Distance Per Stroke

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » April 20th, 2005, 2:16 am

John,<br /><br />out of interest, what are you using to guide your training? how do you determine at what SR and/or pace you need to row for an endurance (UT2 or UT1) training?<br />At what SR are you rowing your 2k?<br /><br />if you have posted that before, just give me the link. Since you are a very productive poster it would take me too long to search.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Holm

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 20th, 2005, 9:29 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Niezgoda @ Apr 19 2005, 10:54 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Fred,<br /><br />I'll try to be straight forward.... Your math is correct, but your conclusions are wrong. I think you are trying to conclude that the tradeoff between Stroke Rate and Watts output does not exist. The tradeoff does, in-fact, exist.<br /><br />Here are three equations that mean the same thing:<br /><br />1) SPI = Watts / SR<br />2) SR = Watts / SPI<br />3) Watts = SR * SPI<br /><br />These equations tell us that in order to increase Watts, a rower can:<br /> A: Increase SR and maintain the same SPI<br /> B: Increase SPI and maintain the same SR<br /> C: Increase SR and decrease SPI (but can only decrease SPI a limited amount)<br /> D: Increase SPI and decrease SR (but can only decrease SR a limited amount)<br />Once a rower crosses the lower limits of SPI or SR in options C or D the average Watts output decreases.<br /><br />You used equation (1) in your 920 examples. As stated above in option C, I agree with you that you can increase SR, simultaneously decrease SPI, and increase Watts. <b>Notice that as you went higher in Watts, you had to increase your SR as well.</b> You were walking along the threshold of where a rower will achieve a higher Watts output from an increased SR. Do your math only varying one metric at a time.<br /><br />Here are an infinite number of examples where if a rower is able to maintain an SPI while increasing SR, a higher Watts output is achieved: Using equation (3), for any fixed SPI, increase the SR. For every case, a higher SR will achieve a greater Watts output.<br /><br />Ball in your court, prove any one of my statements in this post wrong.<br /><br />- Mike Niezgoda <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />My only point is that you can increase Wattage (which is good and desireable) and sometimes get a higher SPI and sometimes get a lower SPI. So what does that tell us about SPI. It says to me that it is undependable as an indicater. When i increase my wattage and my 2k time goes down and so does my SPI what does that say about my training. The wattage and my time indicate i"m getting better but SPI says I'm getting worse, how do I interpret that. Or conversely my SPI rises and my wattage goes down and my time goes up. My point is that you can not have it both ways, either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't. <br /><br />Thanks at least for acknowledging my math is correct, and you may have something when you say my conclusions are wrong but that is only because I can't draw a conclusion. If my Wattage increases and my 2k time goes down and my SPI increases, these look to me to all be good things and I can conclude I am getting better. If my wattage increases and my 2k time goes down and my SPI goes down, please tell me, what conclusion should I draw. My wattage is up my time is down, these are good and I can conclude I am getting better, but my SPI is down, what am I supposed to conclude or how do I modify my conclusion.<br /><br />Everyone keeps telling me I don't understand or I am drawing the wrong conclusion, but no one is supplying the answers. I still maintain that you can take any two numbers and divide them, but the result is not necessarily meaningful.<br /><br />Your statement "I think you are trying to conclude that the tradeoff between Stroke Rate and Watts output does not exist. The tradeoff does, in-fact, exist." is exactly on point, it does indeed exist, but not where you think it does.<br /><br />When you divide watts by stroke rate your SPI is watts per stroke, however you neglect to realize that the watts calculation is already done at the end of each stroke and averaged for all strokes, so that when the monitor shows 200 watts, it is already watts per stroke, 200 watts per stroke, redividing this by strokes again is meaningless.<br /><br />"Once a rower crosses the lower limits of SPI or SR in options C or D the average Watts output decreases." Whats the lower limit for SR, I gave you examples starting at 25 spm, I can come up with lots more at 24, 23, 22,.... 3, 2, 1. or conversely, i can give you more at 26, 27, 28,..., 41, 42, 43,..., 60, 61, .....<br /><br />"Do your math only varying one metric at a time." OK, let's see<br /><br />Watts = 200 Constant this is approximately a 2:00 per 500m pace<br />Stroke Rate varies from 20 to 30<br />Total time stays the same and SPI decreases<br /><br />Watts SR SPI Time to complete 2k<br />200 20 10 8:00 <br />200 21 9.5 8:00<br />200 22 9.1 8:00<br />200 23 8.7 8:00<br />200 24 8.3 8:00<br />200 25 8.0 8:00<br />200 26 7.7 8:00<br />200 27 7.4 8:00<br />200 28 7.1 8:00<br />200 29 6.9 8:00<br />200 30 6.6 8:00<br /><br />Here I only vary SR, my time for 2k does not change and my SPI plummets. My conclusion here is that I am not improving and I am not doing any worse because my time is the same. How is this conclusion wrong.<br /><br />Fred<br /><br />Also you want to be careful with statements such as "Notice that as you went higher in Watts, you had to increase your SR as well", as you will be feeding into John Rupps trading Rate for Pace arguments.

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » April 20th, 2005, 10:34 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 08:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My only point is that you can increase Wattage (which is good and desireable) and sometimes get a higher SPI and sometimes get a lower SPI. So what does that tell us about SPI. It says to me that it is undependable as an indicater. When i increase my wattage and my 2k time goes down and so does my SPI what does that say about my training. The wattage and my time indicate i"m getting better but SPI says I'm getting worse, how do I interpret that. Or conversely my SPI rises and my wattage goes down and my time goes up. My point is that you can not have it both ways, either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fred,<br /><br />Thanks to the post of Mike and your reply I slowly see why you think SPI is not useful as an indicator. Your calculations are correct. Now is SR relevant? Same as SPI in your example SR can go up and down for a constant power in watt. Would you use it for guiding your training, for choosing a crew? The first at least seems quite commonly used?<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 08:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />When you divide watts by stroke rate your SPI is watts per stroke, however you neglect to realize that the watts calculation is already done at the end of each stroke and averaged for all strokes, so that when the monitor shows 200 watts, it is already watts per stroke, 200 watts per stroke, redividing this by strokes again is meaningless.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Here I still disagree or maybe call things differently: the watt at the end of each stroke on the monitor are the work (Joules produced during the stroke) divided by the duration of the stroke in seconds (catch to catch), so yes in that sense it is the average watt produced during that stroke. The "instantenous" watt during the drive is much higher and is zero during recovery. Now back to the average watt, multiply them again by the duration of the stroke (same as dividing by the stroke rate) and you are back with work (in Joules if you use SR in strokes per second or SPI if you use SR in stroke per minute) and that's the SPI = Work/60. <br /><br />So yes if you do your 2k test and pull at xyz watt you will end up with the same time regardless of SR or SPI or technique or body weight or temperature or drag factor or length of stroke or whatever else. But a lot of these parameters could be worked on in training to come to a faster 2k time. Now you think SPI is not important that way, I do. I'm happy with that.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Holm

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 20th, 2005, 10:46 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 05:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When i increase my wattage and my 2k time goes down and so does my SPI what does that say about my training. The wattage and my time indicate i"m getting better but SPI says I'm getting worse, how do I interpret that. Or conversely my SPI rises and my wattage goes down and my time goes up. My point is that you can not have it both ways, either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Fred,<br /><br />Thanks for giving so much more clarity to this issue.

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 20th, 2005, 10:53 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Apr 19 2005, 06:56 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Fred, <br />just to stay on topic, the problem you are having in finding meaning in SPI (or the lack thereof) is that you are also making assumptions about what is "better", i.e. is lifting 200lbs "better" than lifting 100lbs twice? Are you "better" if you can do 8k in 30 minutes at a SR=20 or SR=30? etc..... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />OK, I am assuming higher wattage and lower time is better, I 've never known anyone who trains to be less powerful and/or slower. If there is folly here, then, please enlighten me.<br /><br />You seem to like the lifting analogy, as you use it often. But, if you are a weightlifter, 200 is much better than 100, if you are an erger there are more factors such as distance and time (the other components of Power) involved which you do not mention, so no answer can reliably be given.<br /><br />As to your 8k example, 8k in 30 minutes at 20SR requires the same power output as 8k in 30 minutes at 30SR. To me these are the same effort. 8k in 30 minutes is a 1:52.5 pace or approximately 245 watts (I did not calculate the 245 but refer to a chart I made that links split times with watts so it is approximate, if you have a more accurate figure then substitute it and recalculate) so the SPI for 20SR is 12.25 and the SPI for 30SR is 8.17. Am I to conclude that because the SPI is lower at 30SR that I am worse off rowing at 30. I don't understand, I row 8k in 30 minutes generating approximately 245 watts average regardless of stroke rate so what is it that SPI tells me about these results.<br /><br />You guys keep telling me I am making some kind of false assumption or drawing a wrong conclusion, but you offer no corrections. I have taken your examples, laid out my assumptions, and given my conclusions together with my reasoning. So what is wrong with my assumptions or conclusions.<br /><br />I am going to do something that you, so far, either refuse or are unable to do. I am going to tell you your assumtion is wrong and I will back it up. You are assuming that by dividing watts by stroke rate, you get watts per stroke and that necessarily by averaging more watts per stroke, your output is higher, however, in order for an average to work, you must start with a total that you can divide, simple math. Your assumption that watts are a total and can reasonably be divided by stroke rate is false. Watts are point in time (a fact Mike Niezgoda pointed out in an earlier post), they are not a total and thus, mathematically can not be divided resulting in anything meaningful.<br /><br /> Fred

[old] Alan Maddocks · Post by **[old] Alan Maddocks** » April 20th, 2005, 10:59 am

Dickie,<br /><br />I think where your conclusion differs from most of us is in your assumption that "either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't." Don't think of SPI as a measure of 'performance'. <br /><br />Indeed, you are right to point out that a faster 2K time may be achieved at a lower SPI by having a higher spm. I do not think that any of us are contesting this!<br /><br /><b>Think of SPI as an indicator of POTENTIAL performance. </b><br /><br />For instance:<br /><br />Rower A can row at a SPI of 12 @ 20spm.<br />Rower B can row at a SPI of 10 @ 20spm.<br /><br />If we assume that the comparative advantage that Rower A has over Rower B at 20spm. can be maintained as spm. rises then Rower A has greater potential to achieve faster times than Rower B.<br /><br />This is the logic driving the training programmes encouraging rowers to train at relative high SPI at low spm.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Alan. <br /><br /><br />

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 20th, 2005, 11:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(holm188 @ Apr 20 2005, 10:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 08:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My only point is that you can increase Wattage (which is good and desireable) and sometimes get a higher SPI and sometimes get a lower SPI. So what does that tell us about SPI. It says to me that it is undependable as an indicater. When i increase my wattage and my 2k time goes down and so does my SPI what does that say about my training. The wattage and my time indicate i"m getting better but SPI says I'm getting worse, how do I interpret that. Or conversely my SPI rises and my wattage goes down and my time goes up. My point is that you can not have it both ways, either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fred,<br /><br />Thanks to the post of Mike and your reply I slowly see why you think SPI is not useful as an indicator. Your calculations are correct. Now is SR relevant? Same as SPI in your example SR can go up and down for a constant power in watt. Would you use it for guiding your training, for choosing a crew? The first at least seems quite commonly used?<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 08:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When you divide watts by stroke rate your SPI is watts per stroke, however you neglect to realize that the watts calculation is already done at the end of each stroke and averaged for all strokes, so that when the monitor shows 200 watts, it is already watts per stroke, 200 watts per stroke, redividing this by strokes again is meaningless.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Here I still disagree or maybe call things differently: the watt at the end of each stroke on the monitor are the work (Joules produced during the stroke) divided by the duration of the stroke in seconds (catch to catch), so yes in that sense it is the average watt produced during that stroke. The "instantenous" watt during the drive is much higher and is zero during recovery. Now back to the average watt, multiply them again by the duration of the stroke (same as dividing by the stroke rate) and you are back with work (in Joules if you use SR in strokes per second or SPI if you use SR in stroke per minute) and that's the SPI = Work/60. <br /><br />So yes if you do your 2k test and pull at xyz watt you will end up with the same time regardless of SR or SPI or technique or body weight or temperature or drag factor or length of stroke or whatever else. But a lot of these parameters could be worked on in training to come to a faster 2k time. Now you think SPI is not important that way, I do. I'm happy with that.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Holm <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Stroke rate is important in a crew, as I assume, you want the most power generation at whatever stroke rate you choose for the crew. When i rowed 25 years ago, we rowed our races at 32 spm and brought the rate up to 36 -38 for power 10's and the sprint at the finish. We needed 8 people with the greatest power output at 32spm. Being a weightlifter, I had great power at low rates but lost it as the rate climbed to race pace. I was lucky in that I could maintain just enough power at race pace to beat others, but it would have been a tragedy if my power at low rates vaulted me into a seat over someone who was not as strong at lower rates but was better at race pace.<br /><br />My goal here is not to eradicate SPI from the face of the earth. Just to enlighten people that there are problems with its use and that is can give inconsistant results. Personally I like consistancy, i like the fact that when my wattage increases and my time goes down, I can bank on the fact that I am improving. That is just not true with SPI.<br /><br />It has now been acknowledged by 2 that my calculations are correct, but I am told that my assumptions or conclusions are wrong while not providing any corrections. My main concern is that there are many new people here who read these posts and will take SPI as gospel and will be led astray in their training. You say you are happy with it, great, but will you still be happy when you are still improving and SPI tells you that you're not.<br /><br />Fred

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » April 20th, 2005, 11:22 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 20 2005, 06:46 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 05:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When i increase my wattage and my 2k time goes down and so does my SPI what does that say about my training. The wattage and my time indicate i"m getting better but SPI says I'm getting worse, how do I interpret that. Or conversely my SPI rises and my wattage goes down and my time goes up. My point is that you can not have it both ways, either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Fred,<br /><br />Thanks for giving so much more clarity to this issue. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How can I possibly refute such a ringing endorsement of understanding?

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » April 20th, 2005, 12:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 10:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> You say you are happy with it, great, but will you still be happy when you are still improving and SPI tells you that you're not.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fred,<br /><br />2 rowers: 245 watts each = about 7:30 for 2k max test, one does this at SR30, one at SR35.<br /><br />How do they do that? well one pulls harder each stroke than the other. In numbers: different SPI (8.16 and 7). If 7:30 is as fast as they can each get, both have done their job. And I agree that pulling harder at 30 or a little less hard at 35 to get the same result does not matter, and pulling harder is not better. But from there to say that it does not matter how hard you pull and you will achieve your goal is dangerous as well.<br /><br />Again assuming that my 2 rowers did the best they could, if rower one tried to row at SPI 7 he would not be able to get up to a 35 thus get a slower time.<br /><br />You need to get the strength right otherwise you are not at your best.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 20th, 2005, 12:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(holm188 @ Apr 20 2005, 08:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>2 rowers: 245 watts each = about 7:30 for 2k max test, one does this at SR30, one at SR35.<br /><br />How do they do that? well one pulls harder each stroke than the other. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Why do you presume that's a good thing???????<br /><br />The objective is to go FASTER each stroke, while using LESS energy or the same.<br /><br />Eskild Ebbesen and Elia Luini probably use LESS energy and pull LESS hard at 6:02/6:03 pace compared to 99.99% of competitive rowers.

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » April 20th, 2005, 12:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 20 2005, 11:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />Why do you presume that's a good thing???????<br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What do you mean?

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 20th, 2005, 12:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(holm188 @ Apr 20 2005, 12:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 10:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> You say you are happy with it, great, but will you still be happy when you are still improving and SPI tells you that you're not.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fred,<br /><br />2 rowers: 245 watts each = about 7:30 for 2k max test, one does this at SR30, one at SR35.<br /><br />How do they do that? well one pulls harder each stroke than the other. In numbers: different SPI (8.16 and 7). If 7:30 is as fast as they can each get, both have done their job. And I agree that pulling harder at 30 or a little less hard at 35 to get the same result does not matter, and pulling harder is not better. But from there to say that it does not matter how hard you pull and you will achieve your goal is dangerous as well.<br /><br />Again assuming that my 2 rowers did the best they could, if rower one tried to row at SPI 7 he would not be able to get up to a 35 thus get a slower time.<br /><br />You need to get the strength right otherwise you are not at your best. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You don't necessarily have to pull harder. you can put the same force in and change the Drive/Recovery ratio to achieve these results. I think it was you (forgive me if I'm wrong) that said the drive spikes the wattage higher than the average to compensate for the recovery which is zero. That is correct, but SPI does not take that into account so you could rate lower and change the drive/recovery ratio without any increase in force and the change in SPI according to your definition would be a lie.<br /><br />I may be wrong, but it looks to me like you are trying to find that 1 magic number that will tell you how you are doing, and its just more complicated than that. Remember that Force*Distance (joules) can vary invesrely with time and still yeild the same result in watts.<br /><br />And while you and Mike Neizgoda have been the most reasonable respondents in this thread, neither of you have explained how increasing wattage and decreasing time (something everyone has agreed is the goal) can be associated with SPI as it both rises and falls. <br /><br />So now we have SPI that might go up or down with an increase in Watts and it may be due to a change in force or a change in the drive/ recovery ratio. How do I use this number to make sense of my training.<br /><br />Fred<br /><br /><br />

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 20th, 2005, 1:07 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Apr 20 2005, 11:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 20 2005, 06:46 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 05:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When i increase my wattage and my 2k time goes down and so does my SPI what does that say about my training. The wattage and my time indicate i"m getting better but SPI says I'm getting worse, how do I interpret that. Or conversely my SPI rises and my wattage goes down and my time goes up. My point is that you can not have it both ways, either a rising SPI indicates better performance or it doesn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Fred,<br /><br />Thanks for giving so much more clarity to this issue. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How can I possibly refute such a ringing endorsement of understanding? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul<br /><br />You'll never know how much it pains me to have JR agree, but even he can't be wrong all the time.<br /><br />No, strike that.<br /><br />Fred

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » April 20th, 2005, 1:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 11:59 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So now we have SPI that might go up or down with an increase in Watts and it may be due to a change in force or a change in the drive/ recovery ratio. How do I use this number to make sense of my training. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fred,<br />1st you do not need SPI constantly during your training. I think once you know the SR and pace for a given level of workout (UT1, UT2, etc) you can live with that.<br /><br />2nd SPI is the link between the SR and pace at different training intensities. Now you do not need to know about SPI to train, you can just get the interactive C2 training programme for example. I like numbers and SPI fits for me into the whole picture.<br /><br />3rd I was assuming some reasonable technique the ratio drive/recovery is relatively limited then when you are going for a max 2k.<br /><br />4th now how about the drag factor?

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 20th, 2005, 2:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(holm188 @ Apr 20 2005, 01:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 20 2005, 11:59 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So now we have SPI that might go up or down with an increase in Watts and it may be due to a change in force or a change in the drive/ recovery ratio. How do I use this number to make sense of my training. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Fred,<br />1st you do not need SPI constantly during your training. I think once you know the SR and pace for a given level of workout (UT1, UT2, etc) you can live with that.<br /><br />2nd SPI is the link between the SR and pace at different training intensities. Now you do not need to know about SPI to train, you can just get the interactive C2 training programme for example. I like numbers and SPI fits for me into the whole picture.<br /><br />3rd I was assuming some reasonable technique the ratio drive/recovery is relatively limited then when you are going for a max 2k.<br /><br />4th now how about the drag factor? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />1 and 2 tell me you don't find SPI necessary to train and that you like numbers. OK, I like numbers too, if you havn't tried Ergmonitor yet then you are missing numbers nirvana, I love it.<br /><br />On 3, I am trying desperately not to assume anything, because everytime it even looks like I am assuming, they come out of the woodwork after me.<br /><br />On 4, I don't think we want to go there, it would just complicate things more, but it might be fun.<br /><br />Thanks <br />Fred

Concept2 Forum

Distance Per Stroke

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training