Ranger's training thread

[Fred]

You cant do a sub 36 10k (1:48 average pace).

I can now do 1:48 at UT2.
That means about 1:42 for 10K at AT.

You can do 1:48 for a while, back off, do it for a while, back off all the while keeping your HR under 150
You can do 1:42 for a while, back off, do it for a while, back off all the while keeping your HR under 180

neither of which means you can do 34:00 10k (1:42 average pace).

You see Rich, you are forever saying things like "I can do a 10k at 1:42", but the problem is the definition of the word "at".

Your definition of "at" is that during the piece, you see 1:42 some times, but the overall average pace is 2:00 and the overall time is 40 minutes.
The true definition of "at" means you can do a 10k with an average pace of 1:42 and the overall time is 34 minutes.

[lancs]

I can now do 1:48 at UT2.

That means about 1:42 for 10K at AT.

Ah.

Classic Ranger speak.

Using something he can't do (1:48 UT2) to predict something else he can't do (1:42 10k).

Something we've seen hundreds of times over the years.

I do wonder whether he could actually even make it to 5k @ 1:48 pace. Seriously. And until he posts a screenshot of this, that remains a reasonable and valid assumption.

[lancs]

Sure, after I get warmed up tomorrow, I should be able to slow down and ease up a bit and get you a screen shot of 10K at top=end UT2, steady state.

Any progress on this yet?

Is your camera broke?

[Fred]

I do wonder whether he[ranger] could actually even make it to 5k @ 1:48 pace. Seriously. And until he posts a screenshot of this, that remains a reasonable and valid assumption.

Ranger cant do a 18:00 5k (average pace 1:48). He might get close, and probably could have done it last year, but not this year.

[ranger]

So, Fred.

You seem to object to the way I am training to row a lwt 6:16 at 60.

Do you have an alternative?

If you were me, how would you be training?

I think my training is coming along just fine.

Why don't you?

What would you suggest?

Lots of races?

2Ks?

10Ks?

What?

What would be the point of these races?

To show what I _can't_ do?

That's not a very positive plan.

Do you have something positive that you would suggest?

I am all ears.

ranger

[ranger]

Fred--

I don't understand what you consider your function to be here.

Discouragement?

Why would you want to discourage someone?

Nastiness?

Envy?

ranger

[Fred]

This post is precisely what I object to, and the only thing I object to regarding you Rich:

I can now do 1:48 at UT2.
That means about 1:42 for 10K at AT.
By "double the d, add 3," a FM @ 1:48 predicts a 10K at 1:42/34:00.
ranger

Namely, you continually purposefully misleading people into thinking that you are doing sessions you clearly aren't capable of.

If you change, and instead start saying the truth, which is:
"I, Rich Cureton, am currently among the best in my age category, and can currently do a 38min 10k, and a 18:10 5k, and a sub 7 2k. I also have a goal of doing a 6:16 2k and a 2:30 FM at some point in the future."

you'll never hear another word from me.

I also dont really care for the way you lie about your training volume, but we'll deal with that later.

[aharmer]

I believe whAt Fred would like to see is what everybody here would like to see. A single thread of evidence that you're doing what you say you're doing. When you claim to do on a daily basis what nobody your age has ever come remotely close to, and absolutely refuse to show proof of that work, you should expect a little skepticism. No? For the hundredth time, nobody wants you to race your training, or change your training, or even look at the monitor at any time. Simply show a screenshot of what you did for the day. Unfortunately that photo will look eerily similar to what most mortals do, or could do if they chose to train that way. That's not good enough for you. You have a sociopathic need to be better than everybody and belittle everybody whenever possible. Wonderful character traits in your personal life I'm sure, just not particularly popular here. As a favorite movie quotes, "It's over Johnny!". The thread lost it's urging focus long ago and has moved into nothing more than a discussion of what a dick you are. Good stuff.

[mrfit]

I believe whAt Fred would like to see is what everybody here would like to see. A single thread of evidence that you're doing what you say you're doing.

But there isn't any. It's like WMD all over again here.

On the plus side there are interesting shots of small Danish men with big thighs and sometimes some people post a picture of ranger flipping his $7000 racing shell as a sort of potshot to see if that will stop his festering gob.

It doesn't.

[ranger]

Your claims of 1:46 FM are just talk rich, that's all. You have never once provided anything to backup your claims that you are even remotely close to it.

On the contrary, Fred.

If you have been listening, you know that I have backed it up all along the line.

For someone like me with unusually high endurance and aerobic capacity, with an unusually high work ethic, and with unusually long and broad experience with endurance and power sports, the most crucial issues that bear on high performance in rowing are skeletal-motor--technique and stroking power, efficiency and effectiveness.

Over the last eight years, I have answered this challenge.

Given my age and personal athletic background (largely, as a runner, swimmer, skater, and canoeist), my technical efficiency and effectiveness as a rower are now sky-high.

In terms of effectiveness and efficiency, I now row as well as any lightweight of any age.

No veteran has ever rowed well, much less a 60s veteran.

ranger

[ranger]

I believe what Fred would like to see is what everybody here would like to see. A single thread of evidence that you're doing what you say you're doing.

Sure, we all want lots of things.

So it goes.

Given my history in the sport, no evidence of my training is necessary.

But, sure.

I will need to show during my race preparation that my training has been sufficient to achieve my goals.

Then again, all race preparation demonstrates this _massively_, so I am puzzled why everyone is so hot and bothered.

My first bit of race preparation will be a FM @ 1:48.

But, lordy, before I pull a 2K @ 1:34/6:16, I'll have to do at least ten or fifteen comparable 2K predictors--HM, 60min, 10K, 30min, 6K, 5K, 1K, 500m, 8 x 500m, 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, etc.

In this sport, there is no mystery whatsover to racing.

It is entirely redundant.

ranger

[Carl Watts]

In this sport, there is no mystery whatsover to racing.

ranger

Wow the only truthful statement I have seen in one of your posts.

At a public venue there is no mystery to your racing, the mystery is your training. The problem for you however is when dealing with people who have experience on the Erg on this forum we can quickly deduce your level of training and all you distance times from your actual 2K performance alone. Good for you age for sure, but way off the best.

[ranger]

What has puzzled you'all over the last eight years has been your encounter with someone who decided to train rather than prepare to race.

Training is an opportunity to get better.

Preparing to race and racing never made anyone any better.

When you prepare to race and race, you parade your strengths.

But you can only get better by overcoming your weaknesses.

When I am again preparing to race, you'all will be at ease again.

I'll be doing something you understand.

ranger

[ranger]

the mystery is your training

Indeed it is.

Besides me, no male WR-holder, 40-70, has ever gotten better--at all.

They have all just gotten worse and worse--precipitously.

For both heavyweights and lightweights, the average decline with age from 50 to 60 is 17 seconds over 2K.

A lwt 6:16 at 60 will be a dozen seconds _better_ than I could pull when I was 50.

When I pull 6:16 at 60, given historical standards, the swing in expectations, then, will be right about a half a minute over 2K.

That's a lot.

There's that seven seconds per 500m again!

The reason the best rowers never get any better in this sport is that no one trains.

Everyone just prepares to race, and then races, prepares to race, and then races.

Preparing to race and racing never made anyone any better.

That's just parading your strengths.

You get better by overcoming your weaknesses.

If you are a natural sprinter, you need to develop great endurance.

If you are a natural athlete, you need to develop great technique.

If you have strong legs, you need to develop a strong core and upper body.

If you slow, you need to become quick.

If you row short, you need to learn to row long.

If you are gym rat, you need to row OTW.

If you are an OTW rower, you need to become a gym rat.

Etc.

ranger

[ranger]

we can quickly deduce your level of training and all your distance times from your actual 2K performance alone

Nope.

Sorry, Carl.

That is exactly backwards around.

Race preparation is done from the top down.

So, at the start of your your race preparation, your FM predicts your 2K; your 2K doesn't predict your FM.

You do your best 2K at the _end_ of your race preparation, not before you begin.

The reason everyone spends so much time preparing to race is that it helps your 2K, no?

I'm not sure how much it helps, but my guess would be as much as 25 seconds over 2K, a dozen seconds each for (1) distance trials and (2) sharpening (anaerobic intervals).

Your training prepares you to do well during your race preparation, and therefore racing.

In your training, you work on your effectiveness, efficiency, endurance, aerobic capacity, strength, flexibility, balance, quickness, endurance, etc.

For instance, when I was working up to my WR rows in 2003, before each of my erg sessions, I did 1000 sit ups and jumped rope for an hour.

Actually, I think the sit ups and jumping rope were the most important things that I did in my training, not my erging.

They were great for my skeletal-motor endurance, flexibility, quickness, strength, flexibility, balance, etc.

ranger