Why So Slow With The Rates?

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 19th, 2004, 7:41 am

KMurphy, I think you have read different opinions on the matter on this forum. From that, I guess you will just have to form your own guess on what is good and try to evaluate that. I don't know of any formal study on the matter. ___This is some of what I do, I'm a lwt with good strength, not so good aerobicly__ Recovery rows: Low spm _ (around 20) and_ low SPI (8-9), sometimes strapless. These are luxury rows. I compare them to having a drink and listening to music. Frightfully low wattage percentage of 2k, ~45%, but still ~67% of HRR. (Does that say anything about me? Or is it normal? I think I am good at working with lactate and anaerobically) Steady state: 10-12 mps (this is about SPI 9.5 for me, 23spm), sometimes strapless. (~60% of 2k wattage, ~83% of HRR ) Hard sessions: 10k-2k, I try to do at SPI 9.5-11 depending on duration. Basically, going from steady state 10k to racing 10k is just upping the rate. Others have the same relation for 2k. My focus is 10k, since I allready have enough power. My recipee for gaining is weights including excentric work. For sustaining it's heavy 10's on the erg.

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » October 19th, 2004, 11:38 am

Ranger, I'm not dismissing low spm training, just ultra low spm training. For example, where I do the 30mins @ 20spm test I am using far more power in my stroke than I would in a 2k, yes? If I was to row at 16spm, I don't think I could really use any more power in my stroke over that time, so imo 20spm is better than 16spm for training for that purpose. So all I'm saying is that very low rates I don't think are worthwhile from a stroking power perspective. Though I will still continue to do my distance work at 26spm+ and see what results.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 19th, 2004, 2:20 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Oct 19 2004, 06:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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 </td></tr></table> Sir P-- I don't change the footplate for my new/longer/stronger stroke. I have two holes showing. I can do my new stroke with a pretty big lean at the finish, but I don't need to, and especially at high rates in a race, when I can trade rate for pace, I wouldn't want to. In long rows at low stroke rates, though, I occasionally fork around with a bigger lean at the end of the stroke. Nothing prevents it, and given that I now plant my heels firmly at the finish and therefore have very nice leverage for my back and arms, a slow rate somewhat encourages it, given all the time I have for the recovery if I am gliding along in a 3-1 ratio. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 19th, 2004, 2:33 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Oct 19 2004, 10:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger, I'm not dismissing low spm training, just ultra low spm training. For example, where I do the 30mins @ 20spm test I am using far more power in my stroke than I would in a 2k, yes? If I was to row at 16spm, I don't think I could really use any more power in my stroke over that time, so imo 20spm is better than 16spm for training for that purpose. So all I'm saying is that very low rates I don't think are worthwhile from a stroking power perspective. Though I will still continue to do my distance work at 26spm+ and see what results.  </td></tr></table> Pete-- Actually, the lower the stroke rate the easier it is to get a lot of power into the stroke. For me, at 16 spm, these things are _maximally_ easy for the maximal amount of time. For instance, I would find it pretty easy now to row a marathon at 16 spm and 13-15 SPI. Yes, you are using more power per stroke when you do a 30 minutes at 20 spm test. Great stuff. And it is a very good test of stroking power. 70% of your 2K watts is 1:44.5. Can you do 1:44.5 for 30 minutes at 20 spm? If not, the test is telling you that you are neglecting stroking power in your training. The issue is not whether you are dismissing slow stroke rate rowing. The issue is whether you are valuing it enough. Because slow stroke rate rowing is about facilitation/habit formation, to get the full benefit from it, you have to use it as the _foundation_ of your training. Caviston suggests that 70% of your meters should be rowed at low rates and well above 2K power, not just the few meters involved in an occasional "test" (to find out how much you are lacking!). ranger

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 19th, 2004, 4:35 pm

Rich, Your pace for the 2k is 1:37. What is your pace at 16 spm? If you are going faster than 1:37 at 16 spm then I would be VERY surprised. In reality you have been doing a lot of comparitively LOW POWER rowing over medium distances the past year and, as a result, no longer have the aerobic power that you did 2 years ago. You can no longer approach the distance times you were rowing consistenly BEFORE you first broke the WR. Rod Freed rows his 10k at 1:42.8. That's 2k + 3 for him. What is your 10k?

[old] lifeisrowing · Post by **[old] lifeisrowing** » October 20th, 2004, 2:17 am

I didn't get through all of the responses (being tired wears down my paitence and capacity to read a lot of stuff), however, I'm kinda split, no pun intended. In the boat, I know slow slides helps a lot when it comes to working on technique. I don't know if you're rowing on your own, or if you're on a team, getting coaching, etc. If you aren't getting coaching, keep in mind the 2:1 ratio that you're supposed to keep, that is, for every second you take on the drive, you double the time it takes you to recover. While I've found this isn't a hard and fast rule, it's a place to start, and it laid the foundation for my technique. That being said, there are many benefits to rowing at a high rate, especially when you're already in shape from a previous sport. I also don't know if you've done 2K tests yet, but if you haven't, try doing a few and seeing what kind of rate combination works for you. In high school, we rowed our 2K's with relatively slow rates. I think I did my best 2K in high school at a 38-40 at the start, settled to a 30-32 at 500, and began to build up at the final 500, to the sprint at about 250. This was just my school's strategy, and it worked for me. I lowered my 2K time in sophomore year from a 7:48 to a 7:23 in a month. Sorry for writing a novel, I love talking about crew, as well as participating in it, watching it, reading about it, photographing it, analyzing it...

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 20th, 2004, 4:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In reality you have been doing a lot of comparitively LOW POWER rowing over medium distances the past year and, as a result, no longer have the aerobic power that you did 2 years ago. You can no longer approach the distance times you were rowing consistenly BEFORE you first broke the WR. </td></tr></table> Perhaps. It is _certainly_ true that hard distance work and intervals of various sorts need to be done before I can race well; and (in part) that is what I am going to do over the next month before BIRC. I am not sure that the need for this is a matter of aerobic power, though. Your slight familiarity with what it takes to row at a high stroking power over a substantial distance disqualifies you from comment on these matters. If you believe that such rowing doesn't take aerobic power, I would invite you to try the upper eschelons of Caviston's 10' sequences, his 220s (e.g., 4'3'2'1' at 20-22-24-26 and 2K SPI + 2 (for a 1:36 target, as in my case, 1:52, 1:48, 1:44, 1:40. The effectiveness of these sequences as training tools and fitness tests is that they _combine_ a concern with stroking power with a concern for aerobic fitness. I am training a new stroke, not an easy matter. I am learning how to row at low drag (110-120 df.), not an easy matter, either, if you have been used to rowing with significant effectiveness at high drag (180-200 df.). These things will take time, but eventually, I think, when I fully master this new stroke and get fully trained with it, I will break all of my distance pbs, by a significant margin. If things go well, I think I might even catch Freed. If it turns out that, in the process, I will be a little slower for a while, who cares? I am in this for the long run (especially with my rowing on the water). Effective training takes patience. Talk is quick and cheap. Training and talk are very different matters. ranger P.S. Given my focus on the 2K at the moment, Freed's inability to do a quality 2K comparable to his distance rows also makes him tangential to this discussion. In fact, the irony is excruciating. It appears that Freed exactly needs work on his stroking power (as you do, too)!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 20th, 2004, 6:19 pm

Carl, Nice photo. Could you say what paces you are doing, as that would be more clear to me. Thanks.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 21st, 2004, 4:22 am

Thanks John, It's from nordic student competition with eights in Finland. I'm usually sculling so the picture is a bit misleading. ____Current paces____ recovery: 2:10 steady state: 1:59 hard sessions: ...well, I build up wattage to max over 5-6 weeks (I don't row consecutively, 6 sessions ) then I switch to another distance. Paces range from PBpace(distance) +2sec/500m to PBpace(distance). 10k max is around 1:51, 2k around 1:39. The recovery and steady state paces are not fixed. As I grow fitter I intend to see them faster. I go loosely by heart rate, and sometimes on recovery by feel (no external monitoring at all).

[old] James Bailey · Post by **[old] James Bailey** » October 21st, 2004, 8:17 am

Dear All, I have not posted for at least a year but now returned to the cause. I have been reading the high rate/low rate discussion with some interest and wondered whether I might put forward a hypothesis as to why it is that there is such a strong school of thought (amongst water rowers at least) that long, low rows are such an important part of training. This is a little technical, and many will know a lot of this, but indulge me. I should say that I have more than a passing interest in physiology. As we row harder our muscles start to produce lactic acid. The point at which the blood level of lactate reaches 4mmol/l is our "anaerobic threshold". This is a dreadful terms since it suggests that the reason for lactate production is lack of oxygen - for the most part it is not. When glucose is broken down, ATP (enery blocks) are released in what can be described as the first stage of the process. The product of this first stage is pyruvate (or pyruvic acid) and some spare electrons (H+). This process is identical in both aerobic and anaerobic pathways. However the pathway splits at this point since the pyruvate can be "dealt with" in two ways. One route is to attach the two H+ to the pyruvate producing lactate acid. The other route involved transporting the H+ into the mitochondria (a part of the muscle cell), adding O2, et voila, aerobic respiration and no lactate. [to the proper physiologists I accept this is a massive simplification]. Although of course you need O2 available to the mitochondria for the aerobic route, you start to produce lactic acid below 100% of VO2 max - so why do our bodies not just shift more O2 to the mitochondria? The problem is that two enzymes "compete" to deal with the pyruvate and H+ to send it down their route (lactate dehydrogenase to make lactic acid and pyruvate dehydrongenase for the other route). The shuttling of electrons into the mitochondria is also a process that can be trained and improved. Now to get to the point, we are trying to train our muscles to consume as much oxygen as possible but limit lactate production. An example: row a given split @30 for few minutes, reduce the rate further and further, to 14 spm if necessary. The will come a point where lactate production starts to rise. Most readers will accept that their HR is noticeably higher for a given power output at lower rates - yet the same amount of work is being done, and the same O2 metabolised. By training at low rates, we are encouraging our muscles to work with minimal lactate production. This becomes rather useful when we pull much harder (racing) because we can operate at high %ages of our VO2 max without excessive lactate production. The thing about "speed work" and "muscle memory" etc. is that we can develop speed skills very quickly. 6-8 weeks of speed work will get you most of the way there, the aerobic underpinning takes months (for some of us years). As an illustration, I am training to maximise my 30 mins distance (for the moment at least). For the last year 99% (quite literally) of my training has been below 24. My max HR is 190, but I can row at HR of 178 with almost no lactate production - if I finish a 30min row at 178 I will not be significanly out of breath and will be back to an easy conversation after 15 secs. But at HR182 I am on the floor in traditional agony. Its very very marginal. My point is simply that whereas this would be hopeless of a 2k race, I imagine I can convert this to higher rate performance fairly easily.... ... thats why we rate low for most of the season, and then polish it up at the end. Thanks James [I have rowed competitively for 15+ years. I have given up the water stuff for erging because of work - you disappoint the erg less than a crew when you turn up late ]

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » October 21st, 2004, 9:44 am

NICE that was good infact, I was just asking my science teacher about latic acid buildup... I'm in highschool, and he couldn't explain it so that was good. Also I find that when erging, starting at around 18spm for 15 strokes then building up slowly helps the workout alot. My tenique is much better when I use that strategy... also it's good to remember that you should be able to maintain a 3:1 ratio for recovery to stroke times. ~Sara

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 21st, 2004, 3:55 pm

Sorry, Jaimes, maybe I am thick but I don't see your motivation to why it yields better traning adaptations in terms of anaerobic threshold improvement (or just less lactate production) to row with <very low rate, high SPI, medium wattage> at a given lactate concentration or heart rate (effort level measurement chosen is to be fixed), than it is to row with <medium rate, medium SPI, high wattage> wich yields the same effort level.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 21st, 2004, 4:56 pm

Carl, Thanks for the details. James, Yes low rate rowing IS easier (not faster) because there is more rest between strokes. That doesn't mean you are going to all of a sudden change your ratio and be able to row any more effectively at high/er rates -- especially not compared to an equal ability rower who has been already training at a competitive ratio, developed a higher capacity, and is used to a consistently higher power output with the same or less effort. In fact I have tried this several times over the past couple of years and that is exactly what happened. Perhaps the greatest problem with training at low rates is that when the rower then switches to high/er rates the ratio is totally off. The tendency is then to keep pulling short (drive is a low percentage of stroke) and hard with a longer recovery, with the result of trading rate for pace, i.e. losing effective pace and running out of rate as the rating goes higher because of the inferior ratio. However keeping a good drive length and ratio means that pace will be gained as the rating is increased, i.e. gaining pace with rate. A great example of this is long time world record holder Eskild Ebbesen, who does his 2k's at 8 mps and 41.3 strokes per minute with a long drive and a 43.5% drive to stroke ratio.

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » October 21st, 2004, 5:19 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 21 2004, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ... Eskild Ebbesen, who does his 2k's at 8 mps and 41.3 strokes per minute with a long drive and a 43.5% drive to stroke ratio ...  </td></tr></table> John - Can you please tell me how Eskild's RACING details (performance, techniques, metrics, etc, etc.) have any bearing on a discussion of TRAINING??? I'm not trying to be an ass here but I am not aware of anyone putting out any information on how Eskild or any of the other names you offer repeatedly TRAIN ... only how they race. There seems to be concensus that when you RACE you trade rate for pace ... up to the point that you have no more rate to trade. I still don't see the reason that applies to TRAINING. In fact I thought Rich had a very reasonable observation on why he trains this way and what he is seeing in performance gains. JimR

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 21st, 2004, 6:08 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (JimR @ Oct 21 2004, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> There seems to be concensus that when you RACE you trade rate for pace ... up to the point that you have no more rate to trade. I still don't see the reason that applies to TRAINING.  </td></tr></table> Jim, Well you see that is the fallacy with training with low rates. To go faster and keeping that same ratio, type of style, etc, you are indeed trading rate for pace, i.e. you are losing pace because the ratio is insufficient to go faster. Of course you are also trading rate for pace going at 16 spm etc, i.e. losing pace because the rating is too low and the ratio is not balanced. How does such training apply to racing? Because when you are continuously training with an out of balance ratio, it is going to have the same out of balance ratio in a race! Take a look at how smooth Eskild Ebbesen is at 41.3 strokes per minute and 8 meters per stroke. Then watch someone who's been training at 16 spm! Major difference.