Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

If you cant erg for 6min and 32 sec at an average pace of 1:39, what makes you think that you can row a longer distance at that same average pace? You see the logical fallacy right?

Yes, I see the logical fallacy.

Your conception of training is inverted.

This is how it is done.

In terms of distance trials, and your preparation for them, first, you do the longer distance at the lower rate, pace, and HR.

Then as you shorten the distance, you raise the rate, pace, and HR.

And all is well.

Your "if"-clause uses the opposite logic, which shows that you don't understand training, don't know how to train, and probably, have never done it successfully.

Sorry to hear that, but that's your choice.

You could learn something from this thread, but clearly, you aren't interested.

So it goes.

Perverse stupidity is widespread but not very admirable.

ranger

[ranger]

The issue in FM training is to fashion a stroke that is effective and efficient enough to go along at 23 spm (or something like) at steady state, some target pace, and a low UT1 HR.

Any higher HR is irrelevant because you can't do it for 2.5 hours.

So, when you are training for a FM, you shouldn't be rowing things at maximal HRs, etc.

You shouldn't be racing.

You should be working endlessly on effectiveness and efficiency at low UT1 until you can do it at your target pace and rate, steady state..

All of the emphasis on racing your training in and around this forum makes no sense at all.

In training, racing comes last, not first.

ranger

[ranger]

What you can do at low UT1, steady state, on the erg doesn't have much to do with fitness.

It has to do with how well you row, your effectiveness and efficiency as a rower.

Even if you are _very_ fit, if you row like shit, you can be slow as molasses on the erg.

I presume that all sorts of folks can do a FM with a HR of 155 bpm, steady state, when they are 60.

But they do it at 2:00-2:05 pace.

They pull 8 SPI.

That is, they row like shit, so they are as slow as molasses, even though they have remarkable endurance, physiological capacity, etc.

Those who row well get 50% more work done on each stroke--with no additional effort.

ranger

[Fred]

If you cant erg for 6min and 32 sec at an average pace of 1:39, what makes you think that you can row a longer distance at that same average pace? You see the logical fallacy right?

In terms of distance trials, and your preparation for them, first, you do the longer distance at the lower rate, pace, and HR.

Question: "If you're incapable of erging 5k at an average pace of 1:49, how on earth could you think that you could erg 10k at an average pace of 1:49?"

Answer: "Distance training comes first"

You see of course, you're completely avoiding the question posed, to keep in place your illusion. Amazing.

[aharmer]

Amazing isn't it? I wonder if there is an age where ranger will acknowledge nothing is ever going to happen. I mean seriously, he will be here at 65, still without any races or IND_V performances, telling us his 65 year old bag of bones is going to pull world class times for people 30 years younger.

So ranger, is there any age where you'll admit your goals will not be met? 65? 75? Maybe 90?

[ranger]

Back in 2002-2003, I was fit as a fiddle, but at that time, I rowed 1:48 @ 22 spm at AT.

I could only do it for 5K.

I couldn't do it steady state at all.

At 5K or so, my HR hit 185 spm, etc., and I had to stop.

I now row 1:48 @ 23 spm, steady state, with a low UT1 HR, 155 bpm.

This improvement has nothing to do with fitness.

It has to do with my effectiveness and efficiency as a rower.

In 2002-2003, I rowed like shit (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.).

I now row well (13 SPI) at low drag (120 df.).

The difference between low UT1 and AT is right around 10 seconds per 500m.

Each training band is 5 seconds per 500m.

If I still rowed like shit (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df), the prediction would be that I would now do a FM @ 1:58, like all of the other good 60s lwts, not 1:48, as I will do now that I row well at low drag.

The issue is technical, a matter of skilll--leverage, footwork, length, quickness, timing, sequencing, posture, preparation, slide control, balance, etc.

It has nothing to do with fitness.

ranger

[PaulH]

A few pages ago you implied that I was a liar. It was clearly shown that I wasn't. I haven't seen an apology for that yet - would you rather do that here, or by PM?

[ranger]

So ranger, is there any age where you'll admit your goals will not be met? 65? 75? Maybe 90?

Really, I only need to reach my first goal, the FM @ 1:48, to show that my 2K target is entirely reasonable, even though, sure, it will take some time to do the other distance trials and sharpen.

A FM is a great 2K predictor.

If you are into such things, a FM is done at 2K + 14.

It is a low UT1 row, just a bit faster than top-end UT2.

When will I reach a FM, 1:48 @ 23 spm?

I would be _very_ surprised if it didn't come along this summer, especially if I can get in a routine of 20K OTErg at 23 spm just before dawn followed by 20K OTW just after dawn.

OTErg, at least, I don't see what I can do to get any better technically, and I can't improve my fitness.

It has been maximal for a decade, and if anything, declining slowly with age.

ranger

[ranger]

The 50s hwt 2K WR is Andy Ripley's 1:32.

That means that if the best 50s rowers were interested in the FM and got as good as Ripley for 2K, some 50s hwt should pull 1:46 for a FM, 1:32 + 14.

Rob Slocum pulled 1:48 for a FM when he was 50, but he wasn't the best 2K rower at the time.

Tore Foss pulled 1:42 for a HM when he was 50, which predicts 1:45 for a FM, if he had gone on to train for and race it.

That 1:45 for a FM (1:42 for a HM) predicts 6:04 for 2K.

And indeed, it is entirely reasonable to claim that Foss could have pulled 6:04 for 2K when he was 50.

He needs to work on his technique.

He rows between his legs.

ranger

[ranger]

A few pages ago you implied that I was a liar. It was clearly shown that I wasn't. I haven't seen an apology for that yet - would you rather do that here, or by PM?

Say what?

ranger

[snowleopard]

So ranger, is there any age where you'll admit your goals will not be met? 65? 75? Maybe 90?

Really, I only need to reach my first goal, the FM @ 1:48, to show that my 2K target is entirely reasonable, even though, sure, it will take some time to do the other distance trials and sharpen.

You can't get any fitter. Your stroke can't get any better. You can't row a continuous 5K at 1:48. Your FM goal is unachievable. Your 2K target is unreasonable.

[PaulH]

A few pages ago you implied that I was a liar. It was clearly shown that I wasn't. I haven't seen an apology for that yet - would you rather do that here, or by PM?

Say what?

ranger

I pointed out that you claim to be one of the greatest rowers ever, you said that you hadn't said that (and, by implication, that I was a liar). A list of quotes of you saying just that was posted, proving you wrong. So where's the apology?

[ranger]

telling us his old...bag of bones is going to pull world class times for people 30 years younger

Now that I row well at low drag, there is no reason why I can't pull the same times as elite Open lightweights thirty years younger than I am.

I still have their physical capacities: a VO2max above 70, an anaerobic threshold at 87% HRR, 30% body weight as muscle mass, 9% body fat, 5'11" tall with long arms, good quickness and flexibility, excellent strength, etc.

Sure, if I lacked even one of these things, I wouldn't have a hope in hell.

But I don't lack these things, even one of them.

Back in 2002-2003, I didn't know how to row.

I lacked good technique.

So I only pulled 6:28.

Back in 2002-2003, if I had had good technique, I suspect I might have pulled 6:08.

ranger

[ranger]

I pointed out that you claim to be one of the greatest rowers ever, you said that you hadn't said that (and, by implication, that I was a liar). A list of quotes of you saying just that was posted, proving you wrong. So where's the apology?

I am sorry if you took my quotes out of context.

In saying that I was one of the best rowers ever, I always meant for my age and weight and on the erg.

I am still learning to row OTW.

And it is obvious that I haven't, and can't, pull sub-6 OTErg.

My target is 6:16, over four seconds per 500m slower than Stephansen.

Sure, there is always some decline with age, not to mention just physical damage from a lifetime of accidents, etc.

For example, I now have weak, broken ankles and poor achilles tendons because, over my lifetime, I sprained/broken my ankles repeatedly.

As a runner, my weak ankles, in turn, stressed and damaged my achilles tendons.

My ankles are just a pile of crunched up bones and destroyed ligaments.

One of my ankles is also more damaged than the other, which makes it quite a challenge to master a sport like rowing, which uses both feet simultaneously and demands delicate bilateral symmetry and balance.

ranger

[Byron Drachman]

September 16, 2010: If it isn' t already obvious, by the end of this indoor rowing season (2011), it will be clear that I am one of the best ergers in the history of the sport, if not the best, bar none.

In saying that I was one of the best rowers ever, I always meant for my age and weight and on the erg.