The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

There are two types of training, (1) training that advances your base so that you have the possibility of going faster than you did last year or five years ago and (2) training that gets you ready to race.

The first sort of training is work on basic fitness, UT work, UT2 and UT1, and work on technique.

The second sort of work is AT, TR, and AN work.

As you age, if your focus is just on the second sort of work, you race well, but you decline by a second or so a year over 2K, even if you work as hard as you can in training, and you never do anything out of the ordinary.

The gains you can get by doing the first sort of work are limited in various ways, but can still be large.

They depend on the balance/imbalance in your training, your training volume, your athletic ability, your aerobic capacity, your technical accomplishment, your endurance, your experience in other sports, your base fitness, your cross-trainiing, your strength, etc.

If you have glaring weaknesses, advances in any of these things can improve your base significantly and lay the foundations for a leap forward in your race preparation and racing, even for something extraordinary.

By and large, the standard 2K training plans are just of the second sort.

They prepare you to race.

Therefore, if you have ever trained to race before, given some training base that you have already established, they have no bearing at all on how you might get better.

ranger

[whp4]

There are two types of training, (1) training that advances your base so that you have the possibility of going faster than you did last year or five years ago and (2) training that gets you ready to race.

Which of those choices do we have to thank for that magnificent achievement in sport you demonstrated yesterday? You have been training, right?

[ranger]

Next subject = training:

IMHO: a superior kind of training midway in the buildup for a max 2k at Boston (below) This is at variance with RWB training. In what's below: Notice the lack of breaks. I don't get to handle down when I have the urge. The 2k distance was prescribed ~ I set the "workout" with splits including rests on the monitor before I started and stuck with it.

2 x 2k with 8-10 minute paddling rest, once a week, reducing pace each week.
This is how my last one went in the first week of January.
After that week I switched to mixed long intervals at faster pacing.

I feel that this type of prolonged training is what will give me an advantage this coming Sunday.
Note 2k times below.
BTW : I do not feel that I needed to be pulling 13 spi to advance my conditioning for full red-line racing.

(from my blog 1st week of January, '10)

-------------------------------------------------------
| 6:59.2 - 2000m - 1:44.8 - 28
|.........500m - 1:46.2 - 26
|.........500m - 1:46.6 - 26
|.........500m - 1:44.6 - 28
|.........500m - 1:41.8 - 32
|8 minute rest - w/some paddling - 790 meters
-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------
| 7:02.6 - 2000m - 1:45.6 - 30
|.........500m - 1:46.6 - 28
|.........500m - 1:46.7 - 29
|.........500m - 1:45.9 - 30
|.........500m - 1:43.5 - 36
|6 minute rest - 1010 meters
-------------------------------------------------------

drag factor: 103



Notice the increases in rate and the neg. splitting (planned)

Yes, 2Ks @ 1:45 are good training for 1 1:41/6:44 2K.

Repeat 2Ks are usually done at 2K + 4.

And sure, you don't need to pull anything like 13 SPI to row 6:44.

Hell, if you are rowing that slow, pull 8 SPI if you want, if you can rate 42 spm.

But this sort of training has no clue whatsoever of how to get to repeating 2Ks at 1:38 or pulling 6:16 for 2K.

Negative splitting?

From 1:47 to 1:43.

Gimme a break.

If you pull 12.5 SPI, you only need to rate 34 in a 2K to pull 6:16.

You only need to rate 30 spm to repeat 2Ks @ 1:38.

If you pull 1:44 @ 36 spm (9.2 SPI) you would have to rate 45 spm to pull 6:16.

ranger

[ranger]

There are two types of training, (1) training that advances your base so that you have the possibility of going faster than you did last year or five years ago and (2) training that gets you ready to race.

Which of those choices do we have to thank for that magnificent achievement in sport you demonstrated yesterday? You have been training, right?

Yes, I have been training--but largely of the first sort.

Why?

I already have three WR rows.

I know how to prepare to race.

I now have a month of training of the second sort in front of me (until this racing season is done).

Then I will continue training of the second sort next year.

That should bring out all of the potential of my base.

ranger

[snowleopard]

There are two types of training, (1) training that advances your base so that you have the possibility of going faster than you did last year or five years ago and (2) training that gets you ready to race.

In another thread you claimed your training prior to the Cincinnati meltdown was perfect.

Your prediction for that event was a 6:28 as an AT row. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that you very little about training or race preparation so I fail to see why you reappear on the forum theorising on the subject.

In case you have forgotten, after 60 million meters of preparation over seven years you rowed a 7:11 at the weekend.

You should be listening, not lecturing.

[kini62]

So which of the two types of training is responsible for your EPIC FAIL yesterday? Perhaps both? Too bad it wasn't filmed. It would for sure make it to failblog as a 2010 hightlight.

[ranger]

There are two types of training, (1) training that advances your base so that you have the possibility of going faster than you did last year or five years ago and (2) training that gets you ready to race.

In another thread you claimed your training prior to the Cincinnati meltdown was perfect.

Your prediction for that event was a 6:28 as an AT row. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that you very little about training or race preparation so I fail to see why you reappear on the forum theorising on the subject.

In case you have forgotten, after 60 million meters of preparation over seven years you rowed a 7:11 at the weekend.

You should be listening, not lecturing.

The 7:11 was just paddling through breaks. It had nothing to do with a continuous row.

Rested and with my HR prepared to rise to appropriate levels, I will just pull through the 2K 1:37 @ 31 spm.

I am now pulling 12.5 SPI.

BTW, making weight was no problem.

I walked into the venue and stepped on the scales at 164 lbs.

8:33 a.m.

ranger

[ranger]

So which of the two types of training is responsible for your EPIC FAIL yesterday? Perhaps both? Too bad it wasn't filmed. It would for sure make it to failblog as a 2010 hightlight.

I have been training hard--but largely of the first sort.

Perhaps I can get some distance trials in to illustrate.

Your overall fitness, technique, stroking power, and UT work determines what you can do in the second sort of training.

But as my row this weekend illustrates, you certainly have to do the second sort of training in order to row well.

Your HR needs to flow easily to max.

You need to be able to call up your anaerobic capacities.

And so forth.

The 2K is an intense affair.

It isn't a walk in the park.

ranger

[JohnBove]

There are two types of training, (1) training that advances your base so that you have the possibility of going faster than you did last year or five years ago and (2) training that gets you ready to race.

In another thread you claimed your training prior to the Cincinnati meltdown was perfect.

Your prediction for that event was a 6:28 as an AT row. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that you very little about training or race preparation so I fail to see why you reappear on the forum theorising on the subject.

In case you have forgotten, after 60 million meters of preparation over seven years you rowed a 7:11 at the weekend.

You should be listening, not lecturing.

The 7:11 was just paddling through breaks. It had nothing to do with a continuous row.

Rested and with my HR prepared to rise to appropriate levels, I will just pull through the 2K 1:37 @ 31 spm.

I am now pulling 12.5 SPI.

BTW, making weight was no problem.

I walked into the venue and stepped on the scales at 164 lbs.

8:33 a.m.

ranger

You failed miserably, you barking jerk. You're a grandiose sham, and a repulsive personality. Who gives a flying fuck what you weighed??

[ranger]

Who gives a flying fuck what you weighed??

Well, if I show up in couple of weeks at a race venue, when I am better prepared, and just pull though a 2K, 1:37 @ 31 spm, it will be pretty important what I weigh.

At weight, that would be 10 seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

ranger

[ranger]

You failed miserably

Yes, so far, I have failed miserably at doing what I need to do to get prepared to race.

But I am starting to get that done now.

I think I will make significant progress with it by the first week in March.

ranger

[JohnBove]

Who gives a flying fuck what you weighed??

Well, if I show up in couple of weeks at a race venue, when I am better prepared, and just pull though a 2K, 1:37 @ 31 spm, it will be pretty important what I weigh.

At weight, that would be 10 seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

ranger

Yes, except you don't have a chance in hell of doing that.

I could've posted the twenty-some-odd thousand posts that you have over the past few years, with all the absurd predictions and egotistical preening, and the results would be the same.

The difference is that I'm not insane, so I didn't.

[KevJGK]

Rich. Your philosophy is pretty straightforward. Lots of endurance work to build a base. The more the work the bigger the base. Then lots of speed work to prepare for the aearobic and anarobic demands of a 2k.

What I can't understand is why you can't seem to get the second part right for a specific event. If you Know which competition you are aiming to peak for can't you just work back from that date and time your sharpening work better. Also with the amount of effort you put into your training why not prepare yourself for the events better.

I was surprised when you decided to drive through the night last weekend. Surely your efforts in training warrant a stop overnight for you to be rested and fresh for the event. I know you joke about saving money but a little planning would pay more dividends than a ton more endurance and speed work.

Best of luck with your next event but think about your preperation a little more.

[macroth]

Yes, so far, I have failed miserably at doing what I need to do to get prepared to race.

But I am starting to get that done now.

Rested and with my HR prepared to rise to appropriate levels

With that in mind, and unless you have already done so, might I suggest cutting out all of your "crosstraining" for the next month or so? Now that you're at weight, it's completely unnecessary and counterproductive.

[ranger]

Who gives a flying fuck what you weighed??

Well, if I show up in couple of weeks at a race venue, when I am better prepared, and just pull though a 2K, 1:37 @ 31 spm, it will be pretty important what I weigh.

At weight, that would be 10 seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

ranger

Yes, except you don't have a chance in hell of doing that.

I could've posted the twenty-some-odd thousand posts that you have over the past few years, with all the absurd predictions and egotistical preening, and the results would be the same.

The difference is that I'm not insane, so I didn't.

Not sure what you mean, given that I have done it before, and I am better now.

Sure, if Mike VB said he was going to show up in a couple of weeks and pull 6:28, there would be some question.

But not in my case.

Been there, done that.

And when I didn't row as well or work as hard.

Did you pull a lwt 6:28 when you didn't know how to row?

Did you pull 6:29 @ 12 SPI a few years ago without even preparing for it?

I'm not sure where you folks are coming from.

If you have done something, and then you get more skilled, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that you might be capable of even better performances.

Can you tell me why that isn't reasonable?

ranger