Logging Etiquette

[jbhoren]

After a two-year lapse in rowing, I'm suffering the humiliation of having to rebuild my aerobic and muscular endurance (oh, the shame of it). Where once I did daily 60-minute straight sets, I'm now having to do three sets of 20-minutes, or four sets of 15-minutes.

Here's my question: is it "proper" to log two 15-minute sets, with a 3-minute seated rest between them, as a 30-minute piece, for ranking? or three 20-minute sets as a 60-minute piece, or two 30-minute sets?

Or, should I be noble, and resist the urge to click-L on that "rank" button?

I'm open to suggestion (suggestive replies are a different story, and certainly not for this forum)

[dg1951]

Hey JB,

I have on occasion combined two workouts into a single for logging meters. Usually, this was a result of mentally wanting a time or distance goal for a day, that I physically was having difficulty with at one sitting (due to any number of reasons). Typically, these workouts were no great shakes and definitely not worthy of ranking. In your case, just coming back after a long layoff, I'd consider waiting to rank until my fitness had improved, your nobility problem will resolve itself.

Dan

[Sean Seamus]

I have always figured that the rankings were for continuous efforts - so doing twelve 5 minute sprints with rests between would not qualify as one 60 minute ranking performance.

When I post, I put all the session's time in as a lump total - unless I really did do a piece that qualifies as Rank-able. Then I break the entry into 2 or more pieces.

[dg1951]

Exactly, Sean. I probably should have been clearer in my last post. That's the same approach I take.

Dan

[Ducatista]

"Noble" seems like a lofty term for not abusing the ranking function.

I'm too lazy (ignoble?) to fill in multiple entries for a multi-piece session, but seeing the Rank button next to a composite entry bugs me. If my total equals a rankable time or distance, I just add a second or meter to the total. No more Rank to rankle.

[michaelb]

I am confused. Every row that is of a ranking distance has the rank sign next to it. All of you can't really be "ranking" each of those rows every time you do one? You can only have one ranked row in each distance a year, so I would think that is for your personal best row, not your latest workout? If you click rank each time you are replacing your previous row with this new one, regardless of how fast it was. Are you really rowing a PB each time? How does it bother you to have a 60min workout in your log and not have it ranked?

On the ethics question, though, I agree that the rankings are an honor system and that you have to do the row in order to rank the row, so you can't call intervals a 60 minute row.

[Citroen]

Here's my question: is it "proper" to log two 15-minute sets, with a 3-minute seated rest between them, as a 30-minute piece, for ranking? or three 20-minute sets as a 60-minute piece, or two 30-minute sets?

If I do three 5K intervals with 3mins rest those will go in to my log as three intervals (with the times for each 5K) and a interval with zero time for the resting metres as recorded on the PM3 (I've rowed that, the PM3 has recorded it - it's part of my lifetime total).

I would not log 3*5K as a single 15K session. Then again, I wouldn't rank one of those 5K intervals - to rank a 5K session I'd have to row that as a single non-stop piece.

[Gus]

On the ethics question, though, I agree that the rankings are an honor system and that you have to do the row in order to rank the row, so you can't call intervals a 60 minute row.

I would somewhat disagree with this statement. If you do a 60 minute interval row of say 5 minutes hard and then a 5 minute paddle you could rank it if you wanted to. What I don't think is right is to take the fastest 60 minutes out of a 90 minute row and rank it as a 60 minute piece. Heck if you PB in a set 60 minutes piece while stopping and letting the clock run for whatever amount it runs, it's a rankable 60 minute piece.

As an additional thought, there are some who feel the first portion of a longer row could be entered as a rankable piece. For example, the first 30 minutes of a 10K could be ranked.

[GeorgeD]

I enter the total meters for a session (including warm up and cool down) and change the time to 'zero' so hence there is no need to worry about the ranking issue even if the total is say 10k. If I want to rank a piece then I will make one entry for that including distance and time and enter any other meters separately as I usually do.

George

[Ducatista]

How does it bother you to have a 60min workout in your log and not have it ranked?

Most of my workouts are NOT of ranking duration or distance, so when I do log exactly 30min, or 6km, or whatever, that isolated Rank link glares at me like a little blue beacon of judgment. "Why aren't you ranking," it taunts. "C'mon, slackass. Rank. RANK!"

Nah, not really. But I'm not big on visual clutter, and the intermittent Rank link assigns a visual significance to pieces that don't deserve it. So 30:01 and 6,001 it is. I wouldn't go the zero time route, even though I don't rank, because I like to check my pace chart now and again.

[dg1951]

If you can can row a personal best for any distance or time in a portion of a longer workout, my hat's off to you, rank away. If you've ever tried to get a PB in an interval workout, that requires some serious grit. You'd be hard pressed to do well in a race that way.


Dan

[Citroen]

As an additional thought, there are some who feel the first portion of a longer row could be entered as a rankable piece. For example, the first 30 minutes of a 10K could be ranked.

It's difficult to mix a timed piece (30') with a distance piece (10K). The PM3 will divide a 10K into five 2K splits (by default), it won't divide it into eight 5' splits. Likewise it will divide a 30' into five 6' splits not five 1500m splits. And doing the maths wouldn't make sense unless you were sure that you'd rowed precisely even pace/stroke rate all the way through.

I reckon if you want to rank, say, a 5K piece you have to set the PM3 to 5K and row it down to zero. You shouldn't set it to 6K (with 1K splits) and enter that as two sessions (5K and 1K) then rank the 5K.

The exception to that rule is the Nonathlon (http://nonathlon.com) which allows you to break a long row into shorter split times/distances.

[johnlvs2run]

is it "proper" to log two 15-minute sets, with a 3-minute seated rest between them, as a 30-minute piece, for ranking? or three 20-minute sets as a 60-minute piece, or two 30-minute sets?

Yes. Set the monitor to 30 minutes, take the 3 minute break after 15 minutes, and you'll only have 12 minutes still to go.

Another way is to set the monitor for 30 minutes, then alternate fast - slow to the end of it.

Whenever ending up with a ranking distance or time, I used to just always put 0 for the time. Then I put the actual time or meters for awhile, plus one, though when I rowed for an hour the display would end up as 60:06. Now I've not logged my meters yet this ranking year but plan to go back to the 0 time method if I do, unless a time trial of course.

It is fine to count the first part of a distance in the rankings, as you have done the distance from a start. For example you can count the first 5k of a 6k. If you're checking 30 minutes on the way to a 10k, just calculate the distance covered in between the splits on either side of 30 minutes.

[Kinley]

Getting back to the original question, if it takes you 33 minutes (15 minutes rowing, 3 minutes resting, 15 minutes rowing) to row some number of meters, you can't claim it takes you half an hour. That's just plain wrong. 30 minutes is 30 minutes.

[GeorgeD]

Getting back to the original question, if it takes you 33 minutes (15 minutes rowing, 3 minutes resting, 15 minutes rowing) to row some number of meters, you can't claim it takes you half an hour. That's just plain wrong. 30 minutes is 30 minutes.

I agree but if you set the monitor to 30min and it counts down to 0 , row for 14 min stop for 2min and row for 14min then the total distance can be ranked ... it is still the distance you rowed in the alloted time.

I really think that to be accurate you have to row a piece with either the time or the distance counting down - not up.

George