Ideal Physique Of A Rower

[[old] H33]

Some Excerpts:<br /><br />Rowers are Tall<br /><br />World-class rowers have long "levers" (their arms and legs) so that they can make long strokes.<br /><br />Male Olympians tend to be between 1.90m and 1.95m (6'3"-6'5") and females 1.80m-185m (5'11"-6'1").<br /><br />Rowers are Muscular<br /><br />They need to be strong so that they can apply a lot of force to the water on each of their strokes. The extra muscle power makes them heavy.<br /><br />The average weight for a male world-class rower 90-95kg (14st 2lb-15st). The women weigh in at 75-80kg (11st 11lb-12st 8lb).<br /><br />And that's almost pure muscle - because they don't want to carry any extra weight, rowers tend to be very lean. <br /><br />Compared to athletes in other endurance disciplines, successful rowers are as lean, but heavier and taller, with long arms, and a tall sitting height. Hagerman has collected data on more than 3000 elite U.S. rowers since 1964. Data from female rowers has been collected since the late 70s. Heavyweight oarsman averaged 6 feet 3.5 inches tall, and 194 pounds (1.92 m and 88kg). Their female counterparts averaged 5 feet 11" and 169 pounds (1.8 m, 77 kg). More recently, the average height and weight of the mens' and womens' U.S. 1992 Olympic team is reported in the table below (from Hagerman). As a reminder,1kg = 2.2 pounds. 1inch = 2.54 centimeters.<br /><br />Rowers show abnormally large cross-sectional areas of individual muscle fibers, both fast and slow, when compared with the same fiber types in other endurance athletes. This is at odds with the general pattern of endurance adaptation (small muscle cell diameters mean reduced oxygen diffusion distances). Closer analysis of the task demands of rowing may help explain this difference. The stroke frequency of competitive rowing is quite low when compared to the contraction frequency employed in cycling or running. In contrast, the peak muscular force is substantially higher. The rower must adopt a pattern of work output that relies on relatively few periods of high force production with longer "rest" intervals between contractions. This pattern of activity is consistent with the development of larger muscle fibers, in appropriate response to the task demands.<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Ok, now I need to figure out how to add 9" to my height, lol.

[[old] Steve_R]

Was there data for LWT rowers? Being 5' 10" and 75kg, I could always compare my ability to female olympians (although they are faster than me too )

[[old] Raven]

What about kids?

[[old] seat5]

Well, I guess I've found my sport, then. I'm 5'11, 168 lbs, and I'm as tall sitting down as my 6'2 husband.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] gw1]

Younger, taller, fitter, faster and better technically than me!!<br /><br />GW

[[old] TomR/the elder]

<a href='http://www.rowersworld.com/Content/Trai ... 1_1_6f.php' target='_blank'>http://www.rowersworld.com/Content/Trai ... php</a><br /><br />Physiological characteristics and comparisons of performances of elitie hwt and lwt rowers, male and female.

[[old] GeorgeD]

Being a Kiwi is ideal of course (so I just have to work on all the others), and being an Ocker (jst 4 u Gary) seems to be ok to as long as you row in the surf <br /><br />George<br /><br />Liking vegemite sandwiches is good to

[[old] Deleerious]

I'm 5' 9'', 155 lbs (71 kg) and rowing a 6 57 2k. I'm holding my own against some 6ft heavies. Is there too far I can go?

[[old] chickenlegs]

possibly the 2 greatest rowers of all time:<br />perti karpinen: 2.00 m, 100 kg<br />rob waddell: 2.00 m, 100 kg<br /><br />coincidence?<br /><br />by the way, what is the logic in expressing horizontal distances in one unit (2000 m, 10 km, etc.) and vertical distances in another unit (5 feet, 6 inches, etc.)??<br /><br />also power measured in watts is metric, so using pounds for force also makes no sense.<br /><br />

[[old] akit110]

<!--QuoteBegin-chickenlegs+Feb 27 2005, 06:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chickenlegs @ Feb 27 2005, 06:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->possibly the 2 greatest rowers of all time:<br />perti karpinen: 2.00 m, 100 kg<br />rob waddell: 2.00 m, 100 kg<br /><br />coincidence?<br /><br />by the way, what is the logic in expressing horizontal distances in one unit (2000 m, 10 km, etc.) and vertical distances in another unit (5 feet, 6 inches, etc.)??<br /><br />also power measured in watts is metric, so using pounds for force also makes no sense. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The reason for the discrepancy is that for vertical distances (typically human height), most people have a very strong historical frame of reference what a 6-footer or a 5'6" equates, for example. A discrepancy of a even a couple of percent is very perceptible to the human eye so the average person has been slow to move towards the metric system where they have to develop a completely new frame of reference. <br /><br />With horizontal distances, the sense of what exactly is a kilometer or a mile is more abstract and not something typically discernible by the human eye. So I think the metric system is more readily adopted by the average person as the frame of reference is not as precisely developed in most of us.<br /><br />Anyway, that's my theory...

[[old] chickenlegs]

The reason for the discrepancy is that for vertical distances (typically human height), most people have a very strong historical frame of reference what a 6-footer or a 5'6" equates, for example. A discrepancy of a even a couple of percent is very perceptible to the human eye so the average person has been slow to move towards the metric system where they have to develop a completely new frame of reference. <br /><br />With horizontal distances, the sense of what exactly is a kilometer or a mile is more abstract and not something typically discernible by the human eye. So I think the metric system is more readily adopted by the average person as the frame of reference is not as precisely developed in most of us.<br /><br />Anyway, that's my theory... <br />[/quote]<br /><br />i think that the 'average person' or 'most people' presently use the metric system for both vertical and horizontal distances...unless you do not count as people non-english speaking people <br /><br />i agree with you about people using whatever frame of reference they have been taught, but i still find strange that some industrialized countries still haven't made the switch to a base-10 system (at least not in all fields - the US dollar is base 10).<br /><br />doing science, especially physics and chemistry, in the US must be h***!<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[[old] akit110]

[quote=chickenlegs,Feb 28 2005, 02:14 PM]<br />The reason for the discrepancy is that for vertical distances (typically human height), most people have a very strong historical frame of reference what a 6-footer or a 5'6" equates, for example. A discrepancy of a even a couple of percent is very perceptible to the human eye so the average person has been slow to move towards the metric system where they have to develop a completely new frame of reference. <br /><br />With horizontal distances, the sense of what exactly is a kilometer or a mile is more abstract and not something typically discernible by the human eye. So I think the metric system is more readily adopted by the average person as the frame of reference is not as precisely developed in most of us.<br /><br />Anyway, that's my theory... <br />[/quote]<br /><br />i think that the 'average person' or 'most people' presently use the metric system for both vertical and horizontal distances...unless you do not count as people non-english speaking people <br /><br />i agree with you about people using whatever frame of reference they have been taught, but i still find strange that some industrialized countries still haven't made the switch to a base-10 system (at least not in all fields - the US dollar is base 10).<br /><br />doing science, especially physics and chemistry, in the US must be h***!<br /> <br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />No, I was not being ethnocentric. I thought it was implicit in my follow-up post that when I was talking about the 'average person' I was referring to 'average person' <i>within</i> that subset of people who use a hybrid of imperial <b>and </b>metric systems and trying to postulate a reason why they might behave that way (in response to your original post). I was not discussing the 'average person' in terms of the world population! <br /><br />With regards to the scientific world, metric units have been the standard for measurement in the US scientific, medical and technical community for years even though the common man generally uses imperial units of measurement.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />

[[old] andyArvid]

IMHExperience. He is right. I've lived outside of USA for 8 years now and I have gotten used to daily use of kg for weight, I now logged my running <i>miles</i> in kilometers, pace por km and driving in km/hour. I need to watch out when I visit the ol' USA though 60 kph is kind of slow especially the way Brazilians drive but 60 mph is a bit fast for american streets.<br /><br />But I have never gotten used human height (or short distances) in meter or centimeters. I just had to calculate my height in centimeters (176.53). <br /><br />Ironically, USA doesn't make TVs anymore but TVs are still sized in inches.

[[old] Steve_R]

<!--QuoteBegin-chickenlegs+Feb 28 2005, 01:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chickenlegs @ Feb 28 2005, 01:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i agree with you about people using whatever frame of reference they have been taught, but i still find strange that some industrialized countries still haven't made the switch to a base-10 system (at least not in all fields - the US dollar is base 10).<br /><br />doing science, especially physics and chemistry, in the US must be h***!<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />As has been said, the scientific community uses metric measurements. When getting my degree in chemistry, the units of measure were the least of my issues .<br /><br />It's everyday life that most in the US use imperial measures and I find it very useful depending on what I am trying to do. Knowing that a pint of water is 1 lb, or a gram of water is a mL can make calculation in either system easy to do in your head if you are just doing estimation. It is difficult at times when converting back and forth but having another "language" to speak with regard to measure is an advantage (as long as you know how to convert back to metric). 2.54cm=1in, 1.609km=1mile, 1kg=2.2lb, etc.<br /><br />I see some people listing weight in stones and that is totally foreign to me so I understand how things must read from outside the US at times.<br /><br />Steve<br />

[[old] chickenlegs]

<br />It's everyday life that most in the US use imperial measures and I find it very useful depending on what I am trying to do. Knowing that a pint of water is 1 lb, or a gram of water is a mL can make calculation in either system easy to do in your head if you are just doing estimation. It is difficult at times when converting back and forth but having another "language" to speak with regard to measure is an advantage (as long as you know how to convert back to metric). 2.54cm=1in, 1.609km=1mile, 1kg=2.2lb, etc.<br /><br />I see some people listing weight in stones and that is totally foreign to me so I understand how things must read from outside the US at times.<br /><br />Steve <br />[/quote]<br /><br />steve,<br />there is no argument on the fact that for all estimations the easiest system of units is whatever you are most familiar with.<br /><br />but the system you are most familiar with is the system used in the society in which you grew up.<br /><br />so the question really is given the fact that one system of units (base 10) is much easier to work with than another (base 12!), why doesn't the society make the switch?<br /><br />the metric system is relatively recent, just over 200 years old, which means that in many places it has been in place for much less time than that.<br /><br />countries big and small, poor and rich have managed to learn and teach it, why is the usa clinging to such an absurd system?<br />12 inches in a foot?<br />5280 feet in a mile???<br />so if i run 3 and a half miles, how many feet have i covered? (no calculators allowed)<br /><br />doing things differently is not necessarily better or worse:<br />some people drive on the left side of the road, some people on the right.<br />either one is fine, as long as everybody agrees in a particular place.<br /><br />but using base-12 today is like using transistors in computers after learning about silicon chips.