The Two Types of Training

[bloomp]

Talking to rich about why he is wrong is like trying to convince a God-fearing Republican that socializing medicine is better than bolstering the military.

[KevJGK]

Or on the other hand, just tell us that you never intend to post anything so we can move on.

I can help you out there.

He is kidding with you and never intends to post anything.

[whp4]

Or on the other hand, just tell us that you never intend to post anything so we can move on.

I can help you out there.

He is kidding with you and never intends to post anything.

He'd like to post something, but has nothing to post. Maybe by the fall

[roeiert]

To come back to the different strokes ergometer vs. on the water.

1. Just for fun, I did some back of the envelope physics calculations of a rowing stroke on the water. For a good starting point, Google "Physics of rowing". Of course my calculations contain some simplifications and approximations, but they do show that at constant stroke length and constant speed, there is one ideal recovery:stroke ratio, around 2.4:1. At 2:1, roughly a second per 500m is lost. At 3:1, idem. Disclaimer: I took some shortcuts, so a valid conclusion would be what every rower knows, that there is an optimum ratio and that it is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. I believe 2.41:1 is quite accurate but I would have to do more calculations to prove it.

2. Similarly, the theory shows that there is one pace (strokes per minute) that is ideal at each velocity. The pace increases to first approximation with the square root of velocity. I think there is some empirical evidence for this as well. In a single scull, this flattening of the curve is within the range of training and race speeds. For larger boats, empirical results show a linear relation, but this is probably due to the fact that the flattening occurs at unreachable speeds and paces.

3. To instantaneously increase pace, one has basically two choices. One is to shorten the stroke. The other is to rush the slides. Clearly, shortening the stroke is the more effective. Another option is to increase the power and let the speed increase slowly increase your pace.

4. All this is very different on the ergometer, which is a static exercise machine designed to train rowing strokes, with some simple (but clever) conversion of flywheel acceleration and deceleration to 500m times somewhat faster than a single scull. Points 1-3 do not apply to the ergometer, or at least the machine is much less sensitive to it. Hence, one can row a much larger range of ratios and still go "fast" (actual center of mass speed is zero, actually). Without having proof for it, I believe optimizing the ratio for certain distances is a quite small, secondary effect. OTW rowers sticking to their ideal OTW ratio do not lose seconds because of that. Specific training, under supervision of an experienced coach, is what makes people faster. As said earlier in this thread, OTW rowers are in danger of rowing 'sloppily' on the erg without being penalized.

5. Points 1-3 are nice, but wind, wind ghusts, waves, and other effects cause huge disturbances to the ideal model. Rowers should develop 'boat sense' to be able to instantaneously react to circumstances which can vary within one race, even from lane to lane. Race rowers must accept this, be prepared for this, and mentally strong enough to handle it. Showing up at the starting racing venue means you're going to race, whether or not the circumstances are ideal.

6. Riggering, a source of endless debate among water rowers. I am not going to model this but experience tells us that a race can be lost by wrong riggering. The psychological effect allone of the stroke feeling 'wrong' canbe disturbing. Race rowers must accept this, be prepared for this, and mentally strong enough to handle it. Showing up at the starting racing venue means you're going to race, whether or not the circumstances are ideal.

7. On a winding river course, one must be prepared. One must know every detail. What is the ideal line. What are the rules around the bridges. Sometimes you have to row up to the starting line several kms. What time do I put my boat in the water? When do I eat? When do I drink? How much water, clothes will I take in the boat? (It might be chilly.) How fast do I row to the start? All this tells us that to win such a race, one must have participated in the years before. For example, when I was a junior, my team won a 5km race on a river from the German junior national 8+, each of them being more than a head taller than we were, and probably rowing a better technique, and a nicer boat. But we had an experienced coxswain who knew the course. Same applies for rowing single scull. Being from Europe, I have no experience with the Head of the Charles in Boston, but I think it is very similar to for example the skifhead in Amsterdam. Rich, if you want to win it, you need to lose it a few times. Having a Ph.D. in experimental physics, I'd love to see you prove my statements wrong. However, I am not sure if I am patient enough.

8. Training allone is not enough. Race experience is invaluable. I beat my partner each training, but he beat me each race. Why? Probably because he was tougher than I, or prepared himself better. Or perhaps just more balanced split times? Here in Europe, there are lots of races which are taken very seriously by the competitors but are definitely not elite races. These races are lots of fun. A nice way of learning to race. One should start early with it.

9. A coach is necessary. Listen to the coach. Set your theories aside. He or she sees what the boat does. Analyse your rowing videos.

10. I may already have said this a couple of times above. A race rower shows up and races. And that's his achievement, not what could be predicted from training results. Indicators are nice, but the proof is doing it. No serious coach would accept the argument that the circumstances are not ideal. Construct your race calender, your training program, train, and race. By the way, 6:41 is not a record to be ashamed of.

I am probably posting this in the wrong forum, and there is a chance that I waste my time. However, as an independent outsider, I felt I needed to contribute this. I don't know anything about the history you have. I stumbled upon this thread, and got intrigued.

[chgoss]

No, fully trained for a 2K, I did 6:28.I started my training from there.

Wrong, very wrong. Can you row 6:28 today, tomorrow, next week? No you can't. You start with what you've got, not what you had six years ago.Your best over the last TWO YEARS, however you want to dress it up -- UT AT IBM UN WTF -- is 6:41. So that's the starting point. You have already excused your under-performance by saying you are not fully trained. So, by your own admission you are not in shape to row 6:28.So, it shouldn't be hard to figure out that first you have to get back to 6:28. That's 13 seconds. Then you have to get down to 6:16. That's another 12 seconds. You are looking for 25 seconds.

you're at (you arent currently prepared)
6:16 is where you think you are going to get to (once you are fully prepared)
so, that's a 25 second difference.. simple! end of story.

So, as I get in some distance trials, we will know exactly where I am with respect to a 2K.

Exactly!
6:41 is where you're at (you arent currently prepared, continue to postpone the hoped for 6:28 "predictor" distance trial)
6:16 is where you think you are going to get to (once you are fully prepared)
so, that's a 25 second difference..

simple! end of story.

[ranger]

Talking to rich about why he is wrong is like trying to convince a God-fearing Republican that socializing medicine is better than bolstering the military.

Yes, I would rather die than not be able to see a doctor.



Sprinting is also much better for your rowing than foundational work on fitness and technique.



And potato chips are much better for you than parsley.



ranger

[ranger]

6:41 is where you're at (you arent currently prepared, continue to postpone the hoped for 6:28 "predictor" distance trial)

No, you miss the mark again.

I didn't train all of these years to stay the same.

I trained in order to get a dozen seconds better over 2K.

So I am looking for my distance targets, not what I did for distance rows seven years ago.

I think I have improved as much as six seconds per 500m in the full marathon, four seconds per 500m in a 5K, and five seconds per 500m in between.

ranger

[ranger]

To come back to the different strokes ergometer vs. on the water.

1. Just for fun, I did some back of the envelope physics calculations of a rowing stroke on the water. For a good starting point, Google "Physics of rowing". Of course my calculations contain some simplifications and approximations, but they do show that at constant stroke length and constant speed, there is one ideal recovery:stroke ratio, around 2.4:1. At 2:1, roughly a second per 500m is lost. At 3:1, idem. Disclaimer: I took some shortcuts, so a valid conclusion would be what every rower knows, that there is an optimum ratio and that it is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. I believe 2.41:1 is quite accurate but I would have to do more calculations to prove it.

2. Similarly, the theory shows that there is one pace (strokes per minute) that is ideal at each velocity. The pace increases to first approximation with the square root of velocity. I think there is some empirical evidence for this as well. In a single scull, this flattening of the curve is within the range of training and race speeds. For larger boats, empirical results show a linear relation, but this is probably due to the fact that the flattening occurs at unreachable speeds and paces.

3. To instantaneously increase pace, one has basically two choices. One is to shorten the stroke. The other is to rush the slides. Clearly, shortening the stroke is the more effective. Another option is to increase the power and let the speed increase slowly increase your pace.

4. All this is very different on the ergometer, which is a static exercise machine designed to train rowing strokes, with some simple (but clever) conversion of flywheel acceleration and deceleration to 500m times somewhat faster than a single scull. Points 1-3 do not apply to the ergometer, or at least the machine is much less sensitive to it. Hence, one can row a much larger range of ratios and still go "fast" (actual center of mass speed is zero, actually). Without having proof for it, I believe optimizing the ratio for certain distances is a quite small, secondary effect. OTW rowers sticking to their ideal OTW ratio do not lose seconds because of that. Specific training, under supervision of an experienced coach, is what makes people faster. As said earlier in this thread, OTW rowers are in danger of rowing 'sloppily' on the erg without being penalized.

5. Points 1-3 are nice, but wind, wind ghusts, waves, and other effects cause huge disturbances to the ideal model. Rowers should develop 'boat sense' to be able to instantaneously react to circumstances which can vary within one race, even from lane to lane. Race rowers must accept this, be prepared for this, and mentally strong enough to handle it. Showing up at the starting racing venue means you're going to race, whether or not the circumstances are ideal.

6. Riggering, a source of endless debate among water rowers. I am not going to model this but experience tells us that a race can be lost by wrong riggering. The psychological effect allone of the stroke feeling 'wrong' canbe disturbing. Race rowers must accept this, be prepared for this, and mentally strong enough to handle it. Showing up at the starting racing venue means you're going to race, whether or not the circumstances are ideal.

7. On a winding river course, one must be prepared. One must know every detail. What is the ideal line. What are the rules around the bridges. Sometimes you have to row up to the starting line several kms. What time do I put my boat in the water? When do I eat? When do I drink? How much water, clothes will I take in the boat? (It might be chilly.) How fast do I row to the start? All this tells us that to win such a race, one must have participated in the years before. For example, when I was a junior, my team won a 5km race on a river from the German junior national 8+, each of them being more than a head taller than we were, and probably rowing a better technique, and a nicer boat. But we had an experienced coxswain who knew the course. Same applies for rowing single scull. Being from Europe, I have no experience with the Head of the Charles in Boston, but I think it is very similar to for example the skifhead in Amsterdam. Rich, if you want to win it, you need to lose it a few times. Having a Ph.D. in experimental physics, I'd love to see you prove my statements wrong. However, I am not sure if I am patient enough.

8. Training allone is not enough. Race experience is invaluable. I beat my partner each training, but he beat me each race. Why? Probably because he was tougher than I, or prepared himself better. Or perhaps just more balanced split times? Here in Europe, there are lots of races which are taken very seriously by the competitors but are definitely not elite races. These races are lots of fun. A nice way of learning to race. One should start early with it.

9. A coach is necessary. Listen to the coach. Set your theories aside. He or she sees what the boat does. Analyse your rowing videos.

10. I may already have said this a couple of times above. A race rower shows up and races. And that's his achievement, not what could be predicted from training results. Indicators are nice, but the proof is doing it. No serious coach would accept the argument that the circumstances are not ideal. Construct your race calender, your training program, train, and race. By the way, 6:41 is not a record to be ashamed of.

I am probably posting this in the wrong forum, and there is a chance that I waste my time. However, as an independent outsider, I felt I needed to contribute this. I don't know anything about the history you have. I stumbled upon this thread, and got intrigued.

Thanks for this. Wonderfully informed advice.

I am not at all ashamed about my 6:41 this winter on the erg, especially given that I still have lots of training to do before I pull my best 2K.

For my age (59) and weight (165 lbs.), this 6:41 is right about world record pace.

ranger

[chgoss]

6:41 is where you're at (you arent currently prepared, continue to postpone the hoped for 6:28 "predictor" distance trial)

I think I have improved as much as six seconds per 500m in the full marathon, four seconds per 500m in a 5K, and five seconds per 500m in between.

I am not at all ashamed about my 6:41 this winter on the erg, especially given that I still have lots of training to do before I pull my best 2K.

Exactly! you arent currently prepared(that's why you only rowed a 6:41), you continue to postpone the hoped for 6:28 "predictor" distance trial.

So, your current situation is
6:41 ->you are here
6:16 ->your destination
25 second gap

[PaulH]

If I can pull a FM at 1:48, it predicts a 6:16 2K.

If you are fully prepared for it, a FM is done at 2K + 14.

Yes, and you've been trying and failing to do a FM at 1:48 for the last 3.5 years, which severely undermines your goal of 6:16 for the 2K.

[snowleopard]

If I can pull a FM at 1:48, it predicts a 6:16 2K.

If you are fully prepared for it, a FM is done at 2K + 14.

Yes, and you've been trying and failing to do a FM at 1:48 for the last 3.5 years, which severely undermines your goal of 6:16 for the 2K.

Well, to be fair, you can't fail without trying

[Nosmo]

To come back to the different strokes ergometer vs. on the water.

1. Just for fun, I did some back of the envelope physics calculations of a rowing stroke on the water. For a good starting point, Google "Physics of rowing". Of course my calculations contain some simplifications and approximations, but they do show that at constant stroke length and constant speed, there is one ideal recovery:stroke ratio, around 2.4:1. At 2:1, roughly a second per 500m is lost. At 3:1, idem. Disclaimer: I took some shortcuts, so a valid conclusion would be what every rower knows, that there is an optimum ratio and that it is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. I believe 2.41:1 is quite accurate but I would have to do more calculations to prove it.

I don't really believe this. (Having a Ph.D. in experimental physics, I'd love to see you prove me wrong.. )
But seriously, doesn't it depend on how you define Ideal? I haven't seen too many people race a 2K at a ratio or 2:1 or greater, so that can't be the optimum ratio for short races. So while that may be ideal in terms of efficiency, it can't be in terms of maximum speed. That ratio may require just too high of a peak force for any human to sustain at 2K pace.

[whp4]

6:41 is where you're at (you arent currently prepared, continue to postpone the hoped for 6:28 "predictor" distance trial)

No, you miss the mark again.

Isn't that your job? You've been consistently missing the mark for years!

I didn't train all of these years to stay the same.

Nope, you trained all of those years, and got slower!

I trained in order to get a dozen seconds better over 2K.

Too bad you got your signs mixed up -- you are over a dozen seconds slower over 2K, not better.

So I am looking for my distance targets, not what I did for distance rows seven years ago.

Your distance targets are far off in the distance, just as they have been since 2003. Not getting any closer!

[whp4]

Nosmo, Roelert,

you guys ought to check your figures again. TSO has already worked out the optimal ratio (he calls it the golden ratio, although his value is a bit off), and he's got the ideal PhD for the heavy lifting involved -- English, or maybe Linguistics, no doubt with a concentration in BS (boat stopping)

[Carl Watts]

There is no way you can pull a FM at 1:48 pace, your in dream land.

Why don't you get a copy of RowPro and start some online racing with people that can manage a sub 1:50 pace for 40 minutes if your so hot on the Erg ? you will find your a member of a pretty small group of individuals.

Probably about time you added some more verified results to your signature.....