Stroke Rythm

[old] amheward · Post by **[old] amheward** » November 29th, 2004, 10:00 am

Hi, I also posted this on RowPro's forum, so I apologize to those of you who are also members there. I was looking at Row Pro's coaching clinic, as well as some short videos online, and I noticed that proper rowing stroke technique generally has the recovery phase take around twice as long as the drive phase. I noticed that what I've been doing to increase my SPMs, though, has been to shrink my recovery phase without increasing the speed of my drive. Is this a cardinal sin? When I tried matching the rhythm of the animation in RowPro's coaching clinic, which shows a rower going at about 25 SPM, I just about nearly died. My normal calorie usage, using my apparently bad technique, is around 800/hr at 25 SPM. However, pacing the animation--which has a much quicker drive than my usual--my calorie burn went up to 1200/hr. What can I do to solve this issue? If I keep my drive speed the same, but lengthen the recovery phase to make the timing ration 1:2.5, I'll be rowing with an SPM of probably 16-18, which seems extremely slow. On the other hand, if I work to keep my SPMs above 20 then I'll never be able to complete a longer workout without passing out. I can't maintain a 1200cal/hr pace for longer than 5 minutes. Do I just have to work through it and, at least at first, change to a pathetically low stroke rate? The fan cover, by the way, is closed as far down as it can go, so I can't make the stroke any easier. I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this. Maybe I need to go to a nearby rowing club and work with a coach there? Anyone live in the Northern VA area?

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 29th, 2004, 10:20 am

Amheward-- Rowing at low stroke rates with a high ratio of recovery to drive (e.g., 2.5:1) is indeed good, but it is also fine to slow down. No need to match the _pace_ (speed of the drive) of some model animation until you are ready for the workload. How about a reasonable compromise? Try to row at 2:00 pace (1000 calories/hour) and 25 spm. That is 10 meters per stroke. Row as far as you can comfortably. Then take a break. Then row again. Do this untili you row the distance/time you usually row in a workout. Then over time work toward a continuous row for the full time/distance. When 2:00 pace gets easy, slowly up the pace and rate. Try 26 spm and 1:55 pace, or whatever. This will also be around 10 meters per stroke. ranger

[old] amheward · Post by **[old] amheward** » November 29th, 2004, 6:26 pm

Thanks for the advice! I'll give it a try.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 30th, 2004, 12:51 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (amheward @ Nov 29 2004, 06:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> what I've been doing to increase my SPMs, though, has been to shrink my recovery phase without increasing the speed of my drive  </td></tr></table> A 1:1 ratio is very close to optimal. I checked the ratios of several rowers from the 2004 Crash B's, i.e. Graham Benton, Eskild Ebbesen plus others, and their drives were all around 46.5% as percentage of the stroke. The stroke of these rowers is very even and flowing throughout, even at high/er rates.

[old] amheward · Post by **[old] amheward** » November 30th, 2004, 9:52 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Nov 29 2004, 11:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (amheward @ Nov 29 2004, 06:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> what I've been doing to increase my SPMs, though, has been to shrink my recovery phase without increasing the speed of my drive  </td></tr></table> A 1:1 ratio is very close to optimal. I checked the ratios of several rowers from the 2004 Crash B's, i.e. Graham Benton, Eskild Ebbesen plus others, and their drives were all around 46.5% as percentage of the stroke. The stroke of these rowers is very even and flowing throughout, even at high/er rates.  </td></tr></table> That's interesting. However, it contradicts what I found here: <a href='http://www.southernct.edu/departments/g ... _diane.doc' target='_blank'>http://www.southernct.edu/departments/g ... br> The relevant quote from the above paper: "Stroke rate is the number of strokes performed in one minute and sets the timing of the rowers. Maintaining a proper stroke rate throughout a race enables the rower to optimize his/her performance (Clentano, Cortili, DiPrampero, & Cerretelli, 1974). The drive/recovery ratio is the time for the drive phase divided by the time for the recovery phase. In maintaining a proper stroke rate, the athlete should keep a drive/recovery ratio of one to two (Redgrave, 1995). Martin and Bernfield (1980) found no matter what stroke rate the subjects rowed at the drive phase was still the same percentage of the stroke time: the subjects consistently maintained a 1:2 ratio. The drive/recovery ratio was tested in a study using the Japanese national team. Subjects rowed at a 35 strokes per minute, which corresponds with a stroke duration of 1.71 seconds. The mean duration of the drive phase was 0.63-0.64s, indicating that the drive/recovery ratio was 1:2 (Ishiko, Katamoto, & Maeshima, 1983)." It also contradicts what every other source has told me about drive/recovery ratios. So, I hope you'll forgive my skepticism. Abe

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 30th, 2004, 10:42 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (amheward @ Nov 30 2004, 05:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> That's interesting. However, it contradicts what I found here: <a href='http://www.southernct.edu/departments/g ... _diane.doc' target='_blank'>http://www.southernct.edu/departments/g ... It also contradicts what every other source has told me about drive/recovery ratios. So, I hope you'll forgive my skepticism. Abe  </td></tr></table> Hi Abe, Excellent reference, but you misunderstand the nature of the claim. It has nothing to do with scientific research or controlled study, but rather is based on selective and incorrect interpretation of race video. What is going to happen next is an endless recitation of "facts" about Eskild E. and any other name that can be remembered. Don't become frustrated when it happens, and please continue to point to interesting source documents as you already have. Cheers

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » November 30th, 2004, 11:05 am

There's a net distinction between paddling and rowing, to use watery terms. When a crew paddles (i.e.training over long pieces) we (me anyway) do it at 20 to 24, and the ratio is around 3:1. Otherwise stroke gets the sack. The idea is to work, not to collapse, so we need time to recover. When we row (= race) at 32 or more for a 2k which lasts 6-7', the ratio falls if we want to go fast and win the race. Otherwise stroke gets the sack. The idea is to collapse 2m before the line. There's a very delicate balance between a good rhythm that gives us time to breathe and relax without rushing the recovery, and sticking your oar in often enough to go fast - stroke's problem. Long races (such as the Putney to Mortlake boatrace or heads of rivers, typically 20') are somewhere in between and would be worth a little analysis to see what happens when things get really nasty. The key here is to avoid fade; if you take it easy for the first mile or so you'll see a procession of crews going backwards. On the erg we can use drag to control the speed of the flywheel at the catch and hence the pull/recovery ratio. The reason why some very low ratios are seen on the erg is the sloppy catch: a lot of length is wasted just trying to catch up with the flywheel, so necessarily very fast people have to rate very high, and they just don't have time for a recovery comme il faut. On water the boat (and so the pin and the blade) effectively stop at the catch, so this is very quick with no length loss. The work is correspondingly much harder, and we need a good rhythm to survive. I've lost races at 36 that I could have won easily at 32.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 30th, 2004, 2:53 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (jamesg @ Nov 30 2004, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I've lost races at 36 that I could have won easily at 32.  </td></tr></table> Let's not disclose the secret of "slowing down to go faster" James. Before you know it, rowers will not appear so frantic in the "sprint".

Concept2 Forum

Stroke Rythm

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training