Lean Body Mass And 2k Performance

[[old] ranger]

Question for PaulS.<br /><br /><br />You mentioned at one point that, if you control for lean body mass, the best performances by men and women come out to be just about the same.<br /><br />Could you show us these calculation for, say, Joan van Blom and me, lwt 50s rowers? <br /><br />My calculations seem to be way off.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--quoteo(post=56329:date=Feb 19 2006, 12:47 AM:name=ranger)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 19 2006, 12:47 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Question for PaulS.<br /><br />You mentioned at one point that, if you control for lean body mass, the best performances by men and women come out to be just about the same.<br /><br />Could you show us these calculation for, say, Joan van Blom and me, lwt 50s rowers? <br /><br />My calculations seem to be way off.<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Joan is far easier on the eyes than you, what part of the calculations are you having problems with? <br /><br />Did you Race in Chicago this w/e? Weight? 2k time?

[[old] PaulS]

Another bit that might be important to take into account. As far as I know, the study was done with elite athletes while they were still elite. Joan has been part of that group in the past but I would not say that she is at this time. Her results simply show what a former elite athlete can do with a far less rigorous training schedule. I'll be happy to be corrected by her if my assessment is not correct.<br /><br />Your main problem is that you want to equate real WR's with Age class WR's as being "relatively the same", and I can't see how that could be a valid goal given the statistical difficulties. i.e. Matthias Siejkowski is one of the few athletes that we get to see at an exceptional level of performance over a number of years, and he set his fastest mark at the age of 35, but was equally impressive in his younger days also. Are we to conclude that 35 is the "Optimal age" for Erging performance from what looks to be the available data? That would seem strange, unless the age classes suddenly did not even begin until after 35, since it would indicate there is no need for them until then. After all, they only exist to give folks who would never be able to place without them a chance to earn a bit of metal and cloth in "competition", and if the "fastest time ever" was produced at age 35 it seems that no help is needed there. <br /><br />Perhaps you have bought so hard into the PRATT percentage method that you now think it has become meaningful in some way other than to help it's originator feel better about rather poor personal performance.<br /><br />Now if you can get up to snuff and produce times as fast as the fastest lwts ever have, which shouldn't be a problem based on your claim that a 1:48 avg pace for a Full Marathon should not be a problem for you, you will prove my point exactly that as long as you have the fitness, age doesn't matter.<br />

[[old] ranger]

Paul--<br /><br />So what about those calculations?<br /><br />ranger<br /><br /><!--quoteo--><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'><!--quotec-->I'll be happy to be corrected </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fine. But what are the calculations, so that we can see if you need to be corrected?<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--quoteo(post=56384:date=Feb 19 2006, 03:42 PM:name=ranger)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 19 2006, 03:42 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul--<br /><br />So what about those calculations?<br /><br />ranger<br /><br /><!--quoteo--><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'><!--quotec-->I'll be happy to be corrected </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fine. But what are the calculations, so that we can see if you need to be corrected?<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's pretty funny, but you are way past your pay grade, thinking you might have a chance at correcting me. If I need help on a poem I'll be sure to ask for your assistance. But that's pretty easy stuff.<br /><br />Bring on the data! Your weight, LBM, Bodyfat %, and 2k Time? (and Joan's).<br /><br />I'll have to guess at the way the Tokyo folks did their calcs, but that shouldn't be terribly difficult, probably can use the C2 weight adjustment calculator and use LBM.<br /><br />What were your calcs? Surely you don't have a problem with the apparent fact that muscle is muscle, regardless of the gender of the person that posesses it? Or are you suggesting that women can't train to as high a standard as men?<br /><br />This was already discussed on the UK forum, with people who genuinely cared about the discussion, why are you bringing it up here, an attempt at a cheap shot perhaps?<br /><br />So are you trying to join the "pretty fast for a girl" club? 8)

[[old] ranger]

<!--quoteo--><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'><!--quotec-->Bring on the data! </td></tr></table><br /><br />Last time I was tested, when I was about Joan's age and had just rowed 6:28, my LBM was 159.5 lbs. when I was rowing as a lightweight and therefore 165 lbs. at the weigh-in.<br /><br />I don't know about Joan's stats. Perhaps she could fill us in.<br /><br />I just assumed that she might be 25% fat and near the 135 lbs. limit for lightweights and the figures were pretty far off from coming out even, given that she has rowed 7:23.<br /><br />Are one or more of these assumptions wildly wrong?<br /><br />ranger

[[old] JimR]

<!--quoteo(post=56452:date=Feb 20 2006, 10:02 AM:name=ranger)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 20 2006, 10:02 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo--><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'><!--quotec-->Bring on the data! </td></tr></table><br /><br />Last time I was tested, when I was about Joan's age and had just rowed 6:28, my LBM was 159.5 lbs. when I was rowing as a lightweight and therefore 165 lbs. at the weigh-in.<br /><br />I don't know about Joan's stats. Perhaps she could fill us in.<br /><br />I just assumed that she might be 25% fat and near the 135 lbs. limit for lightweights and the figures were pretty far off from coming out even, given that she has rowed 7:23.<br /><br />Are one or more of these assumptions wildly wrong?<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm not arguing with the data you presented but do you have any idea what the highest possible LBM% is? I assumed that people had to carry some amount of "non-lean" body mass (which includes but isn't limited to fat). You are reporting a 96.67% LBM percentage which would explain why being a lightweight is proving difficult.<br /><br />JimR

[[old] PaulS]

<!--quoteo(post=56452:date=Feb 20 2006, 07:02 AM:name=ranger)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 20 2006, 07:02 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo--><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'><!--quotec-->Bring on the data! </td></tr></table><br /><br />Last time I was tested, when I was about Joan's age and had just rowed 6:28, my LBM was 159.5 lbs. when I was rowing as a lightweight and therefore 165 lbs. at the weigh-in.<br /><br />I don't know about Joan's stats. Perhaps she could fill us in.<br /><br />I just assumed that she might be 25% fat and near the 135 lbs. limit for lightweights and the figures were pretty far off from coming out even, given that she has rowed 7:23.<br /><br />Are one or more of these assumptions wildly wrong?<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, I'd be very surprised if Joan was over 120lbs, but other assumptions should be in the ballpark.<br /><br />Let's just try a very simple calc. Watts/LBM<br />7:23 = 257watts/90lbs LBM = 2.86 (2.54 if a 135lb bodyweight is used)<br />6:28 = 383watts/159lbs LBM = 2.40<br /><br />So Joan can produce 2.86/2.40 = 119% your watts/lb (106% for the 135lb bodyweight)<br /><br />Now if we use the C2 calculator along with LBM instead of total bodyweight (which is going quite far outside it's design and purpose), you both come out with an adjusted pace of 1:26 and change. (Joan's jumps to 1:29.0 at the 135lbs)<br /><br />Looks like you have some room to improve your muscular power, at least relative to "the girls". <br /><br />Looking at some other historical data, you would be about 77% of a peak performing young male rower in the Watts/lb area. Probably pretty close to what one might expect with the aging process taking it's toll.<br />

[[old] joanvb]

<!--quoteo(post=56379:date=Feb 19 2006, 06:21 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 19 2006, 06:21 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Her results simply show what a former elite athlete can do with a far less rigorous training schedule. I'll be happy to be corrected by her if my assessment is not correct.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi Guys,<br /><br />Just came upon this thread. I'm flattered (I think!) to be included in this conversation. Yes...for me, unfortunately, "far less rigorous" is an understatement,...and although I'd be interested to know, I haven't made the effort to have my body fat measured since entering the "mature" categories. So, I don't think I'm the most appropriate female for this comparison. Thank you for considering me! <br /><br />Joan <br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--quoteo(post=56479:date=Feb 20 2006, 10:48 AM:name=joanvb)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(joanvb @ Feb 20 2006, 10:48 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=56379:date=Feb 19 2006, 06:21 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 19 2006, 06:21 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Her results simply show what a former elite athlete can do with a far less rigorous training schedule. I'll be happy to be corrected by her if my assessment is not correct.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi Guys,<br /><br />Just came upon this thread. I'm flattered (I think!) to be included in this conversation. Yes...for me, unfortunately, "far less rigorous" is an understatement,...and although I'd be interested to know, I haven't made the effort to have my body fat measured since entering the "mature" categories. So, I don't think I'm the most appropriate female for this comparison. Thank you for considering me! <br /><br />Joan<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for that Joan, but I'm not sure if you meant by "understatement", that you have a more or less rigorous training schedule these days. To clarify might be easier to select one of the following.<br /><br />Joan's current training schedule is:<br />1) Far far less rigorous<br />2) Less rigorous<br />3) More rigorous<br />Than it was when rowing at an elite level.<br /><br />Ranger seems bent on trying to correct me for some reason so I really would like this to be perfectly clear.<br /><br />His aspirations to "row like a girl" is showing a sign that he really does want to improve, so I can't fault him there.<br /><br />Thanks again, and I hope to say hello in Boston.

[[old] joanvb]

Sorry for the ambiguity. My current training schedule is 1) <!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->FAR<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> less rigorous than it was when rowing at the elite level. <br /> Joan<br /><br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

PaulS's PRATT is more developed than it used to be.

[[old] ranger]

<!--quoteo--><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'><!--quotec-->So Joan can produce 2.86/2.40 = 119% your watts/lb (106% for the 135lb bodyweight) </td></tr></table><br /><br />Oh, you're talking about watt/kg! I thought you were talking about powering a boat (of some sort)!<br /><br />Different matter.<br /><br />Of course, for those of equal abilitiies, as weights get widely separated, the lighter rower has an easier time generating more watts/kg. In a 2K, I generate as many watts/kg as Graham Benton even though I am 55 years old.<br /><br />The "weight-adjustment" <br /><br />How do these numbers come out if the comparison is a matter of powering boats? <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Ah. It looks as though the calculations come out _very_ close, even for powering boats, though. I nip Joan by a couple of seconds, not much.<br /><br />I guess I had Joan as having more LBM in my calculations. Don't know why.<br /><br />Interesting result! _Very_ encouraging, given my interest in rowing on the water as a heavyweight.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] kinley]

<br />DUMB QUESTION: Is lean body mass the inverse of body mass index, or are these totally unrelated calculations? <br /><br />I'm mildly curious because I do much of my weekday erging at the local hospital's cardio-rehab facility. They'll let anyone join, but non-patients have to go through a cursory intake exam that includes a BMI test using an infra red (?) gadget. Does the number this gadget produced correspond to the numbers discussed in this thread? Or not? <br />