Concept2 Forum

I've had my concept 2 model D rower for about 2 months now, my best time for a 2000 meter row is 7:51:5. Im male, 44 years old, 6'3 206 pounds. Im in what I believe to be good shape. I normally veiw the force curve while rowing trying to keep the curve in the correct form. I never view the watts. Im not sure what I should be looking for. Is there a typical zone that I should be striving for? do the watts increase the harder that I pull? How can I use the Watts to increase my 2000 meter time?

Hi rendog,

Watts are great as the numbers shown are directly proportional to the power you put in the flywheel. With pace you have no idea of absolute intensity differences between two paces, you only have your feeling.

Say you've read it's good to work at 80% of your 2k intensity for some time to get a good trainig effect. What is 80% of (your 2k pace= )1:57.9 / 500m?

1:57.9 * 0.8 = 1:34.3 ?

1:57.9 / 0.8 = 2:27.3 ?

80 % of heart rate at 2k ?

or you could think of it in watts as

3.5 * 10 ^8 / (117.9 [seconds] ) ^3 = 213.7 watt
and 213.7 * 0.8 = 171.0watt

This latter interpretation is usually what a percentage of a pace means on this board.

With watts you have an exact measure of how much work your body is doing, more so than by using heart rate only. Heart rate is still a good tool to measure health, adaptations and well...heart rate.

Btw, the wattages on the first two calculations were 417.4w and 109.4w respectively or 195% and 51% of the intensity you were recommended, so it really would have gotten you the wrong type of training unless you converted to watts.

On the erg, training with watt display is no different than training with pace or calories, they all give you consistent feedback on your actual work. 1000cal/hour is always 1000cal/hour. The only difference is that with watts it is easier to compare different intensitites to each other.

The watt display does not in itself help you get a good 2k, but a good training program will, the intensities are usually put in watts or pace. Search for Pete Plan, Wolverine Plan or Interactive Plan to find nice training plans.

My short and dirty version for quick early results: Once a week do 4x1k @ 205w (little lower than 2k) average with 4 min rest and progress every week with 3w on average. Put some other lower intensity training in a couple of times a week as well. Say 10k @ 52%of 2k wattage and 3x15min@ .69 of 2k, 3min rests.

Good Luck!

Watts are directly proportional to Pace, so it makes no difference which you use except that Pace is much easier to use and relate to your times.

Neither Pace nor Watts would show you your intensity at 80%.

Your intensity is shown by your percentage of your heart rate reserve.

Finding your intensity is calculated by comparing your HR for the effort (148), with your maximum (174) and minimum (43) heart rates.

[ 148 - 43 ] - [ 174 - 43 ] = .80 = 80% of your HR reserve

Finding your HR at a certain intensity is calculated as follows:

80% HRR = .80 [ 174 - 43 ] + 43 = 148 HR

John Rupp wrote:Watts are directly proportional to Pace, so it makes no difference which you use except that Pace is much easier to use and relate to your times.

Neither Pace nor Watts would show you your intensity at 80%.

Your intensity is shown by your percentage of your heart rate reserve.

Finding your intensity is calculated by comparing your HR for the effort (148), with your maximum (174) and minimum (43) heart rates.

[ 148 - 43 ] - [ 174 - 43 ] = .80 = 80% of your HR reserve

Finding your HR at a certain intensity is calculated as follows:

80% HRR = .80 [ 174 - 43 ] + 43 = 148 HR

No, John, watts are not directly proportional to pace - to be directly proportional, a fractional increase in one would result in the same fractional increase in the other. Watts are directly proportional to the cube of pace (as measured in meters/second). Go a little bit faster, do a whole lot more work.

Rendog, to get watts from pace:

500 meters / 500 meter split time (in seconds) gives you pace in units of meters/sec

watts is then 2.8 * pace * pace * pace (where pace is in meters/sec)

so, 10% faster means watts are 1.1*1.1*1.1 = 1.331 greater, or 33.1%.

One way the watts display can be profitably used (though I would use the numeric watts display, not the graph) is by striving to keep your power production as uniform as possible. You'll spend less energy covering a certain distance with identical strokes at a given pace than with a combination of faster and slower strokes that average out to the same pace.

To illustrate Carl's suggestions, your 2k time is 7:51.5 or 471.5 seconds. 2000 meters/471.5 seconds = 4.24 m/s
2k watts = 2.8 * 4.24 * 4.24 * 4.24 = 213 watts

so you'd be looking at 10k @ 0.52*213 = 111 watts and 3x15min @ 0.69*213 = 147 watts

You've got 6 inches of height on me, and we're both about the same age and weight (a lot of my weight being famine protection!). I'm allergic to doing the 2k very often, but my PB is about 45 seconds faster than yours. Regardless of what shape you are in, you've probably got quite a bit of improvement available! Keep a training log, and make a habit of doing some systematic workouts so you can easily compare your performances as time goes on. If you're ever in the Los Angeles area, go visit Xeno Muller's Iron Oarsman for a workout and top-notch coaching from a guy whose enthusiasm could inspire nearly anyone to become an indoor rowing fanatic.

Bill

whp4 wrote:No, John, watts are not directly proportional to pace ... Watts are directly proportional

Make up your mind.

One way the watts display can be profitably used (though I would use the numeric watts display, not the graph) is by striving to keep your power production as uniform as possible. You'll spend less energy covering a certain distance with identical strokes at a given pace than with a combination of faster and slower strokes that average out to the same pace.

You can do the same thing better with Pace, by using the Projected Pace display.

RD, you asked: How can I use the Watts to increase (i.e. decrease) my 2000 meter time?


Watts are used to express both Power (Watts measures this directly) and also Work per stroke (you have to divide Power in Watts by Rating).

To go fast in a 2k you need two things: technique and endurance.

Begin with technique, it's very difficult to correct later. Technique can be measured by Work per stroke. The higher the better, 10 is a good start. This means, for example, 200W at rating 20. Move in slowly, even this can be tough.

Endurance can be got, once you have the technique, by pulling at that Work level for long periods, maybe 2% or more of your entire life. 4% would make you very hard to beat.

There are many far more detailed training plans, but however much they try to hide it, they all require you to work hard, though within reason. So they are all effective. But you must start with technique - hard work without technique is a disaster.

To check your technique, have a look at the rating you used during your 7:51 2k. If it was higher than 22, you need to work on your stroke. Pull long smooth and hardish strokes, with the accent on long, albeit between strong positions at catch and release. Relax every muscle that's not being used to move the handle. Watch oarsmen and copy their style, it's not there just to make them look good. Let the boat run, she goes just as fast if not faster when the blades are out of the water. Boats are femminine; they'll accept a gentle push every now and then, but constant battering no way.

I received a pm about my quotation of Bill, above, as I did not quote Bill in an exact fashion as the pm'er wanted and expected me to and thought that I should.

The quotation was fair, because I included the most relevant parts. Apparently not everyone agrees. Surprise, surprise. Hey I don't agree with everyone either. I have my own way of expressing myself and so does everyone else.

The point is, that watts ARE directly proportional to pace.

Bill said they aren't proportional, then that they are proportional, and then defined "how" they are.

This is exactly the point, that regardless of "how" watts are proportional to pace, they ARE directly proportional to pace.

John Rupp wrote:I received a pm about my quotation of Bill, above, as I did not quote Bill in an exact fashion as the pm'er wanted and expected me to and thought that I should.

The quotation was fair, because I included the most relevant parts. Apparently not everyone agrees. Surprise, surprise. Hey I don't agree with everyone either. I have my own way of expressing myself and so does everyone else.

The point is, that watts ARE directly proportional to pace.

Bill said they aren't proportional, then that they are proportional, and then defined "how" they are.

This is exactly the point, that regardless of "how" watts are proportional to pace, they ARE directly proportional to pace.

Nope, they are proportional to the cube of the pace. For a simple, easy to read, possibly even within your realm of comprehension example of what "proportional" means to people not living in your alternate reality, try http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev2.shtml

Of course, why I persist in trying to argue with the man who claims that "properly fit" athletes perform better at high altitude is a mystery...

Again you say they are not proportional. Then you say they are proportional.

Make up your mind!

Some quotes from your link:

Direct proportion

If two quantities are in direct proportion, it means that as one increases, the other increases by the same percentage.

This means that, for some constant k, y = kx for all values of x and y.
k is called the constant of proportionality.

These questions can involve squares, cubes or other powers.

Bill,

Pace and Watts are proportional

John,

I am now leaning more toward...well, you are mathematically insane. Watt output on the erg is NOT proportional to pace. Looking at the equation that includes both terms (and I know you've seen this before because you've posted it yourself to do the conversion), a sophmore in high-school can see that it is not proportional. Pace is cubed in the function. Cubed. Cubed. Cubed. Cubed. Cubed. In simple terms, as the pace goes up, the Wattage goes up much, much faster.

Graham Benton 500m @ 1:15 = approx 830W
Joe Schmo 500m @ 1:35 = approx 415W

Graham Benton elapsed time of 75sec
Schmo's elapsed time of 95 sec

Now Mr. Rupp, explain why Schmo's time wouldn't be 150sec (or 2:30pace) since he is putting out half the watts?

I know, I know. Everybody is thinking "this is a waste of time on a keyboard, Rupp will prove his mathematical ineptness in the next 400 posts to follow". I'm thinking this will provide lots of laughs for any new lurkers. If John actually changes his stance, then I will gain a new level of respect for the wooden handle yankin PATTmaster.

The machine being an ergometer, measures Power directly, and derives all the other fictitious numbers from this.

The fictional "Pace" is proportional to the inverse of the cube root of Power, because that's the way the equation was set up by C2.

The formulae are W=2.8 x V^3 or better V=(W/2.8)^(1/3) and default pace = 500/V, where V is the again fictional speed in m/s.
So Pace = 500 / (2.8/W)^(1/3).

No way is pace proportional to Watts; as Watts increase, pace (which is a time for a given distance) gets smaller, so it's inversely proportional (in this case to the cube root).

so in english....?

there is a default pace? so you could never get you split higher than a certain number?

When you start pulling, the pace or split shown refers to 500m, the default distance. You can adjust I believe to other distances if you want. The PM2 remembers only the last 20, whether 500 based or otherwise. So those who do long pieces (eg marathon) may like to set the pace to a longer base such as 2000 or 2500 m.

Posted by Bill/whp4:

whp4 wrote:they are proportional to the cube of the pace. For a simple, easy to read, possibly even within your realm of comprehension example of what "proportional" means to people not living in your alternate reality, try http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev2.shtml

Which included the following quotations:

Direct proportion

If two quantities are in direct proportion, it means that as one increases, the other increases by the same percentage.

This means that, for some constant k, y = kx for all values of x and y.
k is called the constant of proportionality.

These questions can involve squares, cubes or other powers.

Read it again. Pace and Watts are proportional.