technique (and things like relaxation and habituation).

It isn't work on fitness.

My fitness has been maximal for a decade.

When I get back to regular UT2 rowing, fully habituated to rowing at 100 df., sure, I'll be happy to report my UT2 rowing.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Oct 20, 2009: I now use the same stroke on the erg and I do in my 1x and I can sustain a pretty nice 2:00 @ 30 spm OTW.

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 28, 2011: I am not doing UT2 rowing. I am just fiddling with a new technique.

[ranger]

Surely you must at some level be aware of the avoidance patterns you demonstrate with posts like the one quoted above.

No, just the opposite.

You clearly think of training as nothing but work on fitness.

Therefore, you view my work on technique as just an avoidance of a detailed report of my work on fitness.

You're not alone.

All training plans for rowing say nothing at all about technique.

This is bizarre, given that, in efficiency and effectiveness, given the same level of effort, rowing well vs. rowing poorly can account for as much as 10 seconds per 500m.

There is also this:

After you are a WR-holder, or even after you work maximally for an extended period of time to prepare yourself to race, work on fitness is futile, a waste of time.

Your fitness is maximal (and, if you are a veteran, declining).

You _can't_ improve it.

Therefore, that training plans for rowing omit work on technique is not the only issue.

For many, perhaps for most, there is also this:

They include only what is futile, a waste of time.

ranger