What Training Have You Done Today???

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

12K @ 22SPM<br />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.<br />

[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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />That will be the next task.<br /><br />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)."<br /> Of <i>course</i> 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.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 11th, 2005, 1:08 pm

<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'>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. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I suppose it's unlikely, but that's exactly what I did (1:48 for an hour at df. 220 and 32 spm). I also broke the WR three times for the 50s lwts (lowering it from 6:31.6 to 6:28) rowing at 220 df.<br /><br />No, the gain I am making now in my rowing is not due to fitness. Yes, you have train a new stroke, and that takes some time. But my CV fitness, overall strength, and so forth, I suspect, has not changed a whit. The _entire_ gain has been technical.<br /><br />The same thing was true for Dwayne, and to almost _exactly_ the same extent, so I am not alone in this.<br /><br />I assume that when I was rowing (fully trained to the stroke) at 1:48 and 32 spm and 220 df. with my old (bad) stroke I was exerting exactly the same amount of effort as I now do rowing (almost as fully trained to the stroke) at 1:43 and 26 spm at 110 df. with good stroke mechanics. <br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 11th, 2005, 3:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 11 2005, 10:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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). <br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><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'>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.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I take it you are now wearing a HR monitor Ranger as a few weeks ago you said you were not - cant see any other way you are accurately measuring your HR.<br /><br />Also would be keen to know when you last carried out an 'erging' max HR test and what you found to be the best way to do it.<br /><br />It is also pretty unique that you can row an hour with a 'flat HR' as in all the people I have spoken to and all the books I have read NOT ONE of them had found anyone whose HR did not drift up over an hour or even less - you truely are unique.<br /><br />George<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 11th, 2005, 3:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(GeorgeD @ Feb 11 2005, 02:12 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I take it you are now wearing a HR monitor Ranger as a few weeks ago you said you were not - cant see any other way you are accurately measuring your HR.<br /><br />Also would be keen to know when you last carried out an 'erging' max HR test and what you found to be the best way to do it.<br /><br />It is also pretty unique that you can row an hour with a 'flat HR' as in all the people I have spoken to and all the books I have read NOT ONE of them had found anyone whose HR did not drift up over an hour or even less - you truely are unique.<br /><br />George <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />George--<br /><br />I wore a heart rate monitor when I began racing four years ago, but then I gave it up and didn't wear one for a couple of years. Because I have been working on efficiency lately, I have started to wear one again and have been wearing one for the last couple of months. <br /><br />When I rowed my hour pb my heart rate went to 172 bpm very quickly ( in a couple of minutes) and then just stayed there for 15K (until I picked up the pace over the last 1K). <br /><br />Rowing with a flat heart beat is great. It feels as though you can row forever, even if the level of effort is very high. You just hit a CV groove and stay in the groove. It appears that when I work at it I can push this groove _very_ high, too, in fact, right up against my anaerobic threshold (172 bpm). <br /><br />This is the kind of rowing I am doing now: I am just taking my heart rate to my anaerobic threshold (172 bpm) and holding it there for some comfortable amount of time, working on efficiency and technique. Then when I feel I am not maintaining maximum relaxation and efficiency, I take a short break (of a few seconds). Then I go again. I have been doing this for 20K or so every morning. I will try to extend this to 30K as I begin to feel more comfortable.<br /><br />When I relax completely and get the technique right, the pace I maintain now at 172 bpm is 1:43.<br /><br />I assume that my ability to row with a flat heart rate comes in part from all of the steady state physical work I have done in my life. Of course, it also comes from all of the rowing (and cross-training) I have been doing over the last three years or so. I was a marathon runner for 25 years before I took up rowing. Over the last three years, on the average, I have done about 3 hours of exercise a day, with long stretches of more, 4-6 hours a day and some stretches of less, 1-2 hours a day. I have rarely missed a day, even when I am travelling, etc., and over this period, I have been sick or injured very rarely, almost never. <br /><br />I get the highest heart rate at the end of hard long rows, such as 10K and hour trials. I have never worn a heart rate monitor in a 2K (because I only do 2K trials in competition). <br /><br />ranger

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » February 11th, 2005, 3:53 pm

<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'>I assume that when I was rowing (fully trained to the stroke) at 1:48 and 32 spm and 220 df. with my old (bad) stroke I was exerting exactly the same amount of effort as I now do rowing (almost as fully trained to the stroke) at 1:43 and 26 spm at 110 df. with good stroke mechanics. </td></tr></table> <br /><br /><br />Sounds like the 1:43 paced hour is coming up then. <br /><br />All things equal, then the new stroke = 15% more efficiency (278 watts goes to 320). Am I following this correctly? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 11th, 2005, 5:43 pm

<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'>Sounds like the 1:43 paced hour is coming up then. <br /><br />All things equal, then the new stroke = 15% more efficiency (278 watts goes to 320). Am I following this correctly? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jim--<br /><br />I don't know what is coming up but am just reporting these things as they happen. I also am not far along enough in my training or racing to guage yet exactly how much more efficient the new stroke is, relative to the old stroke. _Something_ nice is happening, though. <br /><br />To row 1:43 for an hour would be amazing. I hope it happens! To do this, I would have to train my new stroke to the level of my old stroke, though, and my old stroke, I think, was based on my lifelong experience with canoeing. I have only worked with my new stroke two years! I continue to make progress every day, though. <br /><br />My guess is that I will slowly bring down my hour row over the next six months or so. Perhaps what I am experiencing now means that 1:43 for an hour will be the limit of my potential with this new stroke. Using "double the d, add 3," this is a maximal hour row for someone who can row about a 6:16 2K. That number keeps coming up, too. <br /><br />I will keep rowing hard distance rows as long as the improvement keeps coming. As I have mentioned several times, once I start racing set distances, I think I will set new pbs with this new stroke from the top down: M, HM, hour, 10K, 30min, 6K, 5K, etc.<br /><br />ranger

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » February 11th, 2005, 6:30 pm

Well OK, but some of you statements about "progress" suggested a 1:48 in the past is now 1:43. <br /><br /><br /><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'>I assume that when I was rowing (fully trained to the stroke) at 1:48 and 32 spm and 220 df. with my old (bad) stroke I was exerting exactly the same amount of effort as I now do rowing (almost as fully trained to the stroke) at 1:43 and 26 spm at 110 df. with good stroke mechanics. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />What is "amount of effort"? I guess you mean strain during the stroke cycle, but if this strain is equivalant then what blocks it from being sustainable for an hour?

[old] Paul Smith · Post by **[old] Paul Smith** » February 11th, 2005, 6:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 11 2005, 04:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To row 1:43 for an hour would be amazing. I hope it happens! <br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sounds as though you've already done much more amazing rows, 20K at 1:43 with only seconds for breaks must mean the average wasn't much slower.

[old] Sirrowsalot · Post by **[old] Sirrowsalot** » February 11th, 2005, 7:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Paul Smith @ Feb 11 2005, 05:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 11 2005, 04:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To row 1:43 for an hour would be amazing. I hope it happens! <br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sounds as though you've already done much more amazing rows, 20K at 1:43 with only seconds for breaks must mean the average wasn't much slower. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wittily observed. I think the average, though, was probably well over 1:50 for that 20k. Ranger has been saying he will do these pieces (10k, 5k, etc.) for well over a year now. It's his business of course, but no one should hold their breath.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 11th, 2005, 8:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Paul Smith @ Feb 12 2005, 11:36 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 11 2005, 04:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To row 1:43 for an hour would be amazing. I hope it happens! <br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sounds as though you've already done much more amazing rows, 20K at 1:43 with only seconds for breaks must mean the average wasn't much slower. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />And this is by a person who trains for fun, is not interested in records, and only wants to get better in his 1x - heaven help us if he gets serious or ACTUALLY starts ranking some pieces. Considering he is training as a 'heavy at the moment he could dominate the rankings as both a heavy and lightweight in his age division AND the stroke is still just coming along, he has done no TR or AN work and is only beginning his AT.<br /><br />I guess those of you with Rowpro would love to see Ranger rank some pieces to give you targets?<br /><br />George

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 11th, 2005, 8:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 11 2005, 09:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>No, the gain I am making now in my rowing is not due to fitness. Yes, you have train a new stroke, and that takes some time. </td></tr></table><br />Why would that take any time? <br /><br />You can change your stroke in 2 seconds. It certainly shouldn't take any more than 5 minutes.<br /><br />And it certainly doesn't take more than 2 years to make a 2 second change.<br /><br /><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'>my CV fitness, overall strength, and so forth, I suspect, has not changed a whit. The _entire_ gain has been technical. </td></tr></table><br />That's probably true, since you did 6:30.0 for a 2k two years ago and aren't doing any faster than that now.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 12th, 2005, 5:04 am

<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'>What is "amount of effort"? I guess you mean strain during the stroke cycle, but if this strain is equivalant then what blocks it from being sustainable for an hour? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just as I have said: In theory, nothing; in practice, the following: the convergence of (1) total habituation to the specific motion and specific effort, (2) consistent, undeviating execution of the specific motion and effort over long periods, (3) total mental and physical relaxation over long periods, (4) the maintenance of (1)-(3) at the specific rate and heart rate involved whatever that might be, and (5) the maximization of this specific rate and heart rate, i.e., right up against the anaerobic threshold. <br /><br />No instantaneous achievement, this.<br /><br />ranger