Why So Slow With The Rates?

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 17th, 2004, 3:21 pm

Original post based on a misunderstanding. Reference to a nice plan, The Pete Plan: <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... highlight=' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... hlight=</a>

[old] KMurphy · Post by **[old] KMurphy** » October 17th, 2004, 6:09 pm

I took Pete to mean that he rows at nearly the same spm as he does his 2K for the longer rows. Then obviously he is pulling less watts for the same pace so training at lower SPI. Seems as a newbie to rowing there are two views on this forum... View one says that you maintain roughly your 2K SPI and reduce your SPM more and more as you row longer distances. The opposite approach is to maintain your SPM as your row longer and longer but reduce your SPI. If you look at it that way is there a way to say one is better then the other? My guess is that either way can be used to maintain various HR levels and VO2Max % training intensities. So to me the question would be one of muscle development and memory. Assuming you are not changing your drive length, it would seem that rowing at race SPI at slower rate is only changing your recovery time not drive time. Thus your drive is exactly like race drive at same SPI, lenght and time. You just recovered slower creating a mini interval. But obviously muscle memory on the recovery is not the same as race SPM. Or is the reverse better where you drive and recover at race speed just don't generate as much power? From the articles I've seen you have to train your muscles with the same speed/rythem that they will be used in the event. So which way is closer over all since you have to give on either SPM or SPI or there is no way to train for longer than your 2K time. Just some thoughts from a beginner.

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » October 17th, 2004, 6:29 pm

The 20 spm is for when I'm in the eight and am having timing problems... I'm tall and the person who is sometimes in stroke is short so I can't seem to keep my speed down to match on a bad day. He also does that for people who rush the slide and have a poor catch or stroke as a result. Mabe that helps clarify ~Sara "Life's short... row hard" "Real athletes row, the rest just play games." "Shut up and row"

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 17th, 2004, 9:03 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (gorow9 @ Oct 18 2004, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The 20 spm is for when I'm in the eight and am having timing problems Mabe that helps clarify ~Sara "Life's short... row hard" "Real athletes row, the rest just play games." "Shut up and row"  </td></tr></table> Hi Sara ... you hit the issue on the head with your comment in that it clarifys nothing and everything. For you, your time on the erg is to supplement your 'rowing' and hence your methodolgy is based around that. For most people here (general assumption) what we do is erging (not rowing) and our goal is to 'erg' faster ... so your reasons for rowing at 20spm has no relevance to erging faster as it involves timing with others .... not stroke timing (drive v recovery) or the possible physiological benefits of low rating on an erg. - George

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » October 18th, 2004, 5:08 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>No offense AM, but I'm not sure if I agree with that 'old school' way of thought. I think it's time to break the mold on that way of thinking. </td></tr></table> Dwayne, I would never be offended for changing points of vue; that's why I am here! Anyway, I think I agree that long workouts might not be of great use above a certain level of fitness. Quality is better than quantity. Still, I think they are good for someone who is beginning, mostly for mental and muscular endurance and raising VO2. I know I talked like those "old guys", but (I think) I'm not one of them. AM

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » October 18th, 2004, 12:07 pm

Carl and KMurphy, I'll try to answer the points you've both made. Firstly, the pete plan only includes one session per week at race pace or under, on Mondays. These are 8 x 500m, 4 x 1k, or a pyramid, which you alternate between once a week. There is one other interval session on a Thursday in the plan, but that is at about 5k pace (5 x 1500, 4 x 2k, and another pyramid). For the distance work I do it both at a lower pace (obviously) than 2k pace, and a lower rate. Basically, if I'm training at 2k pace, I row at 2k rate, faster than 2k pace (eg 8 x 500m) I allow myself to rate higher, slower than 2k pace I rate lower. My 2k rate is average about 35spm. Pete

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 18th, 2004, 12:33 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Oct 18 2004, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> For the distance work I do it both at a lower pace (obviously) than 2k pace, and a lower rate. Basically, if I'm training at 2k pace, I row at 2k rate, faster than 2k pace (eg 8 x 500m) I allow myself to rate higher, slower than 2k pace I rate lower. My 2k rate is average about 35spm. Pete  </td></tr></table> Having read through this thread, it seems there is some justifiable confusion regarding "above" and "below" race pace. This is due to what is being displayed on the Monitor (if it were simply Watts, the case would be clear), since Pace is "Time per 500M" "faster" paces are "lower" numbers. It is conventional to say "Above race pace" and mean "Slower than Race Pace" since 1:40 is "above" 1:30 as far as pace goes. (When it was suggested that Dwaynes training was opposite the referenced article, I wasn't seeing it that way at all.) This could all be made clear by discussing things in terms of "faster than race pace" and "slower than race pace" OR "Above race power" and "below Race power" If anyone is still confused, there is even a less confusing way to notate paces; Race Pace + 5 ("above") OR Race Pace -5 ("below"); that may make it more obviously clear. Erg on, Paul Smith

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 18th, 2004, 1:48 pm

Thanks Paul, for clearing that out and kudos for detecting the problem. I had gotten it wrong I don't even think I historically have interpreted/used the expressions in a consistent manner. From now on it's "faster than" or "slower than". My apologies.

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » October 18th, 2004, 2:12 pm

Lol, I hadn't even thought that we were all thinking opposite ways around.

[old] KMurphy · Post by **[old] KMurphy** » October 18th, 2004, 2:42 pm

Yea Paul that does help some. However, I'm still seeing a lot of disagreement on how to achieve the slower than race pace used for longer rows. Maybe an example would help. Just to make the numbers easy ... Lets say someones PB 2k pace is 1:45.0 and they row that at 35spm. Lets say they want to row 10K and that typically 1K pace is 2K Pace + 10 (made that up). So you want a pace of 1:55.0 for your 10K training piece. (not a PB intensity but rather training intensity) There seem to be two camps on the the board. The first would say to row your 10K at say 1:55.0 with say 27 spm and another would say row it at say 20 spm. In this example pace is constant for the 10K but SPI vs SPM is different. So the question is where on the SPI vs SPM continuom for a given pace is best for training at various distance pieces. It seems there should be some winner as muscle memory and other issues shouldn't be the same for all points on the spectrum. This is one of the biggest questions I have as a beginner IE I can tell what pace I need to be rowing at to get a certain HR band or whatever, but I'm having a hard time telling from the forums what SPM/SPI to use for each piece as there seems to be a lot of opinions. Sorry for confusing myself if this is clear to everyone else. KMurphy

[old] becz · Post by **[old] becz** » October 18th, 2004, 3:10 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (remador @ Oct 18 2004, 04:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>No offense AM, but I'm not sure if I agree with that 'old school' way of thought. I think it's time to break the mold on that way of thinking. </td></tr></table> Anyway, I think I agree that long workouts might not be of great use above a certain level of fitness. Quality is better than quantity. Still, I think they are good for someone who is beginning, mostly for mental and muscular endurance and raising VO2. </td></tr></table> I think people tend to misunderstand the utlility of long, steady state pieces. I agree with Dwayne that there are better ways to improve strength, and yet I don't think that that's what these workouts are used for by people who have a solid understanding of rowing training. When people hear of national team rowers putting in 50k+ per day on the erg over the winter, the initial reaction is "What's the point?" Basically the point is training volume, and most of it is done at low rates, but also "relatively" low pressure, i.e not the kind of workout that constitutes strength development. These workouts are for aerobic capacity and muscular efficiency. You can't put in 200-300k per week and do much of it at high intensity. You'd succumb to either exhaustion or injury. Intensity usually isn't thrown into the mix until competitions near, but volume is decreased accordingly. So the comment of long workouts not being of value above a certain level of fitness seems a bit backward to me.

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » October 19th, 2004, 3:00 am

KM You can use any set of rules you like. Suggest you use either the Watts/stroke rule (10 or higher) or the > 10m/stroke rule. Select your pace/Watts and then keep going as long as possible. Adjust next time or after the first few mnutes as necessary. I use the work per stroke rule. In a 2k test I pull at rating 27, 270W, or 10 Wmin/stroke. In a workout which is supposed to be UT1 (max 80% of a 2k Wattage) I row at around 75-80% of 27, i.e 20-22 and >200W. If I'm feeling lazy as usual, all I need to do is up the rating by a point or two, or drop the Watts to 180 (= UT2). These numbers all depend on my sex, height (or my stroke length, which is 125cm catch to release), weight and age and the method is tough enough for me. My numbers won't change much, as I'm already in reasonably good condition but unlikely to get any younger. If you're not fit, your numbers will change fast as you get fitter. See the Interactive for more details. There it's all in paces, but the principle is the same. The tough young lady (or lightweight) in your 300W/1:45/35 rating example could well follow the same rules, if her coach will let her. A 10k will be UT 1 or 2, so the wattage will be 60-80% of 2k Watts: 180 (ut2) to 240 (hard ut1), erg rating 24 to 30. As level control, see the Interactive: you can use HR, sweat, talking, feeling, rating, pace or any combination. Discrepancies mean you can get fitter. These methods oblige us to "row": which means think of every single stroke on its own, make sure it's long and hard and then let the boat run. In rowing you can't get back in the next stroke what you lost in the last, without enormous effort. The objective is not to get into the next stroke as soon as possible, but to do a very good one, then let the boat move on its own, as boats tend to do if they get the chance. A medium DF will help, say 130-140. Lower than this and you'll be chasing the flywheel, so lose length, higher and your pull will be slow and too hard and the recovery will be rushed.

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » October 19th, 2004, 4:49 am

I think people tend to misunderstand the utlility of long, steady state pieces[QUOTE] becz, I guess I need to clarify my point. Building muscular endurance and efficiency, as well as aerobic capacity, is better made by long, steady-state workouts - only this will lead to significant structural changes. Other training methods may get the same apparent results, but the long-term differences will show, sooner or later. Nevertheless, I agreed with Dwayne Adams, because I know he is allready in great, great shape, so, I supposed that he is in a plateau where he may be more specific. On the other hand - if Dwayne Adams is readins this, please correct me, if I'm wrong (and sorry for using you as an example ) -, I think DA cames from a body-building past, so, his VO2 max value (must be high) has to be genetically determined. So, he might not feel the same need that most other guys feel to build aerobic endurance. The problem, here, is you get too much concise and then you seem a bit simplistic, sometimes. AM

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 19th, 2004, 6:58 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Oct 16 2004, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm with Dwayne on this. Very occasionally I'll do a 30mins at 20spm as a kind of power test, but in my normal training most distance pieces are done at 27spm+. For a beginner though lower rates I think are good just to learn proper technique so you don't get all out of coordination, which it sounds like you may well be doing to be rowing 1:55 at 41spm... Your coach makes you do sessions at 16spm? I see absolutely no benefit of that at all I have to say. 20spm, maybe, but lower than that, no. Pete </td></tr></table> Pete-- This is certainly not a simple matter. I guess each of us just have to find out individually what works best, given our peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss slow stroke rate rowing as a significant part of a training plan. The aim of slow stroke rate rowing, if I understand it correctly, is not to pull at 2K stroking power but to pull (for long distances) well _above_ 2K stroking power. Then when you race (at a lower stroking power) your stroke will feel smooth and easy, not as much of a strain. Some of the same principle is operating when you do 8 x 500m at 2K - 4. Usually, 500s of this sort are rowed somewhat above 2K stroking power. Pulling harder has a lot to do with stroke length and drive speed. A lot of slow spm rowing helps to develop a easy use of such length and speed. In many, many cases, the only differences between a faster rower and a slower rower is the stroking power that they use, not their rate. For instance, it appears that both you and Dwayne row a 2K at 35 spm. But Dwayne pulls a 2K at about 15.2 SPI and you pull at about 12 SPI. If you want to row as fast as Dwayne, the major training task you face is how to feel easy and relaxed (for 2K) while pulling more watts per stroke. The logic of slow spm rowing (at a stroking power well above 2K power) is exactly to get you used to pulling more watts per stroke in just this way. Lately, I have been doing a lot of long rowing at 13 SPI. But I will probably race at 11.5 SPI. This 11.5 SPI is a point higher than my usual racing SPI, though (of about 10.7). If I were you, I would do a lot of slow spm rowing at 15-16 SPI, so that you can feel easy racing at 13-14 SPI (but you are clearly not choosing to). As Caviston urges, the point of slow spm rowing at a high power is not to "test" your stroking power but develop/get facilitated to increasing it. To gain this facilitation, he recommends rowing above 2K stroking power about 70% of your training time, not just occasionally. Pace John R., not many of us are going to row a 2K at 42 spm like Eskild. We are going to row at some comfortable rate and then try to devise training that will make it so that we can pull more watts per stroke. The question is: What is the most effective way to do this? It will be interesting to follow your progress this year and in the next few years. If you get the improvement you are looking for while still neglecting slow spm rowing, then you will prove your point, enough said. But if not... ranger

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » October 19th, 2004, 7:19 am

Ranger Can I just ask you............. When you took on this new stroke did you move the foot plate holes to a new position or keep them the same. How many holes do you have showing? Is the "angle" of lean back on the end of the stroke the same too? Sir Pirate

Concept2 Forum

Why So Slow With The Rates?

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training