Hopefully not a ridiculous question: DPS

[Edward4492]

RE: Jim and Citroen

Of course you guys also have a legitimate valid point. I'm sure I'll be hitting a wall (probably just about there)where I can't carry it any further. It's obvious to anyone that there's a point at which it all grinds to a halt. Can I just decide to "rate up" to 34r and develop 340w? Pretty doubtful. And when I go flat out for a 2000m race I'll probably be pushing 34 to 35 to try and carry 315 to 320w. But I'll stand by my premise that the goal should be to see how much power per stroke we can build and how well can we hold that as we rate up. The problem is that there are those that have mentioned in the past that it is a simple matter to build 12 - 13 watts per sroke at 20r, then all you have to do is rate up to 30 for an hour and all is good. And we all know that doesn't work.

So I agree whole heartedly that the limits are certainly there. My next training phase of speed work will certainly involve some higher rate work (30-34). But I'll be paying strict attention to maintain the same stroke I'm using on the low rate stuff so I'm not just flailing around.

The ultimate goal is to get to 2000m as far under 7 minutes (for me) as possible.

[DanielJ]

As a novice I too have recently enjoyed the benefit of thinking in terms of average watts/spm (SPI - stroke power index), but of course we have to have different ideals/targets for different spm levels. SPI just makes me think more about the quality and efficiency of the stroke rather than the times they produce, even if they're the same things.

[Bob S.]

As a novice I too have recently enjoyed the benefit of thinking in terms of average watts/spm (SPI - stroke power index), but of course we have to have different ideals/targets for different spm levels. SPI just makes me think more about the quality and efficiency of the stroke rather than the times they produce, even if they're the same things.

Just don't call it by that ridiculous name - stroke power index. It is not an index pf power, it is simply the work done per stroke. It is too bad the Paul S didn't call it the Stroke Work Index when he first promoted the term. The word "power" has resulted in a number of people using it in the wrong way. The wattage itself as read directly on the PM is the measure of the power input to the wheel, whatever the rate is.

The work unit, watt-minutes, is a little odd, but not all that different in form from kilowatt-hours, a term that has been used for many decades for the capacity of lead/acid batteries. In more recent times the capacities of small cells, like AAs and the lithium cells used in electronic devises has been given in milliwatt-hours. On this forum, watt-minute has been abbreviated as W' recently. W' is nice and concise, but sometimes it has been misleading, since the ' symbol for minute gets overlooked or left out occasionally. In more conventional terms, a watt-minute would be 60 joules, so those who are doing 10W'/stroke are putting 600 joules of work into each stroke. It is interesting to consider the power involved. A typical drive time is 0.7 seconds. That means that the average power delivered during the drive is well over 800 watts.

Bob S.

[rhr]

Jim, this is all ties in with your earlier post on low DF. One cannot simple extrapolate W' (minutes) per stroke from 20-30 SPM for the same time frame. However, I do believe there is a correlation between rowing at a lower stroke rate for an hour and then trying to maintain a similar power output per stroke at a higher stroke rate for 7 minutes or less. Almost all of us tend to have a slightly longer stroke at 20 than say 30 which is why I say "similar". Yes it's harder but you're doing it for a shorter time frame. How much harder? That depends on your physiology and how you cope with the increased handle force / less rest per stroke / increased stroke rate (moving up and down the slide).

Now comes the part about DF. If I can maintain a quick drive time at a low DF with a similar but not materially higher handle force and stroke length then the increase in pace is being achieved mostly by strokes per minute. If the drive time / rest ratio is also fairly static then I'm getting a similar recovery time per stroke (but less per minute in total). At higher DF's I tend to start engaging the arms way too early, my drive time increases as I struggle to move the handle and I get fatigued quickly. This is not the case at lower DF's - yet I can maintain a similar pace / SPM combination to a higher DF. Each person needs to find that ideal combination. What is clear is that I can maintain 13W' / stroke at 20-22 for longer periods at all-out efforts, at 2k that drifts down to 12.5ish. Not materially dissimilar. From analyzing training blogs of people who row well you can't improve your W' /stoke as you rate up, at best you can hold the number. Lightweights tend to see a greater decline in W' / stroke dropping to shorter distances as maintaining perfect form when you rate up into the mid 30's vs 20 SPM work is harder than rating to 30 or low 30's as a heavyweight.

Previous posters have done 10' pieces at a W' per stroke and then suggested than can extrapolate that out to an hour or whatever - that's complete nonsense.

[rhr]

Sorry - just read my post above - spotted an error. Should have said - when rating up on a low DF the drive time should remain be the same, not the recovery. That would equate to a 0.66s drive 1.33 recovery at 30 SPM vs 0.66s 2.33s at 20 SPM.

[Edward4492]

Rodney,

As always you make perfect sense. I think I fail to make the distinction between racing and training, To the Op and other novices, races are totally different affairs than day to day training. In fact, novices need to curb their enthusiasm at times and not fall into the trap of trying to "PR" on every work out. That will lead to burn out and frustration. Jim mentioned that he doesn't see how you can rate up, carry the watts per stroke, and maintain the work to recovery ratio. Something has to give, and I think in my case it's the recovery. When I'm training at 20r, I have a very pronounced and relaxed recovery. It takes me a few minutes to settle into a groove at low rates. In a race or PR attempt I'm coming up the slide much quicker, probably getting close to 1:1 ratio. But I still focus on gathering myself at the catch and setting up for a solid drive. There are lots of very fast guys posting here and I think you'll all agree that when racing a 2000m once you get past the first 200m in turns into a complete death march. By 700 or 800m in you want to quit so bad you can taste it. This is where the muscle memory and the ability to focus on perfect strokes can carry you through. Guys like Jim come from a cycling background and know right where that "edge" is.That place where you're pushing it right to the limit....but just under the point of crashing. And of course anybody who has been rowing(racing) for a long time has also developed that sense of staying right under melt down level.

As a matter of curiosity I went back in my training log to check my stats on my 500m PR. I was actually looking to validate Rodney's point about watts/stroke falling off. The numbers were interesting:

100m 457w @ 49r
200m 457w @ 43r
300m 421w @ 38r
400m 421w @ 45r
500m 396w @ 49r

The overall average ended up being 430w @ 43r. Theoretically the perfect 10 w/s. But not really. Experienced racers will recognize this as an almost "fly and die". I went our hard, best w/s was the middle 100m, then complete desperation setting in as the rating skyrocketed and the watts fell. But it wasn't a meltdown by any means and a 1:33.4 is a decent (not stellar) time. And to Jim's previous thoughts about 500's; I pretty much don't do 'em anymore. Really doesn't address the needs of 2000m racing( I know others live in countrys where this event is contested, have at it!).500's require strength, weight training etc. Nothing wrong with that, but as a fringe LW I can't afford to put on 3 or 4 pounds of muscle.

Getting way off track and rambling. For training, the 20r stuff will, IMO, build a solid stroke and if sufficient power is used (HR in the 70 - 80% range) will help build a solid aerobic base. Nothing magic about 10 w/s, But if you can develop more power (watts) at the same rate and HR, then fitness and/or technique is improving.

[Cyclingman1]

In the first place, I’m not going to dispute what has worked for anyone. If someone can do 12W/stroke @20 SPM and carry that effort forward at 30 SPM, then that is great. It is also something that I know I could not possibly do.

I sometimes cool down at 9W/s @21 SPM around 2:02 pace. There is just no way that type of rowing helps me on my serious efforts. I’m literally goofing off at 9W/s at that SPM, even though the number seems like a decent effort.

I guess I’ll explain what I do.

Basically in my good stretches on my best days in the last three years, I’ve been a 6:41-6:50 2K rower. I’ve got about 10 such times. I have done those at 31-32 SPM, pretty close to 10.5 W/stroke for all of them +/- 0.2.

I’ve done that using the overload principle, which is basic to improving fitness.
I focus on 5Ks and shorter type intervals.

I’ve done numerous 5Ks in the 18 min range at around 30SPM and W/s around 9.2. Those efforts allow me to increase slightly the effort and the SPM for the 40% shorter distance of 2K. The 9.2 W/s is hardly easy compared to what I do at 21 SPM.

Secondly, I do quite a few intervals in 250m range. Not a lot – maybe 5 or 6 at a time. Those are done around 33 SPM @ W/s around 12. Those efforts make the 31/2 SPM and 10.5 W/s of the 2K feel more doable.

I wonder if those with claims about low SPM rowing aren’t also doing considerable interval work? One can hardly minimize the importance of fast intervals.

Sometimes I like to tinker around with things like DF to see what kind of effect that will have. But basically I’ve been reasonably successful with the training that I indicated.

[rhr]

Now we're getting to the interesting part - what works for different people. Some swear by long steady state, others shorter work.

Jim I'm not a huge proponent of LSS, R20 long stuff believe it or not. But I do believe in transferring a W' stroke average across various rates. My preference is also for a combination of shorter workouts / distances or intervals and speed intervals. I've done hours on end on the rower before and done marathons and ultras running so my aerobic base is already there or close enough. My preference is for 10-15 x 3' on 1 min or 2 min rest at R22-R25 or 10'x3 or 4 intervals on 2 mins rest at R22 or 3k/2k/1k/500m on 2:30 rest, 5x1500m on 5 min rest, 100m->900m->100m pyramid done in 100m increments on 45 seconds rest. Then speed work like 10x1 min on / off, 8x500m, Pete Plan speed pyramid, 12x250m on 1 min rest etc. Attacking the 2k from both sides, higher rates and pace on the speed work (plus higher W' per stroke - 14-15W'). On the longer end in the mid rates (22-26) at 11-12.5W' but for 30 - 45 minutes. These efforts hurt, they're not easy. If I do a R20 session it will be 5 min/4/3/2/1/2/3/4/5' on 30 seconds rest at 1:48/1:49 / 500m - 29 minutes total work, R20 at 13.5W' on low DF. For me that's hard work. I don't have lots of time to row or the need / desire to develop my aerobic engine. Other than in warm ups and cool downs I do no UT2 rowing, everything is UT1 and up. There are many guys on the UK forum, some record holders, who alternative between mid distance / long intervals and straight speed work - nothing else. But they are simply sharpening, not building their strokes. Their aerobic engines are built already.

Jim your times are superb, your training is similar to others and is perfectly suited to maintaining your times, less age related slow downs. If you have a desire to go faster then you either have to rate up from 31/32 (something I can't do) or health / back permitting, increase your power output per stroke doing training that works for you. Given your cycling pedigree pootling along at R20 around 2:00 or slightly faster isn't going to do much for you. Doing some R25 long intervals / waterfalls at 275W might just.

[Edward4492]

Ahh....this is getting interesting. I think I'm a lot closer to what you guys are doing than I might have implied. The long, 20r stuff is only part of my overall program. After 2 -3 weeks of theses types of rows I start to work my way up the intensity scale. Next up would be (4) x 2500m and (2) x5000m. The last phase for me is (3) x1000m and (6) x500m. At this point I'm looking for speed, definitely over 30r. Others (far better than me) will do a Pete Plan approach that has a little bit of everything each week. Could be my approach is more psychological than pure physical training effect. I look forward to the long steady stuff...and when it's time to go fast, I'm ready for that. Also there's nothing magical about 20r at 2:00m 200w pace. Given that Jim is 30 lbs heavier than me (and it looks to be all muscle!) I would think that a 10w/s effort would feel easy to him.

Another aspect is I'm still in the early stages of my rowing "career" (if there is such a thing!). I can still feel areas where I can improve my technique and I think that type of thing is better addressed at the lower rates. It's why I would advise novices to stay away from the max effort intervals and to just get meters under there belt, assuming they're using proper form, for some period of time. Cyclists do the same thing, particularly early on. Logging 2 - 4 hour rides and just grooving the aerobic fitness and pedal stroke. In my personal case I've gotten so far away from cycling that I don't train on the bike anymore....ever! I was on my road bike 12 times last year and each time was a road race or criterium (short, one mile circuits, usually 25 - 40 laps, think bicycle nascar). And I had no trouble keeping up. The heavy erg training and weight and proper eating were enough. That and a history of over 300 races the previous ten years. The muscle memory is there. And that's what I'm trying for now on the erg. (that and no more broken collarbones and ribs!).

As Rodney and Jim stated.....too each his own! We all respond differently to training stimulus and we all have a mental approach that puts us in the most productive work outs as long as we stick to the basics; form, technique, and some sort of progressive overload.

[Cyclingman1]

All good comments. I was petty sure that there was more speed work going on than first suggested with all the talk of low SPM. I'm also amazed at the persistence/dedication of you guys who follow plans and do the prescribed intervals. I'm just an ad hoc rower who does some of this and some of that. I've never done intervals of 1K on up. I can't imagine doing 2 or 3 x 5K. I'm worn out after one. I don't doubt I would have and would be doing better if I was more systematic.

I think most of the commenters here are in their fifties. I wish I had been rowing in those years. Given my fitness and strength 10/15 yrs ago, I'm sure I would have been at least a 6:20 rower. My initial rowing at age 66 was quite promising. But alas, age, injuries, and illness have jumped on my back. I mention this only to remind everyone that great health and results are not a given. Even though my times are suffering this rowing season, I'm still optimistic that I can turn it all around to some extent. That is one reason that I have been looking for alternatives to what I have been doing in terms of DF and rates, etc. However, I suspect that I will end up doing pretty much what I am used to.

But I do believe in transferring a W' stroke average across various rates.

I think that is what I find does not work for me. My 9W/s at 21 SPM seems to be an irrelevancy for my 9W/s at 30 SPM. At least it feels that way.

[jackarabit]

Jim, did you carve your erg from a lightning-struck tree? Jack

[Cyclingman1]

Jim, did you carve your erg from a lightning-struck tree? Jack

Jack, I would answer that, if I had any idea what you mean. Taking it all literally, the answer is no. JimG

[rhr]

I'm assuming it's a funny reference to Robert Redford's baseball bat, "Wonderboy", from the movie "The Natural". He carved it from a tree struck by lightning.

[hjs]

A general observation from my side. I myself and seen it with many others.
People who have a sporting background, may it be strenght, game or endurance often do well on the erg and progress rapidly in the first 3/9 months of erging. This nomatter what training.
I often seen a 20/30 seconds improvement on the 2k. This gets those people often sub 7, 6.30 even close to 6 flat sometimes.
For less fit people, the process goes longer and gives more improvement.

The already fitter people often, after that first etage don,t improve much more, and certainly the speed of improvement slows down rapidly. Often these people think after that first honeymoonstage. Looking at the rankings the number xx is only this far away. Given the rate of improvement I made, if I train seriously I will get there..
This is seldom, if not never the case. Once a pretty good trained rower has gotten that first initial improvement, big leaps forward don,t come anymore. And certainly guys beyond 40, let alone, 50,60,70.. Will slowly or sometimes rapidly loose potential. This often also breaks enthusiasm a bit.

From what I have seen, even guys who train very serious for long periods of time, every second has to be fought for and does not come easy. Often doing lots of ut2 meters helps endurence but often not so the strenght. So the total gain is limited.

Also a point I often see, people see toprowers train lots of meters, aften 200 or more, and often 90/95% ut 2, 1. And conclude, I should focus on long and slow work. But what they often miss, is that 5/10% fast work. It may not sound much, but on 200 plus K, it is still 10/20 k fast work per week. And often also strenghtwork on top of that. Do for a long period only slow work and try speed than. This will be a cold shower...

In think to reach 90/95% of ones potential is not so difficult. Be fit, train hard enough and you get there. The last bit takes longer and more. But there is no single way that leads to Rome.

[Cyclingman1]

A general observation from my side. I myself and seen it with many others.
People who have a sporting background, may it be strenght, game or endurance often do well on the erg and progress rapidly in the first 3/9 months of erging. This nomatter what training.
I often seen a 20/30 seconds improvement on the 2k. This gets those people often sub 7, 6.30 even close to 6 flat sometimes. ...

The already fitter people often, after that first etage don,t improve much more, and certainly the speed of improvement slows down rapidly. Often these people think after that first honeymoonstage. Looking at the rankings the number xx is only this far away. Given the rate of improvement I made, if I train seriously I will get there..
This is seldom, if not never the case.

Henry, looks like you nailed me to that lightning struck tree.
Virtually all my gains were within 3 months of starting. Most now faded somewhat.
Therein lies the lack of systematic training, among other issues. JimG