Do Heavy People Naturally Have Better Times....

[old] R S T · Post by **[old] R S T** » January 7th, 2005, 10:54 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Jan 8 2005, 01:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>More weight results in "faster" times, as more weight can be traded for pace.  </td></tr></table> [QUOTE] Sorry, this does not compute (not to me any way). So, if I have an extra 10 kg of fat (as opposed to body weight) I will go faster? If I lose 10kg of fat I would be a LOT faster, trust me. As PaulS says - its a level playing field. Any attempts to adjust for weight or age (or height for that matter) are a waste of time from an erging perspective, and are normally initiated by disgruntled ergers who wish they were taller/stronger...or dare I say it .....just plain faster. If I tried hard enough, I could come up with a formula that would make my grandmother the fastest (adjusted) over a 100m sprint. The best comparison one can make is with their own times and erg scores. A 6.45 is still faster than a 7.10 regardless of who did which, at any age or weight. RichardT

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 7th, 2005, 11:19 pm

Richard, You are grossly mistaken. I have no interest to be taller and certainly don't want to be heavier or less fit. Disregarding power per weight might appease a lack of training but it's a one way street.

[old] R S T · Post by **[old] R S T** » January 8th, 2005, 1:02 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Jan 8 2005, 03:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Disregarding power per weight might appease a lack of training but it's a one way street. </td></tr></table> John - what is motivating the adjustment tables? Why this desire to compare times in a way other than seconds v seconds? My point was that, generally speaking, people choose to rely/consider/quote adjusted times because it reflects favourably on them. I do not even wish to know what my adjusted time would be - what is the point? (Besides, I might find out that my grandmother is faster than me anyway ). I'll stick with comparing my own times (fat or thin, old or young) with my own times. I personally do not have any interest in calculating power per weight. "Lies, damned lies and statistics". Happy erging. RichardT

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 8th, 2005, 1:33 am

Richard, I haven't done any power per weight tables, but have simply compared times with existing world records. Surely you don't disagree with world records? If so, you are welcome to better them. You asked for my motivation. This has already been stated at the beginning of the the tables. However, here are some reasons that come to mind: 1) To compare my own personal progress from one year to the next, for example from age 56 to age 58 and age 60 etc; 2) To compare my own personal times from one event to another, which PATT does quite effectively, likewise from year to year; 3) To provide these capabilities for others, for their own personal use; 4) It is very interesting to compare PAT and PATT times with those who are heavier and who thus think they are somehow better cause of that, but are not, in order to evaluate relevant training "advice", and such that is useful vs non productive and/or harmful, thus in the selection of what counts and what doesn't; 5) To provide a possible means for individual qualifying for Crash B's and other events -- note PAT can be used anywhere in the world, not just in the U.S. -- and for selection to teams, meaning on the erg but not boats, though I imagine -- since ergs don't float -- this method could also be quite useful for boats; 6) As a possible eventual inclusion in the rankings. I can foresee PAT or PATT percentages being calculated automatically and the possibility of being able to rank individual event times by PATT, within or regardless of age groups and/or divisions; 7) PATT could be used for events like the Nonathlon, and/or contribute to ideas for their functioning. Those are just some general motivations and possible uses. Maybe you can think of others. Even if you are a heavyweight male between the ages of 19 and 32, there are still some useful reasons for using PATT, and will continue to be more so.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 8th, 2005, 1:42 am

By the way the point should be made that PAT and PATT are designed to compare times regardless of age, gender, and weight class. They are NOT designed to compare times regardless of weight, i.e. a power to weight ratio. Probably the only feasible way to be more inclusive of a power to weight ratio would be with more weight divisions. But that is not likely to happen.

[old] FredrikJ · Post by **[old] FredrikJ** » January 8th, 2005, 5:48 am

Heavier people DO have a clear advantage on when erging. I think the biggest reason for this is due to the extra strength they have in their legs. It´s misleading to compare what they squat in the weightroom because in that exercise they must lift their own bodyweight, but when they sit on the erg they can apply all that power to the erg. It´s a wellknown problem here in Sweden when the military test new recruits. One of the tests is a sitting leg extension to test the quadriceps muscle. The results are very misleading because untrained but heavy people scores higher than welltrained but thin people. In both the erg and in the sitting leg extension you don´t have to carry your bodyweight but you have the advantage of the extra legpower. Heavy people are actually quite welltrained in their legs even if they are "untrained"!

[old] FredrikJ · Post by **[old] FredrikJ** » January 8th, 2005, 6:06 am

Question for you all: Who is the strongest - a 200 pound person who can do 10 pushups or the 100 pound person who can do 50 pushups? Who has the highest oxygen uptake - a 200 pound person who run 6 miles in 60 minutes or the 100 pound person who runs 6 miles in 40 minutes? People are different. It´s misleading to compare results. But it´s fun ; )

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 8th, 2005, 7:07 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>More weight results in "faster" times, as more weight can be traded for pace. </td></tr></table> round and round we go Hail to thee, lord Rupp. Truly thou art the fastest erger of them all.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 8th, 2005, 11:26 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Physicist @ Jan 8 2005, 03:07 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'>More weight results in "faster" times, as more weight can be traded for pace. </td></tr></table> round and round we go Hail to thee, lord Rupp. Truly thou art the fastest erger of them all.  </td></tr></table> Hear, hear... All HAIL!

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » January 8th, 2005, 3:30 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Jan 8 2005, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Physicist @ Jan 8 2005, 03:07 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'>More weight results in "faster" times, as more weight can be traded for pace. </td></tr></table> round and round we go Hail to thee, lord Rupp. Truly thou art the fastest erger of them all.  </td></tr></table> Hear, hear... All HAIL! </td></tr></table> I'm surprised that John has not pointed out the striking "real world" evidence for his theory of twading wate for pace....ranger! As a 195lb heavyweight the big guy did 6:27.5. As a 165lb lightweight the little guy hasn't broken 6:28.0. Therefore we have solid proof that 30 extra pounds can be traded for a half-second in the 2k. That works out to 0.125 seconds per 500m. Hail, hail. Long live John. Rick

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » January 8th, 2005, 4:26 pm

About comparisons being "silly", lost of time, etc., you guys should note that a lot of sports scientists work hard on it, so, they must be silly, also. On the other hand, this kind of comparison doesn't make sense, I think - mostly for guys that haven't rowed on the water. Period. AM (I would also like to see the curricula of some so-called scientists, or science lovers)

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 9th, 2005, 12:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I would also like to see the curricula of some so-called scientists, or science lovers </td></tr></table> is this aimed at me? What would you like to know? I assure you I'm well qualified to use my name... I do row on the water - and I still don't see any point in trying to adjust erg scores. Technique is king on the water - if I want to know who's the better boat-mover then I get out the singles or do seat racing. Adjusting erg scores to account for the drag produced by the weight is oversimplifying a chaotic system - there's no need and no point. For those who use the erg as an end in itself (exclusive indoor rowers) I also see no point in trying to make adjustments. What are you trying to achieve? Of course bigger rowers will do better on average (not because of the weight itself that they carry, but because of the extra strength and height that they have on average.) But why only factor away the obvious physical variables? Why not adjust for genetic limitations on VO2 max? Why not adjust for time available to train and childhood experiences that affected motivation? Adjust for everything and give everyone the same score - would that make people happy? This is sport - most of us will never be the best because we just haven't got the body for it. It's still worthwhile to compete, to try and beat ourselves and others of a similar standard - but I see no point in trying to equate our times with those of naturally superior athletes just because we feel hard done by.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 9th, 2005, 1:02 pm

Physicist, Insert Hallelujah chorus here!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 9th, 2005, 2:26 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Physicist @ Jan 9 2005, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I assure you I'm well qualified to use my name...  </td></tr></table> You haven't managed to do it so far.

[old] Chrissy · Post by **[old] Chrissy** » January 9th, 2005, 4:27 pm

More Weight. Hmmm. If it is muscle mass then yes, and still you have to be able to put that muscle mass to use. Look at Ed Coode and James Cracknell, although they are tall, they still have a huge amount of muscle mass, which has been trained to roughly around 50/50. 60/40. Slow twitch fast twitch respectively. Fat iss just extra weight with no use, so its kind of like rowing with a weight jacket on. I have tried this and it doesnt help at all. Just makes me tired quicker.

Concept2 Forum

Do Heavy People Naturally Have Better Times....

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training