Catch And Resistance

[old] Paul S · Post by **[old] Paul S** » September 23rd, 2004, 1:01 pm

OK, this may be a dumb thought, but if he has slack could it not be a tired bungee cord? Paul S (Not the sharper PaulS) Perhaps I should change my moniker to something else though I'm sure my postings alone should distinguish me from the real PaulS.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » September 23rd, 2004, 11:19 pm

John, Add me to the list of S10MPS ergers that Paul has helped. He hasn't coached me personally, but I've stuck to his advice on S10MPS and am now working on beating my old PBs (set at any old rating, which means probably around 8MPS) at 10MPS. Just because you don't like his advice and won't follow it doesn't mean that people who do follow it aren't improving. Carla

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » September 24th, 2004, 4:45 pm

Carla, I'm glad you are working on beating your old PB's. If you had been rowing for a few years and leveled off in your times at 8 (or 9) mps, then switched to 10 mps while continuing the *same training* and improved all those times, then that might indicate you do better at 10 mps. Have you done this? Then if you switched back to 8 (or 9) mps, otherwise continuing all the same training, and got slower, this would be another indication for you. Have you done this? So far, and I did ask the question, no one has come forward who has done either one of these experiments. Not even the original proponent of the method has done them! Now why would someone be such a strong advocate for a method without testing it? Very strange. However I have done both of these experiments. Also if you keep getting injured with a certain method than that is another indication that it is probably not all that good for you. I do hope you remain injury free and keep beating your times.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » September 24th, 2004, 6:04 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Sep 24 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> while continuing the *same training*  </td></tr></table> That's the point, it's not the same training, it's better and more effective. We all know that you tried to do S10PS one time and could not come anywhere near your own high rate paces, then immediately deemed it "worse", when you should have simply noticed that it was harder than flailing away as you had been doing when you ran out of rate to trade for pace and plateaued. The reason, you had long stopped developing strength and power production (genuine physical adaptations) in favor of diminishing returns fed by inadequate PM feedback. It's not really your fault for going that way, the PM reinforces that behavior. However it is your fault for not paying attention to advice that has been shared to assist others. As for being scientific, it seems to me that you have never tried slides but insist that they give an advantage in spite of the true science proving otherwise. I think the kindest word applicable would be hypocrit. Apologies to the rest of the forum for having to deal with JR harshly, but one can only take so much, and some newer members will not be aware of the rather colorful history surrounding the relationship. - Paul "S10PS" Smith

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » September 24th, 2004, 7:27 pm

Hi John, I started using the S10MPS training method after I had set all my PBs at 8-9 MPS, and had wracked up my back really badly. When I came back I switched over. I have a history of lower back failure that sometimes happens from nothing at all, but I did have a few really hard episodes with it after switching over. At the time I was doing a lot of hard intervals, and I think I was doing that before I had enough of a base, which was courting disaster. I'm working on strengthening my core and have not had the kind of back failure I was experiencing since then, though it's still a challenge, as it has been for about 20 years. The other injuries I've had were: a broken wrist, from falling on ice; that had absolutely nothing to do with rowing, except that I couldn't row for quite a while. A recent problem with Achilles tendon happend when I switched from a B to a C machine and I think the set up was different enough--the feet seem to be angled differently or something--I don't think it had anything to do with S10MPS. And not from Paul's slings, either, because I rowed with them for over a year and never had this happen before. I am beating all my old PBs, now at S10MPS. One of these days just for fun, I'll strap in and use any old rating I want and see how the increased strength of my legs from rowing S10MPS further improves my times. But my training will all be at 10MPS. It just plain old feels better than shuttling back and forth madly and I feel it's having good results. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you row, it feels good to you and you like the results, and heavens knows you are probably one of the fittes people there are around. But you don't have to act as though Paul's advice is no good just because you don't care to follow it. Carla

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » September 25th, 2004, 12:43 am

Hi Carla, Thanks for your kudos. I am impressed by your achievements as well. Yes I like how I row, the results, and it is always nice to go faster. Training at 10 and 12 mps *feels* much easier for me too. That's because it *is* much easier. Rowing at competitive (2k mps) rates is much harder, which is why so few rowers do it all that much in training or at all. Freed, Ebbesen, etc are very much the exceptions. I find it interesting that you think 10 mps will improve your times at faster ratings, i.e. 8 mps etc. I find just the opposite. Rowing at 8 mps improves my times at 10 spm. Even with doing all of my training at 8 mps or less, I can hop on the erg and row very close to my regular paces while at 10 mps. Strangely and in total contradiction to Paul Smith, rowing at 8 mps improves my strength for rowing at 10 mps!! Again, this is no surprise however, as he has never tested his method and takes offense when anyone does.

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » September 25th, 2004, 8:09 am

Just to say that HEAVY CATCH was when we got into those old in-riggers (I sure miss those times), with wood oars! Maybe erg's would need to have a 14 or 15 damper setting to simulate THAT! Sculling or sweeping in modern shells it's quite different, indeed. But, the point is that, exactly because they are lighter, you can use a lot more power over it. From my personal experience, develloping power on an in-rigger as we do on a shell - well, maybe just for some kind of guy between Hulk and 2 or 3 long distance runners! A monster, anyway! This leads me to a somewhat more serious matter: using low df or damper setting does not mean that you are weak, or so... it just might mean that you are using your strength (structure) in a more powerfull way (function). On the other hand, the catch should be immediate: as soon as you stop the recovery, you'll have to apply leg power. AM

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » September 25th, 2004, 1:34 pm

John, When I say 10MPS feels better I don't mean it feels easier. Doing 8 or 9 is much easier on your legs as far as the pressure you exert goes. So if I can row a piece comfortably at 10 MPS at a certain pace, doesn't it stand to reason that I could eventually and somewhat uncomfortably row the same piece at 10MPS at a higher stroke rate and get a better time? As the 10MPS gets more ingrained, you then start increasing the stroke rate, and the pace automatically improves. Another option would be that I could "relax" on the 10MPS and increase my rate a lot (which would be easier) and also get a better time, as Paul suggests (I think) "Train hard and race easy"? Paul, if I'm messed up on this, correct me. Carla

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » September 25th, 2004, 8:24 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (seat5 @ Sep 25 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Paul, if I'm messed up on this, correct me. Carla  </td></tr></table> Yes, you have it correct. John is just pulling our legs (and being his usual "180 degree from right" self) when he says that he can pull the same paces at S10PS more easily than when strapped up and flailing about at 8mps, otherwise his PB's would be done S10PS (because "it's so much easier to go faster"). Or maybe he just likes to challenge himself by doing PB's in the most difficult manner possible, keeping the actual times much slower than he is actually capable of at the time. Yeah, that's it! Of course, I'll bet his flailing about at 8mps is no picnic either, as the lack of slide control, that makes him certain that slides are an advantage, would be playing against him there. - Paul Smith

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » September 25th, 2004, 9:23 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (remador @ Sep 25 2004, 05:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This leads me to a somewhat more serious matter: using low df or damper setting does not mean that you are weak, or so... it just might mean that you are using your strength (structure) in a more powerfull way (function).  </td></tr></table> Nice observation.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » September 25th, 2004, 9:23 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Sep 24 2004, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>That's the point, it's not the same training, it's better and more effective. </td></tr></table> Why doesn't it work for you then?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » September 25th, 2004, 10:19 pm

Carla, Certainly if you can row a piece comfortably, you will go faster for the same piece when you up the rate, at "any" given meters per stroke, i.e., you can increase your rate from comfortable to faster at 8 or 9 mps as well as at 10 mps. Rowing at 8 or 9 mps doesn't take any less strength than rowing at 10 mps, but is faster because of the greater aerobic power that is produced. I disagree with Paul that different rowers should use the same meters per stroke, as this is a individual determination to make. Very tall rowers with long torsos and long arms, and greater weight, can row higher ratios at 10 mps and less, than can lighter shorter rowers, whereas lightweights tend more to rowing at 8 mps and less. However, this is also very much based on one's time and pace for a 2k. Long time world record holder Eskild Ebbesen (6:03.2), who is 6'2" tall, rows at 8 meters per stroke. Rowers who are taller and with a longer reach than Eskild could certainly maintain a similar ratio at a lower rate and higher meters per stroke, because their total drive time over the distance could still be the same. This points up another fallacy in Paul's thinking. Paul says the 10 mps gives the same ideal ratio to everyone and that everyone should row at 10 mps all the time. But anyone can look at this and see that a 6'8" rower with a long torso and arms and with a 65" drive length will not have the same ratio at 10 mps as would a 5'4" rower with a medium build and drive length of 42". The ratio for the tall rower could be as high as 43%, very close to optimal for a 2k race, whereas the 5'4" rower's ratio would be much lower, perhaps around 35%, and not anywhere near to an optimal ratio for *any* distance at all. Also, the first rower could maintain a good conditioning with such training, and the second would not be conditioned at all and very likely would be injured. The biggest problem with Paul's method is that he doesn't think about the things he says, and also misrepresents what other people have said. For example, he used to say that Ebbesen rowed at 10 mps. But he can't say that any more because I have Eskild's video and this shows very clearly that Ebbesen rows at 8 mps. So now Paul says that Ebbesen rows at 10 mps all the time except for the times we can actually *see* him rowing! How amazing and convenient! However, Eskild's program shows that he rows the same way in training that he does in his races. Also notice in Paul's messages he quoted me as saying, "he says that he can pull the same paces at S10PS more easily than when strapped up and flailing about at 8mps, otherwise his PB's would be done S10PS (because "it's so much easier to go faster")." I certainly did not say such a thing. However, I am honored to be misquoted in the same category as Eskild Ebbesen, i.e., 180 degrees from Paul Smith!

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » September 26th, 2004, 3:23 am

I don't use the 10m / stroke idea, but I'm sure that if I had to coach a boat load of big strong novices going 3m per stroke I'd have plenty to say to them and not just 10m... After all, on water what the coach sees is how far the boat goes - used to be called chaining. Anyway the idea of rowing is to move the boat, and we're all free to choose the combination of rating and distance travelled that suits us best. 1 spm will move us maybe 60m a minute; 100 spm maybe we move even less. Somewhere in the middle there'll be a good combination, depending on our height, weight, age, strength and type of boat. The purpose of the erg is to do CV work, and if we're above 120-130HR, then we're using the erg for it's design purpose. In Europe under the Machinery Directive any other application if not useless anyway would be illegal and strictly our funeral. When I do my very rare 2k erg bits, I pull around 27, 10Wminutes/stroke, 10m stroke. Not by choice, that's what happens. Any higher rating for the same pace is rushed and wastes energy; any lower is too heavy. In "training" I try to use the 10W / stroke index as far as I can (not very far, usually more like 9). This system corresponds to the Interactive and Wolverine L4 which are work based plans, and gives me a reasonably wide range of ratings to work at - 18 to 24 for CV. It means I pull the same length and force at all ratings. I don't think I'd get any benefit from using 10m/stroke on the erg, or any other fixed distance per stroke, unless tied to the rating. I tried 10m yesterday @ 20 - 22 (paces roughly 3:00 and 2:30), and most of the time had to do it not just strapless but also slideless. These paces don't get my HR over 100. I would only be doing any useful CV work between 24 and 26, and I don't see the point in applying this limitation.

[old] giniajim · Post by **[old] giniajim** » September 28th, 2004, 11:07 pm

I have what I think is a related question. I'm new to the C2, but have rowed in the past (sweeps, sculls). My C2 has no slack on the catch. The first pull is very hard, and doesn't seem to mimic an actual boat. My solution for this is to pull the chain out very slowly about 8" or so (there is no action on the monitor (PM3)). At this point, I start rowing with a quick half-stroke start. I then follow with a three-quarters and a full stroke at which point the flywheel is fully spinning and I go from there. Is this familiar to anyone else?

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » September 29th, 2004, 2:21 am

There is no or very little real slack in the engineering; what has been called slack here is the distance it takes us to catch up with the spinning flywheel under Sir Isaac's rules. If the wheel is not spinning, the catch distance is necessarily zero, as you have seen and as is normal. It feels heavy because all our leg thrust goes thru the arms, whereas once the wheel is spinning, a part of the legthrust is used to accelerate our mass to flywheel speed. Only the difference gets to the handle; the trick of rowing is to make sure the difference is large. The start you describe is a nomal racing start, apart from the 8" slow, tho' we all have our own versions. Can be instructive to see what reading we get on the first pull during intervals (mine fades pretty soon), and it feels nice to get below set pace right away.