Discussion On Adjustments ...

[[old] John Rupp]

The PATT times are listed on the thread listed in my signature file.<br /><br /><a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276</a>

[[old] gw1]

John,<br /><br />Wouldn't the PATT be more accurate if the percentage was worked out relative to specific distance that the person has rowed. The age, weight and gender are all specific, shouldn't the relevant distance "All time record" be equally specific?<br /><br />Cheers<br />GW

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-gw1+Dec 28 2005, 04:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(gw1 @ Dec 28 2005, 04:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John,<br /><br />Wouldn't the PATT be more accurate if the percentage was worked out relative to specific distance that the person has rowed. </td></tr></table><br />Gary,<br /><br />Regarding the 2k distance, yes it would, and better it would have been done that way.<br /><br />I started PATT from my own curiousity and didn't intend for it as general usage. Also I had some concern that people would say times on a curve had not been done yet, although they fit the curve from one time to another. Perhaps that was an unwarrented concern. Thus I used pace instead of 2k times, but 2k times would be more interesting and precise. <br /><br />Should I ever get the chance and inclination to redo PATT again from the start, I will use the actual 2k times instead of the paces.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-gw1+Dec 28 2005, 04:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(gw1 @ Dec 28 2005, 04:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John,<br /><br />Wouldn't the PATT be more accurate if the percentage was worked out relative to specific distance that the person has rowed. The age, weight and gender are all specific, shouldn't the relevant distance "All time record" be equally specific?<br /><br />Cheers<br />GW[right] </td></tr></table><br />Regarding the other distances, they have not been done nearly enough to have any semblance of relevant records.<br /><br />Thus I sorted through the top all time marks for the other 9 events, for each gender, age group, and weight class, and selected the top marks of these. It turned out that the top marks were sorted rather evenly throughout each of the gender, age group, weight class listings, and I found no significant difference between them. For example, in a top 10 or top 20 list of each event, the times came from all different divisions.<br /><br />Thus I picked the top time in each event, compared it with the 2k WR for that AWG, and used the same percentage for each of the other divisions. I feel this is best way it could have been done. Certainly, having a different percentage for each AWG would have been chaos, not consistent, and not so relevant as PATT has turned out to be by having the percentages the same for each one.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 28 2005, 04:23 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 28 2005, 04:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I started PATT from my own curiousity and didn't intend for it as general usage.<br /><br />Should I ever get the chance and inclination to redo PATT again from the start, I will use the actual 2k times instead of the paces. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, we know that you started PATT to make yourself feel better about your times, but then you are using it to "challenge" others.<br /><br />And now you admit that it's validity is questionable at best.<br /><br />Thanks for coming clean on these points.

[[old] John Rupp]

One of the reasons I started PATT was to help motivate others, and it does help to motivate those who seek improvement, and also gives an excellent comparison of times from one year to another, especially in the later years.<br /><br />Had I used weak times from each AWG then the validity would have been low.<br /><br />However I used the very best times, from all divisions, and then used the same percentages for all AWG.<br /><br />Because of this, PATT has a very high validity.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 28 2005, 04:37 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 28 2005, 04:37 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, we know that you started PATT to make yourself feel better about your times, but then you are using it to "challenge" others. </td></tr></table><br />Well I thought you would see a challenge with me as motivation to row faster.<br /><br />But it just made you more afraid -- which was not my intent.<br /><br />If I had known you were going to make so many excuses and run away from challenging me then I would not have mentioned it in the first place.<br /><br />Yes one of my intents is that PATT can help anyone who uses it, to feel better about their times, and as motivation for improvements.<br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 28 2005, 04:52 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 28 2005, 04:52 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the reasons I started PATT was to help motivate others, and it does help to motivate those who seek improvement, and also gives an excellent comparison of times from one year to another, especially in the later years.<br /><br />Because of this, PATT has a very high validity. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You said you did not intend it for general use, and now you say you started it to motivate others.<br /><br />Which is it?<br /><br />Looking at the results from the PM is an excellent comparison of times from one year to the next. Nothing else is needed.<br /><br />Motivation is provided by setting goals and reaching them, not by making invalid comparisons based on number that you have pulled out of thin air.<br /><br />PATT has no validity, if it did, you could list the reasoning behind it, and you can not do that.<br /><br />I am making no excuses, but it is too bad that you continue to make baseless claims that further destroy your case.<br /><br />I know you thought you had won your challenge and facing the truth has been difficult, but if you realize that you can improve, instead of justifying your performance so far, you will be on the road to improvement, not only on the Erg, but as a person.

[[old] John Rupp]

I have always intended PATT to be used by others. Read my very first postings about PAT and PATT on the forum. My original intent was to compare my times. Once I got into putting it together though, I wanted to share it with others.<br /><br />I have listed the reasoning for PATT and it has a very high validity.<br /><br />PATT was developed for my own use and the use of others who like to compare their times from one event and one year to another.

[[old] Porkchop]

Who knew that 50-something "life coach"/rower/runners were chest-bumping practitioners? I always thought that chest-bumping was limited to under-30 males engaged in contact or semi-contact sports.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 28 2005, 05:54 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 28 2005, 05:54 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PATT was developed for my own use and the use of others who like to compare their times from one event and one year to another. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So now you admit it has nothing to do with comparing one person with another, even though you have used it for exactly that purpose when it suits your agenda of putting others performances down. Thank you for clarifying.<br /><br />I've always been able to simply look at my time for an event from one year to another and make the comparison. No vigorous calculation required.<br /><br />For example:<br />If one were to achieve a 2k time of 6:36.0 one year and then 6:33 the next year, they have improved their 2k time. If then they achieve a 6:34, they have not improved their 2k time. Pretty simple.<br /><br />The basic fact that PATT is based on non-existent World Records that may be faster or slower than actual achieved times is exacty what invalidates it as any form of analytical tool.<br /><br />In essence you say that PATT is intended as a tool for individuals to compare their own times from year to year, but to do that they must compare their times to others (mostly fictional) times. That makes no sense at all.

[[old] afolpe]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 29 2005, 11:26 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 29 2005, 11:26 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 28 2005, 05:54 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 28 2005, 05:54 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PATT was developed for my own use and the use of others who like to compare their times from one event and one year to another. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So now you admit it has nothing to do with comparing one person with another, even though you have used it for exactly that purpose when it suits your agenda of putting others performances down. Thank you for clarifying.<br /><br />I've always been able to simply look at my time for an event from one year to another and make the comparison. No vigorous calculation required.<br /><br />For example:<br />If one were to achieve a 2k time of 6:36.0 one year and then 6:33 the next year, they have improved their 2k time. If then they achieve a 6:34, they have not improved their 2k time. Pretty simple.<br /><br />The basic fact that PATT is based on non-existent World Records that may be faster or slower than actual achieved times is exacty what invalidates it as any form of analytical tool.<br /><br />In essence you say that PATT is intended as a tool for individuals to compare their own times from year to year, but to do that they must compare their times to others (mostly fictional) times. That makes no sense at all. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />One other point that might be relevant is that I have yet to see one other person on this entire board, or on the British board, refer to their PATT times, or make any claim that they have found this useful. Can anyone direct me to a single other person who has found PATT to be a useful training tool? Just curious.<br /><br />af

[[old] NavigationHazard]

By way of trying to return this thread to its original intent:<br /><br />It seems to me that one place where individual mass does make a noticeable difference is in the monitor's estimation of calories expended. <br /><br />The basic C2 equations are:<br /><br />Power (watts) = 2.80 / Pace (sec/meter)³ <br /><br />The calories are calculated from the power (in watts) assuming a 25% efficiency in conversion of human energy to flywheel energy and a 300 calories/per hour cost to move the body up and down the slide (this is based on a 175 lb person): <br /><br />Kcals/hr = Power (watts) x (4.0 x 0.8604 Kcals/watt) + 300 Kcals/hr<br /><br />This built-in equalization inflates the calories burned for lighter rowers and deflates it for heavier rowers. Regardless of how much power per unit of body mass is involved, rowers less than 175 lbs must expend commensurately less energy to move their bodies up/down the slide. Rowers heavier than 175 lbs must expend more. There's no argument about it, it's simple physics. Moreover, the faster the stroke rate, the more energy is involved.<br /><br />Adjusting the formula to account better for individual weight and stroke rate shouldn't be too hard to do. I think the increased accuracy would improve the marketability of the erg as a weight-shedding aid. Very large people in particular would be able to see that they're actually burning calories at a much higher rate than previously had been indicated. <br /><br />And as long as I'm thinking about ways to improve the PM, how about adding both a stroke counter (ErgMonitor already does this) and a way of tracking modal stroke data as well as averages? <br /><br />As things stand, there's no way to distinguish on the PM3 between a "30' r20" test <br />done in 586 strokes and one done in 614 strokes. Let's say both rowers turn in exactly the same result on test day: 7500m/ 2:00 avg. pace. The former clearly has a significantly more powerful stroke: 10.4 spi vs 9.9 spi. But without an accurate stroke count, this may not be apparent. Even to a coach watching the proceedings.<br /><br />And as for modal stroke data, Mark Twain used to joke about the man with his head in the icebox and his feet in the oven. On the average, said Twain, the guy was doing just fine. If you're supposed to be working at a specific stroke rating and/or pace, I think it would be useful to keep track of how close to that target the preponderance of your strokes actually is. <br /><br />Modal data also would be great for all the additional information (e.g. drive length, drive/recovery ratio) that ErgMonitor tracks. Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, but I think it can probably be calculated via spreadsheet if the log files are exported. However it would be nice if the process were automated.... <br />

[[old] hjs]

nice post navigation H.<br /><br />Offcourse it is obvious that the caloriecount and also the watt count is not the exact thing what is going on.<br />Your example for the 30 min row is very clear about that.<br /><br />An other thing which is very difficult to monitor correctly is the individual energie use. A good trained person will use less energie than a novice. There is now way, i think, to account fot that.<br /><br />But the thing you brought up stands. The energie use counted on a rower (stepper, bike enz) is not correct and no more than a rough average.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 28 2005, 02:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 28 2005, 02:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you could try a series of races ... 500M through HM ... during the year ... and use:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... ht_adj.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... asp</a><br /><br />??? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just bumping this up because it's such a great idea ... an online series based on a third party's weight equalization algorithm.<br /><br />Come on John and Paul, lets RACE!!!<br /><br />I'll bet you could even get a few sponsors, and our British friends can point us to a wagering house where we can get some odds and lay down some bets!<br /><br />