Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

I am riding on a 15-year old, worn out, broken bike that only has one gear.

ranger

Don't complain to me. Get a new bike.

Let's rock!

When the weather breaks, I am doing exactly that.

Hey, it was the wife who suggested it!

That's golden, when it comes to purchasing expensive athletic toys and other things that women don't relate to.

Male paradise.

Who knows?

If this kind of wifely support continues, we may soon have treadmills, universal weight machines, steppers, elipticals, slides, snowmobiles, gliders, motorcycles, snow boards, power boats, airplanes, funny cars, etc.

Retirement.

Gotta love it.

ranger

[mikvan52]

My fitness is sky-high, fine for a FM trial, right now.

I can run my HR for 2.5 hours at 155 bpm.

The work I am doing OTErg is technical.

It has nothing to do with fitness.

When I am done with this technical work, I'll race a FM.

ranger

So...
you're "fine for an FM trial, right now" but you need technical work...
May we please see and hour of 155 bpm IND_V then?

No.. because the pace would not be what you claimed....

In fact: There will never be an IND_V FM. Why not just admit it today and be done with this dismal charade.?

[ranger]

May we please see and hour of 155 bpm IND_V then?

That doesn't have anything to do with working on technique, but sure, an hour at 155 bpm should come along pretty soon, and when it does, I'll report it.

Nothing to report at the moment, though.

I have been working much harder than that over an hour on my bike, as I have reported.

A continuous 2.5 hour bike ride with my HR flat at 155 bpm might be in order soon, too.

ranger

[JimR]

I am riding on a 15-year old, worn out, broken bike that only has one gear.

ranger

Don't complain to me. Get a new bike.

Let's rock!

When the weather breaks, I am doing exactly that.

Hey, it was the wife who suggested it!

That's golden, when it comes to purchasing expensive athletic toys and other things that women don't relate to.

Male paradise.

Who knows?

If this kind of wifely support continues, we may soon have treadmills, universal weight machines, steppers, elipticals, slides, snowmobiles, gliders, motorcycles, snow boards, power boats, airplanes, funny cars, etc.

Retirement.

Gotta love it.

ranger

Any chance "the wife" tells you to pay your debts to Henry?! If she is half the person you describe her to be she would.

JimR

[snowleopard]

I have been working much harder than that over an hour on my bike, as I have reported.

I am rowing plenty, Mike.

And then I am matching that work on the bike.

[ranger]

60min, 1:48 @ 24 spm, should come along pretty easily now, I would think.

HR rising slowly to 155 bpm as I warm up and then riding flat at 155 bpm from there on.

95 df.

4-to-1 ratio

11.5 SPI

No 60s lwt has ever pulled 1:52/16K for 60min.

ranger

[Citroen]

60min, 1:48 @ 25 spm, should come along pretty easily now, I would think.

No good thinking, how about doing? Can you even do 5K (18 minutes) @ 1:48?

HR rising slowly to 155 bpm as I warm up and then riding flat at 155 bpm from there on ...

... for about five minutes.

No 60s lwt has ever pulled 1:52/16K for 60min.

including you.


Why do you lie so much and so often?

[JohnBove]

Hey, it was the wife who suggested it!

The wife, the bike, the stepper, the universal. The wife would probably agree to anything to get you out of her sight.

[Nosmo]

So yes, Paul's law does work imperiously, just not empirically.

It's not "Paul's Law" but as I keep saying it's a conjecture that can't ever fit the whole population.

"Paul's Law" is also not intended to be used in the way that "the special one" uses it. I believe Paul created it as a way to compare crew members with near equivalent training when he was chosing which seat they'd get in a boat.

It's much better for folks to calculate their own "Paul's Factor" which is unlikely be 3.00 in any case. You do that by looking at your range of rows from 1K through to 42,195 or 100K (ignore 500m and shorter as they tend to be done using a non-standard technique and at abnormal drag factors). By calculating a "Paul's Factor" rather than religiously refering to "Paul's Law" you can see whether your training has a sprint or an endurance focus. You could use it to modify your training (if you want) to shift the focus the other way. Some of us are never going to be sprinters due to lack of fast twitch muscle fibres.

First of all Pauls would write it as double the d add 5,
I'm pretty sure Paul used the law as an ideal--a way to adjust ones training to produce a "Paul's Factor" (PF). If someone had a PF smaller then 5 he would adjusted the training for more speed work. If it was bigger then it would be adjusted to more emphasis endurance. The term "Paul's Factor" was coined by other people not Paul, to describe how their training scaled.
Also it tends to work very well for the range of 1K through 10K. PF decreases above 10K for almost every one.

[lancs]

60min, 1:48 @ 24 spm, should come along pretty easily now, I would think.

Interesting you say that as I'm interested in how you'll transform your inability to get past 5k at that pace into you pulling a FM at 1:48.

What is the purpose of your statement that I've highlighted above? I mean, really, what is the point? You, I and (hopefully) everyone here reading knows that a) you'll never ever do the session you mention and b) you can't do a quarter of the time at that pace. So why bother? Why is it you lie so often and so much?

Instead of 'thinking' it would come along pretty easliy, actually sit down and try it. You will find that, far from being easy, it's actually impossible for you. Unless you take breaks to stay comfortable of course.

You're good at taking pictures of your PM4 so if what you said were even half true then you'd show us a picture of a very easy 5k pulled at 1:48 pace with 155 HRs at each 1k split. But you won't, because the row is beyond you and will always be beyond you. This isn't anything to be ashamed of; you're a 60 hwt afterall...

[Nosmo]

[....
What is the purpose of your statement that I've highlighted above? I mean, really, what is the point? You, I and (hopefully) everyone here reading knows that a) you'll never ever do the session you mention and b) you can't do a quarter of the time at that pace. So why bother? Why is it you lie so often and so much?

And everyone here knows he will be spouting the same nonsense 5 years from now no matter how many times you ask.

[aharmer]

Hey, it was the wife who suggested it!

The wife, the bike, the stepper, the universal. The wife would probably agree to anything to get you out of her sight.

Last year he claimed the wife would end a 30 year marriage if she found out he had legitimately lost a $1000 bet. Now she's open to him buying up all the toys he wants. Wow, what a turn of events! Looks like he has no more excuses not to pay Henry that grand.

I think his week is about up for the $500 5k bet too. He could have sat down, warmed up with a 5k, and collected $500 but chose not to. Interesting. To answer a question from earlier today...no, he cannot do 5k at 1:48. Not feeling real confident he'll be able to stretch that out to 42K in the next 4 weeks.

[Byron Drachman]

The bigger problem, I think, is that ranger is confusing correlation with causation. There is a broad correlation between the best times at various distances (though it's sufficiently broad that it just confirms that as people row further they go slower), but that doesn't mean that a particular performance at a longer distance *causes* the performance at a shorter distance. And that goes double for events as widely spread as the FM and 2k.

Nicely stated. Our intrepid hero doesn't get it and probably will never understand this.

[whp4]

The bigger problem, I think, is that ranger is confusing correlation with causation. There is a broad correlation between the best times at various distances (though it's sufficiently broad that it just confirms that as people row further they go slower), but that doesn't mean that a particular performance at a longer distance *causes* the performance at a shorter distance. And that goes double for events as widely spread as the FM and 2k.

Nicely stated. Our intrepid hero doesn't get it and probably will never understand this.

He's also assuming that that which applies to well-trained quality lightweights applies to him, even though he is no longer well-trained, quality, or a lightweight. But other than that, it's a lock!

[ranger]

The bigger problem, I think, is that ranger is confusing correlation with causation. There is a broad correlation between the best times at various distances (though it's sufficiently broad that it just confirms that as people row further they go slower), but that doesn't mean that a particular performance at a longer distance *causes* the performance at a shorter distance. And that goes double for events as widely spread as the FM and 2k.

No, I am not confusing correlation with causation.

Proceeding in distance trials from a FM to 2K is just a commonsensical training strategy, with distance trials as an objective demonstration of success, of goals achieved.

As I have already stated, it just makes sense to develop the effectiveness, efficiency, aerobic capacity, and endurance you need for a 2K of a certain quality before you push into the anaerobic rowing that you need to do for that quality 2K itself.

The IP plan draws on this same commonsensical strategy, moving up the training bands from less intense, longer rows (UT2, UT1) to more intense, shorter rows, at the limit, broken into repeats/intervals (AT, TR, AN).

A FM trial is very close to UT2 rowing. It can only be done at low to middlin' UT1, at best.

A HM and 60min can be done at top-end UT1.

10K and 30min can add a good bit of AT, at least, at the end.

6K and 5K are AT.

No, doing a FM @ 1:48 isn't the _cause_ of a 2K @ 1:34.

A FM @ 1:48 just shows that you now have the effectiveness, efficiency, endurance, and aerobic capacity, once your anaerobic capacities are fully trained up for it, too, with a couple of months of hard sharpening, to do a 2K @ 1:34.

What _causes_ the 2K @ 1:34 is your training, skill, and talent, which in some way or another, produced the effectiveness, efficiency, endurance, and aerobic capacity to get the job done.

I have described and explained in great detail what that training, talent, and skill-building has been in my case.

A full array of distance trials, maintaining "double the d, add 3," from the FM down to 5K, just demonstrates that my training has been a success, given my goals.

Everyone sharpens in just about the same way for just about the same benefit.

So, as long as you do it, sharpening has no effect on how fast you are over 2K.

ranger