Concept2 Forum

im 2 dam skinny i need muscle i lift 3 times a week and eat chicken all the time (not every meal) so ive only gained like 5pd since summer began
anything else i can do ?

Flippantly, I'd say, "Eat More Chicken!"

One technique you can employ is to give yourself a goal weight to reach in a specific period of time. Say, add 10 pounds over the next 4 weeks.
Then determine the BMR calories needed to simply maintain that new weight if all you did was lay around and watch Ninja Warrior repeats all day. Then tack on the calories you burn given your activity level in both rowing and weight lifting; err on the upside here. That's the minimum number calories you should try to consume daily.

Of course, these should not be empty calories from soda, ice cream, candy, energy bars, etc. Make your caloric intake work in assisting muscle development.

Also, have a coach or competent gym instructor review your weight lifting routine to make sure it is aligned with both muscle development and rowing. But remember that increased muscle mass burns more calories so this is an area for someone with an exercise physiology background can observe and assist you in both diet and excercise routine.

Weight and muscle gain take time to occur, be patient and persistent and you'll succeed.

thank u
if im 138.8 what should be my 2k or the are where it should be?

uarower wrote:thank u
if im 138.8 what should be my 2k or the are where it should be?

Hmmm! are you male or female? what age?

Why don't your start here...

http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/rankings.asp

Brian

male 17 5'10
yea ik ive looked but just thinking what people think it should

uarower wrote:male 17 5'10
yea ik ive looked but just thinking what people think it should

Tell us what you can pull for 500m and then maybe the forum experts can tell you what to expect if you're fully trained.

Brian

uarower wrote:male 17 5'10
yea ik ive looked but just thinking what people think it should

There is no way to answer this question.

However you can compare you time with someone who weighs more by using the formula velocity is proportional to weight to the 2/9 power.

So if you were 138.8 you should be about (160/138.8)^(2/9) = 1.03, slower then someone who weights 160.
So that means given equal technique if you can do a 7 min 2K on an erg, someone who weighs 160 and would have to do a 6:47 to be as fast as you.

Note there are a number of assumptions in this that don't really apply to rowing in an 8 but it is a good indicator or respective rowing fitness for different weights.

Nosmo wrote:However you can compare you time with someone who weighs more by using the formula velocity is proportional to weight to the 2/9 power...

Is that a formula to adjust expectations? I thought that it was to compare erg times with the OTW effect of rowing with equivalent technique by removing the added drag of a heavier crew drawing more water.

- Iain

iain wrote:

Nosmo wrote:However you can compare you time with someone who weighs more by using the formula velocity is proportional to weight to the 2/9 power...

Is that a formula to adjust expectations? I thought that it was to compare erg times with the OTW effect of rowing with equivalent technique by removing the added drag of a heavier crew drawing more water.

- Iain

The formula works for both.
All other things being equal, aerobic power is proportional to weight to the 2/3 power, and boat drag is also proportional to weight drag to the 2/3 power.

The reason for the former is that power is limited by the oxygen delivery capability of the blood vessels, which is proportional to the crosssectional area of the arteries (and hence the muscles). The reason for the later is that drag is proportional to the surface area of the boat which is also proportional to weight to the 2/3rds.

In reality one needs to add the total weight of the boat, oars and rowers, so one should add about 32 lbs to the body weights. Also aerobic power is proportional to muscle volume so for short events, the formula doesn't quite hold. For purely anaerobic events the exponent would be 1/3 rather then 2/9.

It also assumes the boats is designed equally for the weight of the rower. For most boats, adding weight above the design increase the drag by a bit less then 2/3 power of the formula. But if the rower is significantly below the design weight of the boat it will increase the drag by more then the 2/3 power.
Finally only about 80% of the drag is due to skin friction in a racing shell. Not sure what happens to the other factor with weight.

Can't prove it, but I think the 2/9th formula is a really fair comparison for different body weights on the erg and is probably a good deal fairer then using the erg to compare OTW ability. Would love to hear someone's reasons if they disagree with this statement.

"Ergs don't float."

EDIT: I didn't explicitly state that velocity is proportional to power to the 1/3 power. Which is why I use the 2/3 exponent when talking about power and 2/9 when talking about speed. Just in case anyone was confsued.

can any1 give me a good time or time where i should be ?

Thanks for clearing that up Nosmo. I was thinking that the difference was greater than that, it makes me realise that I am even further behind than I thought .

U, there is no one answer, the Forum has a massive range of abilities. It all depends uppon what you want to achieve. To be amongst the best in most gyms, a 7:30 2k would suffice. To be competitive for a varsity boat it would depend upon the College and how good your technique OTW is, but you would need to be sub 6:50. To win a Hammer at world championships sub-6:20, take your pick. On the other side, there are people who would like to go sub 8:00 for 2k. It is best to just set your own standard and then periodically challenge this for new PBs. If you have good technique, pace the distance well and are exhausted at the end, you are doing well andhave a good benchmark of what is good for you.

Nosmo wrote:
The formula works for both.
All other things being equal, aerobic power is proportional to weight to the 2/3 power, and boat drag is also proportional to weight drag to the 2/3 power.

I don't possibly see how this can work for both. On the water, weight is a detriment. On the erg is is not. Furthermore I don't see how aerobic ability can be measured by weight. Typically fit larger rowers are stronger than fit lighter rowers, but over distance the strength advantage is diminished. Still in general heavyweight rowers will have a bigger advantage on the erg than they do on the water all other things being equal.

What am I missing here?

tdekoekkoek wrote:

Nosmo wrote:
The formula works for both.
All other things being equal, aerobic power is proportional to weight to the 2/3 power, and boat drag is also proportional to weight drag to the 2/3 power.

I don't possibly see how this can work for both. On the water, weight is a detriment. On the erg is is not. Furthermore I don't see how aerobic ability can be measured by weight. Typically fit larger rowers are stronger than fit lighter rowers, but over distance the strength advantage is diminished. Still in general heavyweight rowers will have a bigger advantage on the erg than they do on the water all other things being equal.

What am I missing here?

The formula gives you a weight handicap on the erg--i.e. it tells you how much to expect the heavier rower to be because of the size difference.
On the water it compares speed given different weights and powers assuming equal technique.

Nosmo wrote:
The formula gives you a weight handicap on the erg--i.e. it tells you how much to expect the heavier rower to be because of the size difference.
On the water it compares speed given different weights and powers assuming equal technique.

OK. Thanks. I guess I didn't look at it very carefully. It didn't make sense to me at first.