18 Spm

[[old] LanceH]

After reading through a lot of the forums it seems everyone pulls a lot faster SPM than I am.<br /><br />I workout 6 days a week:<br />roughly 18 SPM<br />45-60 minutes<br />10k training time is roughly 45 minutes<br />heartrate building up to 150-170 in the first 20 minutes (warmup is essentially built into the workout)<br />I'm 280 pounds and 6'5"<br /><br />I'm actually pretty happy with my workout. I'm seeing good results and I'm motivated. But I'm somewhat curious if I'm missing out on something. It has always been my thinking that I can pull faster whenever I want just by recovering faster. I don't have any real desire to shoot for a PR in any particular distance when I can concentrate on getting a good workout instead.<br /><br />It is my impression that through a slow SPM and a more explosive catch I'm doing a much more strength based workout. My other thought has been that it would be a lot easier to row a higher SPM once I lose some weight (aiming for 250 currently).<br /><br />Is there something to be gained by practicing a higher SPM or does it not really matter if I'm not worried about going faster just yet?

[[old] John Rupp]

As you're 6'5, you're getting a higher percentage of drive length per time, compared to someone who isn't as tall. Also you have more strength to provide to each stroke with your weight.<br /><br />Thus your feelings about this are correct.<br /><br />

[[old] sharp_rower]

FYI, here's what I happened to read on <a href='http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/progra ... ortCode=RO' target='_blank'>http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/progra ... RO</a>:<br /><br />"Rowing is an endurance test that finishes at a speed of up to 10 metres a second. Crews cover the middle 1000 metres at about 40 strokes per minute, but, over the first and last 500 metres, <b>shift up a gear to as many as 47</b>." Are you kidding!!?<br /><br />LanceH, I think there's a lot to be gained by erging at higher SPM. First of all, it will feel smoother and much less sluggish. You should say what drag factor you're using, as a high one may explain why your workouts feel strength-based and why you feel compelled to erg at a slow SPM.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has always been my thinking that I can pull faster whenever I want just by recovering faster. </td></tr></table><br /><br />The same goes looking at it the other way around: you can afford to pull less vigorously if you do it more frequently, while not losing any speed whatsoever.<br /><br />I'm of the opinion that higher SPM, weaker pull is much more enjoyable over long distances and I <i>think</i> will induce greater weight loss due to the faster movement. Since weight loss is your goal, you should aim to erg faster. I don't think you should delude yourself into thinking you can't do it simply because of your weight.<br /><br />In any case, do what feels right.

[[old] PaulS]

As mentioned above, your Drag factor would be helpful, along with your age for reference.<br /><br />How long have you been at this program that you are currently doing, and where was your weight at the beginning? How about your Pace in the beginning?<br /><br />6'5" and 280 could be distributed a lot of ways, if your waist is fairly large 42+, then it is probably getting in the way, but should slowly get out of the way as you progress.<br /><br />Are you holding your pace relatively steady through the piece or do you go "slow to fast", "Fast to slow", "Random", etc...?<br /><br />

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-sharp_rower+Jul 9 2005, 08:01 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(sharp_rower @ Jul 9 2005, 08:01 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm of the opinion that higher SPM, weaker pull is much more enjoyable over long distances and I <i>think</i> will induce greater weight loss due to the faster movement. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It hasn't been a controlled experiment (same amount of erging, same caloric intake, etc.), but I have <b>not</b> found that my weight loss has increased during my current period of higher rate erging (I've been rowing this season at a rate of 30-35 spm vs. 23-28 spm in the past). In fact, I'd say my rate of weight loss is much slower (I've still got plenty of weight to lose just to get back down to where I was during the last stretch of intensive rowing, much less to where I want to end up), but again, no attempt has been made to make this a controlled experiment.<br /><br />I do agree that the combination of higher rate, lighter pressure and especially a pair of C2 slides under the machine makes for a more enjoyable long-distance rowing experience. I'm not convinced it is the most efficient way to get fit, but a more efficient way that is unpleasant enough that it doesn't get done isn't the answer either.<br /><br />Bill

[[old] jfisher]

<!--QuoteBegin-whp4+Jul 9 2005, 11:10 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(whp4 @ Jul 9 2005, 11:10 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sharp_rower+Jul 9 2005, 08:01 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(sharp_rower @ Jul 9 2005, 08:01 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm of the opinion that higher SPM, weaker pull is much more enjoyable over long distances and I <i>think</i> will induce greater weight loss due to the faster movement. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It hasn't been a controlled experiment (same amount of erging, same caloric intake, etc.), but I have <b>not</b> found that my weight loss has increased during my current period of higher rate erging (I've been rowing this season at a rate of 30-35 spm vs. 23-28 spm in the past). In fact, I'd say my rate of weight loss is much slower (I've still got plenty of weight to lose just to get back down to where I was during the last stretch of intensive rowing, much less to where I want to end up), but again, no attempt has been made to make this a controlled experiment.<br /><br />I do agree that the combination of higher rate, lighter pressure and especially a pair of C2 slides under the machine makes for a more enjoyable long-distance rowing experience. I'm not convinced it is the most efficient way to get fit, but a more efficient way that is unpleasant enough that it doesn't get done isn't the answer either.<br /><br />Bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Part of the problem here is that we're comparing apples, to oranges, to pears.<br /><br />1. Losing weight. This has relatively nothing to do with SPM with the exception of how high your hr gets and for how long. This would be roughly equivilent to a caloric expendature but not exactly. Basically calories in < calories out. No way around that. Besides body fat % is the real measure, not weight since lean muscle mass weighs more than fat.<br /><br />2. Stroke effeciency. I can't really speak to that since I'm not experienced enough. however, the least efficient stroke would lead to more calories burned for a given distance. So if losing weight is your sole goal, go with what's inefficient. <br /><br />3. Fitness vs Racing If you are just trying to get fit, then you want to row at whatever pace is enjoyable and sustainable in the long run. I don't know about you guys, but my chances of seeing 40+ strokes per minute are about as remote as me being on an olympic crew! I've just been cruising along at about 25spm when training and 28-30 when racing. I've lost 7lbs and am down to 11.5% body fat. I'm hoping to get down to about 7% so I can row as a light weight. I'm a lot fitter than I was but a long way from my 147lb bike racing weight and form. So I think it's really tough to compare what world class rowers do compared to the rest of us getting in shape.<br /><br />Jeff

[[old] LanceH]

Drag factor 141.<br />Age 35.<br />I'm doing negative splits all the way through the workout.<br />My weight doesn't prevent me from recovering fully although it does effect my breathing fully at my most compact point in the stroke. This hasn't proven to be much of a problem though.<br /><br />I'm more athletic than my weight and height alone might suggest although I could definitely do with getting below 250.<br /><br />To put it in cycling terms that I'm more familiar with, it feels like I'm using the big gear and pedalling slow. To me this feels like I'm training my weakness as in cycling I prefer to spin faster and use a smaller gear. Again, I really don't mind that my times are slower than they could be.<br /><br />I suppose I'm not worried that I'm doing something horribly wrong. I'm feeling great results. I guess I'm looking at how I should interpret my style versus the higher SPM that is much more common here.<br /><br />One last observation about slower SPM. It's feels so much more visceral.<br />

[[old] PaulS]

Okay, Here's what I'd recommend to start.<br /><br />Drop your DF to the 110 range.<br />Good for you on the negative splits, but for 10k, even a pace that you could barely finish as steady state would not be outside the bounds of a good warm-up pace, so keep the pace more even through the whole thing, i.e. 2:16 is the 45 mihutes you mentioned, so do that from beginning to end, then if that's just too easy, try 2:15, and so on, eventually it will get too hard to maintain, but just barely, and that's when you need to start alternating Easy and Hard days in your schedule.<br /><br />Finally, to get into a better ratio, give S10PS a go, that is "Strapless, 10 meters Per Stroke", first drive from 10,000m, next catch right on 9,990, next on 9980, etc... so a 10K takes exactly 1000 strokes. Obviously try to accomplish this as smoothly and efficiently as possible, without rushing any part of the recovery, but while maintaining good stroke sequencing. Not to worry, it can get pretty visceral. <br /><br />I was in a similar situation as you perhaps, carrying 30 extra pounds around after too long away from structured activity (me, not you). My first 5k on the Erg coming back was at 2:12 and I though I might just die, but consistency paid off and the 30lbs was gone in the next 6 months, and the body continued to reshape over the last several years to where I'm still at 240, but I now sink in water instead of float. <br /><br />I'd like to get to 220, but seriously have doubts about where the 20 lbs would come from.<br /><br />Cheers!

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-jfisher+Jul 9 2005, 09:02 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jfisher @ Jul 9 2005, 09:02 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Losing weight.  This has relatively nothing to do with SPM with the exception of how high your hr gets and for how long.  This would be roughly equivilent to a caloric expendature but not exactly.  Basically calories in < calories out.  No way around that.  Besides body fat % is the real measure, not weight since lean muscle mass weighs more than fat. </td></tr></table><br />#1- Basically you burn the same number of calories per kilometer no matter how fast you are going. You can go faster with less effort at higher stroke rates, thus burning more calories per time. Since less effort is involved to go faster, you will be able go also row longer, without getting burned out. Thus it's a double attack on the calories.<br /><br />With a higher stroke rate you (1) burn more calories per time and (2) burn more calories by rowing for longer.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Stroke effeciency.  I can't really speak to that since I'm not experienced enough.  however, the least efficient stroke would lead to more calories burned for a given distance.  So if losing weight is your sole goal, go with what's inefficient. </td></tr></table><br />#2- Compare a power walker, strolling along waving their arms while bouncing up and down, with a smooth well trained runner. Obviousy a well trained runner is going to be far more lean and more fit and, like in example #1, an efficient rower will (1) burn more calories per time as well as (2) more calories overall.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Lance,<br /><br />I agree with doing negative splits, and invariably do negative splits for everything.<br /><br />The only difference is that time trials hold a closer line to even all the way, but the splits are still negative.<br /><br />Compared to cycling, if you were training for an 8 mile hill climb that you were going to spin up all the way, would it be better to train for this spinning, or riding a high gear up the hill? Personally spinning helps me to prepare much better for hill climbs. <br /><br />Cyclists often do strength training up hills at 50 spm or so, but that is a very small percentage of their overall training, and might consist of 4 sets of 10 minutes twice a week. The rest of the time is spinning at high rates or recovery.

[[old] jfisher]

From <a href='http://home.hia.no/%7Estephens/ppstroke.htm' target='_blank'>The Physics and Physiology of Rowing Faster</a><br /><br />You will have to reproduce the perfect, powerful stroke at low ratings before you can hope to repeat it for 240 strokes at race pace. <b>Why do we row at these low rates like 18 so much anyway, if we race at 36?</b> By rowing at low rates you can ingrain the proper force-time curve on your stroke before you are sufficiently adapted to reproduce it for 2000 meters at race pace. The coordinative adjustments required to row the same technique at a higher rate come quicker than the biological adaptations necessary to support that effort.<br /><br />Jeff

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-jfisher+Jul 9 2005, 02:24 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jfisher @ Jul 9 2005, 02:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By rowing at low rates you can ingrain the proper force-time curve on your stroke before you are sufficiently adapted to reproduce it for 2000 meters at race pace. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />That is not a correct statement.<br /><br />Given a similar effort, the force-time curve is most definitely NOT the same at 18 spm as it is at 36 spm.

[[old] jfisher]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 9 2005, 05:46 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 9 2005, 05:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-jfisher+Jul 9 2005, 02:24 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jfisher @ Jul 9 2005, 02:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By rowing at low rates you can ingrain the proper force-time curve on your stroke before you are sufficiently adapted to reproduce it for 2000 meters at race pace. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />That is not a correct statement.<br /><br />Given a similar effort, the force-time curve is most definitely NOT the same at 18 spm as it is at 36 spm. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You'll have to take that up with the person the wrote the article. It appears he knows more than you and I. Did you even go to the link and read it?<br /><br />Jeff

[[old] John Rupp]

Yeah I read it a few years ago.

[[old] John Rupp]

Here's a suggestion.<br /><br />Take a video of your rowing at 18 spm.<br /><br />Then speed it up double time, and see if that is the force-time profile you want to have at 36 spm.