Is Height A Factor ?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 21st, 2005, 5:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulH @ Jan 21 2005, 01:33 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm sorry, I missed the bit where I said anything about average. 5'8" is the *ideal* weight </td></tr></table> I'll take your word for that, Paul.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 21st, 2005, 5:57 pm

I didn't say that 5'8" is the ideal height. If you *happen* to be 5'8", the "ideal" weight is 155lb (obviously there's really a range, but that's the guide figure). Check a BMI chart for reference, but I happen to know the figure because I'm 5'8" and sadly a lot more than 155. What is the relevance of choosing rowing teams? Only one person gets to have a world record, doesn't matter how many you pick from. And in the world of erging you don't need to have been picked for anything. Your argument is even less true for lightweights - lwt rowers don't get selected starting at 6'1" - 6'2". Most coaches would pick lightweights starting around 5'10", and would be pretty surprised to get many applicants above 6'3" or so simply because you can't get too tall and still be a lightweight. So actually the world record holders tend to be on the tall side (though not necessarily the tallest) in their range. The truth is height is a factor. Not the only one, and it's not open-ended - there comes a point where being taller tends to slow things down, and there are other factors that can make a shorter (or taller) than 'optimum' rower faster. But elite lightweights tend to be 6'0" - 6'2", and elite hwts around 6'4" - 6'7". Not because they look nice in pictures, but because they move the boat best. Again, why are you talking about runners? Where are the 4'6"-5'0" world record holding lightweights? There are plenty of elite powerlifters in that category. Oh wait, that's irrelevant too! And finally...If the only thing that matters is having the optimal weight for your height, then where are all the elite 5'0" rowers who weigh 100lbs (or whatever their optimal weight would be)? Forget that, name *one* elite 5-foot rower. Surely one must have sneaked past the coach, or just stuck to erging? Cheers, Paul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 21st, 2005, 7:35 pm

Paul, Sure, optimum weight per height is the key --IF-- your objective is performance, meaning watts per kilogram of body weight. If that is not important to you and you just want to slug along trading weight for pace then sure, get someone who's 7'0 tall and weighs 400 pounds. The taller you are the more weight you can carry. Is that your point???? If so, I agree. However if performance is the issue, which it is for me, then the most important thing is having the optimal weight for your height. Runners are a much better study for this than rowers, who don't have the same history nor level of performances.

[old] hwt · Post by **[old] hwt** » January 21st, 2005, 8:01 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 21 2005, 06:35 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> However if performance is the issue, which it is for me, then the most important thing is having the optimal weight for your height. Runners are a much better study for this than rowers, who don't have the same history nor level of performances. </td></tr></table> Is this a discussion about performance of runners? I would have thought that rowers would be a much better study for rowing performance. Hmm. Perhaps we can study rowers when we want to determine something about running performance.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 21st, 2005, 8:43 pm

OK John, where are all the 7 foot tall 400lb world record holders? Or the 5 foot tall, 500lb world record holders for that matter, if height isn't a factor? The fact is, while you can make any assertion you want, the only evidence you've provided doesn't really prove much of anything (because the sample is so small), but what it does suggest is that height *is* a significant factor. If even you can't make a half-decent argument for your case, why should anybody else award it even the slightest credibility? Performance doesn't mean watts per kilogram of bodyweight. Find me any credible dictionary, sports reference or medical textbook anywhere that defines it as such in anything other than a self-fulfilling context. Better yet, find me a single rower, or even one of the runners you favor so much, who has won any event based solely on their watts per kilogram of bodyweight. Not even the numerous fitness competitions I'm aware of measure success that way. Watts/kg is a measure of relative power output, nothing more. Performance is a measure of how well you do something, which has no inherent dependence on watts or kilograms or femtometers or mibibits or any other unit. Runners aren't a better study for this, because we're talking about rowing. Careful study may help you understand that the technique involved differs in some key respects. Cheers, Paul

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » January 21st, 2005, 10:06 pm

Hi Paul, When I returned to erging a couple of months ago, I came across a discussion in the archives that proposed measuring how many watts you could maintain, then divide by your weight, and if that ratio was sufficiently large then you could take it as an indicator that your technique was probably not bad. I don't remember the numbers and I can't find that thread, but I thought it was an interesting use of that ratio. Byron

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 21st, 2005, 10:23 pm

Paul, Read my message again. I said "optimum weight per height". Your conceptions of ideal are, in my opinion, not optimal. However, if you think they are, then you are welcome to find those people to break the records. Don't ask me to do it, as my conception is different than yours. Regarding "evidence" and "proof", you are confusing significance with Importance. World Records, i.e. Ebbesen, Luini, Watt etc, might not be "significant" (to you), but they are most certainly IMPORTANT. And that's what counts in the real world. There are plenty of books relating performance to watts per kilogram. I have a number of them right here within a few feet of me. However I have no reason to try and "explain" or "prove" anything do you. To the contrary it is in my best interests to NOT do so, as you are not receptive to such. However, your misconceptions don't change reality. Here is a runner for you though -- Kenenisa Bekele. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Watts/kg is a measure of relative power output, nothing more. </td></tr></table> Yes, and power is what the C2 erg converts to your pace on the monitor. The difference is that this is not related to kg of body weight, though it is easy to take one's output and do so. This is why runners are a far better study, because watts/kg are IMMEDIATELY shown up in performances, along with efficiency and economy etc etc. Also runners have a longer and more competitive history.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 21st, 2005, 11:03 pm

Ah, so many things wrong. 1. It's not my concept of ideal - it's merely the widely medically accepted weight that somebody of that height should be (again, it's really a range, but 155 is the midpoint and reasonably representative.) 2. If there is an optimum weight per height, then presumably it doesn't matter how heavy or tall someone is for them to be able to set a world record. So where are all the 5 foot tall world record holders? Where are any world record holders in reasonably contested fields who aren't tall, in fact? EE and EL are both tall, so they don't prove anything you contend. 3. Significance & importance - it appears actually that you are confusing 'mathematics' with 'some stuff I just made up'. Something can be extremely important, without being significant. For example, 100% of known planets with non-trivial amounts of oxygen in their atmospheres harbor life. That's very important. But it is not significant in telling us whether all planets with non-trivial amounts of oxygen in their atmospheres harbor life. Similarly a small sampling or record holders can be very important, but it's hard for it to be significant simply because there are so few of them. However, the ones we know of are uniformly tall (except perhaps in a very few weakly contested classes). So as far as the data is significant, it tells us that height is a contributing factor to success. 4. Of course there are lots of books *relating* performance to watts/kg. I have plenty of sources relating performance to kb/sec, or mph, or lines per inch. But performance isn't inherently any of these, it can just be related to them. So you are free to consider performance anything you want, but you can't credibly claim that performance is a measure of watts/kg, because it isn't. 5. But if we're talking about the 'real world', once again I invite you to name any competition that measures performance in W/kg. The only ones I'm aware of measure performance in relative units such as m/s, or absolutes such as kg, or m. 6. And let's be clear that I'm very receptive to your explanation or proof. Yet again, please tell me the name of a single competition that measures performance in W/kg. Just one. I'm waiting, eager to learn from your wisdom, hungry to have my preconceptions blown away like tattered cobwebs that have kept the fresh sunlight of dawn from my eyes. 7. Bekela seems a superb athlete. I couldn't find any competitions he won per unit mass though, just ones he won according to that misconceived performance measure of being faster than other people. And his two records - 5000m (12:37.35s) 10,000m (26:20.31s) - seem to omit any measure of 'per kg'. 8. Absolutely the performance monitor measures Watts, which it then translates into a notional distance. And as you so wisely point out, it doesn't compensate for weight because no competition does so. There's a reason why the Olympic committee went for "Citius - Altius - Fortius" without looking up the Latin for "per unit mass" 9. Yes, watts/kg is important for runners, because they clearly have to move their own weight without any assistance. But the fact that W/kg *aren't* immediately reflected in rowing performance should be just your first clue that these sports aren't the same, and that the best subject for studying rowing is rowers. Cheers, Paul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 22nd, 2005, 12:30 am

Paul, Medical acceptance has nothing to do with performance, nor health. My interest is performance and health.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 22nd, 2005, 12:45 am

There, that wasn't so hard was it? Clearly you couldn't go so far as to actually answer the question, but it's close enough that I can see you have an answer in mind. You're right, just because something is accepted by the medical community doesn't make it right (though it does lend it a certain credibility). I assume, therefore, that you think somebody who is 5'8" and 155 is significantly overweight? That's an interesting misconception, but one you are of course entitled to. It does absolutely nothing to show that height doesn't affect performance. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. If height were irrelevant then we would expect to have at least one 5'10" or less (that being half the population) world record holder in a seriously contested category. I'm struggling to find their names, however. So, 1 question answered, 8 to go. Why don't you start with the name of a competition, in any sport, that measures the winner by W/kg? Cheers, Paul <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 21 2005, 11:30 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul, Medical acceptance has nothing to do with performance, nor health. No wonder your ideas are so wrong. However, I admire your passion to keep expressing your misconceptions. </td></tr></table>

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 22nd, 2005, 1:24 am

Paul, Well 5'8 and 155 is certainly more of an "ideal" weight than being grossly "over" weight, although I wouldn't consider it ideal compared to a healthier person who was 135 or 140 pounds. Compared to the general population in this country, almost anything could be considered "ideal". Likewise the medical ideal for total cholesterol is 225 or so, which is the average in this country. The last time I checked mine it was 123. My blood pressure is 97/62 or so. My resting heart rate is 43. Now if I was around medical personnel they would probably kill me trying to bring those up, to their "ideals". However, there is a lot of sickness in this country and I hold them responsible for the bulk if not all of that. They don't agree with me, and you don't agree with me either. Maybe some day everyone will agree with you and with them. After all isn't that the direction this country is moving. Perhaps you will find some solace with that and not let it bother you too much that I have my own ideas and can make my own observations in the meantime.

[old] TRIBUM · Post by **[old] TRIBUM** » January 22nd, 2005, 2:43 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 21 2005, 10:24 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The last time I checked mine it was 123. My blood pressure is 97/62 or so. My resting heart rate is 43. </td></tr></table> Wow! That's a great BP and cholesterol for a dude your age![

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 22nd, 2005, 4:10 pm

Thank you!

[old] Lippy · Post by **[old] Lippy** » January 23rd, 2005, 10:34 am

A viewpoint that no one seems to have mentioned so far is, when erging we are imparting motion to an inert flywheel, if we are taller we have the capability of imparting more motion per stroke thereby getting the flywheel moving faster before the end of stroke and its deceleration prior to the next stroke. I then, at 5 foot 6 inches cannot feasibly spin the flywheel as fast as someone 6 foot 2 inches per stroke, given the same power available to me. It seems to me that it is the overcoming of the inertia that is the biggest benefit to the long folk, they can overcome the inertia by a greater amount each pull. Good debate though, found it interesting. As GeorgeD from NZ implied though, the big people still have to train hard to achieve the good times, but I do believe their potential pace to be better than the smaller people and that is a potent motivator for them. Lee

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 23rd, 2005, 11:00 am

John, Perhaps you should learn what you're criticizing before you start - The medical ideal for total cholesterol is "below 180". So yours would be considered perfectly healthy. Similarly, while there is a lower bp level considered to be unhealthy (because a certain amount of pressure is required to move blood around the body), the NIH says that levels of "90/60 mm Hg to 130/80 mm Hg" are perfectly normal. So yours is impressively, but not unhealthily, low. Similarly RHR is typically 72, but again while there is a lower limit to how slowly a heart can beat and still push blood around the body, 43 would be considered very healthy, and no action would be taken in the absence of some other condition. So far, everything you've said is wrong. What about the idea that almost all sickness is the responsibility of the medical community? Well, insofar as we live longer lives, including a longer 'active' part to our lives, than we did before there was a credible medical community, then clearly the only way you can be right is if the medical community has invented a constellation of new illnesses compared to what people suffered 500 years ago, while at the same time people spontaneously lived longer. Certainly we know about more - one example is Alzheimer's, which is a much bigger problem that it was 500 years ago because people now live long enough to die from it. But I struggle to blame the medical community for that, or to say that they 'invented' them. One area we might agree on is that much of the increased longevity of the last century or so is not, in my opinion, due to doctors as such, but to increases in general hygiene, nutrition and other factors. Washing hands may have been prompted by a doctor (I don't know), but it hardly seems like a medical advance in the common understanding. I'm still trying to find anything you said that could be true. Of course you have your own views, and I would welcome any proof whatsoever that any of them are true. I don't require it of course, because you're free to have whatever ideas you want. But telling people they're wrong, without any evidence, is a foolish thing to do. Lest you think I'm in some way biased towards the medical community, I've experienced both sides. Were it not for a team of surgeons I would have died before I was 6 months old. But I also spent a year in hospital experiencing a treatment for a bone disease (Perthes) that it turns out doesn't work. So my bias isn't based on some devotion to the doctor who saved my life, but to facts. I welcome proof that doctors are responsible for most sickness. All you need to do is provide some. While we're on the subject of proof, I'm still waiting for replies to the other 8 points I made. How about starting with the name of any competition anywhere in the world that decides the winner based on W/kg? In fact, I'd be interested in any running or rowing competition that *doesn't* use plain old seconds.

Concept2 Forum

Is Height A Factor ?

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General