Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

[quote="macroth""]I'll give you that you entered your scores before your 2k race.[/quote]

When you race something doesn't have any necessary relation to the order of your training.

When I first took up rowing, I trained from the top down, rowing for a couple of years at FM pace (2:05-1:50), slowly raising the rate and pace to HM, 60min, 10K, and 30min pace (1:45-1:49).

Then pushing harder to 6K and 5K pace (1:42-1:44)

Then pushing harder to 2K pace (1:36-1:41)

Then pushing harder to 1K and 500m pace (1:25-1:35)

ranger

[macroth]

[quote="macroth""]I'll give you that you entered your scores before your 2k race.

When you race something doesn't have any necessary relation to the order of your training.

When I first took up rowing, I trained from the top down, rowing for a couple of years at FM pace (2:05-1:50), slowly raising the rate and pace to HM, 60min, 10K, and 30min pace (1:45-1:49).

Then pushing harder to 6K and 5K pace (1:42-1:44)

Then pushing harder to 2K pace (1:36-1:41)

Then pushing harder to 1K and 500m pace (1:25-1:35)

ranger[/quote]

But of course! Pace, not distance! Too bad that's not what you've been saying all along. Doing distance trials in order, from the top down, is paramount in your training plan. But maybe all those times were "just row"'s with breaks every now and then, not actual distance trials. I wouldn't put it past you.

You keep twisting and squirming, but you're still stuck in the same old barrel.

Pow!

[ranger]

"No evidence at all for that"

On the contrary.

That poetry is "musical"; rhythm, componential; language, paradigmatic; poetic symbolism, quadratic; the literary genres, rhythmic; poetic thinking, analogical; temporality, rhythmic; cognition and culture, temporal; and so forth, are long-standing claims. Many people have argued for these claims in various fields of study (linguistics, stylistics, literary theory, music theory, psychology, history, anthropology, etc.)

I have just suggested a logic that can bind these claims together into a systematic poetics.

ranger

[PaulH]

[quote="macroth""]I'll give you that you entered your scores before your 2k race.

When you race something doesn't have any necessary relation to the order of your training.

When I first took up rowing, I trained from the top down, rowing for a couple of years at FM pace (2:05-1:50), slowly raising the rate and pace to HM, 60min, 10K, and 30min pace (1:45-1:49).

Then pushing harder to 6K and 5K pace (1:42-1:44)

Then pushing harder to 2K pace (1:36-1:41)

Then pushing harder to 1K and 500m pace (1:25-1:35)

ranger[/quote]

So your much-vaunted 'training from the top down' is actually starting off at one pace, and then getting faster as you practice more? What a revolutionary concept! If only we'd all realized sooner that the way to get better at rowing (or indeed in any sport) is to practice until you get faster!

[ranger]

post deleted for quote misattribution.

[ranger]

Sorry, but in my ten years of experience with reading the posts here, I have never heard of anyone who rowed 15K-30K a day for two years at FM/UT2 pace, slowly bringing their FM/UT2 pace down 15 seconds per 500m over these long distances before ever trying to row faster over a shorter distance.

The premier race in rowing is only 6-8 minutes long and is done with a HR near max.

It isn't a leisurely two-hour stroll in the park.

ranger

[ben990]

Sorry, but in my ten years of experience with reading the posts here, I have never heard of anyone who rowed 15K-30K a day for two years at FM/UT2 pace, slowly bringing their FM/UT2 pace down 15 seconds per 500m over these long distances before ever trying to row faster over a shorter distance.

The premier race in rowing is only 6-8 minutes long and is done with a HR near max.

It isn't a leisurely two-hour stroll in the park.

ranger

Currently 7:02.3 for you now, right?

[Byron Drachman]

In case you missed it, check out the signature line of ben990's posting.

[ranger]

But maybe all those times were "just row"'s with breaks every now and then, not actual distance trials. I wouldn't put it past you.

Wow.

This sort of cynicism is beyond the pale.

My collection of distance and sprint pbs predict my 2K pb, pretty exactly.

I did 60min @ 1:48. 60min is done at 2K + 10. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

I did 5K @ 1:43. 5K is done at 2K + 5. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

1 did 6K @ 1:44. 6K is done at 2K + 6. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

I did 10K @ 1:46. 10K is done at 2K + 8. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

I did 1:33.5/3:07 for 1K. 1K is done at 2K - 5. That predicts 1:38.5 for 2K.

I did 30min @ 1:45. 30min is done at 2K + 7. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

And so forth.

ranger

[ranger]

So your much-vaunted 'training from the top down' is actually starting off at one pace, and then getting faster as you practice more? What a revolutionary concept!

Sure.

It's a no-brainer.

That's why almost no one follows it.

macroth certainly doesn't.

Otherwise his distance times and sprint times would be comparable rather than entirely out of whack with one another.

Most people think the best way to train for 2K is to row fast and hard over short distances.

And because everyone is doing it, everyone does it (the CTC, etc.).

You know:

Buy high, sell low.

You wouldn't want to succeed when everyone else is being ruined.

It would be hard to have pals that share common motivations, activities, and outcomes.

ranger

[whp4]

But maybe all those times were "just row"'s with breaks every now and then, not actual distance trials. I wouldn't put it past you.

Wow.

This sort of cynicism is beyond the pale.

My collection of distance and sprint pbs predict my 2K pb, pretty exactly.

I did 60min @ 1:48. 60min is done at 2K + 10. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

I did 5K @ 1:43. 5K is done at 2K + 5. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

1 did 6K @ 1:44. 6K is done at 2K + 6. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

I did 10K @ 1:46. 10K is done at 2K + 8. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

I did 1:33.5/3:07 for 1K. 1K is done at 2K - 5. That predicts 1:38.5 for 2K.

I did 30min @ 1:45. 30min is done at 2K + 7. That predicts 1:38 for 2K.

And so forth.

ranger

Not a single one done with any sort of verification, and your "proof" is that the times all line up according to your chart of XYZ is done at 2K + x? Anyone with basic arithmetic skills could do the same...would you like to see the chart showing the prediction of my upcoming 5:35, to be rowed as soon as I finish getting used to my new drag factor and do distance trials from 100k on down? Never understood why you start with the short stuff (FM), care to explain?

[Tinpusher]

In case you missed it, check out the signature line of ben990's posting.

What's going on here then? ben990's posts have ranger's signature panel. Strange.

[ranger]

Not a single one done with any sort of verification

Sure, back then, there was a humane community of rowers who just believed one another.

It's good those days are gone, no?

We're much more sophisticated now, thank Google.

ranger

[hjs]

In case you missed it, check out the signature line of ben990's posting.

What's going on here then? ben990's posts have ranger's signature panel. Strange.

Nah

[ranger]

All of this review of the past is irrelevant.

I'll do all of my trials now IND_V and take screenshots of the monitor, not that that will counter your skepticism.

If you don't want to believe something, no one is going to make you.

It is always your option to be in some sort of deluded denial if you want to.

BTW, as in 2002-2003, when I get around to racing 2K, fully trained, the best 2K time I pull will be what has been long predicted by my many months of distance trials and predictor sharpening sessions.

There is no mystery to race preparation.

The mystery is how to get better/faster, how to overcome your weaknesses, how to train.

Race preparation never made anyone better.

When you are doing race preparation, your training is over.

To go fast, you avoid your weaknesses and parade your strengths.

ranger