Ranger's training thread

[mikvan52]

Question:

A study in proportionality

Answering the question:

Is the spi directly proportional to pace? ( Note : This concept includes watt production!)

Given:
200 watts/20 strokes per minute effort = 10 spi
Will the same percentage changes: faster pace and higher spi give you the same spi?

For instance: If you drop the pace of (200watts) 2:00.51 /500m ten precent what do you get?
2:00.51 is 120.51 seconds
90 % of 120.51 is 108.01 sec or 1:48.01

To get direct proportionality, RAISE the rate ten percent too.. from 20 to 22.
What is the spi? If these magnitudes are directly proportional the spi should remain the same AND REMAIN AT 10…
BUT (!) (1:48 PACE) 278 WATTS / 22 SPM IS A SPI OF 12.6.. (not 10)

This makes spi a useless measure unless you are only referring to one pace (wattage).

Newcomers to this thread often do not realize this.

The non - answer

Give or take a bit, my SPI/technique is a constant.

Rate, pace, and HR are measures of effort, not SPI.

By and large, SPI/technique is a measure of how good/fast you are, given your age and weight.

Give or take a bit, everyone the same age and weight rows a 2K at the same rate.

The rower with the more powerful (i.e., effective and efficient) stroke wins.

Why are you afraid to answer the question?
You say rate is a measure of effort? Since when?
For you power is defined as what is effective and efficient but at the same time power/rate = spi
Very confusing to anyone! What do efficiency and effectiveness have to do with watts?
Watt output is power, plain and simple

Now on to rate: rate does not measure effort as you say!
Look at the rate at which kids can go up and down an erg slide w/o much effort at all.
Anyone can shorten his stroke and not do much work at all... IOW less effort.

And
Don't drag technique in to this discussion. It's not quantifiable. SPI is clearly quantifiable by definition. You say rowing well is a SPI figure. And you consider it numeric value.
it is not "rhythmic" or "Poetic"... it has no inherent beauty. It's a blend of magnitudes w/o reason.

Once again:
In the second line of your reply you say that pace is no part of spi. One cannot have spi without watt production. Watt production defines pace. You are just being obstinate and illogical in your responses>

Races are won by have the highest average power (wattage) output this is "how good/fast you are". Stroke rate does not affect the outcome.
With in reason of course. Look at the example where one person ergs at 39spm and the other ergs at 30 spm. Now, what if the first has the higher wattage, the first one wins... That is all. He is better; he is faster plain and simple.

Your Statement: "Give or take a bit, everyone the same age and weight rows a 2K at the same rate." is simply not true.
You are either seeking attention by lying or being an imbecile.... oops, probably both.
look at this video for example: there is substantial variation among cohorts



Your own spi is not a constant (as you just claimed). BIRC showed that.. you erged below an 11 maybe even below a 9.
'Running out of gas' does not explain the discrepancy between 13 and 9.

You know, Rich, it's of little consequence to point out that you are truly a fake and just mess around with your responses to get attention (I suppose). I should let it go. I once thought you might catch me OTW but now I know you will never do so. Over the last 5 years you could have made improvements in rowing. Instead, you have done no such thing. Seems to me that you are afraid to step up to the plate. You erg well infrequently but you cannot row worth a lick.
In the end:
It might be necessary for someone to point out the mendacity of your feeble attempts at fabricating some sort of logical explanation for all things rowing... That is all this thread is good for. ... to point out ranger errors and pitfalls.
I am tired of it for now.

[former lightweight]

Rich, here is my question. Once upon a time (actually not that long ago) I could hold 1:35 for 2k, averaging about 31 for rating, at 150 lbs (13 spi by your calculations). This was after training for about 6 months after taking four months off following the conclusion of my collegiate rowing career. This was done at a drag factor of 115, although I spent the majority of my college years rowing between 120-130 higher. Why has it taken you so long to figure out how to row well at low drag such that you can't pull a single test at what would surely be WR pace at your newfound DF? It only took me 6 months and I imagine I would have gone much faster than 6:20 if my post-collegiate career was not cut short by a rib stress fracture sustained OTW.

When training for the above 2k, we would often do a Saturday morning workout of 3 x 10 min. Ratings would generally go 20 for the 1st 4 minutes, 22 for 3 min, 24 for 2 min, 26 for 1 min. Breaking 1:40 was my goal for the 1st piece, and there were usually guys (all lightweights) that were coming close to breaking 1:40 for all three. In other words, the goal was to row close to 15 spi for 30 minutes.

Now with that in mind, sitting down and pulling a sub 6:40 or even sub 6:30 would have/should have been easy for you. Your excuses for not testing have been laughable, and if physiologically you had the ability to go 6:16, you would already own every WR at every distance for your age... but you don't.

The reason is simple - you don't have the physiological tools to do so. Maybe you did once upon a time, but no longer. Having "been there, done that", I know full well that if you are as fit as you claim you are, sitting down and ripping a sub 6:30 2k to shut-down all the 'nay-sayers' on this board would be easy. It was easy for me, why not for you?

[mikvan52]

Once upon a time (actually not that long ago) I could hold 1:35 for 2k, averaging about 31 for rating, at 150 lbs (13 spi by your calculations). This was after training for about 6 months after taking four months off following the conclusion of my collegiate rowing career. This was done at a drag factor of 115, although I spent the majority of my college years rowing between 120-130 higher. Why has it taken you so long to figure out how to row well at low drag such that you can't pull a single test at what would surely be WR pace at your newfound DF? It only took me 6 months and I imagine I would have gone much faster than 6:20 if my post-collegiate career was not cut short by a rib stress fracture sustained OTW.

....pulling a sub 6:40 or even sub 6:30 would have/should have been easy for you. ... if physiologically you had the ability to go 6:16, you would already own every WR at every distance for your age...\
... you don't have the physiological tools to do so.

Hey formerlwt! That is truly impressive. Great stuff as a college grad!

You know I have always been astonished that older men like me and ranger think they can get substantially faster after they've set some kind of mark in their declining years. It must be endorphin poisoning..

In ranger's case his 6:30 & 6:28 AS A 52 yr old...
Well... he's 60 now...
This has little to do with a young man like you...

Think about declining VO2 max, by itself....
No one who trains a whole lot will improve this number between age 52 and 60. It goes down... there is no choice here!
Therefore your max wattage output goes down in a speed/endurance event like a 2k.. it has nothing to do with what better form can do for you. Do the math! Be 90 % efficient of 80% of versus 85% efficient of 100% Which is higher?
In the first case you are 5% more efficient ..but you cannot affect the low starting point...


ranger reasoning is devoid of simple proven exercise physiology. I am experiencing this too, myself.
I started training hard again at 54. It been 4 years... I'm fighting hard to stay stable but its a losing battle: as it should be.
Getting old isn't so bad but we all get slower....
temps pis!

It's a wonder why people (like me) just don't dismiss his arguments as being unworthy of response!

[former lightweight]

Mike, you guys that push yourselves as masters rowers impress the hell out of me... training in a relatively distraction free environment was a luxury! Add job, family, life, etc to that... it's why I still have some measure of respect for Rich. My father is masters rower in his mid 60s and still gets out and races in his single. Hopefully when I'm that age I'll have the motivation to do so.

My comparison isn't really valid, but I was trying to drive at the point that if person A claims something, it would logically follow that they are capable of certain other things. But, you're right... this thread is devoid of reasoning, and I should probably walk away without getting sucked in!

[TomR]

My next project is several months of distance rowing and then distance trials.

Does this mean the delusion dipstick in not going to the Crash-Bs?

If no, what is the meaning of life?

[MRapp]

But you aren't a LWT anymore and you aren't 58/59 any more. Father time stops for no man

Actually, you _lose_ muscle mass as you get older, especially after 60. So, at similar fat levels, it is easier and easier to make weight as you age. You don't have as much muscle mass.

Decline with age due to loss of aerobic capacity is a second per year over 2K after 20.

When I row a FM trial this spring, I hope to show that, now, rowing well (12-13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.), I am 10 seconds per 500m better over a FM than I was was back in 2003.

That 10 seconds per 500m is 75 watts, or about six seconds per 500m in a 2K.

So, sure, each year after I do that FM trial, I'd have to subtract .25 seconds per 500m from that six seconds per 500m improvement in technique to get how much better I am currently rowing than the lwt 6:28 that I pulled back in 2003.

If I need a dozen seconds, three seconds per 500m over my 2003 2K time of 6:28 to get to 6:16, then, sure, I wouldn't want to wait more than 12 years before I do a 2K trial.

A dozen years from now, I won't have the fitness to pull 6:16.

ranger

[MRapp]

But you aren't a LWT anymore and you aren't 58/59 any more. Father time stops for no man

Actually, you _lose_ muscle mass as you get older, especially after 60. So, at similar fat levels, it is easier and easier to make weight as you age. You don't have as much muscle mass.

Decline with age due to loss of aerobic capacity is a second per year over 2K after 20.

When I row a FM trial this spring, I hope to show that, now, rowing well (12-13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.), I am 10 seconds per 500m better over a FM than I was was back in 2003.

That 10 seconds per 500m is 75 watts, or about six seconds per 500m in a 2K.

So, sure, each year after I do that FM trial, I'd have to subtract .25 seconds per 500m from that six seconds per 500m improvement in technique to get how much better I am currently rowing than the lwt 6:28 that I pulled back in 2003.

If I need a dozen seconds, three seconds per 500m over my 2003 2K time of 6:28 to get to 6:16, then, sure, I wouldn't want to wait more than 12 years before I do a 2K trial.

A dozen years from now, I won't have the fitness to pull 6:16.

ranger

Okay, I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but does this post infer you will still be capable of (and undoubtedly still claiming to be on schedule to) pulling 6:16 a DOZEN years from now? Are you honestly saying that you have another 11+ years to pull your 6:16 before your fitness falls to a level making it impossible?

Yet in another post today you discuss racing and setting world records before April 30th. Holy shit, what a complete lunatic! You claim to have a world of obligations due to your recent erg trip, yet you spend 12 hours posting on a message board. How many of these uber-important tasks could you have completed if you weren't lying on a message board all day? The question people should ask about your family isn't about your wasted trips, but rather your 10 hour a day message board habit. If your wife knew you had posted 7000 messages on an erg forum, and there were only about 10 different messages in the entire 7000, what would she think?

[jliddil]

Ranger will not EVER do anything he writes he will do. He CAN NOT do anything he writes he says he can. This is all pure fantasy with no basis in fact what so ever. I imagine someday he will compile all this into some book on poetics and the analysis there of. I think C2 should add him to the blog section along with Ali Cox. I dare C2 to do this!

[Mike Caviston]

I flew my second son, Colin, and daughter, Haley, to London and Paris in 2003 for my EIRC championship row... During the row, they were in the stands a few feet in front of my erg. Right next to MIke Caviston, who came over to see me row.

The bullshit piles up so quickly here, and I don’t read very closely, but this did catch my eye. As at most indoor rowing events, the veteran races preceded the senior races, and I was unable to see any of the veterans including my friends Joan Van Blom and Paul Hendershott since I was warming up for my own race (the one where I set the Euro Champ record). What possesses this lunatic to lie about absolutely everything?

[ranger]

Because of the dynamics and mechanics of rowing, having a weak stroke is a double problem, especially at high drag. If your stroke is weak, it doesn't do much work. But that isn't the only issue. A weak stroke slows down the chain and therefore increases the drive time, especially at high drag, which slows the chain even more. Because rowing is intermittent, rather than continuous labor (drive, and then recovery), a slow chain increases the drive time, which cuts the ratio. So a weak stroke at high drag is not only ineffective; it is inefficient, often grossly so.

Like many beginners, when I first took up rowing, I rowed at max drag and a pretty constant rate, in and around 32 spm, just weakening my stroke further and further to save energy and lower my HR as the row got longer. As ridiculous as it might seem, this means that, even for a FM, pulling only 1:54 pace (7.5 SPI!), I rowed in something close to a 1-to-1 ratio, with an absurdly slow, prolonged drive and then quick recovery, as you tend to do when you race in a canoe paddling (which I did for a couple of decades in my teens and twenties). I pulled harder and harder when I rowed shorter distances (10 SPI for a 2K, higher than that for a 1K, and very high indeed for a 500m, perhaps up to 13-14 SPI), but I kept the rate about the same. Even at these shorter distances, my ratio was _very_ low, probably never more than 2-to-1, if ever even that.

If you can do it easily, it is _both_ more effective _and_ more efficient to lower the drag, staying long mechanically, but using quickness to generate high power, shorten the drive time, and therefore raise the ratio. Doing this is a win-win-win improvement. Even though you use about the same effort, you do more work; you don't work as long; and you get to rest longer after each bout of work. Rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.), I now do 1:54 pace at 18 spm rather than 32 spm, in something like a 5.5-to-1 ratio, rather than a 1-to-1 ratio. Between each brief drive of .5 seconds, I now get to rest 2.33 seconds, rather than less than a second. Without being any harder to do, really, the drive of this stroke at low drag is 75% stronger, is executed in half the time, and lets me rest 2.5 times longer between drives.

The reason a long, quick, powerful drive done at low drag is not much harder to do than a short, slow, weak drive done at high drag is that it is done primarily with the legs rather than the core, upper body, and arms. If you lower the drag, you can get quicker and quicker legs, especially if you get well forward at the catch to use the full slide and if you learn good timing, sequencing, and footwork so that you make full use of your legs, both your quads at the catch and your hams and gluts shortly after, before you swing your back and pull with your arms, engaging your abs and lats (etc.). Without really doing more work (once you get used to it), when you row like this with quick legs and good timing, sequencing, and footwork, the peak force of your stroke moves to the front of your stoke and skyrockets. I don't know for sure, because I didn't pay any attention to these things when I first started rowing, but I suspect that, rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.) with a quick, long stroke, I now get twice (!!) the peak force than I got when I rowed poorly (7.5 SPI) at max drag with a slow, short stroke. Rowing well at low drag (e.g., 1:54 @ 18 spm), most of the time, I now get a peak force that goes all the way to top of the PM4 screen (135 kgF). When I rowed poorly at high drag, I suspect that I didn't get much more than 70 kgF of peak force when I was rowing a FM, 1:54 @ 32 spm.

Yep, even in erging, technique can make a big difference.

When I rowed poorly at max drag, given my 2K of 1:37/6:28, I should have been able to do a FM at 1:51, but I only managed 1:54, probably due to the accumulating, crescendoing stress generated by my ineffective and inefficient mechanics/technique; and even so, this 1:51 is only relative to my 2K at the time, which was also done with the same poor technique at high drag. With better technique, I think I could have done something closer to 1:34 for 2K, perhaps even 1:33, and if so, something closer to 1:48, or even 1:47, for a FM.

A FM is done at 2K + 14.

I'll test these things pretty soon, when I do my first FM trial this spring, rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.) with my improved technique.

ranger

[Carl Watts]

I flew my second son, Colin, and daughter, Haley, to London and Paris in 2003 for my EIRC championship row... During the row, they were in the stands a few feet in front of my erg. Right next to MIke Caviston, who came over to see me row.

The bullshit piles up so quickly here, and I don’t read very closely, but this did catch my eye. As at most indoor rowing events, the veteran races preceded the senior races, and I was unable to see any of the veterans including my friends Joan Van Blom and Paul Hendershott since I was warming up for my own race (the one where I set the Euro Champ record). What possesses this lunatic to lie about absolutely everything?

[ranger]

One of the huge advantages of rowing at a high ratio is that higher rates feel leisurely, because you are resting so long between drives.

I now feel no need to row at low rates.

The 26 spm that I now do in my "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" routine feels just fine, even though, pulling 13 SPI, as I do now, I am doing 1:42 pace when I am rating 26 spm.

Why does 26 spm feel so leisurely?

Now, my drive is so brief (.5 seconds), when I am doing 26 spm, I am still in a 3.6-to-1 ratio.

Yikes.

You don't need to row in a ratio much larger than 3.6-to-1.

That's plenty of rest between drives.

At 26 spm, I get to rest 1.8 seconds between drives.

ranger

[macroth]

The 26 spm that I now do in my "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" routine feels just fine, even though, pulling 13 SPI, as I do now, I am doing 1:42 pace when I am rating 26 spm.

Why does 26 spm feel so leisurely?

Speaking of which, maybe you missed this?

here's another test we can do, right now. Let's see who can hold 13 SPI, 26 spm, 119 df the longest. No breaks, no heart rate limits (I don't have a HR monitor anyway), just row at 26 spm until the average creeps above 1:42 and you can't get it back down. You do 20K of this every morning at a steady UT1 HR, right? Piece of cake!

You can compare to what I manage to do, and that will give you a clue as to where you are in terms of 2K times, since you seem to have no idea whatsoever. Whaddya say? I know your PM3 is camera-shy, so I'll go first.

[ranger]

MIke (VB)--

Sure, to do the rowing I am doing in my "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" sessions at 26 spm, you would need to be able to run your HR at 160 bpm, pushing up to 170 bpm, for long periods, perhaps for an hour or two. Since you can only manage about 130 bpm for this sort of rowing, you are out of luck. You have the body of an old man. Through neglect, you have lost your youthful aerobic capacity.

This problem then snowballs, of course. Without the aerobic capacity to do hard work, you weaken your stroke, trading rate for pace, to try to conserve energy, but this only slows the chain and cuts your efficiency, taxing your depleted/neglected aerobic capacity even further, relative to the pace your could achieve otherwise, especially if you trained otherwise.

I row 1:42 @ 26 spm (12.7 SPI) with a UT1 HR in a 3.6-to-1 ratio.

You row 1:42 @ 36 spm (9.2 SPI) with a TR HR in a 1-to-1 ratio.

1:42 is faster than you can row 2K.

When I am trained up for it, I can row at top-end UT1 for a HM.

The difference is two training bands, ten seconds per 500m.

ranger

[ranger]

Mike--

BIRC 2010 didn't show anything at all.

I paddled my 2K at BIRC.

From the start, I was out of gas.

You can't see what an engine can do unless you fill it up.

I was also pretty far from fully trained to race.

I was just winging it.

When I am fully trained, ready to race, have my weight right, have enough food and water to row well, and pull a 2K at low drag, we'll see what SPI I now pull for 2K.

I think it will be pretty close to 13 SPI.

12.5 (e.g., 1:34 @ 34 spm)?

I have already done a sub-6:30/1:37 2K @ 12 SPI, without preparing for it, and even so, at high drag, still struggling with technique.

I am much better than that now.

ranger