Concept2 Forum

Training for rowing is a matter of developing and then balancing skeletal-motor, aerobic, and anaerobic capacities.

The consensus seems to be that this should be done in that order.

Rowing is foundationally technical and skeletal-motor, and only then aerobic and anaerobic.

To do this, training is "staged."

At each stage in training, there is a different mix of stroking power, distance, and rate.

In foundational rowing, stage 1, which works on technical and skeletal-motor issues, stroking power is high (+), distance middling (=), and rate low (-).

In pre-sharpening, stage 2, which develops aerobic capacity, stroking power is low (-), distance long (+), and rate middling (=).

In sharpening, stage 3, which develops anaerobic capacity, stroking power is middling (=), distance short (-), and rate high (+).

Then in a race, power (P), distance (D), and rate (R) are all equalized/middling (=).

-----------P/D/R--------------------
Stage 1: +/-/= (Foudndational)
Stage 2: =/+/- (Pre-Sharpening)
Stage 3: -/=/+ (Sharpening)
Stage 4 =/=/= (Racing)

This is all very elegant.

The trouble is: almost no one does this ideal training plan.

To lower the difficulty of this progression, most rowers:

(1) equalize (=) the stroking power and lengthen (+) the distance at stage 1, turning it into easy rowing (a rest day);

(2) equalize (=) the distance and the stroking power at stage 2, turning it into a pre-mature race;

and (3) equalize (=) the rate and raise (+) the stroking power at stage 3, turning it into slow power 25s/50s/etc.

As a result, when the race rolls around, having slighted all three stages in training, relative to their potential, they can only muster an unnecessarily reduced stroking power, due to their slighting of stroking power at stage 1; an unnecessary reduced rate, due to their slighting of distance at stage 2; and even so, dying into the finish with an unnecessarily reduced anaerobic capacity, due to their slighting of rate at stage 3.

Their training becomes a mix of long slow distance, premature racing, and "heave-ho."

Different rowers have different emphases, when it comes to this.

For example, Pete Marston likes premature racing and NavHaz, "heave-ho."

Most casual rowers like long slow distance, which is what becomes of Level 4 rowing in the Wolverine Plan for all but the best rowers.

In the Wolverine Plan, as your 2K time drops, the stroking power you need to use at low rates in Level 4 rowing drops, until you are not taking much of a stroke at all.

This just fosters bad technical and skeletal-motor habits.

Result?

You train yourself to be bad and slow.

Easy is easy.

Hard is hard.

Expensive is expensive.

Cheap is cheap.

You get what you pay for.

ranger

I don't get it. It doesn't rhyme.

ranger wrote: This is all very elegant.

The trouble is: almost no one does this ideal training plan.

Yeah, nobody does it because it is completely unrealistic for an actual rower to follow through with. You can't get good unless you compete, and learn from your mistakes. Don't you still race a 2k once in a while? In fact, you raced one last year that you were only 3 seconds from the WR in. Doesn't that break your five years of 'good rowing' without racing your training? You clearly have some semblance of where you need to be training at to pull your "6:16" 2k, so you must have done some racing to know where you fall. So either you haven't done it and are just throwing numbers out (notice how in our signatures, they're ACTUAL personal bests, not what we think we can eventually do); or you've raced your training in the past and you refuse to admit it because then all your other convoluted posts would be moot.

If you could convince a group of 8 people to train this way, which is entirely possible, you might have a very fast 8 on your hands. But without them ever knowing how they stack up to the competition, without ever pushing themselves by 'racing their training', they will have zero confidence for an actual race, they'll never be able to know what their limits are. And it'd be stupid to never enter in a race until you knew you'd be as close to perfect as possible - you have to learn and racing is the best way to do so.

ranger wrote: Their training becomes a mix of long slow distance, premature racing, and "heave-ho."

Don't you yourself do tons of distance work? At a UT2 pace? What, does that not classify as "mix of long slow distance"? And, define "heave-ho", I'm thinking that means a lot of throwing the body around, which you seem to advocate, with rowing being 'gymnastic' meaning you must apply a lot of power from the upper body.

bloomp wrote:Don't you still race a 2k once in a while?

Races aren't the problem, I think.

Racing your training is the problem.

Sure, I have raced pretty consistently (although not very successfully) while I have been learning to row.

Ironically, on the erg, at least, I have raced much more than my major competition--Rocket Roy, Mike VB, etc., who, by and large, just race their training.

I like racing.

But it is certainly more satisfying to race a 2K when you are fully prepared for it.

The issue for me lately, though, has been that the bar has been raised and the difficulties caused by racing your training can become pretty severe in this situation.

My goal is to get better, not just to win races, even though, when I started to learn to row, I was already the WR-holder.

No WR-holder 40-70 has ever gotten any better at all (except me, from WIRC 2003 to BIRC 2003), much less much better (e.g., 12 seconds).

But to get better, you have to be very careful with each stage in your training, developing it maximally before you move on to something else.

How good you are is determined by the time you spend at early stages in the standard cycle of training from foundational rowing, to pre-sharpening/distance rowing, to sharpening, to racing.

Those who don't spend much time and effort on their foundational rowing, or slight it in some other way, by avoiding issues in stroking power and technique, don't get better, especially as they age.

They just get worse.

Same thing goes with distance rowing.

Sure.

There are compensations, even if you are getting worse.

You can win races, even hammers.

You can participate.

You can enjoy your races, because you are prepared for them, even if you perform in a much more modest way than you could have if you have taken better care of your training.

But in my case, that is, given my goals, I am not interested in these compensations.

My goal is to get better--period.

I don't care about winning races.

If I get 12 seconds better than I was in 2003, in a year or so, I will pull the best erg time in the history of the sport, and I suspect that that time, a lwt 6:16 by a 60-year-old, will stand for a good long time, if not forever.

I think I heard somewhere that this problem with racing your training might be what happened to US milers in track over the last 30 years. At some point historically, US milers were encouraged by coaches, media, etc., to run too fast too soon. They didn't give themselves time to develop. Runners from Europe (and elsewhere) seem to have been smarter about these things. At the Olympics, US 5K and 10K runners, especially, have been consistently destroyed by European, Australian, New Zealand, and African runners. They don't get tough first, before they get fast. Therefore, in the end, they don't get fast.

Patience, my son.

Patience.

Good training takes infinite patience.

ranger

bloomp wrote:f you could convince a group of 8 people to train this way, which is entirely possible, you might have a very fast 8 on your hands. But without them ever knowing how they stack up to the competition, without ever pushing themselves by 'racing their training', they will have zero confidence for an actual race, they'll never be able to know what their limits are. And it'd be stupid to never enter in a race until you knew you'd be as close to perfect as possible - you have to learn and racing is the best way to do so.

Once my training is complete, I will be ready to race to the limits of my potential for the rest of my life, which I suspect might be another 30 or 40 years.

I can just stay race ready all the time, following something like the Wolverine Plan.

Let's see.

If I row 6-8 2Ks on the erg, 6-8 1Ks OTW, and 6-8 head races OTW each year, that's as much as 24 rowing races a year, times 40, equals almost 1000 races.

So I suppose this is it:

By taking care of my training for five years, and therefore racing somewhat poorly for, say, 50 races, I am making it possible to row to the limits of my potential for the next 1000 races.

Good investment, I would say.

A return of 2000%.

20-to-1

ranger

P.S. And I suppose there is this: I am calling my racing on the erg this last year "poor," even though I was the best in my age and weight category by three seconds.

Paul--

If you are an ambitious lightweight, you need to pull 13 SPI in your foundational training.

Stop pussy-footing around at 8 to 9 SPI.

Pulling 13 SPI up to as high as 27 spm means that you need to row quite a bit at low rates and 15 SPI.

Sure, it's hard.

But just do it.

It gets easier as you go along.

Rowing is basically technical and skeletal-muscular.

It is physically explosive business.

This technical and skeletal-motor development is the focus of foundational rowing.

When you do your foundational rowing, row quite a bit, 1:45 @ 20 spm, not 2:00 @ 20 spm, much less 2:10 @ 20 spm.

That will get the sweat rolling and make you such a little air!

ranger

Before you talk down to a fellow rower, you should probably prove some of the training you've done. At least I don't mind admitting when my workouts go awry or they go really well. And good for you if you can pace yourself at a 1:45 at 20SPM, I can't. You also are taller, more trained and heavier than I am. Doesn't mean I'm any less of a rower. In fact, my power/weight is what keeps me motivated. I know I can't get the same raw score as the big guys around me, but I know on the water my power is just as effective.

You better show up November 28th.

bloomp wrote:f you could convince a group of 8 people to train this way, which is entirely possible, you might have a very fast 8 on your hands.

Yes, it's called a National Team.

This is how elite rowers train.

ranger

bloomp wrote:my power/weight is what keeps me motivated.

Yes, power/weight ratios are crucial in rowing.

But in a 2K on the erg, if you pull 205 watts @ 69 kgs., you pull right around 3 watts/kg.

The best young ightweights, such as Stephansen, pull twice that--6 watts/kgs.

You are taking half a stroke!

I am not one to compare yourself to.

Next year, I'll be 60 years old.

You lose aerobic capacity as you age.

When I was your age, I could run a 4:20 mile on the track.

Now, I would have a hard time running a 5:20 mile.

So, if I succeed in pulling 6:16 over the next year or so, I'll only pull 5.5 watts/kg., 20 seconds slower over 2K than the best young lightweights.

ranger

Ranger you are on the American masterbating team aren't you. Team captain national champion for the last 50 years in a row and the only member of the team.

bloomp wrote:You better show up November 28th.

Yes, it will be good to race me now OTW, while I am still a novice, so that you can avoid your weaknesses, explain them away in some fantastic way, and just continue training badly while believing that it is good.

Novice rowers are still learning to put their physical energies efficiently and effectively into moving a boat.

I am making _huge_ progress with this every day, and will probably continue to improve over the next fiive years or so.

Will you?

Or is this it?

The way you talk, I suspect you are already technically adept and experienced OTW.

So for you, there is not much more to be gained there.

And you are only 18!

Given your age and experience, you need to challenge people like Zrower to a 2K OTW, not some old man who is just learning to row.

Even on the erg, the difference between our age categories is 32 seconds, 8 seconds per 500m.

Stephansen pulled 6:06 when he was your age.

There are not a lot of kudos around for a college kid beating his grandfather at something as purely athletic as rowing.

ranger

SHANE SHAW wrote:Ranger you are on the American masterbating team aren't you. Team captain national champion for the last 50 years in a row and the only member of the team.

Naw.

I heard you were the captain but didn't think my intervals were up to speed and so didn't want me on the team.



Then again, I would suppose that twats like you have a different stlyle when it "comes" to these things.



My style of "stroking" probably wouldn't blend in with your team.

ranger

ranger wrote:Sure, I have raced pretty consistently (although not very successfully) while I have been learning to row.

Er, what does that mean exactly? Your scores have ranged from 6:29 to 7:04 and you had more DNSs and DNFs than anyone in the history of erging. I fail to see any consistency.

ranger wrote:By taking care of my training for five years, and therefore racing somewhat poorly for, say, 50 races, I am making it possible to row to the limits of my potential for the next 1000 races.

Are you saying you rowed 10 races a year for the last 5 years? That is a total fabrication. You might have entered 10 races you certainly didn't start them all or finish them all. In What year since 2003 did you record a time in three or more races?

BTW, what's with 'pretty consistently' and 'somewhat poorly'? There are no shades of consistency or poverty. You really do have problem with telling it how it is, don't you.

snowleopard wrote:I fail to see any consistency.

Sorry, perhaps "consistently" is the wrong word.

"Regularly."

I have done several races each year from 2004 to 2009.

I haven't raced consistently because I have not prepared to race.

I have just trained foundationally (but raced anyway).

Weight has also been an issue.

Because I have been concentrating on my rowing, rather than on my racing, I have not attended very closely to my weight (but have tried to race as a lightweight anyway).

ragner

snowleopard wrote:You really do have problem with telling it how it is, don't you.

No.

This is succinct, I think:

Last year I had the best 2K in my age and weight division, the 55s lwts, three seconds off of the WR, even though I was 58, not 55, and without even preparing for it, that is, without any distance rowing or sharpening, just with foundational rowing.

Happy with that.

The rows were just AT efforts, really.

I hadn't been doing anything in training more intense than UT1 rowing.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

I will be 60 for WIRC 2011.

I get about a dozen seconds each over 2K from distance rowing and sharpening.

24 seconds in all?

ranger