The Two Types of Training

[hjs]

As for not checking the DF at Cincinatti, unbelievable

No very believeble,

he knows very well what his current form is, so he did know at forhand that he would pull a time far from his stated goal's, so he didn,t even try to row his best but just rowed in the way that gave him enough excuses to keep his endless nonsens going.

The same happend last year, he only tried once to win his bet with me, he tried desperately to break 6.40, we know the outcome and it was the last attempt he tried..............

Don,t forget he is always lying or hiding the facts, he shappened and tested himself every season, that he needs to keep those results hidden is clear

[NavigationHazard]

You can't have a sentence without a clause. You can't have a clause without a phrase. You can't have a phrase without a word.
ranger

I once asked the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins if you could have communication without the structure of language.

Marsh shrugged his shoulders and moved on....

[mikvan52]

Interesting I have been rowing for years with a Drag Factor of 168 on My Model C(....)and now row position 7 which gets me back to 167-168.


I'm going to try 135 (......) I guess I have been doing more strength training rather than speed training ?

168 has resulted in a comfortable 1:55 ave/500m at 23 SPM for 30 to 40 minutes (.....)

I would be very interested in other peoples feedback on the effect of the DF and especially what other people of my age and weight are using and what effect changing it has made.

Carl: Answering your request for feedback: There have been a good number of threads on DF both here and on the .uk sites. (Search thread titles to include the word "drag"... display "topics")

As for me (I've been on and off the erg since the late 90's):
I started at "Lever setting" 8-10 {there wasn't a drag factor reading then}
I am now at DF 95-115 on the advice of Linda Muri and Larry Gluckman and Tom Bohrer and others (top OTW coaches).

As I age my times are staying about the same: 6:49 2k in 1998 ~~> 6:47 in 2010... {I train much more now (!)} My training volume per year in 1998 was 300k a year; My training volume this year (so far) is 2,100k. 800k of that is on the erg, the rest is on the water.
I mention this because I'd like to point out that low drag makes high volume training easier on the body.

I raise my drag above 125 very infrequently ===> for strength workouts of less than 200m in length (repeats)
I weigh less than 75 kg all the time.

Hope this gives you an idea of what can be done with low drag factor.

BTW: The highly successful 8's national team (hwts) do most of their long steady state at 100 DF I am told.....

One other thing as a reference: 60' at DF 100-115 and 24-25 spm and 1:51 avg pace is not a problem for me.

Preferences should vary a little for athletes of different configurations (weight/height/lever ratios) but IMHO: lower drag is easier on you and easier to do. 135 is not too high for 80% of your rowing... just get the feel you like and pay attn to any aches and pains that show up over the long run.

*I am in the 95-100% percentile from 500m-1hr.
(see historical rankings)

[mikvan52]

This effective vs efficient discussion goes back a long time.

If I understand correctly what you're saying:
effectiveness = the energy expended in each stroke;
efficiency = combining effectiveness with high ratings.

Those are very strange definitions of both words.

My definition of combining high force per stroke with high ratings is going fast! Hopefully we can all agree on that. The rest of this discussion is mostly fuzzy concepts and sloppy language.

Whilst ruminating over porridge this morning I found this in my files. It might be of interest to some and tighten up our terminology some.

I'll get my 7/16ths wrench

I'm off to the banks of the River Charles in a few...


“It has been established that overall power in rowers depends on their aerobic and anaerobic energy supplies balanced by the efficiency of their technique.”

-Mikulic, P.: Anthropometric and physiological Profiles of Rowers
Kinesiology 40(2008) 1:80-88

to which he adds to an appreciation of the following topics:
1. oxygen uptake at the ventilation anaerobic threshold level
2. taller height and larger body mass
3. larger arm span & leg length

See last paragraph for predictors (requirements) => weight & size minimums
190 cm/95kg of which lean body mass = 80 kg (senior)
………cm/85kg……..=75 kg (JUNIOR)

SO 80/95 & 75/85 =
…..84.2% & 88.2% LEAN BODY MASS


see also (in this article): VO2 max determinants

[chgoss]

you just flew and died

Yea.
Clearly, given where I am in my training, I wasn't ready to race yet.

My training is perfect, I will row 6:30 in Cincinnati

Rich: why do you think you were so wrong with your preparation/prediction?

[ranger]

Rich: why do you think you were so wrong with your preparation/prediction?

I haven't done any real race preparation yet, and nothing predictive?



It's coming, though.

Tomorrow.

Did a little check on my fitness today on the stepper.

112:12

280 watts, steady

HRs

30min 141 bpm
45min 140 bpm
60min 140 bpm
75min 144 bpm
90min 142 bpm
105min 141 bpm
112min 141 bpm

1116 calories/hr

2000 calories burned.

Average HR: 141 bpm

Weight: 75.4 kgs.

Yep.

I'm in pretty good shape.

ranger

[johnlvs2run]

Effectiveness (spi) has nothing to do with efficiency.

Sure it does, and in ways that are just the opposite of what you are suggesting (i.e., that efficiency is more fundamental that effectiveness).

Effectiveness (spi) is the maximizing of energy (wattage/time) expended with each stroke.

Efficiency is using high ratings to get the optimum time (wattage).
For lightweights, as tested, shown, proven by E-L-S, this is right around 8 meters per stroke.

Spi (effectiveness) is, by definition, higher and higher then 8 meters per stroke.
It is not possible to row at 8 meters per stroke, and at the same time row at 10, 12, 14, or 16 meters per stroke.

In training for rowing, effectiveness is more fundamental than efficiency.

Why?
But, if so, it is still not the same thing. They are opposites.
Whether effectiveness (spi) has some importance to practice, efficiency (8 mps) is the objective for all training.

You can be _very_ effective without being efficient.

But you can't be efficient without being effective.

Both are true, because you can't compete at 8 mps, while maximizing energy output (spi) for each stroke.

Effectiveness = watts/ time = spi
Efficiency = highest watts = 8 mps

- - - - - - -

If you have no stroking power, you don't go anywhere very fast when you raise the rate.

As in your case, which is entirely the norm for 60s lwts.

The issue with efficiency in rowing is not just how to row at a high rate.

This is not exactly true, because rowing at low ratings is highly subject to body mechanics like height, torso height, arm length, and relatively shorter legs.

Rowing with a high rate is a cinch.

Rich, are you sure about this?
Even this morning you said you don't have the aerobic capacity (efficiency) to row at high ratings.
Personally I feel that you can gain this with practice, and that it is not that far away from you.

[chgoss]

Yea. Clearly, given where I am in my training, I wasn't ready to race yet.

My training is perfect, I will row 6:30 in Cincinnati

Rich: why do you think you were so wrong with your preparation/prediction?

I haven't done any real race preparation yet, and nothing predictive?

Guess you misunderstood my question, which is this: you went to Cincinnati believing your training had been perfect, and expecting to row a 6:30. Leaving Cincinnati you came to the realization that your training had been imperfect and you werent prepared to race..
why the disconnect in your thinking?

[ranger]

why do you think you were so wrong with your preparation/prediction?

Chad--

At this point, for me, 2K predictions don't have much relation to anything.

I am not preparing for any particular race.

I am training, trying to be the best I can be.

Different matter entirely.

Sure, I like to race.

And whatever happens at races, happens.

Who am I to argue?

My training, though, the thing I really care about, is coming along _beautifully_.

I am coming to the end of my distance training.

My UT1 effectiveness and efficiency are both sky high.

That's not AT effectiveness and efficiency, or TR effectiveness and efficiency, or AN effectiveness and efficiency, though.

I still need to work on _those_ in order to row my best for 2K.

But I am happy with where I am.

I get better every day--and have been now, for seven years.

BTW, if I do 20 2Ks tomorrow @ 1:42 (give or take a second per 500m), there is a good possibility one of the twenty might be faster than what Mike VB rows at the Bs at just about the same time of day in an all out race.

Nice!



UT1

ranger

[chgoss]

why do you think you were so wrong with your preparation/prediction?

Chad--

At this point, for me, 2K predictions don't have much relation to any anything.

I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT RICH

[ranger]

For lightweights, as tested, shown, proven by E-L-S, this is right around 8 meters per stroke.

Sure, if you rate 42 spm but still pull 11.5 SPI while doing it.

Do you rate 42 spm @ 11.5 SPI?

ranger

[chgoss]

why do you think you were so wrong with your preparation/prediction?

Chad--

At this point, for me, 2K predictions don't have much relation to anything.

<snip>
BTW, if I do 20 2Ks tomorrow @ 1:42 (give or take a second per 500m), there is a good possibility one of the twenty might be faster than what Mike VB rows at the Bs at just about the same time of day.

why do you do that? First you acknowledge that your 2k predictions arent based on anything, then you proceed to say that 1 of 20 2k's you (wont) do tomorrow will be sub 6:40, when you cant even do one 2k sub 7minutes..

rich: are you a troll, or do you really lie to your self that much?

[ranger]

you proceed to say that 1 of 20 2k's you (wont) do tomorrow will be sub 6:40

No, I said one might be sub-6:48.

Mike isn't going to row sub-6:40.

He can only do 1K at 1:38.

If you can only do 1K at 1:38, you can't do 2K at 1:39.5.

ranger

[ranger]

What I can and can't do for 20 x 2K will be determined by tomorrow's screen shots.

Talk has nothing to do with it, yours or mine.



ranger

[ranger]

you went to Cincinnati believing your training had been perfect

My training is indeed coming along perfectly.

As I said, I am finishing up my distance/UT1 rowing.

This rowing is now _spectacular_ (for anyone of any size or age, not to mention a 60s lightweight).

I am doing 1:42 @ 28 spm at middlin' UT1 HRs.

If I get in a good batch of 2Ks at 1:42 tomorrow, I will start off each session next week with a 5K at 1:42/17:00.

I think I might be able to these 5Ks under my anaerobic threshold now, too.

17:00 for 5K is pretty much 30 seconds faster than anyone my age or weight has ever rowed for 5K.

I think Mike VBs recent 5K is 17:52, about five seconds per 500m slower.

ranger