The Ranger Plan/ranger Way

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 23rd, 2005, 4:47 pm

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place first time. A few tidbits that I've gleaned from a different thread include these basic parts of the Plan. A particularly nice schedule, I think, especially for beginners, is two two-hour sessions a day, with each session consisting of an hour row on the erg and an hour on the stepper. The "plan," if you want to call it that, is just relaxation, enjoyment, and quantity over quality (for quite some time, to begin with), not "racing" anything, albeit on a very regular schedule. Comments? Additions? Rick

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 23rd, 2005, 5:18 pm

A particularly nice schedule, I think, especially for beginners, is two two-hour sessions a day, with each session consisting of an hour row on the erg and an hour on the stepper. ranger, This seems like an extraordinarily heavy workload for an experienced athlete, let alone a beginner. I realize that you seem to be able to do this, and that you can get by on only six hours of sleep per night. I would hazard a guess that less than 1%-3% of the rest of the population could do it without quickly becoming ill or injured, or both. If you're fishing for compliments I'll grant you that I am jealous of your ability to maintain the workload and sleep so little. In that respect I have ranger-envy. I can't do either. Other than you, is there any other proof that this works? I've never known of any top athletes either from erging or distance running that didn't follow a more rounded program. When LSD (long slow distance) first gained popularity with runners there were a few from interval backgrounds who briefly got better when switching, but quickly lost those gains and ceased to be top runners when they were so sold on the idea that they quit doing faster work. Rick

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » September 24th, 2005, 2:25 pm

I am really interested in Ranger's perspective here. He notes on the other thread that he does his "easy" and long rows at HR 150 - 160. Assuming a resting heart rate of 40 and maximal heart rate of 170 that will peg the workout at 85 - 92% of maximal heart rate. That seems way too high for an easy workout. The bad thing is I have bought into the faith of stroke restricted training also (and see some benefits) and likewise I experience similar heart rates. I get this rowing 1:51 @ 23 spm for an hour. It does not quite hit 160 and stays there if I go on for 90 mins. It gets me to 85% of maximum heart rate easily. It does not feel like an easy row at all and is in fact much too slow for 23 spm and my 2K ambitions. It is a row under full concentration. What worries me is that if we adopt such a regimen there will be no easy rows at all (ie. rows where you might think of maintaining a sparse conversation). My resolution of the problem is to row less and do the easy stuff on the cycling ergometer. Ranger, where are you. What actually are your resting and maximal heart rates and what do you think of rowing at 85 - 90% of maximal heart rate? Might this not be too hard.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 24th, 2005, 5:26 pm

I don't know my maximal heart rate, but I have seen 185 bpm before on my PM2 (at the end of my 60min trial, which I finished below 1:40 pace for the last 1K). I assume my maximum heart rate might be a bit above that, around 190 bpm. My anaerobic threshold seems to be 172 bpm. I rowed my 60min pb with my heart rate flat at that. I have done a lot of heart rate monitoring, and I find that the training bands recommended by most training plans fit me as well. I like to go on long training runs with a heart rate of about 145 bpm. That's about exactly 70% HRR. I do my stepping at about this, too, with a gentle rise at the end each session to the lower 150s. Today, I ended 70 minutes of stepping at 300 watts (a good bit of work, that) with a heart rate of 153 bpm. I think I will be able to extend this stepping routine to two hours at 300 watts with a comparable heart rate. This is UT2 work. I haven't tracked my heart rate in a marathon trial, but I certainly will the next time I do one. Paul Flack says that he likes to hold to about 155 bpm. I suspect that's what I would need to do, too. This is a UT2 heart rate, too. I think I could now do a marathon at 1:50 and 21 spm with a heart rate of about that. I am hoping to get to 1:48 and 22 spm before I do a trial. I try to do my daily rowing with a heart rate of about 155 bpm, perhaps rising a bit above that at the end. This is about 75% HRR. You are right that long bouts of high power low spm rowing quickly spike the heart rate, especially if you are not used to it. To counter this, I have been taking short breaks (of a few seconds) when I need them in order to keep my heart rate comfortable. I find this works nicely. Improvement still continues apace. The breaks don't interfere with the effect of the training, which is largely muscular habituation. As you get muscularly adapted to this sort of rowing, your heart rate settles down and the rowing gets more and more continiuous, at least that has been my experience. Working hard on technique seems to be important in this sort of rowing, or at least it has been for me. As my technique has gotten better and better (e.g., as I have been able to lower the drag further and further, and use length and timing instead of strength to generate wattage), this rowing has gotten both better and easier. I now row at 100 df. I wouldn't consider anything higher. My ability to row long distances at high power depends crucially on rowing at this low drag. If you are rowing at a higher drag (130 df., 150 df., etc.), you are not doing the same sort of work in the same way. You need to get more efficient with your technique. The four hours of daily work I did when I took up rowing was at a much lower intensity than the work I am doing now. When I started, I rowed an hour at about 2:05 pace and then did an hour of stepping at about 200 watts. This is not that hard at all for those who are used to doing some physical work. I suspect my heart rate stayed around 120-130 bpm. I also like to jump rope and bike for long periods, as an alternative to stepping. My heart beats at about 110 bpm when I do these. This is _very_ easy work (but very good muscular conditioning, etc.). When I lost 30 pounds from April-August 2002, I combined all of these things (stepping, skipping, biking, erging), and running, too, and did 6 hours of physical work a day, every day, for four months. Doing this much work, the weight came off easily. I also like sit ups, and for these, I use the same strategy. I do them for an hour. I do about 1000 sit ups in an hour. Great for the core muscles. For a long, long time, perhaps a couple of years (2001-2003), I did 1000 sit ups a day. I only do this occasionally now, just to see that I still can. I still like to do this sit up routine during racing season, though. Before I race, I do about three hours of exercise. I jump rope for an hour, do 1000 sit ups, and warm up for about 15K on the erg. Nothing worse that doing a 2K when you are not warmed up! I agree with Rick entirely that doing four hours of mild work with a heart rate of 110-130 bpm is not enough work (or enough work of the right kind) to prepare you for a quality 2K. What it prepares you for, though, is a gradual increase in the quantity and quality of the work you are able to do in your training. As I reported, over two years, I brought my hour rows down from 2:05 to 1:50. I often finished these hour rows at 1:48. When I finally raced an hour, I rowed the whole hour at 1:48, but as I have mentioned, with a heart rate flat at 172 bpm, just below my anaerobic threshold (about 85% HRR). I never rowed my daily hour rows this fast, though. I would usually start out easily at 1:56 or so and slowly build toward 1:48. Yes, I worked hard at the end of the rows, but only there, really. During this time, once, I rowed 80K at 1:56. You can't do this with a high heart rate. At this time, I rowed 2:00 pace with a heart rate of 125 bpm. The more work you do, the more work you can do. I suppose that is the essence of my training plan. Build a large base. Then when you are ready to work _really_ hard, you are able to. The bigger the base, the bigger the peak. This year, too, I won't start sharpening until I can comfortably handle two hours on the erg (now, rowing at 12.5 SPI) and two hours on the stepper (at 300 watts). If you have this kind of base, sharpening isn't a torture chamber. It's fun. You finally get to go fast and see what you can do (relative to others and your former selves). With a big base to draw on, you have the physical resources to manage sharpening comfortably and enjoyably. When I started rowing in the winter of 1999, after rowing just long distances and cross-training for two years, I rowed a 2K in 6:42 in the summer of 2001. When I finally sharpened in the fall of 2001 (for the first time), doing a couple of months of standard intervals and distance trials, in a CRASH-B quaifier, I rowed 6:27.5 in my first 2K race. I rowed 6:28.5 at the 2002 CRASH-Bs. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 24th, 2005, 5:35 pm

One more thought. What is "easy" and what is "hard" is a matter of judgment and personal taste. I like physical work (as I have mentioned, the more, the merrier), and rowing is a lot of physical work. No reason to row (competitively) if you don't like a lot of physical work. To most people on the street, rowing is (impossibly) hard. Then again, they are on the street. They aren't sitting in a boat or on an erg. If you are looking for (categorically) "easy" workouts that will get you to a quality 2K, you are living on a cloud. Good luck with that one! ranger

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » September 24th, 2005, 7:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 24 2005, 09:26 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think I could now do a marathon at 1:50 and 21 spm. </td></tr></table> Ranger, This would yield a time of 2:34:43 for your marathon. It would be a WR! In fact if would be the fastest time ever posted by a lightweight, save for 26 years old Gjermund Soerstad who did it in 2:33:05.8. This would be indeed be very impressive! Your training regimen seems perfectly appropriate for those long distances, and base on the progress you are making , your goal seems achievable in the very near future. Go for it! My personal experience with training 4 hours a day has been that I couldn't maintain my top speed and strength. My times for short swim events, as well as 1K run were slower than when I was training more intensely, but only 2 hours a day. That was the sense of my previous comment that your training plan might not be optimal for most people that want to focus exclusively on the 2K event. I am sorry if I have offended you with my previous post; that was certainly not the intention. Regards

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 3:48 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My personal experience with training 4 hours a day has been that I couldn't maintain my top speed and strength. My times for short swim events, as well as 1K run were slower than when I was training more intensely, but only 2 hours a day. That was the sense of my previous comment that your training plan might not be optimal for most people that want to focus exclusively on the 2K event. I am sorry if I have offended you with my previous post; that was certainly not the intention. </td></tr></table> I am not sure that rowing and running/swimming (which I have done a lot of, both competitively and not) are the same at all. Rowing is a full body exercise based on habituation to the production of a cycle of high power and then complete relaxation (every 2-3 seconds). This isn't what running and swimming are about! Rowing is also not a weight-bearing exercise, like running. You are sitting down. This makes training for rowing a different affair. You can do more work with less damage (to ankles, knees, tendons, etc.). If I understand what I hear, cyclists put in _way_ more time per day than rowers, and at a high level of work. I read the other day that Lance does his long 6 hour rides at 285 watts. At the moment, I am doing work at about the same power with my long stepping and rowing (but not anywhere near six hours straight!). The _very_ odd thing about rowing, I think, is that it seems to be distance neutral. By and large, in rowing, the best marathoners are also the best milers. In the 50s lwts, for instance, the marathon WR is held by Graham Watt, the 2K WR holder. Eskild E. does 18K for a 60min row. And so forth. If Mike C. got so he could row a marathon at 1:48 when he was building up to setting his 40s lwt 2K WR, I suspect that would have been a WR for 40s lwts, too, if he had been interesting in officially doing it. I repeat: If done at the level that I am doing it now, the long rowing and cross-training I am suggesting is indeed very hard to achieve, if you have high standards. But both my recommendation that this is the best way to train and the level of the standards I am suggesting are not idiosyncratic at all. They are just standard advice. In fact, my standards seem to still be too low! For example, if I want to row a 6:20 2K, the C2 manual suggests that, if I am interested in getting the best training base, which I am, I need to be able to row 1:50 @ 20 spm for 20K at a heart rate of 145 bpm for the initial UT2 phrase of my training. Not an easy thing, that! So I have been working hard to try to get there. I use the cross-training and additional rowing with hard work on technique as a supplementary means to generate improvement and movement upward toward these UT2 standards. Ironically, most people just ignore this standard advice about getting a quality base for their training and start sprinting and racing as soon as possible. Then they say that those who follow this standard advice are idiosyncratic or foolish! Go figure. We can all do what we want with our training. I am just pitching in my two cents about what I like to do and why it works for me (in relation to what is suggested in standard training manuals). Take it or leave it. However, there is little reason to question whether it is (1) possible, if so, (2) effective, and when so, (3) corroborated by others. What I am doing is the wisdom of the ages in rowing, and as to whether it is both possible and effective, here I stand to say that it is. Training in this way for the last five years or so, I have enjoyed the highest health and well being. I have never been seriously injured, sick, or stale; few rowers have been more consistently successful; and I continue to get great fun and satisfaction out of my training. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 4:06 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When LSD (long slow distance) first gained popularity with runners there were a few from interval backgrounds who briefly got better when switching, but quickly lost those gains and ceased to be top runners when they were so sold on the idea that they quit doing faster work. </td></tr></table> Rick-- Running and rowing are very different (see my note above). I don't know all of the details, but as I understand, there have been long eras in the history of rowing that have been suddenly and consistently dominated by rowers who have trained with long rowing at low rates. Perhaps someone can fill us in about these eras. I think it is just the sensibility and ethics of the times that resist this sort of training. People just don't want to spend their time this way, and even so, find it boring and unsatisfying. They just prefer to do a few minutes a day sprinting, crunching numbers, and bragging about the results to their buddies. Don't know for sure, but the reason for this seems to be more sociological and psychological than physical. Modernism? The lonely crowd? To each his own. I am not a big fan of this modernist sensibility and ethic--or its pathologies. I like long, steady state work; I don't have any anxiety about feedback; and I don't associate physical work with number crunching, self-consciousness, and a kind of competitive sociality. Just the opposite. For me, long bouts of physical activity are passive and ecstatically unconscious. The ethic and sensibility is entirely different than the ethic and sensibility of modernism. It is just an enjoyment of physicality and the sensibility and ethic that naturally accompanies it. ranger

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 25th, 2005, 8:12 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 25 2005, 08:06 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Rick-- Running and rowing are very different (see my note above). I don't have any anxiety about feedback. ranger </td></tr></table> While running and rowing are indeed different in some ways (I'm in agreement about the best 2km ergers generally being the best erg marathoners) the principle you espoused of quantitiy over quality has the same application. So far I know of only one (1) case of someone getting to the top that way. You. On the other hand I've known of thousands who have gotten to the top with more rounded programs that included AN, TR, AT, Intervals, Tempo, etc work along with the longer, slower endurance base work. As for the second part that I've quoted above, I think that you may be fooling yourself. Six straight last-minute bailouts of races that you had entered and boasted of great results to come seems like anxiety about feedback to me. Perhaps by avoiding anxiety in your daily training you have become ill-equiped to handle it when it counts the most? Rick

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 9:25 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As for the second part that I've quoted above, I think that you may be fooling yourself. Six straight last-minute bailouts of races that you had entered and boasted of great results to come seems like anxiety about feedback to me. Perhaps by avoiding anxiety in your daily training you have become ill-equiped to handle it when it counts the most? </td></tr></table> Recently, I have been learning a new stroke. I used to row at 200 df. I now row at 100 df. My stroke mechanics are now entirely different than they used to be. It has been a signficant project to undo one sort of habituation and train up another. This retraining has only come around completely over the last few months. In all, it has taken over two years to complete. This change in my erging brings into alignment my rowing on the water in my 1x with my rowing on the erg. Given my long-term intentions with rowing, this is more important to me than day-to-day racing on the erg. Apparently, on this point, what you are interested in and what I am interested in are not at all the same. Have you tried rowing on the water? Great stuff. Rowing with my other stroke I had no problem getting ready to race and the results were (repeatedly!) as I predicted. I assume that I will again have no problem with getting ready to race, once I have full command of this new technique; and I assume that, when this time comes, the results will again be as I have predicted. These things take time and a good bit of patience. I am in no rush. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 9:36 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>On the other hand I've known of thousands who have gotten to the top with more rounded programs that included AN, TR, AT, Intervals, Tempo, etc work along with the longer, slower endurance base work. </td></tr></table> "Thousands"? That's pretty hyperbolic. In rowing, there are only fifty or so world record holders. That's a pretty small set. When everything else is in place, I do almost exclusively AT, TR, and AN work on the erg during the sharpening phase of my rowing. Always have. I sharpen for about two months before I race. It brings down my 2K time about 15 seconds. During this time, I do easier (UT) work cross-training, not erging. Today, I did 20K of fartleks at 1:40 and 28 spm. Tomorrow, I am going to do some Zatopek 500s at 1:40 and 28 spm. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 9:39 am

For UT2 work today, after I erged, I took a 30 mile bike ride (on the road), 20 mph. ranger

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 25th, 2005, 10:11 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 25 2005, 01:36 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>On the other hand I've known of thousands who have gotten to the top with more rounded programs that included AN, TR, AT, Intervals, Tempo, etc work along with the longer, slower endurance base work. </td></tr></table> "Thousands"? That's pretty hyperbolic. In rowing, there are only fifty or so world record holders. That's a pretty small set. ranger </td></tr></table> Actually I don't think that it is hyperbole. I've been following training programs through reading since 1965, first the top runners, then for the past six years the top ergers/rowers. I don't limit it to world record holders. For instance, guys like Pinsent, Cracknell, Xeno, etc have not held the world record yet I'd consider them top rowers/ergers. Likewise Steve Warner and Gabe Winkler in the lightweights. Only 25 per year over the 40 years would be a thousand, and I'd guess that I've read up on more than that. Anyway, I don't want to bog down this thread. Except for starting it to get things rolling I've only answered what you've directed at me. There are others who genuinely like you and want to discuss how and why you do things. My hope was that it could be done here rather than getting lost in the threads about other subjects. Cheers (really), Rick

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 11:58 am

Rick-- I am not sure that you addressed my comments about my AT, TR, and AN rowing. Things like the WP recommend 70-80% Level 4 (distance based, low spm, UT rowing) and 20-30% rowing at levels 1-3, organized in a constant rotation. I do 10 months of Level 4-like rowing and 2 months of rowing that is like levels 1-3; or sometimes five months of one and then one month of the other, done twice a year. You claim that everyone who has gotten to the top trains in a constant rotation like the WP and not (e.g., as the C2 plan suggests) a larger cycle that includes preparation, pre-competition, competition, and transition? The C2 plan suggests only 12 weeks of competition training. The rest is transition (cross-training), preparation (UT2), and pre-competition (UT1) rowing. Perhaps I am missing something here, but what I do is pretty darn close to the C2 plan, at least in overall design. Are you saying that the C2 plan doesn't have anything to do with the training behavior of the "thousands" of top rowers out there? How could that be? ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 25th, 2005, 12:40 pm

BTW, re beginners, I have a case close at hand. Since he came home from his summer work, my son, who is 21 and just graduated from college, has taken up rowing. He used to just row for a few minutes, but since he was doing it daily, I suggested that he slowly lengthen his rows, until he got to an hour. Well, he is now there (after only a couple of weeks). He rows for an hour at about 22 spm and 2:12. suppo