Concept2 Forum

Hi all, I'm 40 years old, 170cm, and weigh 75kg. My 10k time has been roughly 46 minutes, with a 16s/m 2.16 pace. I'm most interested in fitness and wondering if my ratio of stroke rate to pace could be better or am I on the right track.
Thank you

Hi and Welcome,

Not sure if that's your steady state rate, or just where you've found you've settled at, but r16 would typically be a little on the lower side.

Most folks work around 18-22 on steady state and a bit higher when doing harder efforts/TT's over that sort of distance.

There is a balance between number of strokes per min and work per stroke that we all find works for us as individuals; and for you lower rates may just suit you better.

Your WMin and W/kg values are decent though - so from another relative n00b I'd say you're def on the right track.

As Peter said, this is generally good. I'd guess that you're going at r16 due to a technique issue, so I assume that it's a bit disjointed?

Ideally, there shouldn't be any discernible break in the the three rowing phases (catch, stroke and recovery) but this is tough to achieve unless you're experienced at r16.

Have you watched any technique videos?

I'm doing 16/17 at the top of my UT2 power zone. Is this not a good sign - surely it indicates a long, efficient stroke?

I would tend to agree with Stu that r16 is actually quite difficult to do with an "ideal" continuous smooth motion stroke. The reason being that the drive should be quick - really the same speed as the drive you do at r30 or more. The different rate comes about from the slower recovery - all fine. But if the speed of movement from one to the other is big enough, then its very difficult to transition from say 1.2m in .7sec one way to 1.2m in 3sec back in a smooth contiguous action. Of course the best rowers can do it - but they can do loads of stuff the rest of us can't. Personally I've found I've ingrained a small pause in even an r20 session stroke let alone anything slower. Whether that's really a bad thing is another arguement, but I recognise its not the "ideal".

MPx wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 8:35 am

I would tend to agree with Stu that r16 is actually quite difficult to do with an "ideal" continuous smooth motion stroke. The reason being that the drive should be quick - really the same speed as the drive you do at r30 or more. The different rate comes about from the slower recovery - all fine. But if the speed of movement from one to the other is big enough, then its very difficult to transition from say 1.2m in .7sec one way to 1.2m in 3sec back in a smooth contiguous action. Of course the best rowers can do it - but they can do loads of stuff the rest of us can't. Personally I've found I've ingrained a small pause in even an r20 session stroke let alone anything slower. Whether that's really a bad thing is another arguement, but I recognise its not the "ideal".

I must confess that I have a tendency to pause at the end of the drive - at least on lower rate pieces. There seem to be differing views on this - I think Aram (YouTube) is a fan.

MPx wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 8:35 am

I would tend to agree with Stu that r16 is actually quite difficult to do with an "ideal" continuous smooth motion stroke. The reason being that the drive should be quick - really the same speed as the drive you do at r30 or more. The different rate comes about from the slower recovery - all fine. But if the speed of movement from one to the other is big enough, then its very difficult to transition from say 1.2m in .7sec one way to 1.2m in 3sec back in a smooth contiguous action. Of course the best rowers can do it - but they can do loads of stuff the rest of us can't. Personally I've found I've ingrained a small pause in even an r20 session stroke let alone anything slower. Whether that's really a bad thing is another arguement, but I recognise its not the "ideal".

Not thinking I'm one of the best rowers, nor a very experienced one, as I only have nearly two years in my book of rowing, but r16 suits me very well on low intensity steady states. Typically using r18 at ~2:02-2:03, but if I want to reduce intensity I like to reduce rate instead of stroke power. Not feeling any stop during the motion at r16.

hikeplusrow wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 7:10 am

I'm doing 16/17 at the top of my UT2 power zone. Is this not a good sign - surely it indicates a long, efficient stroke?

Hhhmm, I'm hesistant to say this isn't a good sign, but personally I think it's too low and doesn't actually add any discernible benefits to r18 imo.

As a general rule, less than r18 can lead to more injury risk, as there's slightly more power needed to move the flywheel, especially when you get tired.

In reality, it's all down to personal choice / physiology etc as it might be more manageable for you compared to others, but it might be worth noting that the elites tend to do steady state at circa r19. I'm not a big fan of comparing everything to elites as they're extreme outliers in many ways, but spm is universal to anyone as it's only the pace that varies. Everyone's minute is always 60 seconds

a 16s/m 2.16 pace.

That's about 140W at rate 16, so a stroke worth almost 9 Watt-minutes work.

So you're certainly not wasting time, as already noted.

Using Ergdata we can see the elements of the stroke: length, handle force, pull time, pull speed etc, so can train whatever aspect we want.

jamesg wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 3:56 pm

a 16s/m 2.16 pace.

That's about 140W at rate 16, so a stroke worth almost 9 Watt-minutes work.

So you're certainly not wasting time, as already noted.

Using Ergdata we can see the elements of the stroke: length, handle force, pull time, pull speed etc, so can train whatever aspect we want.

Occasionally, some of us will even train the aspect of speed.

raggle gumn wrote: ↑

January 3rd, 2024, 5:31 pm

I'm 40 years old, 170cm, and weigh 75kg. My 10k time has been roughly 46 minutes, with a 16s/m 2.16 pace.

You give very little information. How long have you been rowing? Is 46 min your best time or typical time? What is your Drag Factor?

How did you settle on 16 SPM? That's a stroke every 4sec or so. You're barely moving.

Yes, there are lots of guys on this forum who row at low rates and seem to think that every one should do that, especially if you want to be any good. But that is not required. There are plenty of rowers who never dip below the upper 20s for SPM and are excellent rowers. It requires a different kind of fitness to move up and down the slide at 30 SPM compared to 18 SPM - very little rest time. When it comes time to ramp up to middle 30s for fast times, it's not so easy to transition from 18 to 34 SPM.

Not knowing how long you've been at this, I can't for certain comment on 46 min for 10K. But generally speaking for a 40 yr old, that is not good. But my two cents is that 16 SPM for a newbie is slightly ridiculous. Get moving. Put some energy into your rowing and quit resting 80% of the time.

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 3:04 pm

hikeplusrow wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 7:10 am

I'm doing 16/17 at the top of my UT2 power zone. Is this not a good sign - surely it indicates a long, efficient stroke?

Hhhmm, I'm hesistant to say this isn't a good sign, but personally I think it's too low and doesn't actually add any discernible benefits to r18 imo.

As a general rule, less than r18 can lead to more injury risk, as there's slightly more power needed to move the flywheel, especially when you get tired.

In reality, it's all down to personal choice / physiology etc as it might be more manageable for you compared to others, but it might be worth noting that the elites tend to do steady state at circa r19. I'm not a big fan of comparing everything to elites as they're extreme outliers in many ways, but spm is universal to anyone as it's only the pace that varies. Everyone's minute is always 60 seconds

The problem I have is that if I increase the spm even slightly, the watts increase and take me out of my target zone.

hikeplusrow wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

The problem I have is that if I increase the spm even slightly, the watts increase and take me out of my target zone.

Like so many things in rowing, details matter. I'd suggest you do whatever works for you, but are you sure that your target watts aren't too low? I don't think I've heard of anyone having a capped target zone for watts, not that I'm saying it's wrong. You might be able to cope with a higher watts level whilst still keeping RPE / HR at an acceptable rate.

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 5:18 pm

hikeplusrow wrote: ↑

January 4th, 2024, 4:51 pm

The problem I have is that if I increase the spm even slightly, the watts increase and take me out of my target zone.

Like so many things in rowing, details matter. I'd suggest you do whatever works for you, but are you sure that your target watts aren't too low? I don't think I've heard of anyone having a capped target zone for watts, not that I'm saying it's wrong. You might be able to cope with a higher watts level whilst still keeping RPE / HR at an acceptable rate.

I use the O'Neil protocol which enables you to calculate power zones (UT2, UT1, AT, TR etc etc) based on a % of 2k watts. For example, the UT2 zone is 45-60% of 2k watts.

I thought I’d read that the Wolverine Plan has target splits for different stroke rates, and if you wanted to be able to hit 7min 2ks you needed to be able to steady state at r20 and 2min/500m. Seems fairly fast to me - is that accurate or have I misread/misunderstood something there?