Concept2 Forum

OK here's something I've been playing with for a while, and I think I'm going to attempt it.

At 5'8", there are obviously limits to how low I can get my 2k time. However, I have managed as low as a 6:40.

Problem is, I'm not a lightweight, either. I'm weighing in at about 176-178 currently. This isn't due to excessive fat or me being out of shape, but I do have a really wide frame. I have a large chest and shoulders, pretty much due to my bone structure and prior athletic exploits.

So here's what I want to do. I'd like to row lightweight at a college-level summer camp. Obviously I will not be able to do this as a heavyweight. Therefore, I am going to attempt to lose weight, both fat and muscle, while attempting to maintain and/or improve my erg score, whiile becoming a lightweight. I figure I've got a year to do it so I can do it gradually, but for now I'm just looking for comments from anyone with a similar experience (ie. a large upper body and no height who tried to go lightweight).

Thanks folks.

prezidentv8 wrote: Problem is, I'm not a lightweight, either. I'm weighing in at about 176-178 currently.

To lose a pound a week you need to reduce your calorie intake by 3,500 or increase your calorie expenditure by 3,500.

That's easy to achieve. How many rowing sessions a week are you doing?
10Km four times a week for ten weeks would probably do it.

One of the rowers on the UK forum has just gone from 294lb (134Kg) to 165lb (75Kg) in five years. He's 51yrs old and 5'8". I'm 43yrs old, 5'7.5" and currently 74.3 Kg and doing six sessions per week as training for BIRC.

that sounds about right...currently, im doing 3 on the water sessions/week, 2 days of cardio/body circuits, and, beginning today actually (had some knee issues for a while) im moving back to about 5 erg sessions/week...so this could get fun hehehe

Do you think you have enough fat weight to go down to ~165 or so (10lbs)? I'm not sure how you would go about dropping muscle though. Never had to do it. I'm gonna have to do the same thing (go lightweight that is) unless I grow another 2 in. 6:40 for 5'8" is very good.

If you do this, you should approach it carefully. To race as a lightweight, you have to be under 160 lbs. This mean you have over 16 lbs to lose. If you are trying to make a team boat (i.e. 8+ or 4+) you typically have to be even lighter to accommodate the boat average. If you are already low in body fat, you should be even more careful. I'd suggest getting some diet advice (as in consult a dietician) to make sure you work out a plan that gives you enough fuel.

I'm not saying it isn't doable, but people sometimes head into these things uneducated. Also, you typically don't have to be at weight for a camp. You should be close (as in within 10 pounds), but you don't have to be at 160.

If you plan on rowing on the water, the lightweight limit is 160 lbs.
And the boat has to average 155 lbs per rower. You should factor that in your deliberations.

I'm about the same weight as you and in college I could get down to 165 for an erg test or Crash-B, though I never tried to get to 160 to actually row as a lightweight.

Good luck.

A lot of long cardio ought to start slimming the muscle. If it is in the right places to slim.

Not many chunky long distances runners. Genetics may play a part, and losing muscle may directly affect his top end strength. I hope not.

Of course, I've never been north of 160 lbs, and lived most of my life at 145 lbs.

Holy Toledo! I'm down to 168! I mean, I AM doing a lot of cardio, but that's WAY fast...though the loss rate is beginning to taper off a bit, if this gravy train keeps up, I'm all good!

Great going. But appears to be a bit too much too soon.

Monitor your water intake. You may be losing a lot of water weight if you aren't rehydrating sufficiently after work outs.

If possible, weigh yourself before a heavy workout or otw, then weigh yourself afterword. Because most likely you haven't burned 3500 calories in that workout, you haven't lost any weight measurealbe by rounded pounds on the scale. Therefore you need to drink enough fluids to replace your "lost" weight from that particular workout. One hueristic(rule of thumb) is 8-16oz of water for every "pound" lost. A more recent guidelines suggests 13-20 oz of fluid for every hour of excercise. That fluid replacement should be primarily water unless the workout was longer than an hour. You can use the rehydrates like Gatorade but use them in moderate relative to your time of effort/excercise. If you eat to refuel properly with a 1/2 hour or so after your workout, you'll replace any lost nutrients.

I can't tell from the forum, but you should get your body fat % tested just to see how much you can fat lose. Consult a registered excercise nutritionist to determine what's optimal for you. And get a food/fuel eating plan tailored for your specific goals and body type.

TabbRows wrote:One hueristic(rule of thumb) is 8-16oz of water for every "pound" lost.

Another rule of thumb: unless you're teaching vocabulary, it's better to skip a term you feel you must define, and go straight to the definition. Doubly so when you misspell the term; triply so when you mis-define it.

(Sorry, Tabb, I'm an ass for not leaving that alone. But I like words more than I like not being an ass.)

Ducatista wrote:

TabbRows wrote:One hueristic(rule of thumb) is 8-16oz of water for every "pound" lost.

Another rule of thumb: unless you're teaching vocabulary, it's better to skip a term you feel you must define, and go straight to the definition. Doubly so when you misspell the term; triply so when you mis-define it.

(Sorry, Tabb, I'm an ass for not leaving that alone. But I like words more than I like not being an ass.)

Ha Ha, Post of the Day! I LMAO on that one. All in jest (to joke, or kid) though.

Rich

Ducatista wrote:

TabbRows wrote:One hueristic(rule of thumb) is 8-16oz of water for every "pound" lost.

Another rule of thumb: unless you're teaching vocabulary, it's better to skip a term you feel you must define, and go straight to the definition. Doubly so when you misspell the term; triply so when you mis-define it.

(Sorry, Tabb, I'm an ass for not leaving that alone. But I like words more than I like not being an ass.)

Second time I'm hearing reading the term "heuristic" in the fora these days.
So what's your definition, Duc?
Does it hurt? (as someone else asked)

Cheers

ancho wrote:Second time I'm hearing reading the term "heuristic" in the fora these days.
So what's your definition, Duc?
Does it hurt? (as someone else asked)

That little word gets around. My overly broad definition of the noun form: a method, approach, or trick used to solve a problem, answer a question, or make a decision.

Classic example: drawing a diagram to solve a math problem.

Non-technical example: drawing up a list of weighted pros and cons to decide whether to go back to grad school or dive headfirst into the workforce. (The pro/con list is the heuristic. Going back to grad school when the pro/con list overwhelmingly favors the workforce is human nature.)

So not only does a heuristic not hurt, it can in fact ease the pain of problem solving. If I were more thorough, I'd mention trial-and-error and case-by-case fallibility vs. broad applicability. And I'd explore the various shades of meaning the term has in different fields (mathematics, psychology, computer science). But that would hurt.

Thanks Ducastista for pointing out my dyslexic misspelling. A good laugh never huerts(?).

As far as definition goes, I use it in the psychological, behavior finance sense, as a simple,efficient rule. Which is what the " 8oz for every pound lost" is. I'll accept that there are other definitions ( and probably misspelling too). and I'm sure someone can draw a chart or picture for it.

Now let's get back to prezidentv8 's thread topic.

What a good-humored bunch! Sorry for the hijack, prezidentv8.