Is my weight an issue?

[Fathoms77]

Wow....I'd better order some protein powder just to make sure I meet your definition of what is right

I'm happy....the OP is happy....the only one who isn't is you

Maybe I'm not getting my point across properly. OP said he was pretty thin and exercises a lot. He is 6'3 175. It would be unhealthy for him to lose weight. If he took your advice and lost 10 pounds to become a lightweight, he would be pretty underweight. What if he then doesn't stop there in order to have some leeway to be a lightweight? If you told an anorexic person to lose weight, you will get harsh replies. This isn't quite that, but it has the potential to become that. It is rubbish advice to a stranger on the internet.

I am perfectly happy and don't want to debate this back and forth. I did NOT want OP to think your advice was okay, because it was terrible. He should not be losing weight. This is for his overall health. I bet if you ask OP to post a picture of him, your advice would change.

Well, I think you're probably right. But I know full well that if I lost more weight I'd be underweight, and my health and performance would likely decline, not improve. I'm not about to make any significant changes to my life without doing more research...basically, I mean no single post on a forum is going to suddenly turn me anorexic. I'll do my research as comprehensively as I always have.

I get what you're saying, though. It can be dangerous to recommend going too low in weight. I knew going into this question that that wasn't really an option; I just wanted to know if I should put on a few pounds for better rowing performance. And it does appear the answer is basically "no," unless I'm going for all power on really short sprints.

I get where you're coming from; when it comes to questions of health, you're just being cautious, and I appreciate that. But I'm cautious myself.

Edit: And yes, I imagine if people saw a pic of me, they wouldn't recommend losing weight. I'm quite fit and I've got a fair amount of muscle, but quite low body fat. For my height, going below 175 probably isn't a good idea.

[mitchel674]

OP, you're doing 10k pieces several times per week at 2:00 pace (from another thread). Your times seem great to me.

If you're trying to gain in your 2k time, perhaps you just need to do more speed work.

[Fathoms77]

OP, you're doing 10k pieces several times per week at 2:00 pace (from another thread). Your times seem great to me.

If you're trying to gain in your 2k time, perhaps you just need to do more speed work.

Yeah, it's the speed times I want to increase. I can barely break 7:30 on the 2K as is, and I think it's just because I'm geared more toward the long distances.

Perhaps a mix of different tiered workouts, and 1 "engine building workout" of 40-60 minutes each week is what I need, as opposed to just 3 stints of rowing between 10K and 15K.

[Dangerscouse]

Yeah, it's the speed times I want to increase. I can barely break 7:30 on the 2K as is, and I think it's just because I'm geared more toward the long distances.

Perhaps a mix of different tiered workouts, and 1 "engine building workout" of 40-60 minutes each week is what I need, as opposed to just 3 stints of rowing between 10K and 15K.

Yeah, three weekly rows of 10-15k will slowly help you to get faster, but it will be really slow especially if they are all steady paced sessions as you just won't adapt to the stress of a 2k.

The best way to improve your 2k is to do specific training for it. Lots of intervals and more 5k, 6k and 30 mins sessions will be far more beneficial. Maybe start doing The Pete Plan as that has a great mix of intervals and longer distances too.

[Fathoms77]

Yeah, it's the speed times I want to increase. I can barely break 7:30 on the 2K as is, and I think it's just because I'm geared more toward the long distances.

Perhaps a mix of different tiered workouts, and 1 "engine building workout" of 40-60 minutes each week is what I need, as opposed to just 3 stints of rowing between 10K and 15K.

Yeah, three weekly rows of 10-15k will slowly help you to get faster, but it will be really slow especially if they are all steady paced sessions as you just won't adapt to the stress of a 2k.

The best way to improve your 2k is to do specific training for it. Lots of intervals and more 5k, 6k and 30 mins sessions will be far more beneficial. Maybe start doing The Pete Plan as that has a great mix of intervals and longer distances too.

I just hate to lose all those calories I would normally burn, that's all. When you burn between 750 and 1,000 calories each time, you get used to eating a certain amount. To stay at my optimum weight, I get the sneaking suspicion I won't be able to eat the same way if I'm only at about 60% of that calorie burn, which I'll be at when I switch to faster, interval training.

But I'm pretty bored doing what I've been doing, so I need a change, anyway.

[jamesg]

Yeah, it's the speed times I want to increase. I can barely break 7:30 on the 2K as is, and I think it's just because I'm geared more toward the long distances.

At 65 I did a year of 5ks, then a month of tapering as to the then Interactive schedules. My typical 2ks were 7:10 to 7:20 at rate 28.

Slow 2ks like this don't need any special training. What is needed though: mileage and a large stroke given by use of standard rowing style. These ensure that when you do test you have the endurance and don't have to rate too high. If you use Watts to control your training, these requisites are simple to manage.

[mict450]

I just hate to lose all those calories I would normally burn, that's all. When you burn between 750 and 1,000 calories each time, you get used to eating a certain amount. To stay at my optimum weight, I get the sneaking suspicion I won't be able to eat the same way if I'm only at about 60% of that calorie burn, which I'll be at when I switch to faster, interval training.

Yep! That's the dirty, little secret that no one wants to talk about.....after a certain age (for me, it happened in my mid 30's) less calories does more for weight loss/maintenance than more exercise. I'm sure I got that bit of wisdom from this forum. However we do it, we have got to limit our food intake. Exercise is good for fitness, but a terribly inefficient way to lose weight. True, there is a small minority of the genetically gifted who can eat all they want, whenever & however frequently they want & still maintain their boyish figures. However, if we figure we fall in this category, we probably figure wrong. Another alternative one could try would be chemical enhancements. PED'S anyone? Comes with a pretty steep price tag, though!

[hjs]

OP, you're doing 10k pieces several times per week at 2:00 pace (from another thread). Your times seem great to me.

If you're trying to gain in your 2k time, perhaps you just need to do more speed work.

Yeah, it's the speed times I want to increase. I can barely break 7:30 on the 2K as is, and I think it's just because I'm geared more toward the long distances.

Perhaps a mix of different tiered workouts, and 1 "engine building workout" of 40-60 minutes each week is what I need, as opposed to just 3 stints of rowing between 10K and 15K.

Pulling 7.30 has nothing to do with your weight. And also nothing with being geared to long distance. if so this would be your 10k speed.

Re loosing cal. Burned. This really shows you never done shorter faster stuff. This will not burn less, but more energy and cost more time. You need much more warm up, cool down, you burn more after the session.

[Dangerscouse]

I just hate to lose all those calories I would normally burn, that's all. When you burn between 750 and 1,000 calories each time, you get used to eating a certain amount. To stay at my optimum weight, I get the sneaking suspicion I won't be able to eat the same way if I'm only at about 60% of that calorie burn, which I'll be at when I switch to faster, interval training.

But I'm pretty bored doing what I've been doing, so I need a change, anyway.

You will still need to do long and slow distances in addition to the short and sharp sessions so your calories shouldn't be affected. The only real impact I can think of is that you, ideally, need to spend more time on the erg, not least as your longer distances should be slower to allow you to accommodate the increased effort of 2k training.

Those 10-15k sessions aren't to be removed, you just need to add in intervals and maybe replace one of them if you don't have the time. I'm training for a 2k competition in just over a week but I'm still aiming to do two HMs, or at least 10 miles, a week.

I suspect your calorie burn will increase as the mixture of fast and slow will be such a difference your metabolism and brain will not be able to switch into automatic pilot.

[MartinSH4321]

Stu is exactly on spot, the faster sessions will help you in many ways, you'll get both fitter and stronger (great for 2k), in the long run the risk of boredom is lower and your basic metabolic rate will be a good bit higher.

[Fathoms77]

Yeah, it's the speed times I want to increase. I can barely break 7:30 on the 2K as is, and I think it's just because I'm geared more toward the long distances.

At 65 I did a year of 5ks, then a month of tapering as to the then Interactive schedules. My typical 2ks were 7:10 to 7:20 at rate 28.

Slow 2ks like this don't need any special training. What is needed though: mileage and a large stroke given by use of standard rowing style. These ensure that when you do test you have the endurance and don't have to rate too high. If you use Watts to control your training, these requisites are simple to manage.

What damper setting did you typically use for the 2K?

[Fathoms77]

I just hate to lose all those calories I would normally burn, that's all. When you burn between 750 and 1,000 calories each time, you get used to eating a certain amount. To stay at my optimum weight, I get the sneaking suspicion I won't be able to eat the same way if I'm only at about 60% of that calorie burn, which I'll be at when I switch to faster, interval training.

Yep! That's the dirty, little secret that no one wants to talk about.....after a certain age (for me, it happened in my mid 30's) less calories does more for weight loss/maintenance than more exercise. I'm sure I got that bit of wisdom from this forum. However we do it, we have got to limit our food intake. Exercise is good for fitness, but a terribly inefficient way to lose weight. True, there is a small minority of the genetically gifted who can eat all they want, whenever & however frequently they want & still maintain their boyish figures. However, if we figure we fall in this category, we probably figure wrong. Another alternative one could try would be chemical enhancements. PED'S anyone? Comes with a pretty steep price tag, though!

Indeed. I saw a study earlier this year that basically confirms this:

There were two control groups and both groups reduced their calorie intake to exactly the same amount. But one group exercised regularly and the other didn't. The results were that the exercise group did lose more weight, but not a huge amount more. It proved that your diet has a much bigger impact on weight gain/loss.

Of course, that's for most normal people who can only burn so many calories per workout. Elite athletes that can burn a lot more can much more easily lose weight with exercise. But either way, it's a good fact to remember.

[jamesg]

What damper setting did you typically use for the 2K?

Probably then around 130. Nowadays 85.

[Big J]

I agree that losing weight at 175lb and 6ft 3" would be unwise, and counterproductive for rowing.

My brother is much shorter than me, at 6ft 2". He's got a long history of weight training for health and fitness, and he's also quite fit. He does a lot of circuits, some of which involve rowing (which he's not great at because he stubbornly refuses to work on his technique). My point is, he's 95kg and has what I'd regard as a balanced physique. Perhaps a little bit more muscular than is required for rowing, but he does deadlift 220kg, squat 177.5kg and bench 127.5kg. But he does not look anything other than fit and healthy. He was 105kg and a bit portlier in spring and has lost 10kg this year.

What I'm trying to say is that at 6ft 3", I'd recommend 90kg (200lb) as a good, all-round weight for strength, fitness and health. That's a BMI of 24.8, which puts you towards the upper end of what's considered the 'healthy' range, but it's accepted that for athletes and tall people, you really need to be towards the top end. I'm 6ft 8", 120kg and my BMI is 29.