Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

When was it that you last raced?

I have had the best 2K for my age and weight the last two years (6:41), without even preparing for it.

_Your_ age and weight division.

For a 58- and 59-year-old lwt, 6:41 is right around WR pace.

No one my age and weight has ever rowed that fast.

ranger

[ranger]

Back in 2006, rowing at max drag (200+ df.), I only got 90 kg.F at the peak force.

http://www.ps-sport.net/pictures/Test01 ... akPaul.jpg

Slow legs.

Now, rowing at 140 df., I get 135 kg.F of peak force, 50% more.



Fast legs.

ranger

[Fred]

I disagree with the claim you are making

There is nothing to disagree with.
I haven't made any claims yet.

You are making a claim, and I disagree with it. You can not do what you are claiming you can.

I am now a whole training band (five seconds per 500m) better than I was in 2003, when I rowed poorly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.) and did 1:48 at top-end UT1.

[luckylindy]

Fallacy of the single force curve

I am not posting single force curves.

My force curves all look the same, as my videos illustrate.

Did you post a longer video? The only videos I've seen were either very short (10 strokes or so), or showed a few strokes that looked like your posted pics, followed by a whole bunch of normal looking force curves.

I realize you don't want people to take you seriously, but if you did, you'd post a pic of your monitor post workout.

[Fred]

Fallacy of the single force curve

I am not posting single force curves.
My force curves all look the same, as my videos illustrate.

must admit, it took me a bit to figure out what your response had to do with Navs statement.

Nav stated essentially that "Attempting to use a single force curve as a predictor of 2k, HM, FM performance is nonsense"
and your reply was "I'm not posting just one single force curve, I post dozens of single force curves and they all look the same"

that is an amazing failure to comprehend Nav's post.

[PaulH]

I disagree with the claim you are making

There is nothing to disagree with.

I haven't made any claims yet.

Perhaps the single most wrong thing you've ever said, and that's quite a standard to achieve. You have made *hundreds* of claims, amongst them my favourite of setting six consecutive world records in the 2K.

Oh wait, perhaps you meant 'made' in the sense of 'achieved'? In that case you're right, you've never 'made' i.e. achieved any claim you've posted on this thread. I stand corrected.

[snowleopard]

I haven't made any claims yet.

How about, "I now row like this guy [EE]."

Or are you going to claim you didn't make that [unsubstantiated] claim.

[ranger]

The UT1 achievement of someone like Matthias or E.E. is pretty simple, really:

(1) Keep a high cadence (e.g., 27 spm, base pace).

(2) Lighten up 2 SPI (about 15%), but (rowing at low drag), keep your stroke in good order otherwise--length, timing, sequencing, balance, leverage, preparation, etc.

If you are a lightweight who rows well (13 SPI) at low drag (95 df.), this should come out to a steady 1:45 @ 27 spm (11 SPI) at some sub-threshold, UT1 HR.

The trick, I think, once you can do something like this, is to do it every day--habitually, automatically--as a natural mode of training.

The problem with most 60s lwts is that to be comfortable pulling 11 SPI for long distances, they have to slow the rate down to 18 spm, almost 10 spm slower.

Or to be comfortable maintaining 27 spm, they have to break their technique down to 8 SPI.

Both of these are wretched results.

In terms of training, the major difficulties in these matters, then, are these:

(1) Too much low rate rowing.

(2) Too little attention to technique.

Once you learn to row well at low drag, there is no reason to row at low rates.

No one needs to row at a ratio larger than 3.5-to-1.

Once you learn to row well at low drag, there is no reason to row poorly.

Take good strokes!

ranger

[ranger]

For people like Mike C. when he was 40 years old, following the Wolverine Plan does no damage.

If you are a lightweight who can pull 6:20 for 2K, your WP level 4 pace is rowing well (13 SPI).

But for other folks, especially for folks who are much slower over 2K, all of the rowing at low rates in the WP just avoids the issue of learning how to row well at low drag.

If you follow the WP, you row millions and millions of meters, rowing badly at high drag, with no attention to your technical difficulties, until you can't do anything otherwise.

ranger

[snowleopard]

(1) Too much low rate rowing.

(2) Too little attention to technique.

Once you learn to row well at low drag, there is no reason to row at low rates.

There is. See point 2.

As usual you are way off with your claims.

[ranger]

PaulS is right that following something like 10 MPS in your distance rowing helps you keep away from low rates.

Especially if you pay close attention to technique, if you force yourself to keep the rate up to 25 spm if you are pulling 2:00 pace, you get practice in rowing well with a light stroke at substantial rates.

Then, if you want to go faster, you just add a little more power in various "sweet" spots in your motion.

If you row all of your distance meters at low rates, you never learn to do this.

You are fooled into thinking you know how to row well, but you don't.

You rely on a higher drag and a low cadence to get power, rather than on the effectiveness and efficiency of your technique pulling against light resistance at a substantial rate.

You train yourself to slog rather than to row.

ranger

[ranger]

Clearly, the WP hasn't worked out for Mike C. as he has aged.

His rowing has declined precipitously.

Why?

At 40, he set the lwt 2K WR.

At 50, he isn't within 10 seconds of it.

My guess is that by 60, he won't be within 20 seconds of it, perhaps even 30.

Once you learn to row well at low drag, low rate rowing is counterproductive.

If you row badly for most of your meters, especially if these meters are done at low rates, where it is easier to pay attention to technique, you just train yourself to row badly.

If you row badly at low rates for most of your meters, and therefore train yourself to row badly, you can't row well at a substantial rate with a light stroke.

Together, these negative results put you into a downward spiral that accelerates as you age, as it has done for Mike C. himself.

Mike C's own lifelong practice refutes his training advice.

Pretty ironic result.

This ironic result is the norm in most things.

The blind leading the blind:

http://www.artbible.info/art/large/556.html

ranger

[Carl Watts]

As usual your advice about low rates is the opposite to that of what you would hear from someone that knows what they are talking about. Personally I would rather take my training advice from an ex-national OTW representative with a number of National titles to his credit. I also row with him on RowPro on a regular basis and his advice WORKS.

Probably one reason I'm still getting faster while your getting slower. Fire your coach he's an idiot.

[ranger]

I'm still getting faster while your getting slower

Carl--

As a 220 lb. 40s heavyweight, you are rowing right around a minute off of the standard for your age and weight.

15 seconds per 500m.

Good luck with it.

Yes, you can still get a _lot_ faster.

ranger

[macroth]

Need I remind you that you did things "out of order" when you set your lifetime PB in 2002?

Sure.

I should have learned to row well at low drag before I started race preparation.

Misattributed quote, again, you bumbling fool.

And your distance rowing wasn't geared towards any particular distance trials, which you performed in random order, with barely a month of "hard sharpening" left before your PB. And yet that race (your first) was your best ever.

You should also stop with this 'rowing well at low drag' nonsense since you're now saying you'll be racing at a df of 140+, which is certainly not low drag.