The Two Types of Training

[johnlvs2run]

Watts and joules have everything to do with energy expenditure on the erg.

Maximizing energy output per stroke is the opposite of efficiency.

To maximize one is to minimize the other.

The best times come iin between them, but much closer to efficiency than effectiveness.

This, when effectiveness is defined as maximum output per stroke.

Nav you are a good example of this, as your best event is the 500m where you rated 51 spm.

You rate much less, more meters per stroke (slower), in all the other events, and they do not compare to your 500m.

You are efficient at the 500m.

You have more effectiveness, i.e. energy expended per stroke at all the other distances.

And you are nowhere as close to being as efficient at them.

[bellboy]

You have correctly stated that the Erg is a training tool. Emphasis on the word "training". It would appear that MVB trains on his erg but competes to a very high standard otw.You dont (we have seen the video). So after your 60 million metres and devoting a large proportion of your day(every day?) to it you ended up with a time of 7.11. So all you have you developed is the "mastery" of a training tool!
That Head of the Charles stroke you have started banging on about? Well i reckon my teenage nocturnal fumblings had more style and efficiency

[macroth]

Doesn't the Watt reading on the erg tell us how much energy came OUT of our effort, not how much energy we put INTO our effort?

[detlefchef]

Doesn't the Watt reading on the erg tell us how much energy came OUT of our effort, not how much energy we put INTO our effort?

That's how I would understand it. If I read John Rupps' last post correctly, it would be as if the C2 could somehow actually tap into your body and determine how hard you're working.

[snowleopard]

You rate much less, more meters per stroke (slower), in all the other events, and they do not compare to your 500m.

Well of course he does. The physiological demands of a predominantly anaerobic 500m sprint are entirely different to those of longer distances and the technique used is different also. You simply can't make a comparison.

[NavigationHazard]

For convenience' sake, let's define biomechanical efficiency as maximum sustainable muscular output per unit of metabolic input. Pray tell, how do you propose to measure that through spi?

If nothing else, the erg calculates watts per stroke by averaging instantaneous watts over the duration of the stroke. It doesn't care one whit about how the requisite handle force is generated. Neither does the derived metric "spi." But the rower does care.

Trivially, the monitor doesn't care whether the rower is rowing 'normally' or holding the handle in his/her teeth. The monitor doesn't care if you're rowing arms only, arms and back, or full body. It doesn't care if you're rowing quarter slide, half slide, full slide, or no slide at all. In fact it has no way of 'knowing' what you're doing to move the handle. As far as it's concerned you could be a trained seal, or a lawnmower-engine crankshaft.

More reasonably: as long as the instantaneous watts average comes out the same, the monitor cannot tell whether the rower is (say) stomping the catch with enormous peak force, rowing with evenly distributed force, or rowing with a late force peak. It has no way of knowing whether the rower is wasting energy by mistiming the catch, letting the chain bounce, shooting the slide, or doing any of the other biomechanically inefficient things a rower can do. All it cares about is calculating output. Thus SPI as a derived metric can never capture a rower's biomechanical efficiency.

[johnlvs2run]

Doesn't the Watt reading on the erg tell us how much energy came OUT of our effort, not how much energy we put INTO our effort?

Sure, it ignores the height, weight, age and gender of the rower.

But still, there is no energy "out" without energy "in", the energy out depends on and comes from the energy in.

None of that is relevant to the point though, which is that maximizing "effectiveness", causes "efficiency" to be minimized.

It is impossible to have maximum effectiveness and maximum efficiency at the same time, as they are opposites.

[johnlvs2run]

The physiological demands of a predominantly anaerobic 500m sprint are entirely different to those of longer distances and the technique used is different also.

Nav averaged 8 meters per stroke for his 500 meters.

Lightweights Ebbesen, Luini, Stephansen average 8 meters per stroke for the 2k.

Sure, comparisons can be made.

I averaged 8 meters per stroke for my first marathon.

A marathon is 84 times the distance of a 500m sprint.

[macroth]

An apple is about the same size as an orange.

[snowleopard]

The physiological demands of a predominantly anaerobic 500m sprint are entirely different to those of longer distances and the technique used is different also.

Nav averaged 8 meters per stroke for his 500 meters.

Lightweights Ebbesen, Luini, Stephansen average 8 meters per stroke for the 2k.

Sure, comparisons can be made.

I averaged 8 meters per stroke for my first marathon.

A marathon is 84 times the distance of a 500m sprint.

I thought you were trying to compare efficiency, not meters per stroke.

[Citroen]

An apple is about the same size as an orange.

Not in Ranger-land with Ranger-speak, Ranger-math and Ranger-physics it isn't. For example, he keeps suggesting 500m is exactly the same as 42,195m in his private universe.

[walterchaos]

In my 2Ks, I will now pull

ranger

Ah, that's why he puts the handle down mid race.

[NavigationHazard]

... the point though, ... is that maximizing "effectiveness", causes "efficiency" to be minimized.

It is impossible to have maximum effectiveness and maximum efficiency at the same time, as they are opposites.

If what you mean is that as a general proposition, high spi can't be sustained at high ratings, fine. Other things equal, spi can't be held constant simply by raising the rating. Rating increases arithmetically, whereas the wattage requirement increases with a cubic relationship; moreover the concomitant increase in the frequency of contractions plus the shortening of recoveries within the stroke cycle quickly does you in.

But that has nothing to do with "effectiveness" and "efficiency." What is maximally effective is whatever gets you to the finish line fastest. For that SPI is irrelevant. As for biomechanical efficiency, since you can't measure metabolic input vs. output there's no way to determine it in rowing.

[aharmer]

Unless this is out of line, why don't we get back to talk of training. I come on here primarily to learn from others that are either faster, more experienced, or both.

Unfortunately I learn absolutely nothing when the talk is of Rich and his fictional training. Let's let him have his own thread where he can post 30 messages a day between midnight and 4am. At this point I don't care if he pulls 5:58 or 7:18 by the end of the year.

I'd like to hear about how Nav intends to lower his 500, or maybe how he's going to improve the rows that are lacking behind his 500 according to the charts. And not just Nav, anybody else that has a plan and would like to share.

[johnlvs2run]

But that has nothing to do with "effectiveness" and "efficiency."

effectiveness = the energy expended in each stroke;
efficiency = combining effectiveness with high ratings.

Sure it does.
Maximizing the effectiveness is very costly energywise over time.
This is why Rich divides the watts by time, to get rid of the influence of time.

What is maximally effective is whatever gets you to the finish line fastest.

effectiveness = the energy expended in each stroke;
efficiency = combining effectiveness with high ratings.

Efficiency is what gets you to the finish line fastest.

For that SPI is irrelevant.

Right. Effectiveness is irrelevant, except when combined with high ratings.

As for biomechanical efficiency, since you can't measure metabolic input vs. output there's no way to determine it in rowing.

Just look at the monitor. Pace, watts, they are both shown on the monitor.