Paying attention to physiology

[frankencrank]

I have been working on this for some time. I think it is pretty good now. It is a slideshow lasting about 30 minutes that details 3 areas of physiology that most rowers (most athletes, actually) pretty much ignore that hurts their performance because of these issues. The 3 areas are 1. Muscle efficiency. 2. Fuel delivery. 3. Muscle balance. 1 and 2 are "easily" corrected and should give most a 5-15% power boost if implemented. 3 not so much but that is where the big gains can be found I think. Enjoy. I look forward to an invigorating conversation. https://youtu.be/f9g9zZDy3T0

[Dutch]

I have been working on this for some time. I think it is pretty good now. It is a slideshow lasting about 30 minutes that details 3 areas of physiology that most rowers (most athletes, actually) pretty much ignore that hurts their performance because of these issues. The 3 areas are 1. Muscle efficiency. 2. Fuel delivery. 3. Muscle balance. 1 and 2 are "easily" corrected and should give most a 5-15% power boost if implemented. 3 not so much but that is where the big gains can be found I think. Enjoy. I look forward to an invigorating conversation. https://youtu.be/f9g9zZDy3T0

Hi frank, firstly, kudos for inventing the powercrank.

I agree about playing about with the drag, I think a lot of people are not sure on it and are too afraid to play around.

Efficient stroke rate is probably something I think is raised more on the forum than most subjects I see, probably a work in progress for most for at least 2 years, if not longer before someone settles in to their own style.

Thirdly balancing the engine, I personally think for this a tailor made weights programme suited to the individual is the answer.
But I was eagerly awaiting your solution and I thought "oh ok" at the spring usage for boats, nice way to get an extra advantage and nothing in the rules not to say you cant, as you say.
The device was intriguing, between 2.75 and 54 watts extra. I take it that you recommend using the device all the time?
I would assume so considering you recommend springs can prob be used on a boat within the rules, so that would indicate not just training but competition also?

The device made your shoulders fatigue after 3 to 4 mins, on a 210 drag I am not suprised lol
I get the concept to use the device to highlight weak points in the body and the principle is a bit like a smith machine in a gym, a balanced weighted assistance effect.
If the device were to be used as a training aid then great I can see the principle, but would not recommend the usage of such a high drag for most people. You are doing tens to hundreds of reps and weak points will go pop on the average person. Lower drag needed there I feel.
I do rather get the idea that you are recommending it as a permanent thing, to used every time, hence the extra watts as mentioned above. I do feel that this will create new imbalances within the body as one will be too reliant on the extra weight just to get a better time, and some muscles will become untrained due to the assistance.
Obviously it comes down to how one would want to use it, an extra 54 watts might give me 5 tenths on my 100m time or maybe 30 secs on my 5k time.
I think it is the age old argument of technology assisting athletes, lighter bikes, the power crank, spring loaded tracks and running shows, streamline swim suits etc.
I think today for the blue riband event of a 25 mile cycle tt. The only recognised record attempt has to be done using 1970 bike technology, do correct me if I am wrong.
There comes a point when we rob our selves.

[frankencrank]

I have been working on this for some time. I think it is pretty good now. It is a slideshow lasting about 30 minutes that details 3 areas of physiology that most rowers (most athletes, actually) pretty much ignore that hurts their performance because of these issues. The 3 areas are 1. Muscle efficiency. 2. Fuel delivery. 3. Muscle balance. 1 and 2 are "easily" corrected and should give most a 5-15% power boost if implemented. 3 not so much but that is where the big gains can be found I think. Enjoy. I look forward to an invigorating conversation. https://youtu.be/f9g9zZDy3T0

Hi frank, firstly, kudos for inventing the powercrank.

I agree about playing about with the drag, I think a lot of people are not sure on it and are too afraid to play around.

Efficient stroke rate is probably something I think is raised more on the forum than most subjects I see, probably a work in progress for most for at least 2 years, if not longer before someone settles in to their own style.

While people may talk about efficient stroke rate what I have given is a way of actually measuring and determining efficient stroke rate and then transferring it to the water. None of this is easy but if someone is serious about this stuff it is probably worth the effort.

When I was competing it was all seat of the pants. There were no rowing ergometers. No bicycle power meters. It was all a guessing game. No longer does that need to be the case.

Thirdly balancing the engine, I personally think for this a tailor made weights programme suited to the individual is the answer.
But I was eagerly awaiting your solution and I thought "oh ok" at the spring usage for boats, nice way to get an extra advantage and nothing in the rules not to say you cant, as you say.
The device was intriguing, between 2.75 and 54 watts extra. I take it that you recommend using the device all the time?
I would assume so considering you recommend springs can prob be used on a boat within the rules, so that would indicate not just training but competition also?

Let me draw on my powercranks experience again. The cyclists who saw those big PowerCranks gains were those who used them all the time. Those who used them part time never got through the transition (transition was complete when PowerCranks were no harder than regular cranks, even on the long hard rides). I always felt you needed to train for the last 10% of the race, not the first 10%. Rowers may have it a little easier because their races last 7-8 minutes, not 5-6 hours.

I don't have.a clue what one can do. Well, I do have a clue, I just don't know what the full potential is.

The device made your shoulders fatigue after 3 to 4 mins, on a 210 drag I am not suprised lol

You misunderstood. What made my shoulders fatigue was the pushing the couple of pounds, not the 210 drag factor. I have been using 210 drag factor for a long time without issue.

I get the concept to use the device to highlight weak points in the body and the principle is a bit like a smith machine in a gym, a balanced weighted assistance effect.
If the device were to be used as a training aid then great I can see the principle, but would not recommend the usage of such a high drag for most people. You are doing tens to hundreds of reps and weak points will go pop on the average person. Lower drag needed there I feel.

I disagree. I, again, go back to my PowerCranks experience. A few years ago after I figured out the importance of this pedal speed stuff all it seemed to take is about a week or so at the new resistance before it would feel normal to the rider. We all like what we are used to. Cyclists experience those forces 80-90 times a minute for hours on end. Rowers should have no trouble adjusting to a slightly harder resistance 30 times a minute for shorter periods of time. Anyhow, what I am advocating is to simply do the testing and then try to adapt to something more efficient. I'll bet it would be easier than you fear.

I do rather get the idea that you are recommending it as a permanent thing, to used every time, hence the extra watts as mentioned above. I do feel that this will create new imbalances within the body as one will be too reliant on the extra weight just to get a better time, and some muscles will become untrained due to the assistance.

What muscles will become undertrained in your estimation. Oarsmen transitioning to pushing resistance have an advantage over cyclists transitioning to PowerCranks. You can add tiny weights slowly and only increase as it becomes easy. The cyclist suddenly had to lift the entire weight of the leg all at once. Most people's first ride lasted less than 5 minutes and they would have trouble getting off the bike. Lots of cyclists gave up on the PowerCranks because they were afraid they would lose fitness during the transition. This was never an issue for those who stayed with them.

Obviously it comes down to how one would want to use it, an extra 54 watts might give me 5 tenths on my 100m time or maybe 30 secs on my 5k time.

The faster you are the less an extra 5-10 watts gets you because shell resistance is not linear.

I think it is the age old argument of technology assisting athletes, lighter bikes, the power crank, spring loaded tracks and running shows, streamline swim suits etc.

Again, I disagree. This is not doping, simply utilizing our God given ability to analyze data and come up with a better way of doing things. If there is no prohibition to what one does then the medal goes to you if you are first across the line. I don't have a clue what the time potential really is. If you are rowing simply to get a good workout when what I suggest is a wast of time.

I think today for the blue riband event of a 25 mile cycle tt. The only recognised record attempt has to be done using 1970 bike technology, do correct me if I am wrong.
There comes a point when we rob our selves.

When it comes to cyclists it doesn't matter because if they train on PowerCranks and have a new ingrained pedaling pattern it doesn't matter if they are on 1970's bikes. When Greg LeMond first saw the PowerCranks he said to me "I worked for years to learn how to pedal this way now people can learn it in months." The winner usually has the best engine, the equipment hardly ever matters but the equipment gets an awful lot of credit (because that is where the money is). My suggestion does require an equipment modification but it is legal and available to all so the winner should still be the one with the best engine.

You congratulated me on PowerCranks. Have you had experience with them? Or, know someone who did?

My guess is the first person to do this will be some sculler who is just below the top tier who doesn't have to convince anyone but himself to give this a try. We will see.

[Carl Watts]

Well kind of interesting. Essentially the pully system on the Erg is trying to utilize the muscles in your legs more that are used for reverse leg curls. The issue that I have is that anyone who has ever done reverse leg curls at the gym knows that this is a HORRIBLE and inefficient exercise.

Your trying to put stored energy into the system that will assist you on the drive. The issue is that you can not reverse curl anything like the weights you can leg press and those muscles are already assisting you getting back to the catch and you want to load them up even more.

You can very quickly see how a set of slides for the static erg suddenly gives you a massive advantage, you have dumped all those Kinetic losses and the heavier you are the bigger the advantage slides are.

The only thing I have noticed for sure on the Erg besides getting slower as you age, its possible to train and get both the Drag factor lower and the strokes per minute lower over time to still achieve a performance your happy with. Its also possible now to no longer crank up the drag through the roof for short sprints and I have found it actually easier to rate up higher than fry the legs with extremely high peak power demands at lower ratings despite the increase in Kinetic losses. Clearly the drag, pace and rating are all linked together when your trying for the best possible result.

The rowing action is really nasty and a massive amount of power has to go into a very short drive time to compensate and bring up the average power when your not putting anything into the flywheel for up to 2/3 of the time at say 20spm.

The Drag Factor setting is very poorly understood on the Concept 2 rower. Its defiantly worth a play with from time to time as it will never remain at optimum if the lever is left in the same position forever, it needs to change over the years for many reasons. 130 seems to be pretty good for me these days.

[frankencrank]

Well kind of interesting. Essentially the pully system on the Erg is trying to utilize the muscles in your legs more that are used for reverse leg curls. The issue that I have is that anyone who has ever done reverse leg curls at the gym knows that this is a HORRIBLE and inefficient exercise.

Reverse leg curls? Not really. It is more like climbing stairs, not even that hard depending upon the resistance. In "traditional rowing" all the hip flexors and hamstrings really need to do is get things started. All the resistance adds is a little resistance so you can't "coast" up to the catch. Until you get to a resistance greater than the combined weight of the legs we aren't doing much more than pulling the foot up to climb a stair except it is a very high stair. I would also submit if you trained your hamstrings as you have trained your antigravity muscles reverse curls would not be a problem.

Your trying to put stored energy into the system that will assist you on the drive. The issue is that you can not reverse curl anything like the weights you can leg press and those muscles are already assisting you getting back to the catch and you want to load them up even more.

Again, this is not reverse curls, It is pulling the foot towards the chest. As I showed, with training, cyclists have no trouble balancing the muscle use although the timing is different in that the four muscles are apply force in 4 curved directions when cycling where as, in rowing, the 4 muscles apply force in two straight directions. We aren't asking the muscles to do anything they are not strong enough to do but, the issue is, they don't have the aerobic capacity to repeatedly do so.

You can very quickly see how a set of slides for the static erg suddenly gives you a massive advantage, you have dumped all those Kinetic losses and the heavier you are the bigger the advantage slides are.

I don't understand this.

The only thing I have noticed for sure on the Erg besides getting slower as you age, its possible to train and get both the Drag factor lower and the strokes per minute lower over time to still achieve a performance your happy with. Its also possible now to no longer crank up the drag through the roof for short sprints and I have found it actually easier to rate up higher than fry the legs with extremely high peak power demands at lower ratings despite the increase in Kinetic losses. Clearly the drag, pace and rating are all linked together when your trying for the best possible result.

I am not arguing about getting a performance "you are happy with." Ignorance is bliss. I am arguing that with attention to these physiological issues one can optimize performance for their level of training. It is not easy. It is tedious to do. But, it is possible.

The rowing action is really nasty and a massive amount of power has to go into a very short drive time to compensate and bring up the average power when your not putting anything into the flywheel for up to 2/3 of the time at say 20spm.

The reason it is really "nasty" Is because most of the power is generated in about 1/3 of the time, as I pointed out. My argument is if one can make it less "nasty" by invoking more muscles to spread out the work it can also become more powerful. I don't believe it will be possible for the rower to make it perfectly even as I demonstrated possible in the cyclist but almost anything is better than what we have now.

The Drag Factor setting is very poorly understood on the Concept 2 rower. Its defiantly worth a play with from time to time as it will never remain at optimum if the lever is left in the same position forever, it needs to change over the years for many reasons. 130 seems to be pretty good for me these days.

Can you show me the data where you have tested and can demonstrate 130 is optimum for you? Or, are you settling for "pretty good." Everyone thinks they are pretty good. I am presenting some information that might allow you to get even better should you choose to try.

As I said earlier, if you are just interested in getting a good workout what I present can be ignored. If you are interested in maximizing your power then my suggestions are for you.

[frankencrank]

I don't believe it will be possible for the rower to make it perfectly even as I demonstrated possible in the cyclist but almost anything is better than what we have now.

As I got to thinking about this it may be possible to get much closer to fully balanced than I first anticipated. Here is why. Let's look at the legs, An average leg weighs about 30 lbs. Cyclists have demonstrated it is possible to lift that weight about 14 inches 90 times a minute or so for hours on end. A rower moves the feet together a little further but at a slower repetition rate so the two legs together should be able to "lift" at least 50-60 lbs 30 times a minute for 8 minutes or so if properly trained. But, my issue was with the arms, I thought they would be much weaker. But, the arms would be pushing away, similar to a pushup motion. Wait, with proper training pushing away doesn't seem to be a problem with a world record of over 3,000 in an hour. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... n-one-hour Would 50-60 lbs 30 times a minute for 8 minutes be a real problem to someone motivated?

I don't know what is possible but being pretty balanced may not be as far fetched as I first thought. And, if we can be pushing 50-60 lbs (or more) during recovery then contributing 150 watts during recovery seems possible, maybe more. It would take a lot of time to achieve this but it is probably doable.

[Dutch]

Wait, with proper training pushing away doesn't seem to be a problem with a world record of over 3,000 in an hour. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... n-one-hour Would 50-60 lbs 30 times a minute for 8 minutes be a real problem to someone motivated?

The 3000 push ups you mention were in fact 3000 slight movements of the arms. They are absolutely horrendous to be classed as a push up let alone a record. Push ups go from straight arm to the arm being bent at the elbow joint at 90 degrees.
I have watched hundreds of videos on you tube and only seen 2 people who did the press ups properly and they did about 100 in one go and could not do 1 more they were that tired.
One person did 200 and took lots of rests without breaking the press up position, he would lift one arm or leg but be in the position still.
With any weight in a gym being moved, most people use momentum and don't lift it properly. I think the true strength of many is probably half of what they use for reps if done properly.
I can see the principle of light weight helping, maybe up to 10, but not 50lbs plus.

[max_ratcliffe]

Cunning, but it turns the erg into a different machine. I know we could argue that it's not really a modification by the letter of the law as the machine itself isn't changed but it still seems to go against the spirit of the thing.

All the energy still comes from the user so it's not cheating as such but it's not for me.

If you're looking to make a mint out of this, I think you might struggle as rowing is a niche sport compared to cycling.

[Dutch]

I think it is the age old argument of technology assisting athletes, lighter bikes, the power crank, spring loaded tracks and running shows, streamline swim suits etc.

Again, I disagree. This is not doping, simply utilizing our God given ability to analyze data and come up with a better way of doing things. If there is no prohibition to what one does then the medal goes to you if you are first across the line. I don't have a clue what the time potential really is. If you are rowing simply to get a good workout when what I suggest is a wast of time.

I think today for the blue riband event of a 25 mile cycle tt. The only recognised record attempt has to be done using 1970 bike technology, do correct me if I am wrong.
There comes a point when we rob our selves.

When it comes to cyclists it doesn't matter because if they train on PowerCranks and have a new ingrained pedaling pattern it doesn't matter if they are on 1970's bikes. When Greg LeMond first saw the PowerCranks he said to me "I worked for years to learn how to pedal this way now people can learn it in months." The winner usually has the best engine, the equipment hardly ever matters but the equipment gets an awful lot of credit (because that is where the money is). My suggestion does require an equipment modification but it is legal and available to all so the winner should still be the one with the best engine.

You congratulated me on PowerCranks. Have you had experience with them? Or, know someone who did?

I had not heard of the Power Crank until you posted here. A quick google filled me in on them.

After what you have posted above about Greg Lemond, I can see that the principal learnt on a power crank can still be applied to standard pedals. So it is truly a training aid and not something like a sprung loaded running shoe where I could only get the fast times only when wearing a sprung loaded shoe.

I am currently trying to learn this pedalling action on my bike erg. Can power cranks be fitted to concept2 bikes ?

I see the device for the rowing machine as and aid to get quicker times, I don't feel there would be any transferable benefits to a rowing erg not fitted with it.

On the drag question, I have found, as carl above has said, that as I have got better on the rowing machine my drag is lowering at all distances and stroke is a quality one. I do feel a higher rep time under tension weights programme has helped with this by retraining the type 2b fibers to be more endurance focused. This will also help with blood capillarity.

If as you say the principal is to chase the medal and time and the rules allow then why not indeed.

[gouldilocks]

Thanks for posting up that link, Frank - I found that very informative and interesting, especially the first part about maximising efficiency.
I am one of the few from the "high drag, lower spm" school of thought.
I have done over 40 million metres, at the full range of drag factors so can honestly base my findings on actual experience.
As I have a severely compromised aerobic and more so, anaerobic function due to 2 heart attacks and a cardiac arrest, my maximum HR is rather low and I have found that rowing on high drag helps reduce the strain on my heart. To be honest, I hadn't thought about it too much from the scientific justification you put out in your video, but it does seem to make perfect sense to me now.
When I was in what I thought was my "best physical codition" on the rower back in 2006/7 I set all my PB's - these were all done at df 125-140.
Fast forward 5 years after training almost exclusively at high DF(200 - 360) I improved every PB I attempted, by significant margins(55 secs in the 5k, 5 mins in the HM, for example) - these were all set at a DF of 215-230, a lower SPM than previously, and because I was on a cocktail of heart medication from 2011, a much lower max HR.
I'm not saying that this approach will work for everyone, but don't dismiss it out of hand without actually trying it first.
Just because df 130 is supposed to mimic the feel of a boat on water doesn't necessarily make it the best option on the erg

Just my 2p worth

Paul G

[frankencrank]

Wait, with proper training pushing away doesn't seem to be a problem with a world record of over 3,000 in an hour. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... n-one-hour Would 50-60 lbs 30 times a minute for 8 minutes be a real problem to someone motivated?

The 3000 push ups you mention were in fact 3000 slight movements of the arms. They are absolutely horrendous to be classed as a push up let alone a record. Push ups go from straight arm to the arm being bent at the elbow joint at 90 degrees.
I have watched hundreds of videos on you tube and only seen 2 people who did the press ups properly and they did about 100 in one go and could not do 1 more they were that tired.
One person did 200 and took lots of rests without breaking the press up position, he would lift one arm or leg but be in the position still.
With any weight in a gym being moved, most people use momentum and don't lift it properly. I think the true strength of many is probably half of what they use for reps if done properly.
I can see the principle of light weight helping, maybe up to 10, but not 50lbs plus.

You are probably too young to remember Jack LaLanne. I am not. Jack did real pushups. Over 1000 in 23 minutes. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0124 ... 23-minutes
I don't think it is too much to think someone, who has properly trained for it, might be able to repeatedly push away 40-50 lbs 300 times in 10 minutes. If not, how about 25?

[frankencrank]

If you're looking to make a mint out of this, I think you might struggle as rowing is a niche sport compared to cycling.

LOL

[frankencrank]

I am currently trying to learn this pedalling action on my bike erg. Can power cranks be fitted to concept2 bikes ?

I don't know. Can you take the crank arms off and put on another set? If so, then probably. PM me and send me a close up picture of the drive area and I can probably tell you.

I recently passed the company on to someone else and he recently got smushed while out on a ride and is still in the hospital so I am not sure what the actual availability of them is right now. I know they can be put on the Peloton bike as the new owner wanted to pursue that avenue.

[frankencrank]

Fast forward 5 years after training almost exclusively at high DF(200 - 360)

How on earth did you get a DF of 360?

[frankencrank]

Just because df 130 is supposed to mimic the feel of a boat on water doesn't necessarily make it the best option on the erg

The "feel on the water" depends upon where the fulcrum point of the oar is. The feel can be changed by moving the fulcrum point (the collar). That is something that we (and I suspect everyone else) just never did. It is like most bicycles come with 170 mm cranks so everyone gets used to the same feel even though there is no way 170 mm crank arms are optimal for everyone.

Feel, I guess, was fine back when there was no way of testing what was best. Those days passed a long time ago but "feel" still rules.