goblin wrote:Why is it that breakaway specialists from the Tour de France, who can sustain immense wattages for hours, do not also see success in the 4000m individual pursuit (a 4 minute event) in track cycling?
Rowing isn't cycling.
The physiological cost of pulling a certain pace in rowing is always relative to the technical/skilled sequencing, timing, strength, coordination, quickness, flexibility, length, rhythmicity, relaxation, smoothness, precision, consistency, balance, etc., of the muscles doing the work and the nature of the resistance those muscles are working against in the machine, especially the quality and quantity of the time those muscles are working relative to resting, given that rowing is only intermittent work.
Cycling and running involve nothing of the sort.
In rowing, the issue is not at all just your brute physiological capacity.
The issue is the energy cost you incur when you pull a certain pace, whatever that pace might be.
If you are stiff, awkward, slow, uncoordinated, sloppy, inconsistent, imbalanced, tense, arhythmic, rough, weak, short, etc., when you row, neglecting the use of certain muscles that you should be using, using muscles that you shouldn't be using, misordering the use of the muscles you should be using, fighting against the resistance of the machine rather than using it to your advantage, or whatever, the result can be devastating to the energy cost you incur when you row a pace--any pace.
Rowing is just one stroke after another.
The 2K is around 200 strokes.
The FM is around 4000.
But a stroke is a stroke.
Each time you do one, the energy cost you incur is pretty much the same, no matter what pace or distance you are rowing.
So those who row well are _enormously_ advantaged relative to those who row poorly.
Sure, you have to have quite a bit of aerobic capacity to do any endurance sport.
But in rowing, the physical and technical "equipment" you use when you draw on whatever aerobic capacity you have determines how fast you go, not just that aerobic capacity alone.
In rowing, the one with the best stroke wins.
So what you can do for a FM @ 22 spm determines what you can do for 2K @ 32 spm (or whatever).
As a lightweight, my rowing 1:46 @ 22 spm (13 SPI), just naturally, is the equivalent of you (or any other heavyweight) rowing 1:40 @ 22 spm (16 SPI), just naturally.
That's just rowing well.
All rowers should be able to row a FM @ 22 spm, whatever their natural stroking power might be.
So, try it out.
Put the dial on 1:40 @ 22 spm and row for two and a half hours.
See how it comes out.
That's right around 2:20 for a FM.
In a row of this sort, the distance will enforce limitations in energy cost.
Everyone does a FM at about 75% HRR.
But your aerobic capacity is not at all what will determine how fast you go for the two and a half hours.
What will determine how fast you go for the two and a half hours will be your natural stroking power, how well you row, how much work you get done, just naturally, when you are just relaxing and doing some mild, steady state, work on the erg.
In rowing, fiverowers the same weight and age incurring the same energy cost when they are just rowing along, steady state, for a couple of hours at 22 spm can be going along at wildly different paces.
One can be going 2:05, another 2:00, another 1:55, another 1:50, and another 1:45.
ranger
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)
