Discussion On Adjustments ...

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 26th, 2005, 12:51 am

Thought I might start a thread on the current or potential adjustments that could be relevant in Indoor Rowing should be good for some lively discussion.<br /><br />George

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 26th, 2005, 1:02 am

Ok how about the altitude adjustment !<br /><br />As I understand it there is an allowance for those who set times at altitude in a 'qualification' time trial for Boston and other events.<br /><br />I understand this is due to the accepted premise that at altitude with reduced oxygen it results in slower times, due to the uptake of oxygen in athletic performance. (John dont get into this in your normal way - just work with me here )<br /><br />Here is my 'twist' to this. Many athletes in many sports go to train at altitude with the view to improve their performance when they return to sea level by taking advantage of the physiological changes their bodies undergo while training in the 'rarefied' atmosphere.<br /><br />So then, if a person lives and hence trains at altitude 'permanently' then surely they have an (was going to use the word 'unfair' here but that is not fair either) advantage at events like Boston or BIRC or EIRC over those who do not have the ability to train at altitude <br /><br />So it is interesting that you get a 'soft' option if you qualify by doing a 'slower' time at altitude, but then have an advantage when the real 'gongs' are handed out<br /><br />George<br /><br />ps I am just playing the 'devils advocate' here.

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » December 26th, 2005, 1:19 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Dec 26 2005, 01:02 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ok how about the altitude adjustment !<br /><br />As I understand it there is an allowance for those who set times at altitude in a 'qualification' time trial for Boston and other events.<br /><br />I understand this is due to the accepted premise that at altitude with reduced oxygen it results in slower times, due to the uptake of oxygen in athletic performance. (John dont get into this in your normal way - just work with me here )<br /><br />Here is my 'twist' to this. Many athletes in many sports go to train at altitude with the view to improve their performance when they return to sea level by taking advantage of the physiological changes their bodies undergo while training in the 'rarefied' atmosphere.<br /><br />So then, if a person lives and hence trains at altitude 'permanently' then surely they have an (was going to use the word 'unfair' here but that is not fair either) advantage at events like Boston or BIRC or EIRC over those who do not have the ability to train at altitude <br /><br />So it is interesting that you get a 'soft' option if you qualify by doing a 'slower' time at altitude, but then have an advantage when the real 'gongs' are handed out<br /><br />George<br /><br />ps I am just playing the 'devils advocate' here. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think the allowance is merley to enable people who live at altitude and do not have the opportunity (by virtue of cost or situation) to travel to another place and qualify at sea level.<br /><br />There are any number of studies to show that performances at altitude are adversely affected.<br /><br />If someone thinks they can improve by training at altitude good luck to them.<br /><br />Beats spending 3 hours a day on a stepper! (Sorry Rich!).<br /><br />As to your questions about Weight Adjustment Factors my point is:<br /><br />(1)Weight is an advantage on the Ergo.<br />(2)Weight has nothing to do with athletic excellence.<br />(3) A lightweight performance of equal time, gender and age is superior to a heavyweight performance<br />(4) Concept2 have the technologhy to build this into the machine<br />(5) Everybody would then compete on a level playing field providing gender and age classifications remain.<br /><br />It would be very interesting to see how a 75k lightweight time compares to a world Champion 120k heavyweight time in the same age group.<br /><br />Anyway, Untrained, Unathletic 120k bodybuilders should not be allowed to record faster times than me on the 2k.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris<br /><br /><br />

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » December 26th, 2005, 1:39 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Dec 26 2005, 12:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thought I might start a thread on the current or potential adjustments that could be relevant in Indoor Rowing should be good for some lively discussion.<br /><br />George <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Of course if Concept2 had any marketing expertise then they would use 200 of their own machines and start their own triathlon.<br /><br />Do away with the swim.<br /><br />5k ergo, 20k bike, 5k run sounds good!<br /><br />The 5k run advantage which all lightweight athletes have would be lost in a 5k ergo against the heavier rowers!<br /><br />As the bike except on hilly courses does not adversely affect the heavier cyclists it would provide an interesting contest!<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris<br /><br />

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » December 26th, 2005, 2:44 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Dec 25 2005, 10:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Of course if Concept2 had any marketing expertise then they would use 200 of their own machines and start their own triathlon.<br />Do away with the swim.<br />5k ergo, 20k bike, 5k run sounds good!<br />The 5k run advantage which all lightweight athletes have would be lost in a 5k ergo against the heavier rowers!<br />As the bike except on hilly courses does not adversely affect the heavier cyclists it would provide an interesting contest!<br />Regards,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Chris,<br />That suggestion just leads naturally to the all unnatural triathlon - all indoors, all on mechanical devices: indoor rower - stationary bike - treadmill. It doesn't appeal to me personally, but it might work - at least in the areas with harsh winters.<br /><br />Bob S.<br /><br />We still have a little over an hour left of 12/25, so Merry Christmas!<br />

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » December 26th, 2005, 3:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Dec 26 2005, 02:44 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(cbrock @ Dec 25 2005, 10:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Of course if Concept2 had any marketing expertise then they would use 200 of their own machines and start their own triathlon.<br />Do away with the swim.<br />5k ergo, 20k bike, 5k run sounds good!<br />The 5k run advantage which all lightweight athletes have would be lost in a 5k ergo against the heavier rowers!<br />As the bike except on hilly courses does not adversely affect the heavier cyclists it would provide an interesting contest!<br />Regards,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Chris,<br />That suggestion just leads naturally to the all unnatural triathlon - all indoors, all on mechanical devices: indoor rower - stationary bike - treadmill. It doesn't appeal to me personally, but it might work - at least in the areas with harsh winters.<br /><br />Bob S.<br /><br />We still have a little over an hour left of 12/25, so Merry Christmas! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />The way people are avoiding outdooe events and technologhy is going, it will happen! <br /><br />I am 18 hours into Boxing Day (That's the day after Xmas) in Australia. If my memory serves me well they do not call it by that name in the USA.<br /><br />Done my 10k already and worked off that Xmas Lunch.<br /><br />Hope you had a great Xmas Bob.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris<br />

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 26th, 2005, 3:20 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Dec 26 2005, 06:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think the allowance is merely to enable people who live at altitude and do not have the opportunity (by virtue of cost or situation) to travel to another place and qualify at sea level. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes it is, and probably with good reason<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>There are any number of studies to show that performances at altitude are adversely affected. </td></tr></table><br />Yes there is for those who 'live and train' at sea level<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If someone thinks they can improve by training at altitude good luck to them. </td></tr></table><br />Are you saying they cant? because it is accepted practice for endurance athletes to train at altitude and then 'come down' to compete. As I understand it the body learns to become more efficient and also produces more red blood cells that assist in transporting more oxygen to the working cell - this is then an advantage at sea level till the body 'reverts' to its norm.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>(1)Weight is an advantage on the Ergo.<br />(2)Weight has nothing to do with athletic excellence.<br />(3) A lightweight performance of equal time, gender and age is superior to a heavyweight performance<br />(4) Concept2 have the technologhy to build this into the machine<br />(5) Everybody would then compete on a level playing field providing gender and age classifications remain. </td></tr></table><br />(1) If the extra weight is muscle then it can be<br />(2) Agree<br />(3) Agree given above, it is a better performance but not a guarantee of better ultimate potential<br />(4) Take your word for it<br />(5) Assuming the adjustment was fair - the question is what is fair - do away with weight categories, I could live with that<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It would be very interesting to see how a 75k lightweight time compares to a world Champion 120k heavyweight time in the same age group. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I guess that is available from the records but I doubt any of the top rowers / ergers weigh that much <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Anyway, Untrained, Unathletic 120k bodybuilders should not be allowed to record faster times than me on the 2k. </td></tr></table><br /><br />if they can then it is probably because they are more aerobically fit than you so get off your arse and kick theirs. There are a few behemoths at my gym, much bigger and stronger than me, but they are dead after 500m steady or 300m hard <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />George

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 26th, 2005, 11:32 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Dec 25 2005, 09:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />As to your questions about Weight Adjustment Factors my point is:<br /><br />(1)Weight is an advantage on the Ergo.<br />(2)Weight has nothing to do with athletic excellence.<br />(3) A lightweight performance of equal time, gender and age is superior to a heavyweight performance<br />(4) Concept2 have the technologhy to build this into the machine<br />(5) Everybody would then compete on a level playing field providing gender and age classifications remain.<br /><br />Anyway, Untrained, Unathletic 120k bodybuilders should not be allowed to record faster times than me on the 2k.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You're a lwt aren't ya? <br /><br />1) Not merely on it's own.<br />2) Then #1 was kind of silly in the first place.<br />3) Why? Isn't lifting 100kg once an equal performance no matter who is lifting it?<br />4) There are existing adjustment schemes, but they all relate to either being in a boat, or weight (which you say has nothing to do with athletic excellence)<br />5) It could never be leveled enough, that is why the classifications exist.<br /><br />In essence, Time Trial performances are all "equal", i.e. as hard as the athlete is willing to push. Due to each one's internal definition of "hard" along with training, genetic and geriatric characteristics the final times will vary. Since [in racing] we have to decide on something as being the "winning" criteria, the fastest time over a distance has been defined that way.<br /><br />There is no "Equal", even two people that pull identical times likely arrived at that point through different means, do we want to adjust for training time, diet, body composition, etc.....? No!<br /><br />Just do your best, and try to improve on that, what else can you possibly do? This claiming that others have an advantage because they have 10lbs of fat that you don't have is pretty whacky on it's face.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 12:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 26 2005, 07:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Isn't lifting 100kg once an equal performance no matter who is lifting it?[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />No.<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 26th, 2005, 3:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>There are existing adjustment schemes, but they all relate to either being in a boat, or weight (which you say has nothing to do with athletic excellence)<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Then why do the monitors at indoor rowing events have little boats on them to track the outcomes of the races? Why don't they show little ergs, going nowhere, or just numbers spinning by, watts and calories? <br /><br />Clearly, erging was designed as training for rowing, and racing on the erg has been thought of as comparable to rowing, and a good approximation of it. <br /><br />If so, I think it is _very_ odd that the erg has not been made (1) with a built-in personal weight adjustment and (2) with a calibration for pace and distance travelled to a 1x rather than a bigger boat. <br /><br />If this were done, the little boats on the monitors at indoor rowing (note the "rowing") events would approximate boats rather than something else. <br /><br />It is very nice, in fact, that in the water, weight is pretty much neutralized. That is, the real "adjustment" that is being made and therefore than is causing all of the difficulty where weight is concerned is just the design of the erg's monitor not the nature of rowing itself, whether indoor or out.<br /><br />I also think it would indeed be exciting to see big heavyweigts and wiry lightweights in the same race, neck and neck, to the finish; or even big heavyweights and small heavyweights: Pete Marston against Graham Benton, etc., Rich Cureton against Jon Bone. In rowing, there is no reason why sheer muscle mass should be an advantage.<br /><br />ranger

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 26th, 2005, 5:08 pm

1/ Ok so we go for a weight adjustment on the erg and before a race - EVERYONE - weighs in and that weight is put in by someone independent of the rower before the race starts. Oh and people should be weighed after the race as well!!!<br /><br />2/ All the lightweights are happy that once this adjustment is available - THEIR - division disappears, all previous LW + HW records disappears and we start from scratch.<br /><br />3/ The adjustment would HAVE TO BE on the supposed advantage that weight gives you on an ERG not a boat but an ERG. We are racing ergs here not boats and all that crap about sitting lower in the water etc etc has nothing to do with Indoor rowing. So any calculations done on boats can get chucked out the window and an adjustment arrived at purely based on racing an erg.<br /><br />I kinda feel sorry for those people who are little overweight but keen to get into racing who are going to be penalised for that non productive mass they have to haul up and down the slide, that people are saying makes them faster than the naturally scrawny guy next to them who has not put in half the work or effort in training but is now getting a 40 sec head start.<br /><br />George

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 5:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Dec 26 2005, 01:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>all that crap about sitting lower in the water etc etc has nothing to do with Indoor rowing. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />You could have the same kind of response on the erg by having a measurement device of "how low" you sit on an erg, i.e. the monitor would adjust by the weight that is sitting on it.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 26th, 2005, 5:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 26 2005, 11:00 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>there is no reason why sheer muscle mass should be an advantage. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You're kidding, right?<br /><br />I suppose there should be no penalty for additional weight that is not muscle mass either, but you know, that's life.<br /><br />So to be completely "fair", a detailed body composition analysis would have to be done for every racer and then only lean body mass would be included in their "race weight". Then of course the shorter athletes should be given some sort of allowance, but wait, perhaps the taller rowers could be restricted in the length of stroke allowed, so it would match the shortest stroke lengths.<br /><br />They have little boats up on a screen, because it's far more exciting than just watching a bunch of people thrashing about and having no idea if anyone is ahead or behind but gaining on the lead. (The original Erg Races had no capacity at all for any sort of "live feedback" between competitors, and were far less exciting.)<br /><br />Frankly, I'd just as soon see two columns of numbers, one would be Avg Pace and the other Current stroke Pace, this would give a far better idea of what is going on in a race. Many times there is the "rabbit" that would be very obvious when seeing both figures, they appear to be doing well, but have already lost before 500m is complete. If there were greater resolution on the projected screen, this could be seen, but that would require narrowing down the "boats" being displayed to the top few.<br /><br /><br />How about we just take a look at the total time to get the PM3 to go from 2000m to 0m, have gender, age and weight categories, and call it good?

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 26th, 2005, 7:00 pm

Of course as well as all the records getting thrown out we would have to do away with all the rankings as well, as the vast majority of people would not have the new monitor.<br /><br />So only those with the weight adjustment ability could log their times accurately.<br /><br />George

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » December 26th, 2005, 10:01 pm

I supposed some day it would be nice to have the option of having the monitor show the equivalent pace for a 1x instead of 4- and including the weight adjustment factor if desired, for amusement purposes. <br /><br />As it stands now, I can see how hard I'm working on the C2 using the present technology, and when I'm on the water I use a Garmin Forerunner 201 GPS unit. You can buy them for about $100 now. I can see my pace and distance traveled. It has a velcro strap and I strap it to the top of my foot so I have a good view of it and it always tells me the awful truth about the boat speed. It's best to look at the Garmin with a strong wind and current in the direction of travel. <br /><br />Byron

Concept2 Forum

Discussion On Adjustments ...

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions