Newbie question on progression

[ylmro]

Hey there! I'm new to erging and have a beginner question. Not sure if this is the correct place to ask, didn't see a "newbie question megathread" or anything like that.
I do some bouldering and am reasonably healthy, but have not been doing any cardio exercise in 10+ years, so my cardiovascular health is fairly poor.
I recently started indoor rowing to try and improve that. Online guides recommend to start with longer, low intensity rowing sessions to try and build up some aerobic base, 30 minutes at 18-20 spm it said. I tried that, but couldn't hold even 18 spm, got out of breath after a couple mins. I can do it if I lower the intensity on the drive a lot, but I feel like that's not the point of the exercise. Instead I've been doing these short, 10-15 min rows at 14-15 spm. I need to take 2 breaths per stroke. I guess I'm just that unfit (a bit of a shock tbh), am pouring sweat after the session. I think my technique is at least passable. I watched some technique videos by TrainingTall on Youtube and spent a bunch of time trying to get my movements to match his.
Now my question is: should I try and increase the mins rowed while staying at this low stroke rate, or should I try and increase my stroke rate while keeping the session length the same? Am I somehow pushing harder with the legs than I ought to? I've read that people starting out don't put enough power into their stroke and feel like rowing is easy as a result, so I'm trying to really put some juice into my drive through the legs.
I'm male, 178cm/5'10, 64kg/141lbs. Some stats from a random 10-minute workout, in case it's helpful:
Distance 2.2k, avg 500m 2:14, average HR 148, avg power 144W, peak power 164W, stroke count 152, avg force curve peak 675N, stroke length 136cm, stroke count 156.
Thanks a lot!

[dabatey]

You are almost definitely trying to put too much effort into each stroke I'd say. At 64kg and unfit aerobically 2.14/500 is a lot of power for 15spm.

To put it into context. I am 60kg so only a little lighter than you. I've just started rowing again after a 2 year break, but am pretty fit aerobically from cycling during that time. For a pace of 2.14/500 I am currently rating at 22spm. When I first rowed 3 years ago from a zero fitness base it was a fair slower than that pace. So you might even need to aim for a slightly higher spm for that pace, and to lengthen your rows aim for more like a 2.20/500 or slower pace. The good thing is you will speed up a bit as technique beds in. You probably want to aim for 30 minute to 1 hr rows rather than the 15min you are currently achieving.

One thing to look out for is drag factor. Make sure it's low enough. I am currently using drag factor 110, but have used 100 and 125 without much difference to power. Above 130 would probably be detrimental for me.

[JaapvanE]

I'm male, 178cm/5'10, 64kg/141lbs. Some stats from a random 10-minute workout, in case it's helpful:
Distance 2.2k, avg 500m 2:14, average HR 148, avg power 144W, peak power 164W, stroke count 152, avg force curve peak 675N, stroke length 136cm, stroke count 156.
Thanks a lot!

May I humbly suggest taking another look at your technique? A peak force of 675N is impressive, but unneeded to reach 2:14/500m given your drive length. As a comparisson: at 2:00/500m, I peak at 600N, with a drive length of about 1.36meters as well. At 2:12/500m, the peak drops to 480N, again with a drive length of about 1.36m. So your peak power is well above what is needed to reach that pace given your drive length.

You probably are exploding at the catch (look at the shape of the force curve), using legs, back and arms all at the same time. Try to use them more sequentially.

[jamesg]

Have you set the damper lever to 10? If so, you'll be more comfortable at drag factor 110-130: damper 3, more or less. The stroke will be quicker and maybe at lower force, with less risk of injury.

Bouldering certainly requires high forces; but rowing wants high Power, which implies speed and frequency of action as well as force. Typical training rates are 20 to 24: so with a stroke worth say 8W-min, 160 to 190W, plenty in relation to your weight.

Power also needs oxygen, two full breaths per stroke will be needed, and the higher the rate the more oxygen you get.

[Ombrax]

Welcome to the forum.

Regarding technique, have you taken a few minutes to look at the force curve on the PM as you row? It should give you immediate stroke by stroke feedback on how good (or bad) your technique is. If you aren't seeing the classic "haystack" shape you can modify things as you row and see how that affects things. See the link below for more info.

https://www.crossfitinvictus.com/blog/c ... rve-graph/

[ylmro]

Thanks a lot for the replies!

So you might even need to aim for a slightly higher spm for that pace, and to lengthen your rows aim for more like a 2.20/500 or slower pace. The good thing is you will speed up a bit as technique beds in. You probably want to aim for 30 minute to 1 hr rows rather than the 15min you are currently achieving.

Okay, I'll try to do the drive less intensely and will work my way up to 30 mins to start with.

May I humbly suggest taking another look at your technique? A peak force of 675N is impressive, but unneeded to reach 2:14/500m given your drive length. As a comparisson: at 2:00/500m, I peak at 600N, with a drive length of about 1.36meters as well. At 2:12/500m, the peak drops to 480N, again with a drive length of about 1.36m. So your peak power is well above what is needed to reach that pace given your drive length.

I felt that my form matches the one I've seen in the video, but I may well be misjudging myself. I'll try to take a video of myself to see where I'm going wrong.

Regarding technique, have you taken a few minutes to look at the force curve on the PM as you row? It should give you immediate stroke by stroke feedback on how good (or bad) your technique is. If you aren't seeing the classic "haystack" shape you can modify things as you row and see how that affects things.

As far as I can tell my force curve does look exactly like the ideal one on that page.

Have you set the damper lever to 10? If so, you'll be more comfortable at drag factor 110-130: damper 3, more or less. The stroke will be quicker and maybe at lower force, with less risk of injury.

I'm actually using water resistance rower. I looked up what drag factor means and found out that concept2 is a rower brand and not a training plan or something like that (I googled "rowing forum" to get here ).
I set up the water resistance according to the manufacturer's recommendation.

[dabatey]

If you aren't using a C2 rower then ignore anything previously said by anyone about pace (numbers) as they wont read the same. The general principal holds though that if you are pulling so hard that you can only last 15 minutes then you need to pull a slower pace to go for longer.

Based on my personal usage of a non C2 rower prior to getting one, I'd recommend selling your current rower and buying a C2 though. Especially if you ever want to make use of the various plans which specify pace-spm-HR, or to compare times/paces to others.

[JaapvanE]

I'm actually using water resistance rower.

Are you using the WaterRower with the S4 monitor (or much better, the SmartRow pulley), then these numbers can be trusted.

If you aren't, the numbers you mention are indeed totally nonsense. If you want decent numbers, either switch to the SmartRow pulley or OpenRowingMonitor.

[ylmro]

If you aren't using a C2 rower then ignore anything previously said by anyone about pace (numbers) as they wont read the same. The general principal holds though that if you are pulling so hard that you can only last 15 minutes then you need to pull a slower pace to go for longer

Thank you, will do!

Based on my personal usage of a non C2 rower prior to getting one, I'd recommend selling your current rower and buying a C2 though. Especially if you ever want to make use of the various plans which specify pace-spm-HR, or to compare times/paces to others.

I think I like the water sounds and the wooden look too much to switch

If you aren't, the numbers you mention are indeed totally nonsense. If you want decent numbers, either switch to the SmartRow pulley or OpenRowingMonitor.

It does have a SmartRow pulley.

Apologies for the confusion and thanks for the advice!

[JaapvanE]

I think I like the water sounds and the wooden look too much to switch

I can certainly imagine. It is a beautiful machine and with the Smartarow pulley it is a great combination.

It does have a SmartRow pulley.

Then these numbers are reliable, especially the force curves are the extremely reliable and reportedly are validated by an independent university.

My advice is to work on making your stroke more sequential: legs first, back next and arms last. With the peak force you report combined with the pace, I'd expect too much happening all at once.

[iain]

I'm male, 178cm/5'10, 64kg/141lbs. Some stats from a random 10-minute workout, in case it's helpful:
Distance 2.2k, avg 500m 2:14, average HR 148, avg power 144W, peak power 164W, stroke count 152, avg force curve peak 675N, stroke length 136cm, stroke count 156.
Thanks a lot!

May I humbly suggest taking another look at your technique? A peak force of 675N is impressive, but unneeded to reach 2:14/500m given your drive length. As a comparisson: at 2:00/500m, I peak at 600N, with a drive length of about 1.36meters as well. At 2:12/500m, the peak drops to 480N, again with a drive length of about 1.36m. So your peak power is well above what is needed to reach that pace given your drive length.

You probably are exploding at the catch (look at the shape of the force curve), using legs, back and arms all at the same time. Try to use them more sequentially.

Stupid question, but are your comparisons at R14/15 (as you don't mention it and higher rating will allow the faster pace with a lower peak force)? Don't know the DF equivalent of OP's rower, but a high DF would also increase the necessary peak power.

[JaapvanE]

Stupid question, but are your comparisons at R14/15 (as you don't mention it and higher rating will allow the faster pace with a lower peak force)? Don't know the DF equivalent of OP's rower, but a high DF would also increase the necessary peak power.

Good question actually. My numbers are from R18 sessions, not that far off, although it might play a part.

The peak force actually isn't influenced in that way by dragfactor. In essence, the power generated is determined by the average force applied on the handle, the amount of travel of the handle (i.e. drive length) and the total time of the stroke (practically: power = (average handle force * drive length) / stroke time). So as long as these remain fixed, DF shouldn't affect peak force.

Dragfactor changes the time it takes to slow down the flywheel to a certain angular velocity, so it might affect drive/recovery ratio, but it shouldn't affect peak force. A very viable strategy for higher DF's is to lengthen the drive time and reduce recovery time, which reduces peak load by keeping the flywheel spinning faster while taking a less explosive drive.

[iain]

Brain to scrambled to work out the physics, but I thought that the power was that dissipated. As the power is proportional to the cube of the fan speed, I assumed that at substantially reduced fan speed the power would be low. As the fan slows more on higher drag, then I was assuming that to get the average the same as for lower drag, then it would need to start higher and that that would require a higher load. However, the greater proportional dissipation at the beginning of the stroke would compensate for this to some extent. I was assuming that at low ratings this compensation would be partial due to the long recovery period. Certainly on higher drag it feels harder to pull, but that might just reflect the need to compensate for the higher early power dissipation to accelerate the handle with the weaker arms late in the stroke.

[JaapvanE]

Brain to scrambled to work out the physics, but I thought that the power was that dissipated.

Please note, you have three interacting physical systems here: a rotational one (flywheel) and two linear ones (a rowing person/handle and a simulated boat). Drag is only relevant in the rotational flywheel and the simulated boat. The rowing person feels the drag of the boat/flywheel, but his power calculations are extremely simple as it is based on the work done by moving the handle (the area captured under the force curve) in a certain time (stroke time).

First of all a bit of nitpicking, from a pure theoretical perspective, the power isn't all dissipated. It is a flywheel, so by definition it stores energy. If you stop rowing, a C2 will spin for over two minutes (as that is the time to dissipate all energy that is stored in it).

When you are talking the rowing motion, it actually is a dynamic balance where in a stable state a equal amount of energy is dissapated as the rowing person puts in. When the stroke is perfectly stable (i.e. each stroke starts with the same angular velocity ω, and each stroke is identical as well), you can approximate the power by Power = k * (average ω across the stroke)^3.

Please note, this formula only holds when the rowing stroke is perfectly stable. Otherwise an additional factor has to be taken into account to compensate for the additional difference in angular velocity ω across the stroke that adds or reduces the energy in the flywheel. University of Ulm has concluded that power calculations on a PM5 misbehave when the stroke is unstable. So lets assume a perfectly stable stroke from here on (how unrealistic it may be).

As the power is proportional to the cube of the fan speed, I assumed that at substantially reduced fan speed the power would be low. As the fan slows more on higher drag, then I was assuming that to get the average the same as for lower drag, then it would need to start higher and that that would require a higher load.

The key here is that power is all about the average angular velocity ω across the stroke, and absolutely not about the peaks it reaches. As long as average ω of the flywheel and the stroke time (i.e. rating) stay the same, the pace will remain the same. It could be a "wild" stroke pattern with high peaks and deep valleys of ω, or a shallow stroke pattern where ω doesn't fluctuate as much away from the average. As long as the same average ω is reached, all is good. This, in essence, is what people mean when they say that the machine's resistance is determined by the power you put in: the more agressive drive, the wilder the stroke pattern, the more resistance you'll feel.

So, shortening the recovery reduces the time for the flywheel to reduce ω, and lengthening the drive allows for a slower but longer powered flywheel, while keeping the same rating. There is an effect that to accelerate the flywheel in the drive from a certain ω1 to another ω2, you have to overcome the dragforce (which is determined by the ω^2 * dragfactor), I'd agree. But if you aim for a more shallow stroke pattern, the acceleration isn't that big anymore as it is spread across more time.

And, a key thing to realise here is that WaterRowers are actually different beasts then AirRowers (like the C2). Where a C2 flywheel easily hits 1000 RPM, a waterrower will usually do around 400 RPM. Also the behaviour of the dragfactor is quite a bit different, as the flywheel inertia changes with the rotational speed (as water is pushed to the outside when accelerated). On OpenRowingMonitor, we see reported dragfactors of around 32000 for several waterrowers. But due to their relative low ω, it turns out similar to the C2 on the handle. Based on the waterrowers I've seen (and as lead developer for OpenRowingMonitor, I've seen a lot as most produce rubbish metrics), they tend to have a lower and more stable ω, making them a bit softer on the muscles and joints (even when using insane DF's like 32000).

Certainly on higher drag it feels harder to pull, but that might just reflect the need to compensate for the higher early power dissipation to accelerate the handle with the weaker arms late in the stroke.

When you keep the same drive/recovery ratio, yes it will feel harder. When you change the ratio, it will become different.

Key issue I have with the numbers presented, is that 675 Newton is a lot of force, especially when a person only weighs 64 Kg: he essentially is pulling his own bodyweight from the handle (aside from having to move his own body up and down the slide). That peak power on the handle is huge when compared to the pace he is getting. From my own experience with my own rowing, even at high DF's (yeah, the joy of callibrating settings for ORM), you start to aim to reduce force on the joints, especially the elbows. You quickly learn that a quicker recovery and a slower drive saves you a lot of pain and energy.

[Tsnor]

I do some bouldering and am reasonably healthy, but have not been doing any cardio exercise in 10+ years, so my cardiovascular health is fairly poor.
I recently started indoor rowing to try and improve that. ...

Suggest you read (or watch videos) on training. Cardio Training applies fine to rowers, will also work with bikes, running, etc. What you are doing (going as hard as you can then stopping) is good, but is not what you'd normally do to improve cardio.

Here is one short, easy to consume video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MALsI0mJ09I

Here is an endurance expert building a 6 hours/week training plan for cycling. It would work fine for rowing, or any mix of workouts you want. (Starting after a way too long intro: https://youtu.be/H9SvLGv2c1E?si=QaDS-Vg0v9y15pud&t=104)

If you have less than 5 hours or so to work out then do whatever you enjoy doing. Just about any training plan will work.

NOTE: cardio improvements come slow, and stay a long time. You can build for years with improvement.

NOTE: all of the above comment about FORM are important. Rowing is really safe, low impact. But you can hurt yourself with bad form.