summer workout

[NavigationHazard]

In all discussions of strength/resistance training and rowing, I think it's crucial to pay attention to exactly what regimen is being considered for what purpose for what rower. Many studies are quite narrowly constructed yet are reported and recommended/dissed as if they're universally true. Personal experience also tends to factor highly in the discourse (generally too highly, IMO).

At a meta level, as has been pointed out in this thread, national teams universally embrace resistance training and spend considerable amounts of time in the weight room. Their coaches and expert advisers are not stupid people; it follows that they are finding it generally beneficial or they wouldn't be wasting training time on it. However the devil is in the details. We don't necessarily know what they're doing, and even if we do know their lifting protocols we generally don't know the rationale(s) behind them. And even if we knew what they were doing in the weight room and why, most of us aren't national-squad caliber or training for national/international competitions against other similar rowers also in their physiological primes. So why the general rowing community ought to follow blindly what are often anecdotal reports about top-flight training escapes me.

Here's an interesting example from the literature: Ebben et al., The Effect of High-Load Vs. High-Repetition Training on Endurance Performance, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, August 2004, vol. 18 issue 3:

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of high-load (H-load) periodized resistance training and high-repetition (H-rep) reverse step loading periodized resistance training on endurance performance. Twenty-six female university rowers (age = 20 +/- 1 year) were randomly assigned to H-load (5 novice, 8 varsity) or H-rep (7 novice, 6 varsity) groups. Subjects were pre- and posttested using a 2,000-m rowing ergometer test. Outcome variables included VO2 peak, time to test completion, total power, average power per stroke, total number of strokes, stroke rate, and body mass. Subjects trained for 8 weeks using identical exercises. Varsity rowers who performed H-load training demonstrated greater improvement compared with those who performed H-rep training. Novice rowers who performed H-rep training demonstrated greater improvement compared with those who performed H-load training. High-load periodized training appears to be more effective for athletes with advanced training status, and H-rep reverse step loading periodized training is more effective for those who are relatively untrained.


In other words, better collegiate female rowers in this study did better with high-load weights and novices did better with lower load/high-rep weights. That is, the results were significantly different depending on who was doing what and one size doesn't seem appropriate for everyone.

One final thing and then I'll shut up: resistance training in rowing isn't only about strength and/or strength-endurance gains. It also can be about changing a force curve towards some desired shape. That's particularly true of high-resistance/low-rate erg or OTW stroking: the idea is that if you do it with the goal of trying to accelerate quickly despite the higher resistance/drag, you will be that much quicker when you return to normal drag. I'm not sure how much actual muscular strength is improved by such exercises compared to weight training. But you definitely can improve coordination and sequencing towards front-loading a rude but smooth drive. That's really quite hard to simulate without actually doing the rowing stroke, I think.

[sheehc]

And even if we knew what they were doing in the weight room and why, most of us aren't national-squad caliber or training for national/international competitions against other similar rowers also in their physiological primes. So why the general rowing community ought to follow blindly what are often anecdotal reports about top-flight training escapes me.

And cirlce gets the square!!! Best post yet.

Gotta be honest though, I wouldn't put much stock in that posted study. I can only access the first two pages right now, but they are misrepresenting the overall competitiveness of the team at that time. They do provide more specific/individual statistics later I presume? Unless they were going through a renaissance that I just don't recall, there are some validity issues here in terms of the "varsity" status of the athletes and the comparability to other populations. I also find the notion of 3x8 as being a "heavy load" somewhat comical; not that 2 sets of 20 being "high reps" is any better.