Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

It is clear:

If you are going to try to race at a high stroking power, you need to do a lot of distance rowing at a substantial rate (e.g., 25-27 spm) to show that you have the efficiency to handle the high wattages that result with a sub-threshold HR.

Rowing at low rates and higher stroking powers just cheats the issue, unless you do that low rate rowing at a _very_ low HR, which I suspect no one (who follows, say, the Wolverine Plan) really does.

If you are rowing 18 spm over some distance (say, 20K) at a high UT1 HR and a certain stroking power, you won't be able to row 28 spm over that same distance with that same stroking power and that same high UT1 HR.

I suspect that most of the slogging along at low rates that is done in training for rowing masks just this difficulty.

Instead of learning the skills necessary to row well at low drag, which lightens the chain, cuts the drive time, raises the ratio, and therefore makes rowing at 28 spm feel like it is 18 spm, rowers just raise the drag and their HRs and slog along at 18 spm, as though this low rate rowing was going to get them something like the same stroking power when they raise the rate to 36 spm in a 2K.

And, of course, it won't--unless they are doing that 18 spm at a _miniscule_ HR, such as 50% HRR (for me, about 115 bpm, for someone like Mike VB, something like 100 bpm.

Can a 60s lwt row 12 SPI at 18 spm (e.g., 1:55) at 100 bpm for 20K, or, say, even a FM?

If so, that would be pretty amazing.

For most 60s lwts, 1:55 is top-end UT1 (85% HRR); 2:00 is top-end UT2 (70% HRR).

ranger

[ranger]

In light of their unfailing loyalty to you, don't you feel obligated to prove to them all their years of work were not in vain and you are indeed right

So, what do you think I am doing?

You write this as though your post were some sort of epitaph, with my project done, and the results a failure.

Why?

I haven't even done one distance trial yet, much less sharpened and raced.

Sure, if I do all of my distance trials (and then sharpening routines), and they all come out consistently 10 seconds per 500m above my targets, then I have been wrong.

But I am not wrong before the evidence is in.

Or do you think I am?

Given what I pulled for a FM 10 years ago, when I was rowing badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.), the prediction is that my distance trials will be this:

FM 1:58
HM 1:55
60min 1:54
10K 1:52
30min 1:51
6K 1:50
5K 1:49

These distance times predict the 60s lwt 2K American record, 6:56, right around what Mike VB pulled this year.

My sharpening routines should be this:

8 x 500m (3:30 rest) 1:41
4 x 1K 1:44
4 x 2K 1:48
1K 1:40
500m 1:34

30'r20 1:56

ranger

[hjs]

In light of their unfailing loyalty to you, don't you feel obligated to prove to them all their years of work were not in vain and you are indeed right

So, what do you think I am doing?

You write this as though your post were some sort of epitaph, with my project done, and the results a failure.

Why?

I haven't even done one distance trial yet, much less sharpened and raced.

Sure, if I do all of my distance trials (and then sharpening routines), and they all come out consistently 10 seconds per 500m above my targets, then I have been wrong.

But I am not wrong before the evidence is in.

Or do you think I am?

Given what I pulled for a FM 10 years ago, when I was rowing badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.), the prediction is that my distance trials will be this:

FM 1:58
HM 1:55
60min 1:54
10K 1:52
30min 1:51
6K 1:50
5K 1:49

These distance times predict the 60s lwt 2K American record, 6:56, right around what Mike VB pulled this year.

My sharpening routines should be this:

8 x 500m (3:30 rest) 1:41
4 x 1K 1:44
4 x 2K 1:48
1K 1:40
500m 1:34

30'r20 1:56

ranger

That is not the prediction, the prediction is that you will never row any of these stated rows and that is predicted by a vast majority of the readers of this thread.
You will keep doing/showing nothing untill next winters first race which you will cock up, so simply it will be.

[ranger]

Yea.

If you are a little lightweight, with short little lightweight legs, like me, and pull 12 SPI @ 95 df., just stroking naturally, as I do now, you go along at 1:45 when you are in a 4-to-1 ratio (25 spm).

_Very_ relaxing stuff.

.5 seconds for the drive; 2 seconds for the recovery.

Middlin' UT1 HR (155 bpm), steady state.

Given my 7:00+ 2K right now, for the majority of my meters, the Wolverine Plan would have me row a couple of strokes, perhaps right at the end of the season, just before I raced, 1:52 @ 25 spm (9 SPI), while rowing most of the time at something like 2:08 @ 18 spm (9 SPI).

Absurd.

I think I'll get much better results if I just row, day after day, 1:45 @ 25 spm, until I can do it for a FM (or perhaps just a HM, lowering the rate a click to 24 spm and the pace to 1:48 for a FM).

So that's what I am doing.

Mike C. wouldn't advise such a thing, because even when he was 40 years old and pulling 6:18 for 2K, he couldn't do it himself.

His stroke was too short, his drag too high, and his technique too rough: He grabbed the wheel with his arms at the catch and muscled the chain.

ranger

[ranger]

For heavyweights, the counterpart to my lightweight 1:45 @ 25 spm (12 SPI) would be 1:37 @ 25 spm (15 SPI).

ranger

[ranger]

10 MPS is 2:00 @ 25 spm (8 SPI).

1:45 @ 25 spm (12 SPI) does (exactly) 50% more work per stroke.

ranger

[ben990]

It is clear:

If you are going to try to race at a high stroking power, you need to do a lot of distance rowing at a substantial rate (e.g., 25-27 spm) to show that you have the efficiency to handle the high wattages that result with a sub-threshold HR.

Rowing at low rates and higher stroking powers just cheats the issue, unless you do that low rate rowing at a _very_ low HR, which I suspect no one (who follows, say, the Wolverine Plan) really does.

If you are rowing 18 spm over some distance (say, 20K) at a high UT1 HR and a certain stroking power, you won't be able to row 28 spm over that same distance with that same stroking power and that same high UT1 HR.

I suspect that most of the slogging along at low rates that is done in training for rowing masks just this difficulty.

Instead of learning the skills necessary to row well at low drag, which lightens the chain, cuts the drive time, raises the ratio, and therefore makes rowing at 28 spm feel like it is 18 spm, rowers just raise the drag and their HRs and slog along at 18 spm, as though this low rate rowing was going to get them something like the same stroking power when they raise the rate to 36 spm in a 2K.

And, of course, it won't--unless they are doing that 18 spm at a _miniscule_ HR, such as 50% HRR (for me, about 115 bpm, for someone like Mike VB, something like 100 bpm.

Can a 60s lwt row 12 SPI at 18 spm (e.g., 1:55) at 100 bpm for 20K, or, say, even a FM?

If so, that would be pretty amazing.

For most 60s lwts, 1:55 is top-end UT1 (85% HRR); 2:00 is top-end UT2 (70% HRR).

ranger

It is also clear:

You now struggle to row a 2k at 7:02.3.

You have some serious issues.

I am thinking with the right training, you *might* someday be able to break 7:00 again. I have my fingers crossed for you. 7:02.3 is respectable though. Congrats on that! You rock, and you know it.

[bellboy]

In light of their unfailing loyalty to you, don't you feel obligated to prove to them all their years of work were not in vain and you are indeed right

So, what do you think I am doing?

You write this as though your post were some sort of epitaph, with my project done, and the results a failure.

Why?

I haven't even done one distance trial yet, much less sharpened and raced.

Sure, if I do all of my distance trials (and then sharpening routines), and they all come out consistently 10 seconds per 500m above my targets, then I have been wrong.

But I am not wrong before the evidence is in.

Or do you think I am?

Given what I pulled for a FM 10 years ago, when I was rowing badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.), the prediction is that my distance trials will be this:

FM 1:58
HM 1:55
60min 1:54
10K 1:52
30min 1:51
6K 1:50
5K 1:49

These distance times predict the 60s lwt 2K American record, 6:56, right around what Mike VB pulled this year.

My sharpening routines should be this:

8 x 500m (3:30 rest) 1:41
4 x 1K 1:44
4 x 2K 1:48
1K 1:40
500m 1:34

30'r20 1:56

ranger

Hey fucko, you may have forgotten what you said a little while ago so i shall remind you. You were going to be sharpening for six months. I think you said this in September but im sure Byron will know for sure. We remember your lies even if you do not.

[ranger]

It is also clear:

You now struggle to row a 2k at 7:02.3.

You have some serious issues.

Naw. Paddled that one in.

But it _is_ clear that I now row a lwt 6:41, unprepared, without distance rowing, distance trials, or anaerobic intervals, at max drag, still rowing badly.

So it will be interesting to see what I can do fully prepared rowing well at low/normal drag.

Everyone gets about a dozen seconds over 2K (three seconds per 500m) from a couple of months of anaerobic intervals.

I am not sure what distance rowing and distance trials contribute to a 2K, but something comparable (3 seconds per 500m), I suspect, if this rowing is done rowing well at low drag.

So what I end up pulling for 2K rowing well at low/normal drag might be pretty exciting indeed.

Now that I am 60 years old, if I can hit my targets, weight also becomes irrelevant.

I will beat Hendershott's 60s hwt 2K WR by a country mile (and set all of the 60s hwt WRs in the distance events from 5K to a FM by 3-6 seconds per 500m).

ranger

[PaulH]

Naw. Paddled that one in.

No you didn't. The timings from the row are public record, and everyone can see that you didn't 'paddle it in'. Why lie about something when it's so obviously a lie?

[ranger]

Naw. Paddled that one in.

No you didn't. The timings from the row are public record, and everyone can see that you didn't 'paddle it in'. Why lie about something when it's so obviously a lie?

Paul, bad rows have no bearing on anything.

Your achievement on the erg is a product of your good rows, not your bad ones.

And the only 2Ks that _really_ count are the ones that you are fully prepared to do.

The 2K is severely anaerobic.

To do your best, you have to do a lot of anaerobic rowing in your race preparation.

Otherwise, what you row for 2K is something closer to AT than TR.

In 2002, before I started my distance trials and anaerobic training, I pulled 6:42 for 2K.

After my distance trials and anaerobic training, I pulled 6:27.5 (and then a couple of weeks later, 6:28.5).

In 2003, before I started my anaerobic sharpening, I pulled 6:40.

Then, later that year, I pulled 6:28.

As everyone knows, I also need to get my weight right to row well.

At Baltimore in 2006, I pulled 6:29.7 as a heavyweight, unprepared, rowing at max drag, and then pulled a lwt 7:04 at WIRC 2006 two weeks later.

Because of problems with making weight, I paddled that one in, too, just as I did at BIRC 2010.

Then again, I have about a dozen good 2Ks now as a lightweight, including seven in a row in 2003.

So, I get my weight right frequently enough to show what I can do as a lightweight.

If I get my weight right, I am just as fast as a lightweight as I am as a heavyweight.

My heavyweight pb is 6:27.5; my lightweight pb is 6:28.

ranger

[ben990]

It is also clear:

You now struggle to row a 2k at 7:02.3.

You have some serious issues.

Naw. Paddled that one in.

But it _is_ clear that I now row a lwt 6:41, unprepared, without distance rowing, distance trials, or anaerobic intervals, at max drag, still rowing badly.

So it will be interesting to see what I can do fully prepared rowing well at low/normal drag.

Everyone gets about a dozen seconds over 2K (three seconds per 500m) from a couple of months of anaerobic intervals.

I am not sure what distance rowing and distance trials contribute to a 2K, but something comparable (3 seconds per 500m), I suspect, if this rowing is done rowing well at low drag.

So what I end up pulling for 2K rowing well at low/normal drag might be pretty exciting indeed.

If I can hit my targets, weight also becomes irrelevant.

I will beat Hendershott's 60s hwt 2K WR by a country mile (and set all of the 60s hwt WRs in the distance events from 5K to a FM by 3-6 seconds per 500m).

ranger

Naw. I beg to differ. You don't row that well now (bad coach?). I am thinking that if you knuckle down and work hard, you could get that 7:02.3 down, perhaps maybe a 7:01, or maybe, just maybe, you could break that magical 7:00 minute barrier by a second or two! Wouldn't that be special?

You don't post any meaningful information on here because it would show that you are worlds away from your targets. And it would put a damper on your little troll game.

It is interesting though, seeing your failure after failure, and your lie after lie. Carry on.

[rjw]

Naw. Paddled that one in.

No you didn't. The timings from the row are public record, and everyone can see that you didn't 'paddle it in'. Why lie about something when it's so obviously a lie?

Paul, everyone get's 12 seconds buy sharpening so his 7:02.3 is actually a 6:50. Not bad for someone with short lightweight legs on a B I G lightweight body.

[ranger]

Naw. I beg to differ.

Sure, but what motivates your differing is just ill will, not anything about rowing.

That's fine, though.

There are assholes like you all over the internet.

It is just odd that you want to be known as one of them.

ranger

[ranger]

You don't post any meaningful information on here because it would show that you are worlds away from your targets. And it wo

Meaningful information?

Not sure what you mean by that.

That depends on your judgment about what is meaningful and what not.

If you mean only race results and sharpening workouts (2K predictors) are meaningful, then sure, I haven't been doing races.

But if this is what you mean, you don't know anything about training, especially about training after your fitness is maximal and you have set a series of WRs for your age and weight.

After your fitness is maximal, even once, the only way to get better in this sport is to improve your rowing, to get more effective and efficient, technically.

That's what I have done.

Back in 2002-2003, I rowed badly (10 SPI) at max drag (200+ df.).

I now row well (13 SPI) at minimal drag (95 df.).

So I am a _lot_ better than I used to be.

I have posted all sorts of evidence for this.

In this sport, those who continue to concentrate on their fitness in training, even after it is maximal, just get worse and worse.

Or they get sick, injured, stale, and/or discouraged--and quit the sport entirely.

There is overwhelming evidence for this.

Almost all of the prominent masters, senior, and veteran rowers that were participating in this sport ten years ago when I got into it are no longer rowing at all.

Because they got sick, injured, stale, and/or discouraged, they have quit the sport entirely.

ranger