What's Considered good?

[Bob S.]

What prompted me to weigh in on the subject is that in every topic I have seen some newbie starts telling of his first efforts and them immediately he gets people telling him that he needs to row at 20 SPM. As though that is some sort of ideal rowing rate. It is not.

That is not the reason that the advice is given. No one claims that there is any ideal rate and, as you said, it is a very individual thing. But even for any particular individual, it depends a lot on the purpose of any particular piece. Speaking for myself, my 500m rate is about double my marathon rate. For training it can vary from 12 to 45, depending on the kind of training piece I am doing. Many of newbies have the problem of trying to rush the recovery, making it as fast or faster than the drive. That might be fine in a sprint or even a 2k time trial, but it is not good general training.

I have seen a lot of messages from those who are new to rowing who say that they find it difficult to row at low rates. I have always found this to be strange, since there is no real problem in doing it. I remember a thank you message from one newbie whom I had advised to relax on the recovery and just sneak up on the catch. He agreed that it was a very simple thing but that he had just never thought of it that way.

In a boat, especially an eight, I was always frustrated by low rates. It is much harder to set the boat at low rates. However, for that very reason, it is important to row at those low rates to work out the causes of being down to one side or the other. O.K. rowing and erging are not really closely comparable and there is no concern about stability on an erg, but technique is important on a erg as well and it is easier to concentrate on technique at low rates. I don't mean by this that anyone can train for a fast 2k by rowing exclusively at low rates, but good habits developed at low rates will carry over when you rate up. There is also the factor of weight working against you at high rates. The energy used to accelerate your body mass back and forth on the slide is not measured by the monitor. For long haul endurance training, that extra energy loss at high rates is better used to increase the length of the piece.

I have nothing against high rates; I have them myself. I just don't understand why some dislike them so vehemently. For the very short or short limbed, low rates are very limiting, but for rowers of average dimensions, any rate from 10 on up is O.K. (Below 10 the monitors get flukey.)

Bob S.

[johnlvs2run]

Many of newbies have the problem of trying to rush the recovery, making it as fast or faster than the drive. That might be fine in a sprint or even a 2k time trial, but it is not good general training.

I have a video of Esklid Ebbesen rushing his recoveries, in the exact way you advise not to do. So I think it is bad advice to tell people, especially newbies who have the whole world in front of them, to curtail what comes natural to them - not to you - and to stick with low rates.

For the very short or short limbed, low rates are very limiting, but for rowers of average dimensions, any rate from 10 on up is O.K. (Below 10 the monitors get flukey.)

Bob, you are certainly not of average dimensions.

I find no problem with rowing at low rates, any more than I would find walking with humongus strides at 80 steps per minute. As a training for running, it is not, but perhaps can make one look ridiculous.

[jamesg]

Being old and lazy, I'm starting to find high rates a good thing. Today I did an hour on drag 110, the first half at 19, 140W which felt quite tough, and the second half at 21, again 140W, much easier. Of course that's only a ratio <7, so it would be, wouldn't it. I don't think there'd be any point in doing it softer still.

My 2k is at around 200W these days, so 140W is 70%, top of my UT1 band according to the Interactive. HR corresponded.

[Cyclingman1]

Being old and lazy, I'm starting to find high rates a good thing.

I suppose that statement just puzzles me. So if I row 2k at 1:40.1 pace at DF 155 and SPM 33-35, and being 66 yrs old, then do I qualify as being old and lazy? I will say there was nothing easy about it.

[Carl Watts]

Try rowing it at 28spm then. I used to run the DF at 165 but now it is 134.

Nothing wrong with that time in anyones book by the way, I just don't want to have to rate that high to get a 6:40.

At nearly 6'4" you have a decent height advantage and sure you are alot older but didn't you just come from a cycling background at the top level ? There has been someone else on here who shall remain nameless of basically came from a running background, sat on an erg for practically the first time an pulled a WR.

There is a big difference in the rating for "Training" compared to that of "Racing" if your not already at your peak fitness level and what to see some significant improvements. If I was still trying to do all the distance training pace rows at 27-28spm I would have gone nowhere.

Typically the majority of people poping up here that are new are far from a peak fitness level and need some direction on how to improve.

[johnlvs2run]

Try rowing it at 28spm then. I used to run the DF at 165 but now it is 134.

If I was still trying to do all the distance training pace rows at 27-28spm I would have gone nowhere.

How do you know that, without ever having tried it.

Maybe your original stroke rate was your natural rating for that speed.

[ausrwr]

Many of newbies have the problem of trying to rush the recovery, making it as fast or faster than the drive. That might be fine in a sprint or even a 2k time trial, but it is not good general training.

I have a video of Esklid Ebbesen rushing his recoveries, in the exact way you advise not to do. So I think it is bad advice to tell people, especially newbies who have the whole world in front of them, to curtail what comes natural to them - not to you - and to stick with low rates.

For the very short or short limbed, low rates are very limiting, but for rowers of average dimensions, any rate from 10 on up is O.K. (Below 10 the monitors get flukey.)

Bob, you are certainly not of average dimensions.

I find no problem with rowing at low rates, any more than I would find walking with humongus strides at 80 steps per minute. As a training for running, it is not, but perhaps can make one look ridiculous.

John, I believe that Bob was referring to racing, not general training re: rushing the slide. Do you have a video of Eskild performing general training work, rather than just racing?

And "doing what comes naturally"? The rowing motion is not "natural", if you go to a gym, or even to an erg comp, there's a big difference in what might be considered technique.

In OTW, there are several reasons for doing low-rating work - technique is a massive, massive one. It's much easier to separate out the elements of the stroke at 16 than it is at 40. Strength - yes - can overload strength whilst keeping aerobic work in the zone it needs to be.

In terms of cardio, it's notable that a lot of elite rowers do a good deal of work on the bike, as it can load up the cardio system with little impact on muscles (compared to rowing).

[Bob S.]

Bob, you are certainly not of average dimensions.

At 5'10'' and 166# I can't be too far off.

Bob S.

[jamesg]

do I qualify as being old and lazy?

No, your 6:40 2k (350W) @33-35 is >10W'/stroke. 15k in 60 minutes might though, if you rate 30. It' would be good CV work anyway.

For that 2k result, the Wolverine L4 tables would require you to do all work at >10W'. As UT1 and 2 are <70% of 2k race Power, according to the Interactives, then the rating too would be at <70% of race rates, i.e. less than 25.

This reflects one idea of training for rowing: learn to go fast for long periods at low rating; then going slightly faster at high rating will seem easy.

That's what not only the LW Danes seem to do: rate high in a race (40) then CV train at around 32. The 8s in Lucerne raced the entire course at around 38. Unfortunately TV only shows us the racing, not crews paddling to the start or training, which would be much more interesting.

Of course the boats' gearing has to make high rates humanly possible, and boats are decoupled from the earth's mass, so it's a bit easier than on the fixed erg where high rates imply high power losses due to inertial effects. On the erg we can only adjust the drag.

[johnlvs2run]

Training is specific.

As ye train, so shall ye race.

Training at low rates simply trains you to race at low rates.

[jamesg]

As ye train, so shall ye race.

Exactly; that's why we train with good strokes which send the boat a long way. Just what's needed when racing.

[johnlvs2run]

As ye train, so shall ye race.

Exactly; that's why we train with good strokes which send the boat a long way. Just what's needed when racing.

Really, how far does the boat go with one stroke?

[Carl Watts]

As ye train, so shall ye race.

Exactly; that's why we train with good strokes which send the boat a long way. Just what's needed when racing.

Really, how far does the boat go with one stroke?

Well exactly but if you care to delve into the data when I started on the Erg a few years ago I was doing 8 to 9 metres per stroke and now it is into double figures like 13 or 14 metres per stroke at the same pace so a big improvement.

Currently it would appear my cardio system has finally caught up with my legs so the results are now more balanced across the range of distances.

[johnlvs2run]

it would appear my cardio system has finally caught up with my legs so the results are now more balanced across the range of distances.

Yes you have been improving quite nicely with your times.

Something always gets lost in translation with slow strokes, i.e. the lost time between them. Fortunately the loss is easily seen by the longer time coasting and therefore greater distance between strokes. Strangely this is seen as a benefit by the low stroke proponents rather than something to improve, or at least to stem the tide of the losses.

For comparision, both Henrik Stephansen and Eskild Ebbesen row right at 8 meters per stroke for their races.

I also started out out 7-8 meters per stroke, like you Carl, in fact it was about 7.3 without messing with any dynamics. Also I'm not as tall as the Danes, so my stroke being slightly shorter, i.e. less distance per stroke, makes perfect sense to me. Even so I perhaps mistakenly conceded somewhat to convention by later doing most of my rowing at 8 mps. With future endeavors I shall not confine myself in such a manner and shall strive for the most productive ratings.

What is puzzling about the low stroke gurus is that you never try anything else, so you don't really know if your capabilities could be higher by raising your ratings. After setting up my PB's with no concern for this, I later tested myself at various ratings to determine which were the faster and which were the slowest. From such experiments, I easily determined that all of the low ratings are slower, and the higher ones faster. At some point there's a limit to the maximum ratings due to coordination and cardiovascular conditioning, however I personally never delved deeply enough on that side of the spectrum to determine what those limits might be.

As example, I did various series of different distances such as sprints or 1k's, changing my ratings (or the meters per stroke), usually in a progressive manner, for each repetition. I must be quite unique, as I did this often enough to get a good determination, yet never heard of anyone else doing the same thing. On the other hand I would very commonly change the drag factor during repetitions, usually starting high and working down lower, which I found quite pleasing to do.

It seems to me that if a person really wants to know their ideal rating then some experimentation would occur, rather than blindly to follow a convention, especially one that makes entirely no sense. In lieu of this, take off the restraints, take off the blinders, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Nosmo]

Everyone is faster at high rates (within reason). But racing is not training. Every elite rower I've met trains at a wide variety of stroke rates. From low rates to very high rates. Every coach I've met prescribes a wide variety of stroke rates for different workouts. Every top rower can and does row at low rates and high rates in training.

You can listen to a few people on these boards who say not to train at low rates, or you can listen to almost every other coach and elite rower who say there is benefits to doing distance training at low rates.

That said you may achieve all your goals and never row below 27 spm. If you can't stand it, then you are obviously much better off doing your workout at high ratings then not doing them at all.