Concept2 Forum

So I spend most of four days scrubbing data from the US Rowing National Team Testing results, only to find the original topic locked!

I had planned to collect all the data at http://archive.usrowing.org/nationaltea ... nttresults
but it turned out to be very tedious, even with the excellent help of a PDF to Excel converter available at https://online2pdf.com/ So this report consists only of the oldest 2K data available, from January-April 2003.

The robust regression results for men and women are similar; height and weight are both statistically significant.

Women N = 164; Intercept = 558.8 sec; Height = -1.34 ± 0.39 sec/inch; Weight = -0.40 ± 0.05 sec/lb; Rsq = 0.55
Men N = 198; Intercept = 519.5 sec; Height = -0.95 ± 0.33 sec/inch; Weight = -0.41 ± 0.04 sec/lb; Rsq = 0.69

In terms of impact on 2K times, an inch is worth 2.5-3.0 pounds, but weight is a lot easier to add!

It got locked and my post removed. Some people don't want to hear the truth, they cannot handle it. Best just to remain silent like the majority do on here and stay out of trouble.

ROFLMFAO

Ralf, fantastic, nice to see another stats nerd on the forum!

What are the p values for your analysis? The R squared values are rather robust but I'm sure someone with a stats background could develop an argument about the unaccounted for variance lol.... although for the men 69% is a boatload of variance accounted for (pardon the pun)

I think we all know that on a population level height and weight are big factors on the erg and in rowing, the mechanics of the movement and the ability to apply power over a longer duration with a longer stroke all play part of it.

The thread that got moderated didn't make any sense to me, it seemed circular and a bit psychotic

Don't rock the boat guys you will get your ass kicked.

..... and this is just a height thread, imagine what would happen if we tried to talk about something really serious that affected the whole world like US politics !

I think someone started a new post on this recently its called the "Is it just me or do you close your eyes?"

left coaster wrote:,,,

What are the p values for your analysis? The R squared values are rather robust but I'm sure someone with a stats background could develop an argument about the unaccounted for variance lol.... although for the men 69% is a boatload of variance accounted for (pardon the pun)
?

(WIth a nod to Mr. Watts' last post) the p-values are YUGE!

Women:
Inches -1.34 ± 0.39; t = -3.42; p = 0.000796
Pounds -0.40 ± 0.05; t = -8.38; p = 0.000000

Men:
Inches -0.95 ± 0.33; t = -2.92; p = 0.003909
Pounds -0.41 ± 0.04; t = -10.8; p = 0.000000

On the question of height, I vaguely remember this cropping up in the mid 2000s on the concept2 forum (when I was last "into" erging). The rough rule of thumb I remember was that for every inch of height it gave 2 seconds for free over 2K. Go figure....

Gammmmo wrote:On the question of height, I vaguely remember this cropping up in the mid 2000s on the concept2 forum (when I was last "into" erging). The rough rule of thumb I remember was that for every inch of height it gave 2 seconds for free over 2K. Go figure....

Hahaha, free... Sure energy comes from nowhere, rewriting the laws of physics.

Height = bigger frame = more mass = more potential energy. Thus toprowers are the tallest/heaviest aerobic athletes in the world.

hjs wrote:

Gammmmo wrote:On the question of height, I vaguely remember this cropping up in the mid 2000s on the concept2 forum (when I was last "into" erging). The rough rule of thumb I remember was that for every inch of height it gave 2 seconds for free over 2K. Go figure....

Hahaha, free... Sure energy comes from nowhere, rewriting the laws of physics.

Height = bigger frame = more mass = more potential energy. Thus toprowers are the tallest/heaviest aerobic athletes in the world.

Yeah, I did think about putting "free" in inverted commas. You're not really tall by any chance are you, hjs?

Gammmmo wrote:

hjs wrote:

Gammmmo wrote:On the question of height, I vaguely remember this cropping up in the mid 2000s on the concept2 forum (when I was last "into" erging). The rough rule of thumb I remember was that for every inch of height it gave 2 seconds for free over 2K. Go figure....

Hahaha, free... Sure energy comes from nowhere, rewriting the laws of physics.

Height = bigger frame = more mass = more potential energy. Thus toprowers are the tallest/heaviest aerobic athletes in the world.

Yeah, I did think about putting "free" in inverted commas. You're not really tall by any chance are you, hjs?

I race sometimes and 98% of my competition is taller, 6.1 most stronger ergers are 3/7 inches taller. The fact you think I am barking up my own three says a good bit about your thinking. Those taller guys get nothing for free, every watt they have put in the fan themselves.

Try to explain where that "free" energy comes from, and why swimmers or runners don,t get that free energy.

hjs wrote: I race sometimes and 98% of my competition is taller, 6.1 most stronger ergers are 3/7 inches taller. The fact you think I am barking up my own three says a good bit about your thinking. Those taller guys get nothing for free, every watt they have put in the fan themselves.

Try to explain where that "free" energy comes from, and why swimmers or runners don,t get that free energy.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that different sports are "relatively more easy" for some bodytypes than others. So, two ergers both clocking say 7mins for 2K, one at 70kg and another at 100kg (same body fat level and proportions shall we say) implies the former's achievement is more impressive. And....I'm only messing with you...

Gammmmo wrote:

hjs wrote: I race sometimes and 98% of my competition is taller, 6.1 most stronger ergers are 3/7 inches taller. The fact you think I am barking up my own three says a good bit about your thinking. Those taller guys get nothing for free, every watt they have put in the fan themselves.

Try to explain where that "free" energy comes from, and why swimmers or runners don,t get that free energy.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that different sports are "relatively more easy" for some bodytypes than others. So, two ergers both clocking say 7mins for 2K, one at 70kg and another at 100kg (same body fat level and proportions shall we say) implies the former's achievement is more impressive. And....I'm only messing with you...

Here is so agree.. Thats indeed the whole point, a superfit very talented erger of say 80kg will never be a super erger. Just like he will never be a great climber on the Bike.

Easy is proberly not the right word, both ergers work at 100%, the 70kg guy simply is a lot fitter.

Relative speaking our Danish wr lightweight pulling 5.56 is proberly among the very best, if not the best, but against the open record he still needs 20 seconds. Don,t know the exact weight numbers, weigh in for lightweights can vary, sometimes lightweights can row above 75kg, after rehydrating after weight in, but roughly speaking wr lightweight at 75kg, heavyweights 96kg. And that weight was due to height.

Relative speaking our Danish wr lightweight pulling 5.56 is proberly among the very best, if not the best, but against the open record he still needs 20 seconds. Don,t know the exact weight numbers, weigh in for lightweights can vary, sometimes lightweights can row above 75kg, after rehydrating after weight in, but roughly speaking wr lightweight at 75kg, heavyweights 96kg. And that weight was due to height.

Plug those times and weights into our weight adjustment calculator http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... calculator and the little guy comes in within a second. And as soon as you put a hill into the equation (running or cycling) the big guy is out of the running. C2JonW

c2jonw wrote:

Relative speaking our Danish wr lightweight pulling 5.56 is proberly among the very best, if not the best, but against the open record he still needs 20 seconds. Don,t know the exact weight numbers, weigh in for lightweights can vary, sometimes lightweights can row above 75kg, after rehydrating after weight in, but roughly speaking wr lightweight at 75kg, heavyweights 96kg. And that weight was due to height.

Plug those times and weights into our weight adjustment calculator http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... calculator and the little guy comes in within a second. And as soon as you put a hill into the equation (running or cycling) the big guy is out of the running. C2JonW

Certainly, heavyweight rowers are also notorius crap runners. Often ok cyclers on the flat.

Certainly, heavyweight rowers are also notorius crap runners. Often ok cyclers on the flat.

Much nicer to draft a heavyweight when biking on the flats ..........C2JonW