Ranger's training thread

[ben990]

I've got the video of my 500, 1:34 @ 32 spm (13 SPI, 10 MPS). So, now I am just waiting on macroth's. After he posts his video and we have time to examine it closely and discuss it thoroughly, as he likes to do, I'll post mine.

I believe that. That's wonderful news. It proves that your training has been a huge success. Inspired by your example, I just ran a sub four minute mile. It was with a steady heart rate of 155. I'll show the video of my mile run as soon as you post your video of your 500m row.

Congrats, Byron! You now run well!

[macroth]

BTW, in my distance rowing, I now like to do what I call "sweep-stroking,"

Now, meaning since last August or September. Or did you set aside the "sweep stroking" at some point in the last 6 months?

[ranger]

But yes, it is less efficient. This isn't a matter of opinion, but physics. The less even your pace is for a given speed, the more energy you must produce overall.

From stroke to stroke?

Even if you are pulling even splits, let's say, over each five or ten strokes?

Yikes.

I don't think there is any evidence for this at all.

The body is not a motor.

Neither is the mind.

Both are complex systems that arrive at effective and efficient performance in all sorts of non-mechanistic ways.

ranger

[ranger]

BTW, in my distance rowing, I now like to do what I call "sweep-stroking,"

Now, meaning since last August or September. Or did you set aside the "sweep stroking" at some point in the last 6 months?

No, I have been doing it for quite a while, but even so, for only about six months out of the ten years that I have been erging.

If you row at a low drag, length, together with quickness, is crucial.

So any way that you can devise to get more productive length and quickness is a boon.

Rowing at low drag is also relatively new for me.

I have only been rowing consistently at low drag (119 df.) for six months or so out of the ten years I have been erging, too.

ranger

[hjs]

But yes, it is less efficient. This isn't a matter of opinion, but physics. The less even your pace is for a given speed, the more energy you must produce overall.

From stroke to stroke?

Even if you are pulling even splits, let's say, over each five or ten strokes?

ranger

Yes, output look wise yes, input wise, it differs, here comes technique, efficiency and habitation in play.

[ranger]

Yes, output look wise yes, input wise, it differs, here comes technique, efficiency and habitation in play.

Sorry, this is word salad.

It has no syntax.

Say what?

ranger

[hjs]

Yes, output look wise yes, input wise, it differs, here comes technique, efficiency and habitation in play.

Sorry, this is word salad.

It has no syntax.

Say what?

ranger

read it slowly, word for word Maybe the click will come, maybe

[ranger]

Sweep-stroking also encourages me to relax my shoulders at the catch, just what someone like Mike VB is not doing very well.

When you rotate your body in a sweep-rowing motion, you extend one shoulder further than the other, and to get this extension, you need to relax your lats, delts, etc.

The nature of the gesture forces you to do it.

If you sweep-stroke, you _can't_ _not_ do it.

So it corrects the fault in technique--automatically.

I also find that the extra length and more precise timing of muscle contractions that you get in sweep-rowing then tends to transfer if you row right down the middle, as though you were sculling.

ranger

[ranger]

read it slowly, word for word Maybe the click will come, maybe

Language has syntax.

It isn't put together word by word.

ranger

[hjs]

read it slowly, word for word Maybe the click will come, maybe

Language has syntax.

It isn't put together word by word.

ranger

it's about getting info from one to another. In this case you show that it's impossible in any way for 8 years now. , you simply are always wrong. Even when you try hard not to be.

[ranger]

But yes, it is less efficient. This isn't a matter of opinion, but physics.

Human efficiency and effectiveness isn't a matter of physics.

We are primarily biological, psychological, social, and aesthetic creatures, especially when it comes to effective and efficient performance.

We are only peripherally physical.

ranger

[ranger]

it's about getting info from one to another

Initially, at least, the info that is needed to make the point about the maximal efficiency of perfectly regular stroking is a video of a PM4 with someone, anyone, just stroking naturally, doing a race pace 500m @ 10MPS, with flat splits across, say, each 100m, and across the 500m as a whole, but with strokes, as they come one after another, that don't vary a couple of spms or seconds per 500m, perhaps don't vary at all, with the monitor on the force curve, and with heart rate included.

Why?

Because if it turns out that no one at all rows this way, it might be pretty hard to claim that this is the most efficient way to row.

If it is the most efficient way to row, why does no one do it?

ranger

[hjs]

it's about getting info from one to another

The info that is needed make the point about the efficiency of perfectly regular stroking is a video of a PM4 with someone, anyone, just stroking naturally, doing a race pace 500m @ 10MPS, with strokes that don't vary a couple of spms or seconds per 500m, perhaps don't vary at all, with the monitor on the force curve, and with heart rate included.

ranger

I hope you hold your breath for this

[macroth]

read it slowly, word for word Maybe the click will come, maybe

Language has syntax.

It isn't put together word by word.

ranger

On the other hand, intelligent human beings can derive meaning from imperfect declarations. For example, when an English professor consistently misspells or misuses certain words, his audience can still get the general gist of what he meant to say. There are a few examples in this thread.

In this case, someone who isn't completely obtuse would interpret hjs's post as follows:

"Yes, output look wise yes, input wise, it differs, here comes technique, efficiency and habitation in play."
"Yes, the output may look the same, but the input differs: technique, efficiency and habituation come into play."

[PaulH]

But yes, it is less efficient. This isn't a matter of opinion, but physics. The less even your pace is for a given speed, the more energy you must produce overall.

From stroke to stroke?

Even if you are pulling even splits, let's say, over each five or ten strokes?

Yikes.

I don't think there is any evidence for this at all.

And yet there is definitive proof, as I think macroth pointed out earlier. But let me simplify the math to help you. Assume that rowing at 2 m/s takes 100 Watts (yes I know, why would you row at 100 Watts? It's just an illustration). Rather than rowing at 2 m/s, you could cover the same distance in the same time by rowing half the time at 1 m/s and half at 3 m/s. And finally, assume that rowing at 1 m/s takes 50 Watts, while rowing at 3 m/s takes 200 Watts. Can you see that by rowing with this greater variety you're going to use an average of 125 Watts, rather than 100 Watts?

Now, as hjs says, how you generate those Watts can vary from stroke to stroke to suit you, and it's trivially true that how you generate them *will* change through the course of a piece. Nonetheless, if you vary the pace you're going to have to output more Watts then if you keep an even pace.

We are only peripherally physical.

If you're a dualist, perhaps. But if I take away your body I guarantee you'll row very poorly.