Team Row Pain, Row Gain

[old] rowmantic · Post by **[old] rowmantic** » October 14th, 2005, 10:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cnapier @ Oct 14 2005, 11:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rowmantic @ Oct 12 2005, 11:02 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi All,<br /><br />snip <br /> <br /> been training for the Head of the Charles; <br /><br />snip<br /><br />~Grace <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Grace,<br /><br />I sure hope you don't own a pike... <br /><br />but I'm going to keep an extra watchful eye towards my rear regardless.<br /><br />Charles<br />254/201/158 <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Okay, Charles, help the ignorant....what is a pike?<br />~Grace

[old] rowmantic · Post by **[old] rowmantic** » October 14th, 2005, 11:01 pm

Hi Meri,<br /> I am impressed that you posted such a fast time for your 10k with the damper set on 10. Just imagine how much faster you will be when you can sustain the 2:15-2:16 split with the damper set at 5. I'll be checking the rankings for the 50-59 year old women to watch you move up. Although you 5th place position is nothing to sneeze at. <br /> I personally like to row with the spm between 18-22 when I row for longer than 40 minutes. Did you row your 10k with the spm at 30-32?<br />~Grace<br />

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » October 15th, 2005, 12:08 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 14 2005, 04:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <br />For example (as someone else posted), Dwayne Adams (about 1.9m/100kg) rowed a 5:47.1 2K at a 130 DF. When Dwayne switched from rowing at the maximum DF to rowing at a 120 DF (and training at 110 DF), his 2K time dropped 16 seconds!<br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Dropped to what? 5:31! Some how that seems a bit twisted. Are you sure that you didn't mean that his 2k time increased? His current posted 2k time would fit that. I don't get it unless "dropped" has some esoteric meaning among Net-heads that I haven't figured out yet.<br /><br />Bob S., curmudgeon.

[old] cnapier · Post by **[old] cnapier** » October 15th, 2005, 6:34 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rowmantic @ Oct 14 2005, 09:53 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cnapier @ Oct 14 2005, 11:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rowmantic @ Oct 12 2005, 11:02 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi All,<br /><br />snip <br /> <br /> been training for the Head of the Charles; <br /><br />snip<br /><br />~Grace <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Grace,<br /><br />I sure hope you don't own a pike... <br /><br />but I'm going to keep an extra watchful eye towards my rear regardless.<br /><br />Charles<br />254/201/158 <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Okay, Charles, help the ignorant....what is a pike?<br />~Grace <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Good morning Grace,<br /><br />A pike is a long spear used by the infantry in days of old, one of the less civilized practices was to display the severed head of the vanquished upon the end of your pike. <br /><br />Tis the bane of having a head full of useless information and facts that comes with being a Mensan.<br /><br />Charles<br />254/201/158

[old] rowmantic · Post by **[old] rowmantic** » October 15th, 2005, 11:05 am

Good morning Grace,<br /><br />A pike is a long spear used by the infantry in days of old, one of the less civilized practices was to display the severed head of the vanquished upon the end of your pike. <br /><br />Tis the bane of having a head full of useless information and facts that comes with being a Mensan.<br /><br />Charles<br />254/201/158 <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Hmmm, I am a former Air Force Officer who still keeps a "pike" (my javelin) although I no longer compete with it. So, in reality, I could find another use for it. But, I still do not intend to row with a pike at the Head of the Charles Regatta in Boston next Saturday. I would think with a Regatta that bears your name, you might be inspired to learn to row on the water and compete there one day.<br />~Grace<br />

[old] Meri Goehring · Post by **[old] Meri Goehring** » October 15th, 2005, 6:28 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rowmantic @ Oct 14 2005, 10:01 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Meri,<br /> I am impressed that you posted such a fast time for your 10k with the damper set on 10. Just imagine how much faster you will be when you can sustain the 2:15-2:16 split with the damper set at 5. I'll be checking the rankings for the 50-59 year old women to watch you move up. Although you 5th place position is nothing to sneeze at. <br /> I personally like to row with the spm between 18-22 when I row for longer than 40 minutes. Did you row your 10k with the spm at 30-32?<br />~Grace <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Thanks for your comments. My body likes an spm of around 30 for some reason, even with the 10 damper. My splits vary. With the 5 damper, my body seems to want to pull faster at first, but I find I can't reduce the splits unless I slow down. With Mike's explanation, this now seems MUCH clearer. <br />I don't really know if I can sustain 2:15-2:16 with the damper at 5 yet. I did fairly well with my 5000 this AM though. I am 6' tall, down to 204lbs (from 220 when I started rowing in May, goal of 180). I'm certain my height and weight help keep the speed up, and as I am 51 I am in the lower end of the age grouping, which probably also gives me some advantage. However, it is encouraging to see I seem to rank pretty high. Maybe someday I'll get out on water. That must be fun!<br />Meri

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » October 16th, 2005, 1:24 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Oct 14 2005, 09:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 14 2005, 04:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <br />For example (as someone else posted), Dwayne Adams (about 1.9m/100kg) rowed a 5:47.1 2K at a 130 DF. When Dwayne switched from rowing at the maximum DF to rowing at a 120 DF (and training at 110 DF), his 2K time dropped 16 seconds!<br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Dropped to what? 5:31! Some how that seems a bit twisted. Are you sure that you didn't mean that his 2k time increased? His current posted 2k time would fit that. I don't get it unless "dropped" has some esoteric meaning among Net-heads that I haven't figured out yet.<br /><br />Bob S., curmudgeon. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I don't think the author meant his time dropped from 5:47.1 by 16 seconds, but that when he changed from rowing at the "maximum" DF (160 or so) to 120 his 2K time was 16 seconds faster (still not necessarily referring to his 5:47.1 time, which he apparently rowed at a 130 DF). The point being that it is easier to row faster and longer at a lower DF than at a higher DF.<br /><br />We all need to find the DF we prefer and determine our objectives: rowing a row boat or a sleek shell. <br /><br />In giving this some thought, and based on my own experience rowing on my B at home, and a C at the Y, I'm inclined to think that more calories may actually be burned with a high drag factor, but based on what I keep reading this may be more a perception than a reality. One thing I know though is that with a lower DF I can row longer than with a high DF and I can reach a faster split at a lower DF than a higher DF. Still, I think it would be useful to find out how many rowers who lose weight are rowing at high DFs and low DFs. (I think rowing a row boat requires more strength (hence the reference to a high DF as being "weight lifting") and that would require more muscle, and more muscle should result in a higher metabolism, which should result in more calories burned -- what does everyone think?)<br /><br />In other words, there may be two groups of rowers: those who want to lose weight (row rowboats) and those who want to post faster and faster times (rowers)?<br /><br />Mike

[old] deppe4 · Post by **[old] deppe4** » October 16th, 2005, 4:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 16 2005, 12:24 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Oct 14 2005, 09:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 14 2005, 04:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <br />For example (as someone else posted), Dwayne Adams (about 1.9m/100kg) rowed a 5:47.1 2K at a 130 DF. When Dwayne switched from rowing at the maximum DF to rowing at a 120 DF (and training at 110 DF), his 2K time dropped 16 seconds!<br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Dropped to what? 5:31! Some how that seems a bit twisted. Are you sure that you didn't mean that his 2k time increased? His current posted 2k time would fit that. I don't get it unless "dropped" has some esoteric meaning among Net-heads that I haven't figured out yet.<br /><br />Bob S., curmudgeon. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />We all need to find the DF we prefer and determine our objectives: rowing a row boat or a sleek shell. <br /><br />Still, I think it would be useful to find out how many rowers who lose weight are rowing at high DFs and low DFs. (I think rowing a row boat requires more strength (hence the reference to a high DF as being "weight lifting") and that would require more muscle, and more muscle should result in a higher metabolism, which should result in more calories burned -- what does everyone think?)<br /><br />In other words, there may be two groups of rowers: those who want to lose weight (row rowboats) and those who want to post faster and faster times (rowers)?<br /><br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I don't want to row a boat but I still want to loose weight. My cardio routine isn't for me a weight training session, it's about trying to burn fat, and if along the way I build muscle and tone up, then that's a cherry on top.<br /><br />I row at a lower DF, my damper is set at 3 (I've a Model D) 5 to 6 days a week. I chose this setting since I've a sensitive back, and the thought of rowing a row boat is not at all appealing to me. I saw my biggest improvements (in inches lost) when I rowed for 6000m each time I rowed, which takes me about 36ish minutes or more depending on what kind of day I'm having on the rower. My goal is to row each time for 40 minutes (6 days wk) with improved splits, because this is how I loose weight.<br /><br />The weight isn't falling off in leaps and bounds; however, I have steadily lost inches from my waist and thighs, which I wasn't able to do 9 months ago when I was weight training (2 days a wk) and elliptical walking up hills (4-5 days wk). <br /><br />I haven't weight trained in 10 weeks, nor done any other cardio outside of rowing. But, I do plan on trying to put weight training back into my routine sometime soon, because it's good for bone density and metabolism.<br /><br />-deppe<br />

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » October 16th, 2005, 5:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't want to row a boat but I still want to loose weight. My cardio routine isn't for me a weight training session, it's about trying to burn fat, and if along the way I build muscle and tone up, then that's a cherry on top.<br /><br />I row at a lower DF, my damper is set at 3 (I've a Model D) 5 to 6 days a week. I chose this setting since I've a sensitive back, and the thought of rowing a row boat is not at all appealing to me. I saw my biggest improvements (in inches lost) when I rowed for 6000m each time I rowed, which takes me about 36ish minutes or more depending on what kind of day I'm having on the rower. My goal is to row each time for 40 minutes (6 days wk) with improved splits, because this is how I loose weight.<br /><br />The weight isn't falling off in leaps and bounds; however, I have steadily lost inches from my waist and thighs, which I wasn't able to do 9 months ago when I was weight training (2 days a wk) and elliptical walking up hills (4-5 days wk). <br /><br />I haven't weight trained in 10 weeks, nor done any other cardio outside of rowing. But, I do plan on trying to put weight training back into my routine sometime soon, because it's good for bone density and metabolism.<br /><br />-deppe </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi Deppe,<br /><br />Thanks for this information -- this is what I was looking for. <br /><br />While I was riding a bicycle on Saturday I was thinking about rowing and it seems to me that spinning on a bicycle is the same as rowing at a low DF -- and spinning is definitely cardio and burns fat.<br /><br />So I'll keep rowing at a low DF on the Model C, but on my B I have no choice but to row at a high DF. When I stopped rowing at a low DF on the C, I noticed that my weight loss slowed down (maybe it's muscle since I also began weight lifting again). At age 59, it is taking a long time to drop pounds, but its finally happening.<br /><br />A damper setting at 3 is sweet -- I can really kick up the splits and go for a long, long time. <br /><br />Mike

[old] Sleepy_Floyd · Post by **[old] Sleepy_Floyd** » October 16th, 2005, 5:20 pm

i've been erging about 3-1/2 months now, and I pretty much row exclusively at a DF around 110.. Damper Setting 3. I'm not sure what exactly defines the "weight falling off of me", but I really couldnt be happier with the weight loss results I've achieved using the DF I'm using. I also know that I would not be able to row very long with a higher damper setting, i'd probably last about 10 strokes with the damper at 10.<br /><br />my feeling is that whatever setting allows you to burn the most calories is going to cause the most weight loss.. so, if Low DF's allow you to row longer distances for greater lengths of time, then you're better off rowing at a low DF. <br /><br /><br />

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » October 16th, 2005, 10:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 16 2005, 02:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Deppe,<br />So I'll keep rowing at a low DF on the Model C, but on my B I have no choice but to row at a high DF.<br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br /><br />You do have another choice. You can add additional damping to a Model B. I found that simply slipping a cardboard box over my B lowered the DF by over 100 - from 162 down to 52. You can't tell this with the old monitor that comes on the B, but a PM3 installed on a B will give you the DF. I don't know about the PM2.<br /><br />I lucked out on having just the right size box around. It was the packaging of a floor fan and was flexible enough to slip right over the cage of the B and was big enough to cover it completely. Of course a DF of 52 is far too low, but I could adjust it by just pulling the box off partway or by cutting up the box. I haven't used it in practice. I just tried it out as an experiment.<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />Bob S.

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » October 17th, 2005, 1:08 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Oct 16 2005, 07:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 16 2005, 02:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Deppe,<br />So I'll keep rowing at a low DF on the Model C, but on my B I have no choice but to row at a high DF.<br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br /><br />You do have another choice. You can add additional damping to a Model B. I found that simply slipping a cardboard box over my B lowered the DF by over 100 - from 162 down to 52. You can't tell this with the old monitor that comes on the B, but a PM3 installed on a B will give you the DF. I don't know about the PM2.<br /><br />I lucked out on having just the right size box around. It was the packaging of a floor fan and was flexible enough to slip right over the cage of the B and was big enough to cover it completely. Of course a DF of 52 is far too low, but I could adjust it by just pulling the box off partway or by cutting up the box. I haven't used it in practice. I just tried it out as an experiment.<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Bob,<br /><br />That's a great idea. I read somewhere about using a towel and I tried that the other day (putting the towel over the flywheel) but it really, really reduced the DF -- probably similar to your experience with the box before you adjusted it. Someone posted that at one time Concept2 sold a hood that could be used.<br /><br />I'll experiment with a box or a towel (I have a PM3 monitor) and see what happens by making some adjustments. I would love to get my B's DF lower and row at home instead of driving to the Y to use its C.<br /><br />So far I'm feeling better about the lower DF and losing weight. I put in over 2,000,000 meters since May 1st and only lost a few pounds, but since watching my diet I have lost about 10 pounds in 4 weeks, but after doing less meters at a higher DF the weight loss has slowed down, so I think more meters at a lower DF is the "weigh" to go.<br /><br />Mike<br />

[old] code_monkey · Post by **[old] code_monkey** » October 17th, 2005, 11:11 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 16 2005, 09:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So far I'm feeling better about the lower DF and losing weight. I put in over 2,000,000 meters since May 1st and only lost a few pounds, but since watching my diet I have lost about 10 pounds in 4 weeks, but after doing less meters at a higher DF the weight loss has slowed down, so I think more meters at a lower DF is the "weigh" to go.<br /><br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike, it's not that I'm happy about your slow weight loss, but it makes me feel better knowing that I'm not the only one having less than desired results. Granted, I don't put in near as many meters as you do (~460K this season) but it's more than I was doing before so I figure I should be losing a few pounds.<br />I had figured I could keep eating the same, which isn't TOO bad, as long as I increased the exercise. I suppose I'll need to adjust the food intake a little to see if that gets me anywhere...<br />I also don't have a scale so I'm just looking to have my clothes fit differently.<br /><br />-jason

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » October 17th, 2005, 11:28 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(code_monkey @ Oct 17 2005, 08:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 16 2005, 09:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So far I'm feeling better about the lower DF and losing weight. I put in over 2,000,000 meters since May 1st and only lost a few pounds, but since watching my diet I have lost about 10 pounds in 4 weeks, but after doing less meters at a higher DF the weight loss has slowed down, so I think more meters at a lower DF is the "weigh" to go.<br /><br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike, it's not that I'm happy about your slow weight loss, but it makes me feel better knowing that I'm not the only one having less than desired results. Granted, I don't put in near as many meters as you do (~460K this season) but it's more than I was doing before so I figure I should be losing a few pounds.<br />I had figured I could keep eating the same, which isn't TOO bad, as long as I increased the exercise. I suppose I'll need to adjust the food intake a little to see if that gets me anywhere...<br />I also don't have a scale so I'm just looking to have my clothes fit differently.<br /><br />-jason <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jason,<br /><br />I thought I could eat the same and row and lose weight too, but until I started limiting my diet I wasn't seeing any great results. Since reducing my carbon intake, I'm beginning to see more weight loss and today I noticed for the first time that my waist is a little smaller.<br /><br />Thinking about this, I realized that everytime I have lost weight while exercising, I have reduced my calories. This was the first time that I thought that if I rowed an average of 13K per day without changing my diet that I would lose weight. <br /><br />Mike

[old] Sleepy_Floyd · Post by **[old] Sleepy_Floyd** » October 17th, 2005, 2:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(code_monkey @ Oct 17 2005, 11:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Oct 16 2005, 09:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So far I'm feeling better about the lower DF and losing weight. I put in over 2,000,000 meters since May 1st and only lost a few pounds, but since watching my diet I have lost about 10 pounds in 4 weeks, but after doing less meters at a higher DF the weight loss has slowed down, so I think more meters at a lower DF is the "weigh" to go.<br /><br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike, it's not that I'm happy about your slow weight loss, but it makes me feel better knowing that I'm not the only one having less than desired results. Granted, I don't put in near as many meters as you do (~460K this season) but it's more than I was doing before so I figure I should be losing a few pounds.<br />I had figured I could keep eating the same, which isn't TOO bad, as long as I increased the exercise. I suppose I'll need to adjust the food intake a little to see if that gets me anywhere...<br />I also don't have a scale so I'm just looking to have my clothes fit differently.<br /><br />-jason <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The only way you'll lose weight is if your calorie burn is greater than your calorie intake. Its possible that just adding the exercise will be enough to tip the scales back towards losing weight, but in most cases even if its enough, the weight loss will be slow. <br /><br /><br /><br />

Concept2 Forum

Team Row Pain, Row Gain

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control