Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

rangerboy, you dolt, "national team rowers" ARE international rowers. and most college rowers train well in excess of two hours per day.

I'm just quoting _Rowing Faster_, p. 100.

So, _they're_ the dolt, not me.

They published it.

I just cited it.

ranger

[ben990]

I wonder how much faster Roy Brook will be than r-boy's 7:02 2k this season?

I would hope--a _lot_ faster, given that was just a paddle, and even so, unprepared.

ranger

Naw. It wasn't a paddle, and you have been preparing since 2003, just poorly.

Whatever Roy pulls, it will beat your 7:xx, or your DNF, or your DNS, or any other lame excuse (lie) you come up with.

[ranger]

you have been preparing since 2003

Preparing to race?

Naw.

I have prepared to race many times.

I know what it involves.

You, obviously, don't.

From 2003-2010, I was training.

You, obviously, don't understand training, either.

Oh well.

Training is an opportunity to get better.

Other than your little sister and my grandma, no one ever got better by just preparing to race.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

And cited it wrong (no surprise). Table 9.1 (from an article by McNeely in Rowing Faster) shows "training volume by competitive level," NOT by squad membership.

I'll reproduce it here:

Competitive Level/ Training Volume (hours per year)
International 800-1200
National 600-800
College or Provincial 500-600
Club or High School 300-500
Recreational 200-300

Divide those ranges by 365 days and you get

Competitive Level/ Training Volume (hours per day)
International 2.2-3.3
National 1.6-2.2
College or Provincial 1.4-1.6
Club or High School 0.8-1.4
Recreational 0.5-0.8

NONE of your "hours per day" figures correctly reflect even the maximum volumes cited by McNeely. And you completely miss the rather important fact that he's quoting ranges, not maximum values. I know you are congenitally incapable of quoting forum posts accurately. Does that genetic abnormality apply to published material as well?

[mikvan52]

ben990:
Mind your p's and q's!
ranger is just developing his potential by working out scenarios on paper with Ifs and Shoulds... Henceforth, there will be no racing. TSO is washed up in that dept..
remember the simple ranger adage: training on your own in secret and preening about it online is the remedy for every geriatric inferiority complex.

Roy and I know he'll not complete another WIRC as lwt. He prefers fantasy about that "big day" when it all falls together and ergs a 2k which would be a WR in an age group younger than he's in now.
Something to muse about while sipping the red wine while watching his sun set from a bluff above the lake.

Did you hear the truth about his recent injury? He fell out of the Lazy Boy at cocktail hour.

[ben990]

you have been preparing since 2003

From 2003-2010, I was training.

...

Other than your little sister and my grandma, no one ever got better by just preparing to race.

ranger

And all of this training got you to:

7:02.3

Awesome, in a big fail sort of way.

And I am not sure what my little sister and your grandma have to do with anything, except that they both think you are a lying sack of shit.

[PaulH]

He has done this in an unconventional way that many (most?) people here doubt will work, and so far the accounts of how (whether?) it has paid off are based on reported heart rates, training zones and his own measurement known as SPI (stroke power index), rather than improved times

There are some things to object to here.

And then you don't actually object to anything I said. While I appreciate your attempt to demonstrate my point about making a tangential objection, I'm not sure it counts when you don't actually object.

So, what were you actually objecting to? I'll give you a starter, if that helps - were you objecting to the omission of "and unverified reassurances that his technique is better"?

[whp4]

He has done this in an unconventional way that many (most?) people here doubt will work, and so far the accounts of how (whether?) it has paid off are based on reported heart rates, training zones and his own measurement known as SPI (stroke power index), rather than improved times

There are some things to object to here.

I started to work on technique after I pulled a lwt 6:30 when I was 52 years old and set the 50s lwt WR at WIRC 2003, as a complete novice, rowing badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.). At this time, I just hauled anchor with my my back, diving at the catch, pulling with all of my levers simultaneously, and then finishing with my back, too. I didn't know how to row.

I have made steady progress with technique ever since. I have perfected my anchor hauling, and now row like shit at a wide range of drag settings. I can no longer row uninterrupted for more than 2k (and even that is pushing it when I've had to make weight for an event, resulting in numerous "paddles" in competition, on the occasions when I wasn't so knackered that I couldn't finish, or even start), so I never do the distance trials "from the top down" that I claim I need to do for proper race preparation. I'm very proud of the Catch-22 situation I've created for myself, because I think you are all such idiots [Ed: true enough, we continue to read your posts] that you won't notice I use the excuse to avoid actual competition with people who might whup my ass.

For instance, in 2006, when I was 55 years old, I pulled 6:29.7 @ 12 SPI, without even preparing for it, albeit still at high drag (170 df.?). In 2003, my technique was so bad that I only pulled 10 SPI. So, by 2006, I had learned enough about technique to increase my stroking power by 2 SPI, or 20%. Everyone gets about a dozen seconds over 2K from two months of race preparation, distance trials and anaerobic intervals. So, if I had prepared to race, I might have had a _very_ good 2K time at this half way point in my training. Instead, I decided to try rowing as a lightweight, and only 2 weeks after that fine 6:29.7 (which I did as a heavyweight, not a lightweight) I decided to try rowing as a lightweight and did 7:04.3 after shooting off my mouth about how I was going to be beat all the heavyweights rowing as a lightweight. I didn't even manage to beat the lightweights!

I've continued my "take no advice" style while attempting to learn how to row OTW, where it has been even less successful. My most infamous escapade involves ramming an 8 going in the other direction because steering is something I've decided I don't need to bother mastering. 9 guys were yelling at me trying to prevent the collision, but I tuned them all out, just like I do on the forum.

Fixed.

[ranger]

Competitive Level/ Training Volume (hours per year)
International 800-1200
National 600-800
College or Provincial 500-600
Club or High School 300-500
Recreational 200-300

Divide those ranges by 365 days and you get

Competitive Level/ Training Volume (hours per day)
International 2.2-3.3
National 1.6-2.2
College or Provincial 1.4-1.6
Club or High School 0.8-1.4
Recreational 0.5-0.8

NONE of your "hours per day" figures correctly reflect even the maximum volumes cited by McNeely.

Naw.

What is important (physically, socially, personally, psychologically, etc.) for training is your daily physical routine, when you do it, not your hours of training per year.

The body is habitual.

It likes more of the same, more of the same.

The sum total of your hours of training per year misrepresents this central concern.

Over the course of a year, all kinds of things interrupt training so that little, less, or nothing at all gets done physically--travel days, tapering days, vacation days, rest days, holidays, days dedicated to others (weddings, anniversaries, graduation days, birthdays, parties, etc.), race days, bad weather days, sick days, injury days, etc.

While these days are only occasional, over the year, they are substantial enough to demand quite a bit more training on the other days than a straight division of 365 days into total time training per year might indicate as a daily routine.

Don't tell me _you_ don't understand training, either.

Oh well.

Surprises are everywhere.

ranger

[ranger]

I've continued my "take no advice" style

Naw.

I take the very best advice.

My own.

I have the best coach in the world.

If someone else, coach or otherwise, would like to show how they can train a 50s veteran to row well (13 SPI for lightweights, 16 SPI for heavyweights) at low drag (e.g., 120 df.) by the time they are 60 years old, I would be delighted to learn what training was followed/ "advised."

Historically, even the best 60s veterans have missed rowing well by seven seconds per 500, 4 SPI, 45 kgF. of peak force, a mile over 60min, etc.

So, at the moment, at least, there is no competing "advice" available, nothing close.

Literally (over 60min), other rowers/coaches have missed it by a country mile.

ranger

[Citroen]

I have the best coach in the world.

How can "the best coach in the world" be so very unsuccessful at the races?

[ranger]

Fixed.

Sure.

Any prolonged, ambitious project, especially if it is unprecedented, as mine is, experiences all sorts of failures and frustrations.

If it doesn't, it is neither ambitious nor unprecedented.

When the issue is the accomplishment of some hard thing, it is only repeated failure that predicts success.

It is repeated success that predicts failure.

Any successful person learns from their failures, but doesn't dwell on them, as you are doing with mine.

Given this, I assume that you don't understand what it takes to succeed, don't appreciate it when it happens, and perhaps never have been successful yourself.

Sure, given human nature, the sources of your ill will and ignorance are understandable, but that doesn't make them admirable.

ranger

[ranger]

I have the best coach in the world.

How can "the best coach in the world" be so very unsuccessful at the races?

If you are afraid of (temporary) failure, you'll never accomplish anything significant, not to mention anything ambitious, much less anything unprecedented.

Of course, even in daily training, at some point, repeatedly training to failure is absolutely the best way to train.

No?

ranger

[ranger]

I have the best coach in the world.

How can "the best coach in the world" be so very unsuccessful at the races?

"The races"?

What races are you referring to?

Over the last 10 years, I have had the best 2K for my age and weight (50s/55s lwts) five out of ten years, with sub-6:30 rows as a heavyweight two other years, even though, for most of that time, I wasn't even training to race.

No male 50s/60s veteran rowing over the last ten years has a a more consistent record of quality racing.

I haven't been training to race lately because, after my 2K times plateaued with three WR rows back in 2003, I haven't been interested in winning races. If you are a WR-holder, there are no more races to win. Since there were no more races to win, I have been interested in the only interesting thing left--getting better. And training to race has never made anyone any better, especially someone who is just trying to learn something complicated, as I am.

If you are interested in getting better and it takes four months or so to prepare to race and then race (repeatedly), you sacrifice a third of a year of training to something that is unproductive, if not destructive, to the goal of getting better.

My judgment has been that I am too old to waste my valuable training time to that extent.

Wasting a third of the year is like taking two or three days off a week.

I don't think you are going to succeed in teaching your body new habits if you break training every other day.

ranger

[SwedeRow]

Fascinating stuff! I'll be sure to follow this thread, though I guess it's impossible not to.

So Ranger, let's for the sake of argument say you indeed have lost speed on the 2k, why not change focus and aim for a longer distance, perhaps more suitable for your age. I'm thinking that anaerobic capacity probably withers before the aerobic does. Ultra runners and other endurance athletes seem less hindered by age, I myself have been taken down by many a 60 year olds in 100k cross country skii races. Just saying.