Ranger - News To Shock

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 20 2005, 09:34 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 20 2005, 09:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You seem to think that a WR time (even for a brief moment) on the Erg gives validity to your program and that others should want to try your methods (as impossible as it might be for most to fit them into their schedule).  Well, I can now say (because he said I could) that I have assisted in the training a WR holder, and the training schedule was something that can fit into normal folks lives.  By my calculations it required less time per week than you spend in a day, though with some of the cross training activities (things I did not schedule) it may have exceeded your daily commitment over the entire week.  I guess I'd be inclined to say that it sounds a bit more efficient to do it my way.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Good points Paul! Ranger's training volume is more in line with the training regimen of Ironmans competing in a ten hours event! His reliance on cross-training goes against the principle of specificity, which he claims doesn't apply to erging. This idea that training should proceed like the building of a pyramid, i.e. build first the widest aerobic base, etc, is a questionable metaphor. I find Mike Caviston's approach to training more appealing: progression in training is viewed as the growth of a child, where the various physical factors that affect performance progress harmoniously. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Francois

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 20 2005, 01:34 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 20 2005, 01:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have assisted in the training a WR holder[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Whose time is 9 seconds slower than 4 years ago.<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 20 2005, 01:59 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 20 2005, 01:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 20 2005, 01:34 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 20 2005, 01:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have assisted in the training a WR holder[right] </td></tr></table><br />Whose time is 9 seconds slower than 4 years ago. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Cheap shot! But also in the wrong direction.<br /><br />John, you are showing your silly agenda again, though it will not be as transparent to others, so I'll help you out.<br /><br />You're right, but 3 seconds faster than last year and that is when I got involved. I'll also point out that there were a lot of technical changes being made at the same time and competing was not ignored.<br /><br />You seem to be slowing down over the years, would you like some help in fixing that? Or will you just continue to adjust away your decline though mathematical manipulation?

[[old] onethirtyfive]

<!--QuoteBegin-FrancoisA+Dec 20 2005, 07:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 20 2005, 07:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i.e. build first the widest aerobic base, etc, is a questionable metaphor.<br />Regards,<br /><br />Francois<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />From what I have read of the development of aerobic bases, anyone doing Rangers level of training would have ceased to achieve gains in this area 'proportional' to the volume of effort a long long time ago.... there is no doubt before his WR's that with his background he had most likely maxed out any improvement in Vo2max and that any real development was going to come by increasing the point at which lactate prodcution outpace its use as an energy source. This is primarily achieve by exercising at rates that border on this intensity or above. This is not done in long endurance pieces.<br /><br />There will be some small changes going on at a mitochondrial level but even these returns would have been diminished.<br /><br />Just my thoughts<br /><br />cheers

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We all know that the HW category is more competitive than the LW </td></tr></table><br /><br />The world records in the various divisions are now becoming very competitive. In the 50-54 category at the moment, I wouldn't say that Ripley's hwt 6:07 is any better than Watt's lwt 6:25. Would you? A spread of 18 seconds between hwt and lwt is entirely normal. NH weighs 85 lbs. more than Graham and must have him by over a half a foot in height. I don't know how big Ripley is, but pretty big indeed.<br /><br />The WR in the 55-59 lwt category is relatively new and therefore is still pretty soft. Who knows, someone might even lower it this year below the 50-54 lwt WR. <br /><br />That would stiffen it up!<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] onethirtyfive]

<!--QuoteBegin-FrancoisA+Dec 20 2005, 07:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 20 2005, 07:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ranger's training volume is more in line with the training regimen of Ironmans competing in a ten hours event! His reliance on cross-training goes against the principle of specificity<br />Regards,<br /><br />Francois<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />More good points <br /><br />Specificity is a well accepted principal - stepping will not improve erging in general. The only way it would is to help develop your cardio system if it was poorly developed and you were not able to do so erging due to say physical weaknesses, but neither of these apply to Ranger<br /><br />Also with specificity is the habituation question, if you row for long periods at low rates no matter how strongly, all you have done is habituate low rates (and the associated neuro-muscular responses). This will be difficult to overcome in the short term until your body re-learns to replicate the stroke at higher rates.<br /><br />Lastly is training volume, all I would say here is that we improve thru stress and recovery. We do not get faster/better while training, we improve during recovery. If you are stressing your body every day then you keep tearing down the walls and the never get any higher. If you are doing the same thing every day which Ranger has reported for a long time, he is either not creating any stress hence no improvement, or he is not recovering. I had a look back and noted Ranger alluded to Lydiard and a model of middle distance runners doing long distance in training - they tended to do one long run a week of maybe 20 miles and the rest would have been iover in an hour. I have read of no one doing this volume of training except for those competing in Ironmen events (not even Olympic dist triathletes) and that would be a base phase at very low intensities, not less than a month before competing. Note the fact that the person achieves results with these methods does not vindicate that the methods work, more likely that they are underachieving thru poor training methods.<br /><br />just my thoughts again<br /><br />cheers

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From what I have read of the development of aerobic bases, anyone doing Rangers level of training would have ceased to achieve gains in this area 'proportional' to the volume of effort a long long time ago. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think that the large volume of cross-training I do makes me unusally durable so that I can train harder and longer than most (without ill effects and without rest) at both low rate work at high stroking power and high rate work at lower stroking power. The cross-training prevents staleness, injury, sickness, discouragement, boredom, overspecialization, and most of the other serious problems than can derail a training regimen. <br /><br />It makes me feel great. It is literally rejuvenating. It makes me feel like a 20-year-old (and train row like one, too).<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->stepping will not improve erging in general. </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that the person achieves results with these methods does not vindicate that the methods work, more likely that they are underachieving thru poor training methods. </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />Yes, evidence is _never_ relevant where dogmatism is possible.<br /><br />I must say, it is wonderful to "underachieve" to this level! <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From what I have read of the development of aerobic bases, anyone doing Rangers level of training would have ceased to achieve gains in this area 'proportional' to the volume of effort a long long time ago </td></tr></table><br /><br />I cross-train so that I can do the quantity and quality of hard work specific to rowing that I do, lately, on stroking power, next, on aerobic and anaerobic capacity.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have read of no one doing this volume of training </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />If you do what everyone else does, you row like everyone else does.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] onethirtyfive]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 20 2005, 08:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 08:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It makes me feel like a 20-year-old (and train row like one, too).<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />2k record for this is 6:02.*

[[old] ljwagner]

Hmm.<br /><br />"In the 50-54 category at the moment, I wouldn't say that Ripley's hwt 6:07 is any better than Watt's lwt 6:25"<br /><br />How does that calculate at wattage per pound ? Would the lightweight enable an 8 to be faster, since he would add much less mass, but nearly the power ? Take 100 lbs out of the boat, and keep total power about the same.<br />

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 20 2005, 10:59 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 10:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->stepping will not improve erging in general. </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Ranger,<br /><br />IMHO, there should be competitive events on the stepping machines!<br />I am sure you would set WR on it too! <br /><br />You are probably the only 55 years old in the world doing 2 hours of stepping every day at a comfortable 300 watts!

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 20 2005, 02:41 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 02:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wouldn't say that Ripley's hwt 6:07 is any better than Watt's lwt 6:25.[right] </td></tr></table><br />Actually, the open records are 25.6 seconds apart.<br /><br />Thus Watt's 50+ lwt record is much better than the record for 50+ hwts.<br />