Looking for feedback on my rowing technique

[Sakly]

It's a common issue for newbies to think that a longer stroke will be more efficient, but in reality the slightly extra time & energy you use aren't a good trade off for most people, but there will be outliers.

I think we have to be more precise here. A longer stroke IS more efficient, but only if length is added in the right portion of the stroke.
If length is added with an exaggerated lean back -> no, not more efficient.
If length is added with an overcompression at the catch -> no, not more efficient.
But if catch position is not optimal and the body is not reaching most forward to optimal position with a huge lean back in the stroke (like the case here), both ends positions could be optimized and would lead to more or less same recorded stroke length with a much better efficiency, as the biomechanics and physics work better
So the "effective length" is greater, although the PM5 shows the same value for the metric.

[Spinal]

It's a common issue for newbies to think that a longer stroke will be more efficient, but in reality the slightly extra time & energy you use aren't a good trade off for most people, but there will be outliers.

Correct, Bond and Murray shared a boat yet their technique on the erg was vastly different. Not too many people have core strength/flexibility and techinque to row with the compression and lean back displayed by Hamish.

https://youtu.be/IOVmIrWZdWA

[Dangerscouse]

Correct, Bond and Murray shared a boat yet their technique on the erg was vastly different. Not too many people have core strength/flexibility and techinque to row with the compression and lean back displayed by Hamish.

https://youtu.be/IOVmIrWZdWA

Great example, and I always think of them in this regard, due to the significant difference yet extremely significant results they both produce.

[Dangerscouse]

I think we have to be more precise here. A longer stroke IS more efficient, but only if length is added in the right portion of the stroke.
If length is added with an exaggerated lean back -> no, not more efficient.
If length is added with an overcompression at the catch -> no, not more efficient.
But if catch position is not optimal and the body is not reaching most forward to optimal position with a huge lean back in the stroke (like the case here), both ends positions could be optimized and would lead to more or less same recorded stroke length with a much better efficiency, as the biomechanics and physics work better
So the "effective length" is greater, although the PM5 shows the same value for the metric.

Fair point. I do wonder though if it is as simple as a longer stroke is always more efficient due to the interplay of energy systems / fast & slow twitch muscles / general physiology / lung capacity. Admittedly it is probably really small differences per stroke, but they fairly quickly compound into a bigger difference, when you're struggling to maintain a specific pace. Just a suspicion, as there's quite often a difference between theoretical conclusions and reality when we look at rowing and exercise generally.

[Sakly]

I think we have to be more precise here. A longer stroke IS more efficient, but only if length is added in the right portion of the stroke.
If length is added with an exaggerated lean back -> no, not more efficient.
If length is added with an overcompression at the catch -> no, not more efficient.
But if catch position is not optimal and the body is not reaching most forward to optimal position with a huge lean back in the stroke (like the case here), both ends positions could be optimized and would lead to more or less same recorded stroke length with a much better efficiency, as the biomechanics and physics work better
So the "effective length" is greater, although the PM5 shows the same value for the metric.

Fair point. I do wonder though if it is as simple as a longer stroke is always more efficient due to the interplay of energy systems / fast & slow twitch muscles / general physiology / lung capacity. Admittedly it is probably really small differences per stroke, but they fairly quickly compound into a bigger difference, when you're struggling to maintain a specific pace. Just a suspicion, as there's quite often a difference between theoretical conclusions and reality when we look at rowing and exercise generally.

Also fair point. This is exactly why there are individual differences, that lead to different results, which cannot be pointed to a specific reason.
We can only conclude, that a movement with the same length through the (physical) more optimal pathway will lead to greater output compared to the same length of the movement through pathways less optimal (from physics and biomechanics point of view). Each individual has different capabilities in mobility, strength, range of motion, etc. which can lead to different results for the same movement pattern. So each individual will find its own movement pattern, which works optimal for them, not generally in terms of physics or biomechanics

[nick rockliff]

I think we have to be more precise here. A longer stroke IS more efficient, but only if length is added in the right portion of the stroke.
If length is added with an exaggerated lean back -> no, not more efficient.
If length is added with an overcompression at the catch -> no, not more efficient.
But if catch position is not optimal and the body is not reaching most forward to optimal position with a huge lean back in the stroke (like the case here), both ends positions could be optimized and would lead to more or less same recorded stroke length with a much better efficiency, as the biomechanics and physics work better
So the "effective length" is greater, although the PM5 shows the same value for the metric.

Fair point. I do wonder though if it is as simple as a longer stroke is always more efficient due to the interplay of energy systems / fast & slow twitch muscles / general physiology / lung capacity. Admittedly it is probably really small differences per stroke, but they fairly quickly compound into a bigger difference, when you're struggling to maintain a specific pace. Just a suspicion, as there's quite often a difference between theoretical conclusions and reality when we look at rowing and exercise generally.

Also fair point. This is exactly why there are individual differences, that lead to different results, which cannot be pointed to a specific reason.
We can only conclude, that a movement with the same length through the (physical) more optimal pathway will lead to greater output compared to the same length of the movement through pathways less optimal (from physics and biomechanics point of view). Each individual has different capabilities in mobility, strength, range of motion, etc. which can lead to different results for the same movement pattern. So each individual will find its own movement pattern, which works optimal for them, not generally in terms of physics or biomechanics

The late great Andy Riply set the 50-54 2k World record at 6.07 back in 1998 I think. I remember watching him at BIRC 2003 pulling a 6.21 at 55. He rated from memory at 28. He had so much layback he was almost horizontal.

[Sakly]

Fair point. I do wonder though if it is as simple as a longer stroke is always more efficient due to the interplay of energy systems / fast & slow twitch muscles / general physiology / lung capacity. Admittedly it is probably really small differences per stroke, but they fairly quickly compound into a bigger difference, when you're struggling to maintain a specific pace. Just a suspicion, as there's quite often a difference between theoretical conclusions and reality when we look at rowing and exercise generally.

Also fair point. This is exactly why there are individual differences, that lead to different results, which cannot be pointed to a specific reason.
We can only conclude, that a movement with the same length through the (physical) more optimal pathway will lead to greater output compared to the same length of the movement through pathways less optimal (from physics and biomechanics point of view). Each individual has different capabilities in mobility, strength, range of motion, etc. which can lead to different results for the same movement pattern. So each individual will find its own movement pattern, which works optimal for them, not generally in terms of physics or biomechanics

The late great Andy Riply set the 50-54 2k World record at 6.07 back in 1998 I think. I remember watching him at BIRC 2003 pulling a 6.21 at 55. He rated from memory at 28. He had so much layback he was almost horizontal.

And this clearly shows how different the adaptions of each individual are and that they can lead to stunning results even if not following the "standard stroke technique".

[iain]

Also fair point. This is exactly why there are individual differences, that lead to different results, which cannot be pointed to a specific reason.
We can only conclude, that a movement with the same length through the (physical) more optimal pathway will lead to greater output compared to the same length of the movement through pathways less optimal (from physics and biomechanics point of view). Each individual has different capabilities in mobility, strength, range of motion, etc. which can lead to different results for the same movement pattern. So each individual will find its own movement pattern, which works optimal for them, not generally in terms of physics or biomechanics

The late great Andy Riply set the 50-54 2k World record at 6.07 back in 1998 I think. I remember watching him at BIRC 2003 pulling a 6.21 at 55. He rated from memory at 28. He had so much layback he was almost horizontal.

And this clearly shows how different the adaptions of each individual are and that they can lead to stunning results even if not following the "standard stroke technique".

I think biomechanics of the stroke misses other key coordinations. I learned to row with an exaggerated leanback as I have short legs. To pull my weight in the boat I needed to match the stroke length of the other oarsmen (as my oars had to enter and exit the water at the same time as the others). This may influence other OTW rowers. Also I find my stroke rate is determined by my breathing rate. I cannot sustain a row for >500m without breathing twice per stroke. As an asthmatic I struggle to breathe fully rapidly. I think it is generally accepted that 2k pace is largely dependent on rate oxygen can be provided to the muscles. It may well be that more power would be delivered to the handle if I used my available energy on more strokes by deploying that use on the extended leanback to the more productive parts of additional strokes. BUt if my breathing rate does not increase, it would not be possible to coordinate my breathing with this stroke rate and the loss of power from not coordinating my core with the stroke between breaths would more than compensate.

[jamesg]

Hard to breathe more than twice per stroke: maybe one reason why crews race 2k at over 40, as allowed by C2 blades.

On the current erg, a longer, higher force stroke will allow fewer of them over any given distance, so lower rating and lower inertial losses; but not by much; and breathing is limited too.

Maybe we need a new erg: 15kg on wheels, with a lighter, faster flywheel, to match rowing today.

[Elpogoloco]

Thanks @all for the precious feedback -- It's super helpful !

[Elpogoloco]

Very enthusiastic, keep at it. What are your intentions?

High rates make it difficult to train well, due to our aerobic load limits, which at high rates force weak strokes. So take your time and make each stroke worthwhile.

Work's more likely to get done at the front end, where you can use your legs. Swing forward onto your feet, slow forward into the catch, feel the compression and use it for the next stroke.

With a good stroke, ratings 20-24 are high enough to offer a serious training load without going round the world. This load can be seen on the PM: Watts.

I was looking for a way to keep a good shape that was not running and or swimming (I spent 10+ year competing in these two si I'm kind of overdosed). There was basically cycling and rowing left and after a few tests, I really liked rowing ! Now the first step is to break the 7min 2k and aiming for 6'45 after that ! I guess reaching these times should take enough time to keep me motivated for a while

I adjusted yesterday's training (3k5, 5' rest, 2k5, 5' rest, 2k) to 20-24 spm to tried it out and it felt good ! I guess the real challenge will be to keep <24 for short intervals

[iain]

With a good stroke, ratings 20-24 are high enough to offer a serious training load without going round the world. This load can be seen on the PM: Watts.

I was looking for a way to keep a good shape that was not running and or swimming (I spent 10+ year competing in these two si I'm kind of overdosed). There was basically cycling and rowing left and after a few tests, I really liked rowing ! Now the first step is to break the 7min 2k and aiming for 6'45 after that ! I guess reaching these times should take enough time to keep me motivated for a while

I adjusted yesterday's training (3k5, 5' rest, 2k5, 5' rest, 2k) to 20-24 spm to tried it out and it felt good ! I guess the real challenge will be to keep <24 for short intervals

Good luck with your objectives, look forward to seeing how you progress towards them.

I think James was referring to the majority of training. Higher rates are necessary to prepare for and on 2k TTs!

[Tony Cook]

Hard to breathe more than twice per stroke: maybe one reason why crews race 2k at over 40, as allowed by C2 blades.

On the current erg, a longer, higher force stroke will allow fewer of them over any given distance, so lower rating and lower inertial losses; but not by much; and breathing is limited too.

Maybe we need a new erg: 15kg on wheels, with a lighter, faster flywheel, to match rowing today.

Not everyone rows the same type of boat. My OTW option is a 7cwt traditional wooden boat rowed by 6.

[Tony Cook]

The late great Andy Riply set the 50-54 2k World record at 6.07 back in 1998 I think. I remember watching him at BIRC 2003 pulling a 6.21 at 55. He rated from memory at 28. He had so much layback he was almost horizontal.

You can’t compare Andy Ripley with normal humans. Winner of International Superstars, could have been an international 400m runner if he didn’t choose rugby as his sport.