Given The Choice..

[[old] John Rupp]

Maybe if you rowed with COMPLETE good technique you'd row 6:10?<br /><br />Considering the stroke includes drive AND recovery, not just drive, and taking a look at various techniques, with 1 being "best" and 4 being "worst", we get the following:<br /><br />(1) long flowing stroke with balanced recovery and high rate <br />-- Top 3 lightweights in the world;<br /><br />(2) long flowing stroke with balanced recovery and low/er rate (32-36 spm)<br />-- Top heavyweights such as Graham Benton and others<br />-- Siejowski rated 37 spm in his heavyweight world record;<br /><br />(3) short quick drive and long recovery at high rating;<br />(4) short quick drive and long recovery at low rating.<br /><br />Your 1:48 at 22 spm, what is that all about? Are you going to race at 1:48 pace? Doing that at 70% is certainly outstanding, but shouldn't the bulk of your special training be at the pace and rating you are aiming for?<br /><br />If I row 3x 8k at 2k +9, is that really going to help my 2k all that much? Sure it does help my endurance and my base etc. But I think not so much for the 2k, as rowing at 2k pace is entirely different than rowing at 2k +9 or 2k + 11. Don't you think so?<br /><br />Do you discount the method of rowing and racing as used by the top 3 lightweights in the world?

[[old] ranger]

John--<br /><br />One of the major factors in going fast is pulling hard. The top lightweights pull at 12.5 SPI. You don't even mention this. Why?<br /><br />Rowing at low stroke rates habituates the body to pulling hard. It builds rowing specific musculature and the CV support needed to row at 12.5 SPI (or 15 SPI, as in Dwayne's case) without even breathing (e.g., at 70% MHR) for long periods (e.g., a marathon). As all the authorities recognize, this is the _foundation_ of training for rowing.<br /><br />O.K. <br /><br />You are a lightweight but row about a minute slower than the best for 2K. Why? <br /><br />It couldn't be because you can't row with a long, flowing stroke with balanced recovery and high rate. You certainly could. It couldn't be because you can't row with a long, flowing stroke with balancedd reocvery and a lower rate. You certainly could. It couldn't be because you couldn't row with a short quick stroke and a long recovery at a high rating. You certainly could. And it couldn't be because you couldn't row with a short quick stroke and a long reccovery at a lower rating. You certainly could.<br /><br />The major reason I would say, is that that you can't row at a decently high SPI for 90 minutes (or a marathon) at a low heart rate (e.g., 70% MHR). Your rowing has no foundation. This is why the 30min at 20 spm test is such a basic one for the British team, etc. It demonstrates what is needed by the best rowers--aerobic capacity with high stroking power and significant guts to use these resources to the max. Regardless of what you might be pulling for 2K at the moment (for other reasons), a high score on the 30min at 20 spm test is a good _predictor_ of your rowing potential. An easier and perhaps more universally usable indicator, I think, would be your UT2 pace (i.e., pace at 70% MHR and 22 spm). <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-->Do you discount the method of rowing and racing as used by the top 3 lightweights in the world? </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, not at all. I can see it plain as day and have been trying to do the same for the last two years: They all row at about 12.5 SPI. Impressive! I rowed my 6:28 at 10 SPI, much, much lower. On the other hand, I rowed at amost exactly their stroke rate, especially in my first race, when I rowed my pb, 6:27.5, in 2001.<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-->Your 1:48 at 22 spm, what is that all about? </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am training not racing. And again, you misrepresent what I am doing in my training.<br /><br />I am not just rowoing 1:48 at 22 spm. I am trying to learn to row 1:48 at 22 spm _and 70% MHR_. The _last_ specification is the important one. It is the measure of _efficiency_. I am learning to be efficient. <br /><br />Or you might put it this way: I am learning to row!<br /><br /> <br /><br />You should try to learn to row, too, John.<br /><br />It's fun.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jan 23 2005, 03:37 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 23 2005, 03:37 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most people lose strength as they age, whereas CV based on that strength is maintained through the later decades.  Note there are many marathon runners in their 60's, 70's, and 80's, who maintain a great percentage of their top speed (strength).  <br /><br />The limitation with age, in almost all cases, is strength, not CV capacity. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />No here we go, this should not be allowed to slip by without notice. The above does reflect what many experts have suggested for Masters athletes. Another component that is discussed in Masters Rowing in particular is that since we have such a technique dependent sport, that the older athlete can counter the change in strength by optimizing technique. <br /><br />Too bad it has been framed as a disagreement between Ranger and John, because Ranger seems to be following the desired pattern even if he has stated the aging effects the other way around. He doesn't seem to be quite the average bear.<br /><br />Of course if the younger, stronger athletes focus on the same issues then the old farts still won't stand a chance, however until that happens there may be room for a new truism:<br /><br />Age and skill will overcome youth and strength. (not to mention the traditional handicapping system) <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--> Another component that is discussed in Masters Rowing in particular is that since we have such a technique dependent sport, that the older athlete can counter the change in strength by optimizing technique.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well...<br /><br />Whoopty do, if this is the case, because I haven't lost of whit of strength. I _know_ that I have lost of aerobic capacity, though. So I guess I am just speaking for myself in claiming that this is the major problem. <br /><br />It appears that I haven't lost of _lot_ of aerobic capacity, either, though.<br /><br />Hmmm.<br /><br /> <br /><br />So what's my excuse for being so slow?<br /><br />Inexperience.<br /><br />I need to put in a few billion more meters. Improves the efficiency.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

From the last posts you made regarding progress in your boat, it didn't seem you needed any excuse for being "so slow". <br /><br />But yes, time on the water pays off big.<br /><br />I think there are a couple of books by people who started in boats late in life and were very successful very quickly.

[[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-->From the last posts you made regarding progress in your boat, it didn't seem you needed any excuse for being "so slow".  <br /><br />But yes, time on the water pays off big.<br /><br />I think there are a couple of books by people who started in boats late in life and were very successful very quickly.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul--<br /><br />Just talking the erg at the moment, but you are right that being in the boat helps with the erg (in addition to helping with the boat!). <br /><br />The process I am in right now is just building rowing specific musculature. Unfortunately, this takes time. As the right muscles develop, efficiency (i.e., faster pace with less effort) increases. My gluts, hams, and quads are getting much stronger, as are my lats. I am starting to build the kind of leverage needed to row easily at high power and low drag. <br /><br />With my old stroke, I just upped the drag and used the leverage I already had from swimming, running, canoeing, and skating, using a high rate to build up wattage. Works to a point, but only to a point. I would guess this is what Graham Watt is doing now.<br /><br />I might not catch Mr. Watt this year (and then again...) but I think I'll catch him/his times before the next year is up. Another 10 million meters at 1:48 and 22 spm, and I will _really_ be ready to go for it at higher rates come sharpening and racing.<br /><br />Building the engine, building the engine.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. Yes, I can already buzz along for short bursts at a good clip in my 1x, but not with very good relaxation and endurance yet. Perhaps some of these other things will come along this next year. I might also try my first races. _That_ will be exciting.

[[old] GeorgeD]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 25 2005, 08:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 25 2005, 08:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />I might not catch Mr. Watt this year (and then again...) but I think I'll catch him/his times before the next year is up. Another 10 million meters at 1:48 and 22 spm, and I will _really_ be ready to go for it at higher rates come sharpening and racing.<br /><br />Building the engine, building the engine.<br /><br />ranger<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ranger you have been building the engine now for a long time, as we have been told many times, hours of no doubt very hard training. <br /><br />By my reckoning Boston is just over 3 weeks away and by now you should I would have thought dropped your milage significantly and increased the intensity significantly and doing much faster work and yes some race pace work, in preparation. In 2 weeks time you would be looking to taper for the event so that leaves only 2 more weeks of opportunity to sharpen up, develop the taste for speed and get that rate up.<br /><br />You have continually given (the term berated could be used) the likes of Pete Marston advice on what he should be doing to prepare for improving his 2k time - however if that day never comes then what is the point. You by posts have given us an insight into the many hours of training you do each day - but why if it is always 'tomorrow' that the day of reckoning will come.<br /><br />I agree with much of what you say, (not all), but given what you have put in these last 18months and more if you are not ready to go to Boston and smash (not just beat) that world record then I sincerely believe it is you that needs to rethink your methodology.<br /><br />This is post is not meant to deride or malign or impugn you personally (as I have never scaled the heights you have - yet), but it is my honest assesment of your situation.<br /><br />- George

[[old] Coach Gus]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 24 2005, 11:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 24 2005, 11:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I might not catch Mr. Watt this year (and then again...) but I think I'll catch him/his times before the next year is up. Another 10 million meters at 1:48 and 22 spm, and I will _really_ be ready to go for it at higher rates come sharpening and racing. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Since it doesn't sound like you think you'll be ready to race for months, is this an indication that you will not be rowing at the CRASH-Bs?

[[old] hwt]

<!--QuoteBegin-Coach Gus+Jan 24 2005, 03:31 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Coach Gus @ Jan 24 2005, 03:31 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Since it doesn't sound like you think you'll be ready to race for months, is this an indication that you will not be rowing at the CRASH-Bs? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />tsk,tsk,tsk - it seems there's a dead horse over on this thread now too.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--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-->Rowing at low stroke rates habituates the body to pulling hard.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes but I think that is not a good thing. You are strong but you are pulling actually way too hard for your pace. You are pulling hard enough to go a 6:03 for the 2k, but you are not rowing that fast. Thus I think aiming for a high spi in your training is counterproductive.<br /><br />My weakness is obviously strength. I am hardly able to 1 or 2 pull ups. You say that low rate rowing builds your muscles, but does it really make you stronger than if you rowed regular rates? Beyond that, does it make you faster for the 2k than if you rowed regular rates?<br /><br />You will probably never know the answers to those questions, because you rarely row regular rates in your training.<br /><br />You say my rowing has no foundation. However my distance times BASED ON MY STRENGTH are much more enduring than yours. So your statement is false. I have a great foundation, better than yours, but do not have the same strength.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jan 24 2005, 06:49 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 24 2005, 06:49 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You say my rowing has no foundation.  However my distance times BASED ON MY STRENGTH are much more enduring than yours.  So your statement is false.  I have a great foundation, better than yours, but do not have the same strength. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />All hail the ex-powerlifter that has apparently lost all strength, however, compensating for that, has the most "enduring" distance times!<br /><br />Last time I checked you both are 50 something Lightweights, what is this magical "strength compensation" variable?<br /><br />Seems like it might be useful if it could be put into wide acceptance, i.e. "Yes, we know that guy finished after everyone else was showered, but he's weak, actually VERY weak, so once that is taken into account he can not be beat." <br /><br />Anyway, hasn't leveling your Erg rail made up for that lack of strength? You certainly don't have to lift your mass up the incline any longer.

[[old] John Rupp]

Paul,<br /><br />I did compete at weightlifting (not powerlifting) for a year or two in my 20's.<br /><br />There isn't a strength compensation variable, that I know of? More strength would certainly be nice to have. <br /><br />I think the low rates do not build strength all that much. I did quite a bit of them previously, and they didn't do anything to increase my strength nor to make me faster, not even for the 500 meters.<br /><br />However they did wreak havoc with the tendons in my wrists.<br /><br />Those who are strong like Rich, can do low rates very well.<br /><br />But he was already strong before starting them.<br /><br />When you were in college, didn't you build your strength with leg presses, Paul?

[[old] John Rupp]

Paul,<br /><br />PATT shows that you are farther from the 2k WR in your division than I am in mine.<br /><br />Is it possible you are weaker than I am?<br /><br />Very interesting.<br /><br />I am also 20 pounds under the weight limit for lightweights.