An examination of WR lightweight marks age 30 on up

[NavigationHazard]

No, it's not "precise age-related decline." Instead >estimated< age-related decline in performance derived from fitting a curve to a set of data is shown. The curve is not reality. It tries as best as possible to connect a set of discrete real-world data points. Some of these might actually be 'on the curve'; none of them actually need be; all of them in theory could be, but that hardly ever happens with real-world distributions. More than likely, some of the underlying results are going to be 'above the curve' and some are going to be 'below the curve.' How that looks in relation to the plotted curve will depend on the distribution of the underlying data.

I forgot to add before that the Seiler study is predicated on data from 2500m results. It's probably mostly valid for 2000m results but IMO could stand adjustment for the shorter distance (25% less rowing). I would be quite wary of using it to predict anything about 500m results, or at the other end of the spectrum marathons (for simplicity' sake, on account of different compromises required between strength and power).

[johnlvs2run]

No, it's not "precise age-related decline."

It is precise based on the WRs at the time.

There is nothing that is more precise than is this, except an updating for the new WR by Stephansen.

Instead >estimated< age-related decline in performance derived from fitting a curve to a set of data is shown. The curve is not reality. It tries as best as possible to connect a set of discrete real-world data points. Some of these might actually be 'on the curve'; none of them actually need be; all of them in theory could be, but that hardly ever happens with real-world distributions. More than likely, some of the underlying results are going to be 'above the curve' and some are going to be 'below the curve.' How that looks in relation to the plotted curve will depend on the distribution of the underlying data.

That is not exactly true in this case anyway, as the 2k WR curve is NOT a distribution of best fit.

In fact, the curve is made FROM the age WR performances.

From memory I believe that 8 or 9 of the age WR performances are EXACTLY on the curve.

There are NO data points that are above the curve.

[leadville]

My take is muscle fiber type (fast twitch:slow twitch ratio) likely has a significant role in determining which athletes excel at which distances.

Sure, size and maxVO2 are critical to performance overall, but within the HW and LW categories, muscle fiber type is probably more important than any other single factor

Similar to track athletes where sprinters are 'slow' at marathon distances, and vice versa, those rowers with higher percentages of fast twitch muscle fibers will be able to produce more power over the shorter distances, but cannot sustain that power output for the longer distances, where their slow-twitch competitors benefit from their ability to produce power without overwhelming quantities of lactic acid.

If one is using the erg to train for summer racing (1ks), than the goal should be performance over that distance, and not over 2k. This does NOT mean lots of intervals and sprints etc now.

I do wonder if the decline in WRs on the erg has anything to do with the elite-est focusing their training activity on the 1k distance.

[bloomp]

Mike,

Over the next week I'm gonna find some time to look at similar but different comparison. I was hypothesizing that while there may be more equality in the number of OTW/ergers that have won hammers, or set a WR at the 2k distance, there will be many more OTW rowers within 5% of the top score wattage (or pace).

Now my problem is that I don't have the knowledge of who is and isn't an OTW rower (and I hope C2 reposts their Crash-B results soon). But I'll correspond names on erg WRs and other fast times to names of OTW rowers on results from international competition.

Maybe I'll see what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm nuts. But I think that at least proportionately you'll see many more OTW rowers that are 'close' to the top spot.

[hjs]

My take is muscle fiber type (fast twitch:slow twitch ratio) likely has a significant role in determining which athletes excel at which distances.

Sure, size and maxVO2 are critical to performance overall, but within the HW and LW categories, muscle fiber type is probably more important than any other single factor

Similar to track athletes where sprinters are 'slow' at marathon distances, and vice versa, those rowers with higher percentages of fast twitch muscle fibers will be able to produce more power over the shorter distances, but cannot sustain that power output for the longer distances, where their slow-twitch competitors benefit from their ability to produce power without overwhelming quantities of lactic acid.

If one is using the erg to train for summer racing (1ks), than the goal should be performance over that distance, and not over 2k. This does NOT mean lots of intervals and sprints etc now.

I do wonder if the decline in WRs on the erg has anything to do with the elite-est focusing their training activity on the 1k distance.

Although true, in rowing even a 500 meter is too long to be called " a sprint", and to make the comparison with running, top middle distance runner and even marathoners are not slow sprinters. A fast 1500 meter runner can go sub 11 on the 100 meter.
WR record holder on the fm Haile Gebreselasie also has a very decent 800 meter pb. I don,t think he has run sub 11 on the 100 meter, but I think he wasn,t far off.
Most people have 50/50 % fast and slow muscle fiber, give or take a few %.

[NavigationHazard]

Gebrselaisse started out as a middle-distance runner and moved up. I doubt that he's anywhere close these days to the times he recorded as a younger man.

I don't think US marathoning legend Frank Shorter ever broke 4 minutes in a mile race on the track. I do know that he was 4:06.8 for the mile indoors in college, three years before winning his gold in Munich in 1972. This would have put him maybe 10-12 seconds indoors and 15-16 seconds outdoors behind the world bests at the time in the mile. He would have been blown off the track at shorter distances. Verdict: fast at sprinting if compared to the general population; slow if compared to sport-specific specialists.

And if you stand this on its head, I would be astonished if anyone who ever stood on the podium for 100m at the Olympics ever ran a marathon under any circumstances. Sprinters tend to abhor distance.

[hjs]

Gebrselaisse started out as a middle-distance runner and moved up. I doubt that he's anywhere close these days to the times he recorded as a younger man.

I don't think US marathoning legend Frank Shorter ever broke 4 minutes in a mile race on the track. I do know that he was 4:06.8 for the mile indoors in college, three years before winning his gold in Munich in 1972. This would have put him maybe 10-12 seconds indoors and 15-16 seconds outdoors behind the world bests at the time in the mile. He would have been blown off the track at shorter distances. Verdict: fast at sprinting if compared to the general population; slow if compared to sport-specific specialists.

And if you stand this on its head, I would be astonished if anyone who ever stood on the podium for 100m at the Olympics ever ran a marathon under any circumstances. Sprinters tend to abhor distance.

Haile certainly can,t do what he used to do on the short stuff but that's not the point Nav. His genetic build up is the same.

He also did not start out as middle diatance runner, form junior on he ran 5 and 10 mostly. If that's middle distance you are right.
Age 19 1992 he won the 5 and 10 with big sprint finishes, he even got stomped on the back doing so...............

I just took him as an example, there are many, many more. Most Olympic and World cups Nowedays on the 5 and 10 k are won in the final laps, you need certain basic speed.
Look how often Paula Radcliffe didn,t win after leading the field for many rounds. Her basic speed was not high enough.

And indeed 11 sec on the 100 meter is pedestrian for a top sprinter. But a real sprinter won,t be of much use as a rower.
After 1 minute, no matter what sport, you need more than just fast muscle fibers.
True sprinter indeed can,t run a marathon.

[leadville]

My take is muscle fiber type (fast twitch:slow twitch ratio) likely has a significant role in determining which athletes excel at which distances.

Sure, size and maxVO2 are critical to performance overall, but within the HW and LW categories, muscle fiber type is probably more important than any other single factor

Similar to track athletes where sprinters are 'slow' at marathon distances, and vice versa, those rowers with higher percentages of fast twitch muscle fibers will be able to produce more power over the shorter distances, but cannot sustain that power output for the longer distances, where their slow-twitch competitors benefit from their ability to produce power without overwhelming quantities of lactic acid.

If one is using the erg to train for summer racing (1ks), than the goal should be performance over that distance, and not over 2k. This does NOT mean lots of intervals and sprints etc now.

I do wonder if the decline in WRs on the erg has anything to do with the elite-est focusing their training activity on the 1k distance.

Although true, in rowing even a 500 meter is too long to be called " a sprint", and to make the comparison with running, top middle distance runner and even marathoners are not slow sprinters. A fast 1500 meter runner can go sub 11 on the 100 meter.
WR record holder on the fm Haile Gebreselasie also has a very decent 800 meter pb. I don,t think he has run sub 11 on the 100 meter, but I think he wasn,t far off.
Most people have 50/50 % fast and slow muscle fiber, give or take a few %.

hjs - two points.

First, we aren't talking about 'most people', we're talking about a highly select few. There's no doubt muscle fiber type has a significant role in ability, and a difference of a couple percentage points can indeed be significant. But the differences in the athletic population are far greater than a couple of points. In fact, elite rowers have far more ST fibers than average, with some estimates as high as 85% ST. And power output is highly dependent on FT/ST composition, with athletes with high percentages of FT producing much more power - but only over short durations.

Which leads back to my original post - those who can go fast for 500 likely can't go fast for 2k. While 1k is certainly longer than 500m, I'll speculate that the fastest at 1k are somewhat different from the fastest at 2k ('fast' being relative to the top performance).

This from Stephen Seiler. (2005)

"When I determined the relationship between power output/kg for 500 meters and 2000 meters among 25 heavyweight men, the correlation was a weak 0.50. In the top 10 heavyweight women it was 0.07 or basically zero!"

Second, it's not just fast or slow twitch, as there are (at least) three types of fast twitch - types IIb and IId/x which are the anaerobic version, and type IIa which is sort of a hybrid between type IIb and slow twitch - producing more power than slow twitch but doing so aerobically. Those athletes with larger percentages of type IIa are going to be able to produce more power than those with a higher percentage of slow twitch (type I) yet don't produce as much lactic acid and other byproducts of anaerobic respiration as their competitors with more types IIb and IId/x. (with 'more' being relative).

Therefore, I'll stick by my original contention - the biggest single determinant of success (after size and mVO2) is muscle fiber composition

[NavigationHazard]

Heh. I'd say it's training , but you can only train well what your parents gave you to work with.

I completely agree about underlying fiber type being critical. There may not be much variation in Type I/Type II distribution among humans but even a little can count for a lot in terms of rowing performance at various distances. And as you say, differences in the Type IIa/b distribution really need to be taken into account as well.

[hjs]

My take is muscle fiber type (fast twitch:slow twitch ratio) likely has a significant role in determining which athletes excel at which distances.

Sure, size and maxVO2 are critical to performance overall, but within the HW and LW categories, muscle fiber type is probably more important than any other single factor

Similar to track athletes where sprinters are 'slow' at marathon distances, and vice versa, those rowers with higher percentages of fast twitch muscle fibers will be able to produce more power over the shorter distances, but cannot sustain that power output for the longer distances, where their slow-twitch competitors benefit from their ability to produce power without overwhelming quantities of lactic acid.

If one is using the erg to train for summer racing (1ks), than the goal should be performance over that distance, and not over 2k. This does NOT mean lots of intervals and sprints etc now.

I do wonder if the decline in WRs on the erg has anything to do with the elite-est focusing their training activity on the 1k distance.

Although true, in rowing even a 500 meter is too long to be called " a sprint", and to make the comparison with running, top middle distance runner and even marathoners are not slow sprinters. A fast 1500 meter runner can go sub 11 on the 100 meter.
WR record holder on the fm Haile Gebreselasie also has a very decent 800 meter pb. I don,t think he has run sub 11 on the 100 meter, but I think he wasn,t far off.
Most people have 50/50 % fast and slow muscle fiber, give or take a few %.

hjs - two points.

First, we aren't talking about 'most people', we're talking about a highly select few. There's no doubt muscle fiber type has a significant role in ability, and a difference of a couple percentage points can indeed be significant. But the differences in the athletic population are far greater than a couple of points. In fact, elite rowers have far more ST fibers than average, with some estimates as high as 85% ST. And power output is highly dependent on FT/ST composition, with athletes with high percentages of FT producing much more power - but only over short durations.

Which leads back to my original post - those who can go fast for 500 likely can't go fast for 2k. While 1k is certainly longer than 500m, I'll speculate that the fastest at 1k are somewhat different from the fastest at 2k ('fast' being relative to the top performance).

This from Stephen Seiler. (2005)

"When I determined the relationship between power output/kg for 500 meters and 2000 meters among 25 heavyweight men, the correlation was a weak 0.50. In the top 10 heavyweight women it was 0.07 or basically zero!"

Second, it's not just fast or slow twitch, as there are (at least) three types of fast twitch - types IIb and IId/x which are the anaerobic version, and type IIa which is sort of a hybrid between type IIb and slow twitch - producing more power than slow twitch but doing so aerobically. Those athletes with larger percentages of type IIa are going to be able to produce more power than those with a higher percentage of slow twitch (type I) yet don't produce as much lactic acid and other byproducts of anaerobic respiration as their competitors with more types IIb and IId/x. (with 'more' being relative).

Therefore, I'll stick by my original contention - the biggest single determinant of success (after size and mVO2) is muscle fiber composition

From my head the fastest 1k ever was done by a sub 5.40 rower. I can,t remember his name right now. Around 2.40 on the 1k, he also has a great 500 meter, he is from Estonia.

Indeed you are right about the hybride fibers. But there is also more, it's not just the right fibers, you also need to have the right build, a top rower is not a top swimmer or top runner in a race of the same length and vice versa.

About the 500/2k correlation, we are talking about 1.12/15 ? and 5.40/45 minutes. That's certainly not the same, but 70/75 seconds is way above what a real sprinter can do, so those who are good at 500 meter are no real sprinters, real sprinters would be good at 10/30 seconds om an erg, beyond that you need to be more then a sprinter.

But there are a few things to consider, first I don,t think many toprowers do fast 500 meters, mostly not even 1k s, and they also don,t train for those, so indeed you can,t find a good correlation between the 2k and 500 meter.
Everybody has a more or less max 2k but their 500 meter is often not there max., so what is there to look at.
Rowing is about 2k, all training is geared around being fast on 6/7 minutes.

[Bob S.]

Maybe I'll see what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm nuts. But I think that at least proportionately you'll see many more OTW rowers that are 'close' to the top spot.

Paul,

From my own observations, I doubt that there is a very large percentage of elite rowers who post erg scores. Just a week ago I saw evidence of this. While the Beach Sprints were going on, a veteran eight was getting a workout on the water. I didn't know all the members of the crew, but the three that I knew had all been Olympians. Their sport is OTW rowing and erging is only an alternative workout in bad weather.

Bob S.

[hjs]

Maybe I'll see what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm nuts. But I think that at least proportionately you'll see many more OTW rowers that are 'close' to the top spot.

Paul,

From my own observations, I doubt that there is a very large percentage of elite rowers who post erg scores. Just a week ago I saw evidence of this. While the Beach Sprints were going on, a veteran eight was getting a workout on the water. I didn't know all the members of the crew, but the three that I knew had all been Olympians. Their sport is OTW rowing and erging is only an alternative workout in bad weather.

Bob S.

Over here in Holland the top rowers do erg, but seldom if not never rank their results, not even the Dutch championships are ranked, and Holland is a handy little rowing country so their are always some good results.

[mikvan52]

Mike,

I was hypothesizing that while there may be more equality in the number of OTW/ergers that have won hammers, or set a WR at the 2k distance, there will be many more OTW rowers within 5% of the top score wattage (or pace).

Now my problem is that I don't have the knowledge of who is and isn't an OTW rower (and I hope C2 reposts their Crash-B results soon). But I'll correspond names on erg WRs and other fast times to names of OTW rowers on results from international competition.

I am amazed how few of the great OTW scullers I know ever try to max-out on the erg.

Some don't go for the 2k distance (they like 5-10k)

If you look at the Erg rankings for years and years, as I have, you notice just how few older men do the 500m and the 1k.
It must be because of the dramatic drop in raw strength over what seems to be an easy task.

The old adage: "You can do anything for 500 meters."
In my forties, I think I remember easily cracking the 1:30 500 barrier as a lwt. Just as a lark... Lots of guys were faster than me!


Now at 57.... ooops!
Men seem to get all stuffy about how virile they are.

I never could get guys in my 4+ (1990's) to post times.. they were ashamed our juniors in the club would know "their dirty little secrets"... they were slowing down....
It's not shameful in the least!

[NavigationHazard]

1) There may be a chicken-and-egg deal going on. If there were more people erging 500m and 1ks, you'd see those events more at competitons. OTOH if more competitions included those events, you'd get more ranked times. I think the annual Alfa 1k race in Tallin (the defacto Euro championships at the distance) has been demonstrating what can happen if you provide sufficient cachet for people like Pavel Shurmei to attend. There's nothing I know of in the US that has that kind of draw for the shorter distances, at least yet.

2) Increasing the numbers of OTW participants in the age groups won't necessarily increase their share of the top times. IMO it'll depend on the distance and/or also the weight category. At 500m I would expect non-OTW rowers to predominate. Moreover, it may be the case that the relatively few age-group rowers who post erg scores are those best suited to good erg times.

3) As rowers get older they often figure out how to row better. Their technicial proficiency in a boat often increases at the same time that their physiology is going the other way. Since technique is much less important on an erg than it is in a boat, there's probably no hard and fast correlation between good OTW results in the age groups and erg scores.
Or to put it another way, you're going to have to have good fitness to win something like Masters' Nationals. But it need not be fitness sufficient to put you on the podium in an erg championship. Case in point: Tom Bohrer these days. He can win HOTC in his division but has fallen out of the medals on an erg.

[mikvan52]

Nav':

Adding to my musing queries of a post ago:

Do you think that many 40+ ergers do Max 500s and "thousands" for time and just don't bother to (for whatever reason(s)) post them?

As a coach of novice 18-20 year olds (male and female) club rowers I also have noticed a reticence to post anything on their own. The outlook has seemed to be "I don't measure up. Why bother?"
I've made a practice of encouraging it though as it help with personal psychological training (read advancement)... It feeds out of the benefit of logging workouts as positive reinforcement.

I wonder if attitudes about such topics feed through one's entire life?
I tend to think they do.