Effort level percentage...threshold tests???

[Mortie31]

Once you have the stroke and basics squared away so your technique is consistent and repeatable you can do power or pace tests, I’ve done a 20min FTP and programmed it into training peaks and it works out my zones, I can the train according to zones pretty much as you will do in cycling. One main problem of using FTP for rowing is there aren’t any (I can find) off the shelf training plans that use %power, they mainly use pacing plans, you will see 2k + 20secs, 5K + 5 etc, these are based off your most recent 2k or 5k pieces, better still you can set pacing off these directly off the ErgZone app. On YouTube there’s a Rowalong channel who uses this method. Here’s a link, have a look at his channel, but loads of other Darkhorse and Cam Nichols are others..
https://youtu.be/zbL29Be_PLo

[Ombrax]

One main problem of using FTP for rowing is there aren’t any (I can find) off the shelf training plans that use %power, they mainly use pacing plans

To spell it all out for those unfamiliar with the numbers, for rowing there's a direct exponential relationship between Watts and Pace: W are proportional to Pace^3

So if you double your rowing pace (halving the time /500m) you'll need 2^3 = 8 times more power.

Which of course is why it's so painful to go from, say, 1:45 to 1:40 - the non linearity really gets you: (60+45/60+40)^3 = 1.05^3 = 1.16 times more power - a pretty big increase in power for a "measly" 5 second improvement, so those 5 seconds are a big deal.

Another example to confirm things: 3:00/500 pace = 60 W and 1:30/500 pace = 480 W 480 / 60 = 8

More info (and the actual equations) are here: https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... calculator

[LBB]

One main problem of using FTP for rowing is there aren’t any (I can find) off the shelf training plans that use %power, they mainly use pacing plans

To spell it all out for those unfamiliar with the numbers, for rowing there's a direct exponential relationship between Watts and Pace: W are proportional to Pace^3

So if you double your rowing pace (halving the time /500m) you'll need 2^3 = 8 times more power.

Which of course is why it's so painful to go from, say, 1:45 to 1:40 - the non linearity really gets you: (60+45/60+40)^3 = 1.05^3 = 1.16 times more power - a pretty big increase in power for a "measly" 5 second improvement, so those 5 seconds are a big deal.

Another example to confirm things: 3:00/500 pace = 60 W and 1:30/500 pace = 480 W 480 / 60 = 8

More info (and the actual equations) are here: https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... calculator

The same type of relationship between power and pace applies to cycling when aerodynamics are held constant. Adding each additional mph of speed is not a linear relationship with power. Which is what sparked my original question. I don't expect cycling and rowing to be "exactly" the same in terms of training and testing protocols, but was curious to know what principles do apply, sort of apply, and maybe apply a lot less than a cyclist might think at first glance.

[LBB]

Once you have the stroke and basics squared away so your technique is consistent and repeatable you can do power or pace tests, I’ve done a 20min FTP and programmed it into training peaks and it works out my zones, I can the train according to zones pretty much as you will do in cycling.

Lack of power based training plans aside, do you find any value in premium training peaks (or WKO) to track TSB, ATL, and CTL in the performance management chart? Of course assuming you have your rowing FTP assigned appropriately? Doesn't seem that rowing workouts calculate "normalized power", but maybe Training Peaks does it for you?

Seems like the world of indoor rowing/erg is about hitting personal bests at various distances, so I could see how some form of PMC could let you know when you're prime to go after certain PRs.

Getting excited...refreshed my dang UPS page about 15x today...still sitting in MA. LOL

[Mortie31]

One main problem of using FTP for rowing is there aren’t any (I can find) off the shelf training plans that use %power, they mainly use pacing plans

To spell it all out for those unfamiliar with the numbers, for rowing there's a direct exponential relationship between Watts and Pace: W are proportional to Pace^3

So if you double your rowing pace (halving the time /500m) you'll need 2^3 = 8 times more power.

Which of course is why it's so painful to go from, say, 1:45 to 1:40 - the non linearity really gets you: (60+45/60+40)^3 = 1.05^3 = 1.16 times more power - a pretty big increase in power for a "measly" 5 second improvement, so those 5 seconds are a big deal.

Another example to confirm things: 3:00/500 pace = 60 W and 1:30/500 pace = 480 W 480 / 60 = 8

More info (and the actual equations) are here: https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... calculator

That’s the same for most sports that interface with aerodynamics and fluid dymanics, ie cycling and rowing. this is where Concept have been clever and have used the standard root3 equation into there static machines to closer replicate this and means results are more translatable to other situations..

[Mortie31]

Once you have the stroke and basics squared away so your technique is consistent and repeatable you can do power or pace tests, I’ve done a 20min FTP and programmed it into training peaks and it works out my zones, I can the train according to zones pretty much as you will do in cycling.

Lack of power based training plans aside, do you find any value in premium training peaks (or WKO) to track TSB, ATL, and CTL in the performance management chart? Of course assuming you have your rowing FTP assigned appropriately? Doesn't seem that rowing workouts calculate "normalized power", but maybe Training Peaks does it for you?

Seems like the world of indoor rowing/erg is about hitting personal bests at various distances, so I could see how some form of PMC could let you know when you're prime to go after certain PRs.

Getting excited...refreshed my dang UPS page about 15x today...still sitting in MA. LOL

To be honest I’m only 70 days into training peaks, so I’m still setting some robust base levels for ATL and CTL. I suffered from overtraining back in May, so I’m now monitoring things more closely so I don’t end up back there. Yes I do find ATL,CTL and training ramps useful, it does seem to calculate NP for rowing as well as aerobic decoupling, but I haven’t really started using these finer details yet. When I enter a full ATP in, next March some of these details will hopefully prove useful. I do like the peaks, both power and HR as i can directly see how long I’ve spent in each zone and how hard I’ve been working, also using the RPE and how are you feeling sections. I love the data and appreciate it isn’t for most, I used some HRV software to set my VT1 heart rate so I know that is accurate, and I’ve done enough 5Ks and max efforts to have a pretty good idea of my rowing FTP, which I can set independent to biking, which is useful. I also use it for the bikeerg I got a few months ago, but only using that for long base work at the moment.

[t.draffen]

I appreciate this post to go back and read. I was looking for others that might have used the trainingpeaks TSS/etc... method for training / predicting performance. Mostly out of curiosity for transferability. Figured I'd post my own experience - anecdotal, n=1 experience that it is.

I - like apparently so many others - transitioned to erg from cycling, and power / numbers / Coggan approach to training load in high volumes. I looked for something that would give me a similarly higher volume for erging, so I'm doing the Fletcher marathon training program and have been tracking ATL/CTL/TSS to see if there's anecdotal relationship to rowing in line with the 1-hour threshold. Ultimately, I'm just having fun on the erg - way more than I ever had on the turbo trainer for sure. I use a spreadsheet PMC, just enjoy doing it. I'm still only a year in to erg-ing, and I depend on RPE for the day to day.

I've done half-marathon all out, 2k, 10k, 30min, used those to predict the 1 hour threshold power (i rarely tested as a cyclist, but generally used other max efforts / RPE - I generally hate testing for the sake of testing)

So - what would all of these metrics need to be to support my training?

TSS / IF - does it match RPE? Kinda.... I find the IF to be inflated. That means I'm either underestimating my threshold power or the IF relationship as a % of threshold power is off. As mentioned in an earlier post, the normalized power might not be the same effective numebr on the erg - also may be a result of my largely steady state / endurance workouts (largely NP = AP)

CTL - does CTL predict the resilience from a volume of 3-5 days of consecutive training without crushing me? I would say anecdotally, yes. Running a CTL of around 60-ish for ~7 hrs / week of paces largely 2k+0 through 2k+17 paces. Not currently doing anything faster than a 2k pace. But CTL is kinda the easy part, training more volume generally lets you train more volume. I would say the pace of the CTL increase week-over-week "feels" similar in fatigue to my cycling days. I generally "really feel" the fatigue when I've tried to increase CTL faster than about 4-5 pts over a 7 day period.

TSB - This I'm not sure is as predictive for "form." I've had some really good results on what the TSB value would say I'm really fatigued. But, I'm also only a year into erg-ing, so new person fitness gains / performance would be expected. This might also be the result of the TSS/IF not "feeling" like RPE, so it makes me wonder what the right TSS driver should be. Maybe it's not the 1 hour power in the case of rowing?

Ultimately, the whole method is a math problem to attempt to solve a physiological response - and it even attempts to normalize out the variations in power curves between slow/fast twitch athletes (my power curve has always flattened at distance, suffered in the less than 4 minutes area). Maybe I'll do a MAP test to derive zones / threshold... ugh.. those are no fun.

Anyway, thanks for reading.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

I check this forum every so often and I'm regularly surprised at how complicated people want to make their training. As someone who has been in the sport for 10+ years and has watched lots of videos, follows lots of athletes on social media, and knows/trains alongside some fairly high level athletes I feel confident in saying that almost everyone has a tendency to overthink the training.

Going fast for rowing (on an erg) is very simple. A 2k is roughly 80% aerobic. Heavily polarized plan with ~80% of volume done as UT2. Using RPE suffices for setting a UT2 training zone. More volume = more gains. Less volume = less gains.

If you aren't 115kilos, you're not going to break 6' without doing a LOT of volume for many years. A big aerobic base takes a very long time to develop. There's a reason you see 15yr olds in the Olympics swimming but not rowing.

Cycling is a totally different beast from rowing. I wouldn't recommend using cycling tests or zones for rowing.