Running Versus Rowing

[old] Ghengis · Post by **[old] Ghengis** » December 1st, 2004, 2:41 pm

How would one compare distance rowed to distance run. For example what mileage does a 10K row compare to?

[old] afolpe · Post by **[old] afolpe** » December 1st, 2004, 3:29 pm

hard to be exactly sure, but you could get some sense by timing yourself on the erg for 10k, and then figuring out how far you can run at an equivalent perceived intensity (or heartrate) in the same period of time. i've done this for erging vs "high intensity" kayaking and the results are pretty accurate, using a correction factor (each kayak km is 1.44 erging km). andrew

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 1st, 2004, 4:01 pm

From a 46 years old lwt (155 lbs) perspective, they are close. My 5k pb in rowing is 18:07 (March 04), and I did a 5k in 17:55 (June 04). My 10k are probably very close too. On the other hand, I could row a marathon at a 2:00 pace but not run at that pace. People in the heavy weight category tend to find rowing easier for equivalent distances. Also, progression in running tends to be more linear: good 10k runners are sub 30:00, while a 10k rowing under 30:00 might be impossible! This probably due to the quadratic increase in resistance with the speed of the flywheel. At the elite level, this is also true for shorter distances (500m and 1k) and longer distances (I doubt erging a marathon in 2:06 is feasible!) Cheers, Francois

[old] Exrook · Post by **[old] Exrook** » December 1st, 2004, 4:21 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (FrancoisA @ Dec 1 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> From a 46 years old lwt (155 lbs) perspective, they are close. My 5k pb in rowing is 18:07 (March 04), and I did a 5k in 17:55 (June 04). My 10k are probably very close too. On the other hand, I could row a marathon at a 2:00 pace but not run at that pace. People in the heavy weight category tend to find rowing easier for equivalent distances. Also, progression in running tends to be more linear: good 10k runners are sub 30:00, while a 10k rowing under 30:00 might be impossible! This probably due to the quadratic increase in resistance with the speed of the flywheel. At the elite level, this is also true for shorter distances (500m and 1k) and longer distances (I doubt erging a marathon in 2:06 is feasible!) Cheers, Francois  </td></tr></table> Dwayne Adams just erged a 2:27:48.4 marathon this week - a 1:45.1 pace. So a 2:06 pace for a marathon is very feasible for elite rowers. Oops - now that I reread, I see that you mean erging a marathon in 2:06 isn't feasible - and I'd have to agree with you there.

[old] Canoeist · Post by **[old] Canoeist** » December 2nd, 2004, 9:56 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (FrancoisA @ Dec 1 2004, 08:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> People in the heavy weight category tend to find rowing easier for equivalent distances.  </td></tr></table> We had many posts on this topic on the old forum. Some of the lighter rowers could better their erging times. The heavier runners couldn't come close to their erging times. And, the real heavy (would be) runners like me, can't even go the distance. I can't run a marathon anymore, but I can row one in 2:40. Cheers, Paul Flack, 48 years old, 210 pounds

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » December 2nd, 2004, 11:12 am

A couple of years back in Sweden there was a big and heavy erger who ran faster than he rowed. He switched from running to erging though, not the other way around. On the road: 10k at 31:28 On the erg: 32:48 Generally speaking I believe ergers/rowers run very slow in comparison to their aerboic capacity.

[old] covingtb · Post by **[old] covingtb** » December 2nd, 2004, 12:06 pm

That's an incredible time. When I am in shape I run about 39 minute 10K. I am new to rowing and right now row about 41 to 42 minutes 10k row. After reading some of the forums, I would suggest that you could probably strive for your running times. Good luck

[old] nkoffler · Post by **[old] nkoffler** » December 2nd, 2004, 12:45 pm

First of all, I thought most of us use the indoor rower because we HATE running. I sure do and, besides, it hurts my knees. That said, this is a fascinating topic and one which is worth looking up the old forum thread that Paul mentioned. What I think is clearly apparent is that comparing erging and running times depends almost entirely on the distance. At shorter distances (maybe up to 500m), most people can easily run faster than they can erg. After that, a lot depends on a whether the person is a fast runner or not. Think about comparative mile times, for example. I believe I would have real trouble ever breaking a 6 minute mile but I can certainly erg one in under that. For others, the break point may be at 5k or 10k. I seems that for good ergers and runners, the 10K comparison is most apt. As for the marathon, I assume anyone who can run one under 3 hours could erg one as well but certainly the other way around. Incidently, I pulled a PR 14,345 for 60 minutes on the day after Thanksgiving (a piece I don't do often). There is NO WAY I could run nearly nine miles in a hour. Finally, I remember reading a post about marathons in which the ultimate was to have a combined marathon time of under 5 hours. These were not done consecutively just over one's lifetime. The only people with a chance at that are former elite runners, of course. Enjoy your running, I'll stay seated. Neil M/38/LW/US

[old] DavidA · Post by **[old] DavidA** » December 2nd, 2004, 3:32 pm

If I remember correctly Andy Green managed to do it.

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » December 2nd, 2004, 4:11 pm

There's no way I could ever run one sub 20:00 5K, yet I managed to erg that 3X over in fact. I However, I'd say that running is faster over shorter distances. I mean, I don't think that most people can erg a 4:00 1500, much less a full mile. a mile in 4:00 is about a 1:14.5 split. Dwayne - you up for a crack at it?

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » December 2nd, 2004, 4:48 pm

Just to add a bit of perspective to this, last year at least 6 guys worldwide broke 27:00 for the 10k run on the track (forgetting for a minute the world record which I think stands at 26:22). That is a 500m split of 1:21/500m, or 5:24.0 for 2km . The world record for an erg 2km is 5:37. So in running, 5 consecutive 2km's faster than the WR for erging. Running is faster than erging in general. The differences might be closer if we compared only runners that weighed as much as Siejkowski to Siejkowski's erg WR. Or greater if we compared only ergers who weighed as much as the anorexic runners that do sub-27 to the running WR. I'd guess that the greater need for strength in erging compared to running accounts for this. Rick

[old] andyArvid · Post by **[old] andyArvid** » December 2nd, 2004, 5:06 pm

Running and erging are not apples and oranges but more like apples and pears. Similar but not really the same thing. My best times from my college running days are better or close to every erg record except Pinsent's 5k at 15:11 and the Marathon (though I never pushed myself in the 'thon). A decent college runner could beat any erg record. Any world-class runner destroys any erg record. Of course comparing records is not totally fair because the universe of runners is much much larger than that of ergers. Clearly, as the athlete gets heavier, erging improves in relation to running. Furthermore as the distance gets longer, erging should improve in relation to running. The world best 100k running is 6:10, for erging it is 6:22. Relatively this is much closer than the marathon (2:04:55/2:27:48). Maybe someone can finally be the erger who can beat a running record.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 2nd, 2004, 6:12 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (afolpe @ Dec 1 2004, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> hard to be exactly sure, but you could get some sense by timing yourself on the erg for 10k, and then figuring out how far you can run at an equivalent perceived intensity (or heartrate) in the same period of time. i've done this for erging vs "high intensity" kayaking and the results are pretty accurate, using a correction factor (each kayak km is 1.44 erging km). andrew  </td></tr></table> I do the same.

Concept2 Forum

Running Versus Rowing

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training