The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

The best way to get a perspective on the role of physical ability and conditioning in rowing is to compare the times of older and younger rowers.

At the Head of the Charles this last year, for instance, the 60s race was won in a time that was almost two and half minutes slower than the Open race.

That's a gap of 15 seconds per 500m.

I assume that the older rowers are just as skillful and experienced as the younger rowers.

The difference is entirely a product of differences in physical capacities and training.

Sure, even if they are equally conditioned, I assume that gaps between a highly skillful and a less skillful rower can be as much as 25 seconds per 500m.

But as with physical differences, it often isn't.

Mike VB keeps about a 20 seconds per 500m difference between his erg times and his OTW times.

I still can improve a lot in my OTW rowing, but as I am stroking along, I usually keep about a 23 second per 500m difference between my erg times and my OTW times.

So it will be interesting to see how this comes out.

If I pull 6:16 on the erg, the gap between Mike's 2K and mine on the erg will be 8 seconds per 500m.

If I improve three seconds per 500m OTW, our OTW rowing will be just the same, vis-a-vis our erging.

Sure, if Mike can get much more skillful as a rower and get down to the spectacular 8.5 seconds per 500m gap between OTW and erg times achieved by people like Zach Purchase, then he really can indeed take advantage of his technical skill to compensate for his lack of physicality.

But to do this, he would have to do 1K in 3:31/1:45.5 pace rather than 3:48/1:56 pace.

Best of luck to him in his work on his OTW technique.

That would be quite an improvement.

ranger

[auerli]

At the Head of the Charles this last year, for instance, the 60s race was won in a time that was almost two and half minutes slower than the Open race.

That's a gap of 25 seconds per 500m.

ranger

Just a little hint: I do not know how time works the RangerWorld but in the real world two and a half minutes are NOT 250 seconds.

Try again!

[PaulH]

I am not talking about all masters rowers--20s. 30s, 40s, and 50s.

I am talking _60-year-olds_.

Nice try to dodge, but quoting you directly:

Most OTW rowers hate the erg because it is hard and objective.

For a man whose profession is English, you seem to have a very shaky grasp on its use. Some might even say it makes you look... foolish?

[PaulH]

Those who are fastest, the Danes, Italians etc, have terrible "technique" according to most who post here, and yet they are the best rowers in the world. They are also the most highly conditioned on the erg.

First allow me to ignore your side-tracking into the life benefits of conditioning, which I agree with but are irrelevant to this discussion.

There are two basic choices for technique, John, that define two ends of a continuum. You can be graceful, elegant, skimming across the water with barely a ripple. Or you can bully your way through the water, looking like a haywire car wash from the outside. The former is certainly something to aim for, as it's most effective for most rowers. But if the latter suits you better, i.e. you go faster, then that is good technique *for you*.

Now whatever technique you use, if you've worked on your conditioning to the point where you can hold 300W on the erg for race duration, but you can only usefully put 200W through the oar, then you've wasted most of the time it took you to train from 200W to 300W, when you could have been raising both your technique and conditioning to, say, 250W in parallel on the water.

[NavigationHazard]

And while we're at it, who says that any of the Danish and Italian LWs you're so enamored of have "terrible technique"? In my case, I think your understanding of their technique is poor. Your grasp of its practicality for non-LWs outside the Danish system or the Italian LM4x is worse. And your knowledge of elite training both off and on the water is worse still. But those judgements have nothing to do with my opinion of the rowers themselves. Some of whom are the best in the world at some specific things in their particular weight divisions, but who by no means can be categorized collectively as "the best in the world."

[johnlvs2run]

He a claimed top erger, you a very mediocre one....

"Through indoor rowing I've also learned that I seem to have some sort of comparative advantage in the longer pieces. This is a relief to me: at the Long Beach Rowing Assoc., we did lots of 500
metre pieces in practice, and I always performed poorly, despite achieving high heart rates (in
fact, my best 500 wasn't much faster than 1/4 of my best 2,000m). Despite the high heart rates, I
thought that perhaps I just didn't have enough character to push hard enough on the shorter
pieces. Now I've learned that I just have no "top end" (although I'm working on it). My best
2,000m is 6:39, and my best 500 is 1:32.

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=131057#p131057

Freed did not claim to be a top rower, in fact he said he "performed poorly" at the usual Long Beach 500m pieces. Maybe that's where "someone" came up with him being mediocre. Also I know that "someone" does not carry speed well over distance, which is typical of most "ergers." I must be in good company being also judged to be mediocre. Perhaps if I was a 6 foot plus tall 250 pound blob who did 6:39 as a heavyweight then I would be considered to be "good." No thanks.

And I never read that freed did row on very low drag on the highest possible ratings like you did. So the same ?

What a stretch. Who gives a crap what drag he rowed on. I have rowed on drag factors from 65 to over 300. Freed did not row in that range? You are full of it. Got any other dumb arguments.

did you row close to your pb every session you did like Freed claimed? Never heard you say that. So again the same ?

I posted previously that I used a modified Freed program. I did do his workouts but not every day, usually one to three times a week, and did far more distance rowing than he did. In any case, the program worked well for me. I did an 82:48 halfmarathon from a 7:25.8 2k PB at the time which was 2k+6 for the half.

What is really interesting is it is the lazy buggers who doubt Freed. Those who do the training like he did do not doubt him at all, because they know it is possible, and they know that it takes hard work to accomplish the type of results that he did -- not whining and complaining, making excuses, being lazy.

I know the results that come from this type of training because I have accomplished this type of results for myself.

[Bob S.]

Just completed a season best HM this morning. In view of the some of the current discussion on this thread about 2k as related to long distance times, I decided to compare my result with what would be predicted from my best 2k time (here). My HM was over 4 1/2 minutes faster than the predicted time. Does that mean that it was a good HM time? Hell no! It just meant that the 2k time sucked.

Bob S.

[johnlvs2run]

There are two basic choices for technique, John, that define two ends of a continuum. You can be graceful, elegant, skimming across the water with barely a ripple. Or you can bully your way through the water, looking like a haywire car wash from the outside. The former is certainly something to aim for, as it's most effective for most rowers. But if the latter suits you better, i.e. you go faster, then that is good technique *for you*.

Agreed.

This is why it's ridiculous that most rowers in this country focus on trying to bully their way through the water.

And then they call this "technique."

Freed even addressed this in the article:

interestingly enough, I think that the Indoor Rower has improved my technique. By watching the monitor, I've learned that what feels harder doesn't necessarily make me go faster. Examples abound: (1) a quick catch feels "easier" than a big "weightlifting-type" slug at the catch, but the quick catch lets me go faster; (2) keeping my hands lower at the catch and during the drive lets me go faster; etc.).

I found the same thing.

The best rowers in the world, the Danes & Italians etc have found the same thing and row the same way.

Henrik Stephansen: 5:58.5 WR 2009
Elia Luini: 6:02.6 - WR 2004
Eskild Ebbesen: 6:03.2 - WR prior to 2004
http://johnlvs2run.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/videos/

[ranger]

At the Head of the Charles this last year, for instance, the 60s race was won in a time that was almost two and half minutes slower than the Open race.

That's a gap of 25 seconds per 500m.

ranger

Just a little hint: I do not know how time works the RangerWorld but in the real world two and a half minutes are NOT 250 seconds.

Try again!

Yes, sorry.

I have changed it.

ranger

[snowleopard]

I posted previously that I used a modified Freed program.

So, in fact, you didn't follow the Freed program at all. You paid it lip-service. And yet, on the basis of following your own program you claim an identical, consequential outcome to Freed and, furthermore, that Freed's times must be genuine.

[mikvan52]

Most OTW rowers hate the erg because it is hard and objective.

Yes, this one riles me!

A perfect troll-type post... designed only to upset the OTW rowers.. (Trolls state falsehood for its "upset" value alone and do not care if they spout BS)

Rich: How many OTW rowers do you know well enough to make this judgement?

You scull all your meters alone... by your own testimony...
What a confusing chap you are

Lets assume for a moment that you do know lots of OTW rowers and are able to get inside their heads...
What was it that made you conclude that most cannot value the objectivity of the erg? (this should be really funny)

Don't OTW rowers have the objective of crossing the finish line...?
Seem pretty simple to me! Line up. Row.

When is your first OTW race going to be again?

You've said "age 60". Why wait?

My next post will list 60 year olds you will never beat partially because you started too late. You could have started racing with as little as 200k under your belt (2005?) But, since you can' stand losing, you waited. Now your CV system is flagging.

When I started OTW racing in the 1x (1998) I DFL'ed... That's right D.F.L.... dead effing last
A rower learns a lot by doing that.

My advice to you is to start racing right away if you want to excel...
There's no need to excel of course. It's a pleasure just to participate.
You do seem to be interested in doing well with all the repetitive posts of ERG vs OTW formulae about boat speed. I hope you learn to forget about watts generated on the erg as a predictor... It doesn't work that way.

You've just been given great advice in a recent post about the watts that can be maintained.
Soon you should bone-up on other factors like "load", "work-through", blade shape & length, and such before you go on and on about merely rating it up in order to win.

I won all my races at Masters Nationals under-rating the field... Truth be told: There were other factors in my boat which aided me in this outcome.

For 1x events at the 1k distance: I had to compete 5 times in two days. I won all 5 pieces...
Now, here you come saying... "Mike would scull faster if he could bring the rate up."
You've neglected all that I've mentioned above....(other factors)

I do hope you will consider coming to scull with Buzz and me at a RowSkills offering... I'd be happy to share more about this with you.
Together we'd learn to bury the hatchet (blade)

[johnlvs2run]

I used a modified Freed program.

So, in fact, you didn't follow the Freed program at all.

Your antipode is confutable.

[auerli]

What is really interesting is it is the lazy buggers who doubt Freed. Those who do the training like he did do not doubt him at all, because they know it is possible, and they know that it takes hard work to accomplish the type of results that he did -- not whining and complaining, making excuses, being lazy.

I regard myself not as one of the "lazy buggers" but I do doubt Freed´s times.

I don´t do any speed sessions but my training consists almost exclusively of steady state rowing with sessions mainly 70+X minutes. Even in my (a bit special) interval sessions (normally once a week) my splits are more than 4s off the splits of my 2k PB. But even as a pure long distance specialist without ANY specific 2k training (or sharpening as some people would describe it) I managed splits for my 2k about 5.5s below my capability for 6k and about 10.5s below that for a HM. If you have a very good aerobic base and pull excellent times for larger distances you will automatically pull a good 2k also. The only reason for such a discrepancy between the long distances and the 2k can be very poor technique. For Freed who was/is a rower, however, this should not apply in particular as his (putative) distance times are absolutely outstanding and need some kind of (may be specialized but still) good technique.

No doubt a distance specialist will find it difficult to pull a good 500m (mine are absolutely crap), but no way there is such a drop in quality in the results like in the case of Rod Freed!

I do not say Rod Freed did not row these times. But how about the possibility that his machine was a bit "special" and the times he did on other machines (the 500m and probably also the 2k?) rather reflected his real capability. I for my part have realised large differences between different machines. For example on the machine I privately own (a model C) my splits are always about 2 seconds slower than on the machines at the club...

I think Rich´s 16690m hour (probably not done at weight) which he pulled when he (still) was extremely fit and used a not very nice but very efficient technique is not far from the maximum 50+ year old lightweights (at weight ) can achieve. I do not believe in 17k+ efforts.

Just my 2 cent

Matthias

[mikvan52]

My next post will list 60 year olds (who head race) you will never beat partially because you started too late. You could have started racing with as little as 200k under your belt (2005?) But, since you can't stand losing, you waited.

In no particular order:

Jim Dietz, Bob Spousta, Robert Sengstaken, Jack Meyer, Mike van Beuren, John Flory, Landon Carter, Daniel Bort, Wiley Wakeman, Gregg Stone, Dennis Ruane, Tiff Wood, Tim Willsallen and many others.
I don't include the 60 year olds who row well at 1k because I've not seen them head race..

It's a good practice to avoid being an authority on things you haven't eye-witnessed yourself! (Any one have video on Freed?)

Go ahead, Rich, beef up and row 6:16 for 2k on the erg like a gym rat on steroids… it won’t make any difference.
For the record: I've beaten at least one under 6:16 erger at the Head of the Charles and I cannot break 6:40 for 2k on the erg.. So throw out the formulae Rich and just start racing. Speculative talk is cheap!

You may complain that the list above contains people who are not 60 yet. Well, they will be by the time you get racing experience OTW…
Or, are you going to win the HOCR the first time out in 2011.
I will be 60 in 2012..... (until then, compadre)

You would do well to grudgingly admit that many OTW rowers don't bother to try to max out on the erg as I do...Instead, they just peak on the water.... Are they wimps in your book?
You would do well to admit that a 6-7 minute event takes different skills than a 19-21 minute event...
What's your current 5k erg time again???

[snowleopard]

I used a modified Freed program.

So, in fact, you didn't follow the Freed program at all.

Your antipode is confutable.

Did you follow the program? No, you didn't. At any point of departure it ceases to be the Freed program and the test (such as it is) is invalidated,

Was there a control study to ascertain whether or not your results were simply a product of "doing some training" or as a result of following a specific program (even if it wasn't the Freed program)? No, there wasn't.

Was the sample size of one statistically significant? No it wasn't.

Is there any basis, at all, to the conclusions you draw? No there isn't.