What Training Have You Done Today???

[old] chickenlegs · Post by **[old] chickenlegs** » February 9th, 2005, 2:43 am

1000 m x 6, 2'30" rest. all at 1:40.0 (or barely under) @ 26 spm. next goal is to decrease rest to 2'.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 9th, 2005, 4:38 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(GeorgeD @ Feb 8 2005, 10:11 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(ranger @ Feb 9 2005, 02:56 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I agree with your claim that my potential is 6:20; I disagree with your claim that I don't know how to set up and manage the training that can get me there. </td></tr></table> Well Ranger I am sure we all admire your confidence - and you wouldn't want a coach that listed out in public 3 events you were going to compete in that you then had to pull out of - or set public goals such as hour rows at 1:44 / 25spm which is easily going to put you in the top 10 for all ages and weights for a 60min row. I would think that by then he would be saying that 6:20 will be but a formality once you have done the AT work. Then again a good coach may also not wish to create that public expectation and subsequent pressure for you to actually perform. George </td></tr></table> At this stage in life, I am just competing as a hobby. I don't belong to a national team (or whatever). Therefore, what I do in my racing has no crucial bearing on anyone or anything. If I want to race, I race. If not, not. Yes, I think that 6:20 will be a formality once I have done the AT work. Of course, I have also done two _years_ of other work on this project up to this point (and another three years of rowing before that). If it takes me another year, the whole affair will have taken _three_ years of very specific (daily, twice daily, or thrice daily) work, preceded by three years of more general, less specific work. This is quite a bit of effort and quite a long time. No flash in the pan. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 9th, 2005, 4:46 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 8 2005, 11:19 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Actually Rich has done very well left to his own devices. Where he got into trouble was getting diverted from his own devices. If there was a competition for rowing 24 spm at 1:42 pace then Rich would do very well. However that is not a competitive stroke and never ever will be a competitive stroke. It's also not very fun to think of going to a race and rowing with that kind of a background. I can understand him not wanting to compete under such circumstances and lack of preparedness. </td></tr></table> You are right that I am not yet ready to race. It is indeed hard to race at 36 spm if you have been training at 24 spm. This doesn't mean that I am not making progress in my training, though. It just means that I need more time to prepare. Yes, my training lately has been guided by what I have learned from others who know more about rowing than I do (Mike Caviston, Paul Smith, the C2 interactive Plan, etc.) rather than what I already know from my experience in other sports. Nothing wrong with this. I am not being forced into anything, though; I am choosing to follow this advice. Why? It is _good_ advice. I am stubborn and independent minded, but I am not _totally_ unable to learn! It takes a while for something/someone to convince me, especially when it is foreign to my experience and involves a pretty big change of mind, but I can indeed be convinced. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 9th, 2005, 4:54 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'>Then again a good coach may also not wish to create that public expectation and subsequent pressure for you to actually perform. </td></tr></table> Expect whatever you want to expect (or not). I am just relating what I think. Sure, I could be wrong. Then again, on parallel things, I haven't been wrong about these things so far; so there again isn't much evidence that I will be wrong this time. 50s lwts have rowed over 17K for an hour row (as have 40s lwts). Saying that I am going to do this is not at all saying that I am going to do something unprecedented. In fact, "double the d, add 3" on the basis of my 6:28 2K pb _predicts_ a 17K hour row. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 9th, 2005, 6:17 am

George-- BTW, assessments of potential ability, I think, are very different from predictions of particular performances on particular dates in particular venues. The latter often go awry for accidental reasons, but the former are pretty easy to get a handle on from performances in day-to-day training, curves of improvement, resources not yet drawn upon and applied, level of commitment, and so forth, and therefore are much more stable. For instance, when I said I thought I was going to break the lwt 50s WR in the spring of 2002, my first attempt in the fall of 2002 was a complete failure; but again, only for accidental reasons (pre-race eating and drinking, stroke rate used in the race, sharpening routines employed in training just before the race, etc.). Even when I failed on that particular day, it was clear that I was still _capable_; it just took me another try (six months lateer) to get the job done. The improvements/achievements I am predicting now (17K+ in the hour row, 6:20 2K, etc.) are on no schedule. If they happen at all, they will happen when they happen. I have no idea when that will be. Nonetheless, at the moment, all evidence suggests that they will indeed happen (at some point). ranger

[old] BIKERACER · Post by **[old] BIKERACER** » February 9th, 2005, 5:08 pm

Hello everyone. Heading out for my second erg workout which will mirror my am session: 7 minute warmup 16 minutes @ 2:07...70-73%HRR...130-135bpm 7 minute cooldown Treadmill 1 mile run @ 6.8 mph Bike 1/2 hour with 20 minutes @ 200w Later

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 9th, 2005, 7:50 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 9 2005, 12:54 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Sure, I could be wrong. Then again, on parallel things, I haven't been wrong about these things so far; so there again isn't much evidence that I will be wrong this time. </td></tr></table> Actually the evidence is that your training IS wrong. Otherwise you'd be competing, and you've said yourself that you're not ready. Therefore your training HAS been wrong. Whether it comes around in the future is a different matter. Also, yes there was evidence (that you were ready for a world record) in 2002, but there is no evidence now. Is there? Unless I'm mistaken, rowing at 1:42 pace is not the same as rowing at 1:36 pace. Is it? If it is then why aren't you racing this weekend and the next. Uh hmmmm.

[old] cforce · Post by **[old] cforce** » February 9th, 2005, 8:00 pm

Double erg today. 3x19' pyramids (57' in total) and a new speed erg the coach introduced ... 6x500m at 2k pace with 500m 'off' in between.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 10th, 2005, 2:27 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'>If there was a competition for rowing 24 spm at 1:42 pace then Rich would do very well. However that is not a competitive stroke and never ever will be a competitive stroke. </td></tr></table> You are exaggerating here. I am not trying to row 1:42 at 24 spm. I am trying to row 1:47-48 at 22-24 spm. This is indeed a competitive racing stroke. The distance is a marathon, and the training band is UT2. If I could row a marathon at 1:48 @ 22-24 spm, my training base would be set--forever--and as Jim says, I will have set a new benchmark, of consiiderable importance, in my rowing. This marathon would be 8 minutes (6 seconds per 500) faster than my current marathon pb (2:40:15), and I would gain these 8 minutes using 1776 fewer strokes. Foundational rowing. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 10th, 2005, 2:51 am

The other pattern of development for those in the 40s and 50s age groups is avoid foundational rowing, do high rate and high pace workouts aimed primarily at racing 2Ks, and as a result, slow down by 2 seconds or so per year. So, following this sort of training, given that I rowed 6:30 in the 2003 CRASH-Bs, in the 2005 CRASH-Bs, I could attend, race, and row, say, 6:34 or so this year. Woopee. Given that performance, Graham Watt could finish the race, dress, shower, and have a leisurely lunch before I finished. Mike Caviston rowed 6:18 when he was 40; at 44, he now rows 6:26. Dennis Hastings rowed 6:32 when he was 50; at 54, he now rows 6:42. Paul Hendershott rowed 6:13 when he was 51; at 61, he now rows 6:27. Andy Ripley rowed 6:07 when he was 50; at 56, he now rows 6:23. And so it goes... ranger

[old] Laupi · Post by **[old] Laupi** » February 10th, 2005, 5:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 10 2005, 01:51 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The other pattern of development for those in the 40s and 50s age groups is avoid foundational rowing, do high rate and high pace workouts aimed primarily at racing 2Ks, and as a result, slow down by 2 seconds or so per year. So, following this sort of training, given that I rowed 6:30 in the 2003 CRASH-Bs, in the 2005 CRASH-Bs, I could attend, race, and row, say, 6:34 or so this year. Woopee. Given that performance, Graham Watt could finish the race, dress, shower, and have a leisurely lunch before I finished. Mike Caviston rowed 6:18 when he was 40; at 44, he now rows 6:26. Dennis Hastings rowed 6:32 when he was 50; at 54, he now rows 6:42. Paul Hendershott rowed 6:13 when he was 51; at 61, he now rows 6:27. Andy Ripley rowed 6:07 when he was 50; at 56, he now rows 6:23. And so it goes... ranger </td></tr></table> My rowing now is 9:30 for 2k distance. Wish to get a bit faster over the next year. Do you see a chance for that following your theory. I am really hoping. Thanks

[old] zbenet · Post by **[old] zbenet** » February 11th, 2005, 12:09 am

12K @ 22SPM 46:58.2

[old] chickenlegs · Post by **[old] chickenlegs** » February 11th, 2005, 2:14 am

10 km at 1:49.0, 22 spm, no straps.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 11th, 2005, 5:27 am

Nothing substantial to report yet, but things are really getting exciting for me in my training these days. I am now pushing my distance rowing up to my anaerobic threshold (172 bpm) and 26-28 spm, and it appears that I now row 1:43 at that heart rate, down from 1:48 (at a higher rate) a couple of years ago. In my pb hour row a couple of years ago, I rowed for an hour at 1:48 with my heart rate flat at 172 bpm (I did the last 1K in 1:39 and my heart rate went up to 187 bpm by the end). Problem is: I was just a novice rower at that time, and my technique reflected that inexperience. I rowed that pb at maximal drag (220 df.?) and 32 spm, using wretched technique: a short stroke, leading with my back, that neglected both my arms and my legs. If I can indeed train myself now to row 1:43 with my heart rate flat at 172 bpm, this gain will not be from fitness. It will be exclusively from a change over the last two years from really wretched technique to rowing at low drag (114 df.) with a longer, slower, more standard on water stroke (i.e., leading with my legs and finishing fully with my arms). It is also significant, I think, that this improvement from better technique and low drag is not just _my_ experience. Dwayne got just the same improvement (4-5 seconds per 500) when he changed from rowing at high drag (6:03 2K) to low (5:47 2K). Even more impressive yet, Dwayne carried this improvement right down into his 2K. That will be the next task. ranger

[old] starboardrigged1seat · Post by **[old] starboardrigged1seat** » February 11th, 2005, 12:25 pm

"If I can indeed train myself now to row 1:43 with my heart rate flat at 172 bpm, this gain will not be from fitness. It will be exclusively from a change over the last two years from really wretched technique to rowing at low drag (114 df.) with a longer, slower, more standard on water stroke (i.e., leading with my legs and finishing fully with my arms)." Of course it will be from a fitness gain. After 2 years of consistent training (and if you do train the way you say you do on these boards), you're going to be so much physiologically fitter than you give credit to the training. Realistically, changing your technique is not going to give you these magical boosts in your performance..."exlusively", would you. It might make you more efficient over the long run, making your training more efficient, but simply changing your technique is not going to make a difference if you don't also do the training. Also, as a novice rower, I see it highly unlikely that you, or anyone for that matter, could pull an hour at a 1:48, with a drag factor of 220 at a 32 spm.