Disconnect between cardiovascular fitness and rowing performance

[jrkob]

Hi guys,

Haven't been posting for a while. Let me explain.

Until 2 years ago, all my daily exercise was on the rowing machine. This would include a 45' row at HR 125bpm*, and my performance would be how far I row. In my case, was about 8km.

For reasons I don't want to explain, I stopped rowing entirely and switched to jogging on the treadmill and elliptical. And I kept track of my cardiovascular performance. I can tell that over the past 2 years, my cardiovascular fitness has improved considerably, and consistently. The treadmill tests I'm doing at the cardiologist yearly also show that.

Now, out of curiosity, this morning I went back on the rowing machine and did a 45' row at HR 125 like before, expecting to see a large improvement in the distance covered, since I know for a fact that my cardiovascular performance is much better than before. Instead, I saw a very bad performance, and covered only 7.2km which is very poor compared to before.

I was properly rested with the RHR last night I want to see, properly hydrated etc...

One thing that I am thinking, is that I am not muscle training at all. As in zero. And with (i) age and (ii) the fact that I didn't train muscles for 2 years, somehow I lost a lot of the performance.

What I'm trying to get at, is that performance on the rowing machine the way I do it (45' row at HR 125) may not be ALL about cardiovascular performance, but also involving other things, perhaps training the right muscles as well. And perhaps other things too which I'm not thinking about. I am not sure. I thought cardiovascular fitness would be everything but... may be not !

Anyone cares to comment ?

Thank you. My addy at the bottom of this post includes basic data about me.

- Jean.

* I understand that as jamesg explained many times HR isn't a proper way to measure performance while rowing, which should be based instead on rowing power etc etc... all of this is understood. I am not doing exercise for pure performance but for cardiovascular fitness (exclusively) so HR, in my case, does have an important place. I have atherosclerosis, with a stent. My training will involve monitoring HR. My choice !

[jrkob]

Edit: normally I can run for an hour like a rabbit, with no leg pain whatsoever. And do the same again the following day.

This afternoon after 45' rowing at HR 125 which should be an extremely easy row, the muscles on the top of my legs hurt like hell (google says these are called vastus medialis).

[Sakly]

Performance in a specific sport is never based on only a single factor. Cardiac output is a big factor for rowing, no question. But so is muscular power and movement quality driven by nervous system. Latter ones are very sport specific and get lost, when not trained specifically. Cardiac output can stay or even improve, like you see on yourself right now.

[Dangerscouse]

I'm not basing this on anything scientific, but I can row a HM without an issue, but I'd guess I'd struggle to run more than two miles. I certainly have never felt comfortable with running regardless of my rowing fitness.

From what I've seen there's quite often not much crossover for running to rowing, and vice versa. Obviously there's exceptions, and this is a general thing, but there's something that stops it being a direct connection, which is a bit strange that cycling has a more direct connection to rowing, and that also having no upper body involvement.

As for your aching legs, that is a surprise to me, unless it's the fact that you're upper body has weakened and you're over relying on your legs?

[Sakly]

From what I've seen there's quite often not much crossover for running to rowing, and vice versa. Obviously there's exceptions, and this is a general thing, but there's something that stops it being a direct connection, which is a bit strange that cycling has a more direct connection to rowing, and that also having no upper body involvement.

Same for running, it's very technical, but does not seem to. Bad running mechanics will slow you down and give you pain. Same happens on the rower, but not so much on a bike, as the motion is mostly forced by the hardware (but even there you can have less good mechanics and lose power/speed).
Good example that technique is a huge factor: my gym partner and me did a 2k on a running track last year. Not much training for it, only 2 attempts within 4 weeks or so. Same on the rower, as he got into it ca. 1 1/2 years ago.
His 2k: running 7:21, rowing 7:12
Mine: running 7:46, rowing 6:37
Based on the rowing time, would you argue I lack cardiac capabilities? Very unlikely. Lack running technique? If course, never trained that. For my gym buddy it's the opposite. As a former football and tennis player, he's much more into a good running technique, but very low amount of rowing meters show his technique can get better and more ingrained by nervous system.
I would say our cardiac capabilities are very close, me being a bit stronger in this specifically. If we would start cycling, I bet our outputs would be more even, as technique does not play such a huge role compared to rowing/running.

[mromero680]

I used to row from October or so until March and road bike April to December. Since my favorite cycling route was a mountain road climb I could track my fitness pretty well. It always took a while to get back into climbing shape no matter how fit I was on the rower and vice-versa. Just different enough to require an adjustment period. Definitely some carryover but not 1:1.

[H2O]

It's not a good idea to do the same workout every day (like rowing 45 mins at 125 HR). You also need shorter, more intense workouts to make more gains in cardiovascular fitness. Just curious: what where the workouts on the treadmill and elliptical?

[flatbread]

The heart and lungs are general engines.

The mitochondria are very specific engines.

Training for one thing does not make you good at another.

[jamesg]

I have atherosclerosis

Me too; and had a triple bypass done this January. Plaque blocks the coronary arteries and stops blood getting to the heart muscle; which kills the parts affected. Replacing or opening these arteries stops it getting worse, but can't bring back to life what's already dead. It's like having a smaller heart: less blood flow, less power. At 65 I could pull a 2k at 280W; constant decline since then, now I might be able to do a 2k at 120W, but won't try it.

There's a main cause: high cholesterol.

Now I do the WODs almost every day: short and to the point.

[reuben]

Anyone cares to comment ?

I'll comment, but this is based solely on my own non-medical and personal experience, which may not apply to you.

Many times over the years, in all sorts of athletic endeavors, I've read or seen something and thought, "That would be great for what I'm trying to do, and I already use a lot of those muscles in similar ways, so it shouldn't be too hard."

WRONG!!!!

While I may indeed have been using the same muscles in similar ways, they were only similar, not identical. And there may have been supporting muscles which I hadn't sufficiently trained which limited me. Let's say I can play tennis for a couple of hours with no problem. But when I hike in the woods my feet hurt the next day. Why? Tennis is a lot of erratic lateral movement - start, stop, go, reverse. I should be able to hike fine, right? Maybe. Hiking is up and down and off camber, which is completely lacking in tennis. In addition to major muscles like achilles, there are tiny muscles and tendons and ligaments and fascia which are uniquely used in those activities. This is why I/you/we encounter unexpected aches and pains, less progress than we think we should quickly achieve, etc.

They may use the same muscles/lungs/heart/ligaments/etc., but they do so in different ways, to which we may not have fully adapted.

Cycling, rowing, and running may be similar, at least with respect to our aerobic and the use of our lower body, but they're not the same.

Aerobic fitness is similar. While I believe that there is an overarching capacity or fitness which we have at any time (let's call it VO2max), that capacity is directed to certain organs and muscles, which may or may not be capable of using all of the O2 being sent their way. If the infrastructure - arteries, veins, muscles, mitochondria, etc., aren't capable of using all of the oxygen being sent to them, then they'll be the limiter, not your heart/lung capacity.

[Cyclingman1]

The OP must have literally been doing nothing with upper body during 2 yrs of running. It would not have taken much to maintain enough general fitness to duplicate earlier rowing times.

For sure cycling translates to rowing more so than running. The idea that the upper body does not come into play while cycling, especially with intense efforts including lots of climbing, is not really correct. I went from cycling to sub-7 min on a rower after 2 weeks at age 66.

[jrkob]

Guys thanks a lot for the responses, awesome as always. They, in particular the below 2, all go along the lines that performance in a particular type of exercise isn't all about raw cardiovascular performance, I think my mistake was to believe that with such a low-demand exercise as a 45' row at HR125, I didn't think that anything else but CV performance would matter, while in fact, I managed to proved myself that this isn't correct. The good news though, is that I think I am going to incorporate rowing back into my weekly routine and monitor my progress and see how it goes. This will be interesting research !

I've got my answer. Thanks.

Performance in a specific sport is never based on only a single factor. Cardiac output is a big factor for rowing, no question. But so is muscular power and movement quality driven by nervous system.

While I believe that there is an overarching capacity or fitness which we have at any time (let's call it VO2max), that capacity is directed to certain organs and muscles, which may or may not be capable of using all of the O2 being sent their way.

[jrkob]

The OP must have literally been doing nothing with upper body during 2 yrs of running.

Correct. Zero. My lower back aches like hell this morning, in the past it certainly wouldn't have at such low apparent intensity effort.

Now I do the WODs almost every day: short and to the point.

James can you clarify WOD for me please ?

It's not a good idea to do the same workout every day (like rowing 45 mins at 125 HR). You also need shorter, more intense workouts to make more gains in cardiovascular fitness. Just curious: what where the workouts on the treadmill and elliptical?

Yes so I was using this particular row a my zone 2 exercises. Of course I was doing other things, HIT, HIIT, including but not limited to as part of the Pete Plan etc.
There was 2 problems with the rowing machine:
1) I found it hard to do HIT/HIIT with it. I suspect that technique was the problem, perhaps lack of upper body/arm lack of muscle and probably other things that I don't know. So I moved HIT/HIIT to running and this solved the problem. Of course, the cost on my joints etc isn't comparable, so I had to learn how to manage that. But it seems to work.
2) I find it difficult to watch movies when rowing because of the need to monitor the PM4 at the same time. So I moved my zone 2 to the elliptical and problem solved.
Leaving nothing for me to do on the rowing machine.

But, now that I have discovered that not all exercise are created equal, I am going to include rowing back into my routine. May be once a week to start with.

This is what my weekly routine looks like right now:
Mon/Wed/Fri: 1h zone 2 on the elliptical
Tue/Thu: 30' HIT on the treadmill
Sat: 30' HIT followed by 1h HIIT both on the treadmill
Sun: rest

So I think I could replace one of the elliptical sessions with one on the rowing machine. To start with. And reevaluate in a month. May be warm up before rowing even at such low intensity until my lower back gets back in shape.
Hope this is making sense...

[milansanremo]

From what I've seen there's quite often not much crossover for running to rowing, and vice versa. Obviously there's exceptions, and this is a general thing, but there's something that stops it being a direct connection, which is a bit strange that cycling has a more direct connection to rowing, and that also having no upper body involvement.

Same for running, it's very technical, but does not seem to. Bad running mechanics will slow you down and give you pain. Same happens on the rower, but not so much on a bike, as the motion is mostly forced by the hardware (but even there you can have less good mechanics and lose power/speed).
Good example that technique is a huge factor: my gym partner and me did a 2k on a running track last year. Not much training for it, only 2 attempts within 4 weeks or so. Same on the rower, as he got into it ca. 1 1/2 years ago.
His 2k: running 7:21, rowing 7:12
Mine: running 7:46, rowing 6:37
Based on the rowing time, would you argue I lack cardiac capabilities? Very unlikely. Lack running technique? If course, never trained that. For my gym buddy it's the opposite. As a former football and tennis player, he's much more into a good running technique, but very low amount of rowing meters show his technique can get better and more ingrained by nervous system.
I would say our cardiac capabilities are very close, me being a bit stronger in this specifically. If we would start cycling, I bet our outputs would be more even, as technique does not play such a huge role compared to rowing/running.

Exactly... just like the experienced rowers have said.
I remember when Sir John Walker (I love the Kiwis) became the first runner to go under 5 minutes for 2k.on the track.
I would bet my life that on that same day he wouldn't have come close to your 6:37 2k rowing time.
All about (like Robert said) activity specific mitochondria density. among other things.