Energy Expenditure SkiErg vs. Row Erg

[mrpiii]

There are some very interesting training plans such as the Pete Plan and the Wolverine. These plans are designed for the rower. I'd be interested in knowing what people think about the conversion of these plans to the SkiErg. In rowing you are using larger muscles especially in the leg to row, so I expect rowing a 500m at a given pace on a rower is "easier" that on a SkiErg. Should SkiErg(gers) just bite the bullet or forget it -- or is there some relation that we should apply to adjust the interval? Or am I just missing some salient point that makes this all moot?

[Bob S.]

There are some very interesting training plans such as the Pete Plan and the Wolverine. These plans are designed for the rower. I'd be interested in knowing what people think about the conversion of these plans to the SkiErg. In rowing you are using larger muscles especially in the leg to row, so I expect rowing a 500m at a given pace on a rower is "easier" that on a SkiErg. Should SkiErg(gers) just bite the bullet or forget it -- or is there some relation that we should apply to adjust the interval? Or am I just missing some salient point that makes this all moot?

I don't know anything about the WP, but paces suggested in the Pete Plan at the start are based on your performance on a 2k time trial and are adjusted along the way by your performances on the workouts. So if you start out using it for the SkiErg, presumably you would base the workouts on some sort of trial done on that machine and it would not matter how the energy output compared to a rowing erg. The IP of the UK site works the same way, and I am confident that the WP does also. You base your effort on previous results. As an example, if the Pete Plan calls for a set of intervals, say 8X500m, the next time you do the same set, you try to do all 8 at the pace of the fastest interval of that previous set. It is a matter of measuring where you stand and trying to improve, which would be the same principle no matter what machine you are using.

Bob S.

[mrpiii]

Thanks Bob. I wasn't asking so much what the pace is but more what the amount of energy you are exerting on the SkiErg versus the rowing machine. I think there is a clue to the right answer in the flywheel (does anyone know if there are any differences in the flywheel between the machines?). My point, perhaps poorly expressed, is that a 500 meter piece with arms and abs only requires a greater percentage of total available power output than would the same 500 meter piece done on a rower with legs, arms and abs. So arguably a training program based on a rower would require more effort (in other words you're starting at a higher effort) from a skier than from a rower. Being that us skiers are tougher than rowers, perhaps it all comes out in the wash.

If there were some equivalency constant say, for illustration and simple math, 50%, then a Pete Plan row of 5x500 might be 5x250 on the SkiErg.

[Bob S.]

Thanks Bob. I wasn't asking so much what the pace is but more what the amount of energy you are exerting on the SkiErg versus the rowing machine. I think there is a clue to the right answer in the flywheel (does anyone know if there are any differences in the flywheel between the machines?). My point, perhaps poorly expressed, is that a 500 meter piece with arms and abs only requires a greater percentage of total available power output than would the same 500 meter piece done on a rower with legs, arms and abs. So arguably a training program based on a rower would require more effort (in other words you're starting at a higher effort) from a skier than from a rower. Being that us skiers are tougher than rowers, perhaps it all comes out in the wash.

If there were some equivalency constant say, for illustration and simple math, 50%, then a Pete Plan row of 5x500 might be 5x250 on the SkiErg.

I don't see why that would be necessary. The pace is not independent of the energy. They are mathematically linked. Pace (on the C2 rowing machines) is defined as the inverse square root of the energy/2.8. It may be programmed differently on the SkiErg, I wouldn't know about that, but the principle is the same. If the same monitor is used, then definition is likely the same The same wheel is used for both ergs, so the energy (as well as the pace) displayed on the monitor is the amount put into wheel by whatever method. If there is less energy available from the muscles used on the SkiErg, then the energy (in watts) will be lower and the pace (in time/500m) will be lower than on a rowing erg. As a result the base piece for a SkiErg workout would have a slower pace. The main point is that you use the pace that is based on the results of a time trial that you do on that machine. Instead of doing shorter distances, you would be doing the same distances, but at a lower rate of energy expended.

Bob S.

Note: The distance and pace definitions programmed into the monitor are based on those that would be expected for 1/4 of the energy needed to propel a 4x shell at those paces. It would not have much real meaning in ski terms, so perhaps C2 has different definition for pace on the SkiErgs. The folks at C2 can give the answer to that. Since the results are lumped together in the online logbooks, i have a hunch that the monitors have not been altered for the SkiErg. What really counts anyway is the watts value displayed by the monitor, since that has real physical meaning and is not just arbitrarily defined. The best bet is to use the watts of a base piece to determine workout intensities. The UK IP does that, but translates it into recommended paces, since that is what most people use with the rowing erg.

[carlb]

These plans are designed for the rower. I'd be interested in knowing what people think about the conversion of these plans to the SkiErg. In rowing you are using larger muscles especially in the leg to row, so I expect rowing a 500m at a given pace on a rower is "easier" that on a SkiErg. Should SkiErg(gers) just bite the bullet or forget it -- or is there some relation that we should apply to adjust the interval? Or am I just missing some salient point that makes this all moot?

The Pete Plan includes different types of Intervals. Most Intervals are defined by the ratio of work to rest 1:1 1:2 1:3. If there is not enough rest time you will not be able to work as hard or as long. E.g. at one point Pete says of 1:30 rest / 250m "It sounds like a lot [of rest], but once you’re doing the session fast enough, you will need it!".

In the Beginner Plan the Group 2 Speed AT intervals Pete says "Generally the rest time between these intervals will be close to half of the preceding interval time." I.e. work to rest is 2 to 1.

For Beginner Group 3 Speed intervals Pete says "The rest time between intervals on these sessions would generally be around 1 to 1, i.e. resting for a similar time to the preceding work interval."

Pete defines work in Meters, but rest in Minutes. Since Pete is way faster a rower than I am a rower (and I'm slower skiing) my work time is going to be longer then his, I think it makes sense to increase his rest time based on my work time for the given meters to match the suggested work to rest ratio.

Pete's Endurance intervals all have 5 minutes of rest no matter what the distance, so probably no adjustment there.