Ranger - News To Shock

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A meaningless comparison </td></tr></table><br /><br />I admit that, right now, what watts I might achieve rowing for two hours on the erg are much harder to earn than what watts I might achieve stepping for two hours.<br /><br />Nonetheless, there is a pretty close relationship.<br /><br />I have a hunch that, at the moment, I am just more efficient running than rowing and that accounts for most of the difference. <br /><br />We'll see how these things come out when I have become fully habituated to standard rowing technique. I have got a ways to go yet.<br /><br />I think that, soon, I might indeed be able to row 60-80min at 300 watts/1:45 pace. If that ever happens, the two measures of physical capacity, stepping and erging, become _very_ comparable. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 10 2005, 08:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 10 2005, 08:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, my intention on the stepper at the moment is to get my heart rate _up_,  to my <b>aneorbic threshold</b> and beyond. I've done plenty of UT2 and UT1 work. I need to move on to AT. To begin with, I like to do this progressively through a long session, though, of two hours or so. Then I like to do it by negative splitting over an hour or so. Then I like to do it over half hour trials. Then 30min trials. Then in long intervals (6-10min). And so forth. When I am in my best shape, I can work right at my <b>anaeorobic threshold</b> for an hour or more.<br /><br />No problem with my heart rate going to 165 bpm after 80 miniutes at 300 watts! This is a good bit of work and exactly the result I want. As I said, I think 2-2.5 hours at 300 watts will take my heart to my <b>aneorobic threshold</b>, that is, _very_ hard work. I have been doing this stepping _after_ I erg. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />"Anaerobic threshold" seems to be, at best, a nebulous moving target. The following comments by Mike Caviston are particularly relevant to your case! <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Dec 8 2005, 08:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 8 2005, 08:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In case anyone missed it, somebody in another thread posted a link to some information about the “anaerobic threshold” and lactate testing <a href='http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/billat.html' target='_blank'>HERE</a>.  This outlines many of my objections (I have a few others).  It brings to mind one of my major philosophies regarding training.  I’m sure I’ve explained this to some extent but it’s good to repeat & clarify.<br /><br />When I train, I’m not training to increase my aerobic capacity, or raise my lactate threshold, or lower my resting heart rate, or improve my muscular strength or endurance, or increase my capillary or mitochondrial density, or enhance my lipid metabolism, or do anything except lower my 2K time.  Lowering my 2K is my focus and everything else is secondary, a consequence or byproduct or symptom of training, not a goal.  There are no medals for greatest VO2 max or most mmol of lactate (though it might be fun to watch that competition!)  There is only performance as measured by the C2 monitor.  So all of my training is centered around the monitor’s display.  Pace is the relevant variable.  Some people focus on one factor (e.g., VO2 max or TLACT) and gear training towards maximizing that variable.  Performance is much more complex and integrates multiple variables, some of which are known and some which aren’t.  The exact connection or relative importance of each variable isn’t perfectly clear.  Focusing exclusively on one variable may potentially be detrimental to another critical variable, although this might not be immediately obvious.  I am interested in improving my performance on workouts that have been shown to positively affect my 2K time.  I don’t have to worry about what percentage of the workout is aerobic vs. anaerobic or what my HR response is or how much lactate I’m producing or which muscle fibers are being activated.  My performance as measured by pace for the various workouts is the best and most accurate information available to insure steady progress without overtraining.  Anything else would just provide incomplete or conflicting or misleading information.<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-FrancoisA+Dec 10 2005, 01:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 10 2005, 01:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 10 2005, 08:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 10 2005, 08:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, my intention on the stepper at the moment is to get my heart rate _up_,  to my <b>aneorbic threshold</b> and beyond. I've done plenty of UT2 and UT1 work. I need to move on to AT. To begin with, I like to do this progressively through a long session, though, of two hours or so. Then I like to do it by negative splitting over an hour or so. Then I like to do it over half hour trials. Then 30min trials. Then in long intervals (6-10min). And so forth. When I am in my best shape, I can work right at my <b>anaeorobic threshold</b> for an hour or more.<br /><br />No problem with my heart rate going to 165 bpm after 80 miniutes at 300 watts! This is a good bit of work and exactly the result I want. As I said, I think 2-2.5 hours at 300 watts will take my heart to my <b>aneorobic threshold</b>, that is, _very_ hard work. I have been doing this stepping _after_ I erg. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />"Anaerobic threshold" seems to be, at best, a nebulous moving target. The following comments by Mike Caviston are particularly relevant to your case! <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Dec 8 2005, 08:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 8 2005, 08:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In case anyone missed it, somebody in another thread posted a link to some information about the “anaerobic threshold” and lactate testing <a href='http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/billat.html' target='_blank'>HERE</a>.  This outlines many of my objections (I have a few others).  It brings to mind one of my major philosophies regarding training.  I’m sure I’ve explained this to some extent but it’s good to repeat & clarify.<br /><br />When I train, I’m not training to increase my aerobic capacity, or raise my lactate threshold, or lower my resting heart rate, or improve my muscular strength or endurance, or increase my capillary or mitochondrial density, or enhance my lipid metabolism, or do anything except lower my 2K time.  Lowering my 2K is my focus and everything else is secondary, a consequence or byproduct or symptom of training, not a goal.  There are no medals for greatest VO2 max or most mmol of lactate (though it might be fun to watch that competition!)  There is only performance as measured by the C2 monitor.  So all of my training is centered around the monitor’s display.  Pace is the relevant variable.  Some people focus on one factor (e.g., VO2 max or TLACT) and gear training towards maximizing that variable.  Performance is much more complex and integrates multiple variables, some of which are known and some which aren’t.  The exact connection or relative importance of each variable isn’t perfectly clear.  Focusing exclusively on one variable may potentially be detrimental to another critical variable, although this might not be immediately obvious.  I am interested in improving my performance on workouts that have been shown to positively affect my 2K time.  I don’t have to worry about what percentage of the workout is aerobic vs. anaerobic or what my HR response is or how much lactate I’m producing or which muscle fibers are being activated.  My performance as measured by pace for the various workouts is the best and most accurate information available to insure steady progress without overtraining.  Anything else would just provide incomplete or conflicting or misleading information.<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sorry, Francois, I don't see the relevance of Mike's comments at all. <br /><br />I am not obsessing about my anaerobic threshold. I am just moving from UT1 rowing to AT rowing (Level 2, etc.), which is done in and around the anaerobic threshold. <br /><br />Cardiovascularly, my long stepping routines are similar to long, hard level 3 rows. <br /><br />And yes, hard level 3 rows/routines are nice preparation for long intervals (level 2 rows) and distance trials.<br /><br />I will also be doing level 3 rows from now on while going lighter on the level 4 trudging.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Anaerobic threshold" seems to be, at best, a nebulous moving target. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Then chuck it! Who cares? Getting your heart rate up into the 170s during a good portion of a two-hour session, especially if you are 55-years-old, is not a nebulous goal at all. It is pretty darn clear.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 10 2005, 07:10 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 10 2005, 07:10 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Anaerobic threshold" seems to be, at best, a nebulous moving target. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Then chuck it! Who cares? Getting your heart rate up into the 170s during a good portion of a two-hour session, especially if you are 55-years-old, is not a nebulous goal at all. It is pretty darn clear.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Rich, I was just teasing you! <br /><br />Getting one's HR up into the 170s during a good portion of a two-hour session is hard work even for younger people!<br /><br />I am looking at the book <i>Daniels' Running Formula</i> by Dr. Jack Daniels. In the section for 5K to 15K training, the longest run at threshold pace is 45 minutes, most of the time, it is shorter. For instance, someone with a 10 k run PB of 40:00 (4:00 min/k) would run at a threshold pace of 4:09.<br /><br />He mentions that the proper pace for threshold is about 83 to 88 percent of VO2max, or 88 to 92 percent of maximum HR. It is a pace that you could race at for 50 to 60 minutes. He goes on saying that this is one of the most productive type of training that distance runners can do.<br />You would definitely enjoy that book!<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Francois<br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am looking at the book Daniels' Running Formula by Dr. Jack Daniels. In the section for 5K to 15K training, the longest run at threshold pace is 45 minutes, most of the time, it is shorter. For instance, someone with a 10 k run PB of 40:00 (4:00 min/k) would run at a threshold pace of 4:09.<br /><br />He mentions that the proper pace for threshold is about 83 to 88 percent of VO2max, or 88 to 92 percent of maximum HR. It is a pace that you could race at for 50 to 60 minutes. He goes on saying that this is one of the most productive type of training that distance runners can do. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Interesting stuff. Sounds exactly right.<br /><br />If 172 bpm is about 90% of my maximum heart rate, that would put my maximum just over 190 bpm somewhere. That's just about right, I think.<br /><br />Yes, I feel I can go for 45 minutes or so at my threshold, so just about what is needed to do an hour row.<br /><br />Interestingly, Eskild E.'s favorite row is a hard hour.<br /><br />When I began rowing, I just did a hard hour row, once or twice a day, for two years. Nothing else on the erg. Sometimes an hour of stepping instead of a second hour of erging. Over vacations, sometimes an hour of erging _and_ an hour of stepping, twice a day, four hours in all. <br /><br />Over this time, I brought the pace of this hour row down about 15 seconds per 500, from 2:05 or so to 1:50. After a bit of sharpening, I rowed 6:27.5 for 2K in my first race, four seconds or so under the 50s lwt WR. <br /><br />I imagine that, as time went on, during these hour rows, I just would row as fast as I could without stopping, that is, up to my anaerobic threshold.<br /><br />Since I had done distance running all of my life, I was very used to going along at my anaerobic threshold. No one needs to tell me where it is!<br /><br />Good session. Row at your anaerobic threshold for an hour. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am looking at a Jack Daniels. You would definitely enjoy that! </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I would.<br /><br />Should I pour, or will you do the honors?<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 10 2005, 11:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 10 2005, 11:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Dec 10 2005, 04:26 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 10 2005, 04:26 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*EDIT: 200 [sorry for the typo], which is roughly 5 standard deviations above the maximum heart rate of 170 predicted for 54-year-olds by the 208- (age * 0.7) formula that has supplanted the old 220-age rubric.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Such formulas are not accurate.<br /><br />For example, I could guess that you're "around 100 - 55 years of age", and I'd usually be within 20 or 30 years or so. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of accuracy within limits?! It's well established, basic statistics.<br /><br />68% of a normal sample should fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. 95% should fall within 2 standard deviations, and 99% within three. One standard deviation for the 208-(age * .07) formula is about 6 bpm. Thus 99% of the time, a 54-year-old ought to have a MHR somewhere between 152 and 188. The point is that if Ranger's MHR really is 200 bpm, it's at the outer, outer fringe of the statistically likely.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 10 2005, 11:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 10 2005, 11:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example, I could guess that you're "around 100 - 55 years of age", and I'd usually be within 20 or 30 years or so.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Dec 10 2005, 01:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 10 2005, 01:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->68% of a normal sample should fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean.  95% should fall within 2 standard deviations, and 99% within three. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Then I've just discovered a new formula! <br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 10 2005, 08:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 10 2005, 08:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 10 2005, 05:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 10 2005, 05:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does the Stepper require you to enter your bodyweight?  If not, there is no way it can accurately calculate Watts[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />The erg doesn't either. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You should have finished reading the sentence you quoted, the source of resistance on the Erg is the Flywheel, bodyweight does not matter. Though it would for calories which is why the Erg calorie calculation is not exactly what we would call "accurate", unless you are a 170lb male.<br /><br />Back to your reading comprehension lessons....

[[old] H_2O]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 10 2005, 04:29 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 10 2005, 04:29 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good session. Row at your anaerobic threshold for an hour. <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Don't do it!<br />The hour past 17K was a big goal of mine and pretty far out of reach even when I tried it. Miraculously it happened.<br /><br />Immediately thereafter my shape started declining and hasn't looked back since<br />despite all efforts at reversing the deterioration (such as high volume, low spm rowing, 2 marathons, certainly enough base building combined with rows at the AT etc).<br /><br />I think your best bet now are rows at 1:40 building up to 10 mins and fast 1Ks at 1:35. Xeno's threshold work was 3 times 7 mins max pace at 22, 24 or 26 spm.<br />26 spm should be about 1:41 for you.<br /><br />All other work very low intensity (like 180 Watts on the stepper).<br />Let your body recover!<br />You have to be totally recovered by January 21.<br />I think less is now more.<br /><br />I would also completely forget about SPI for now and until all the races are over.<br />The SPI was the only thing that improved while I was going downhill more and more. In fact I am now perfectly on target as regards SPI such as spm 24 the natural stroke rate at 300 Watts. Unfortunately now I can maintain 300 Watts only for 20 minutes --- on a good day.

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 10 2005, 11:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 10 2005, 11:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 10 2005, 08:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 10 2005, 08:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 10 2005, 05:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 10 2005, 05:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does the Stepper require you to enter your bodyweight?  If not, there is no way it can accurately calculate Watts[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />The erg doesn't either. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You should have finished reading the sentence you quoted, the source of resistance on the Erg is the Flywheel, bodyweight does not matter. Though it would for calories which is why the Erg calorie calculation is not exactly what we would call "accurate", unless you are a 170lb male.<br /><br />Back to your reading comprehension lessons.... <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Paul,<br /><br />I view most of John's posts as nothing more than background noise. It should not prevent us, normal people, to carry on with our discusions. Let us just ignore the little cheeping bird!<br /><br />Cheers

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 10 2005, 03:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 10 2005, 03:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the source of resistance on the Erg is the Flywheel, bodyweight does not matter.  [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />What do you use to counteract the resistance of the flywheel then.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 10 2005, 04:04 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 10 2005, 04:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 10 2005, 03:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 10 2005, 03:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the source of resistance on the Erg is the Flywheel, bodyweight does not matter.  [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />What do you use to counteract the resistance of the flywheel then. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The same thing I use to generate the resistance, muscular contraction. What do you use? Are you implying that if an athlete weighs more that they are at a disadvantage on the Erg and you lighties have an advantage? Surely not?<br /><br />FranciosA, No worries; John and I go way back, he's easy to handle once you get the hang of it. I'm happy to give him all the rope he wants.

[[old] george nz]

<!--QuoteBegin-H_2O+Dec 11 2005, 12:46 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(H_2O @ Dec 11 2005, 12:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think your best bet now are rows at 1:40 building up to 10 mins and fast 1Ks at 1:35.  Xeno's threshold work was 3 times 7 mins max pace at 22, 24 or 26 spm.<br />26 spm should be about 1:41 for you.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />H_20, no point in trying to introduce logic at this stage I have already asked the question:<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(george nz @ Dec 6 2005, 02:53 PM)<br />Ranger with only about 6 weeks to your first race I would have thought you would have been gradually reducing the distance work and upping the intensity - when is the speed work coming in?<br /><br />tks George </td></tr></table><br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't reduce the extent of my training as I approach a race. In my three WR rows, I just trained right through, doing a steady 4-5 hours a day.<br /><br />I even do this on race day. I warm up for about three hours before I race (1000 sit ups, an hour of skipping, 15K of erging).<br /><br />ranger </td></tr></table><br /><br />George