What's Considered good?

[Nosmo]

What is puzzling about the low stroke gurus is that you never try anything else, so you don't really know if your capabilities could be higher by raising your ratings.

That is awfully presumptuous. How do you know what we do?

Last summer I rowed a 20K in a 2x with someone who had been to the world championships 5 times, and won a number of medals. We rowed at an 18. He did this almost every morning. He then rowed at high rates in shorter pieces in the afternoons.

A couple of weeks before that row, I raced a 1K in a 2x and never rowed below a 36spm. Start was 43, sprint was 38-39. A few weeks after that I raced a full marathon and averaged above 29 spm--didn't go below 30 on the entire second half. I never would have learned to be smooth and fast at high ratings if I didn't do a lot of training at low rates (and also by rowing easy but that is a separate discussion).

In short the idea that we don't experiment is just plan wrong. We are constantly trying things to make ourselves faster.
Also Look at the Wolverine plan. All the L1 and L2 work is high rating, the L3 is free rating, and the L4 is low rating.

[johnlvs2run]

Everyone is faster at high rates (within reason).

Anyone who races at low rates is not faster at high rates, because they are most comfortable a low rates and not used to rowing at higher ones. Carl is a good example of this. There are many examples of this. I have been around the forum long enough to know this is status quo for the rowing community, including Caviston's constant mind numbing hour long time trials at 18 spm - which you point out to be one of your standards. Maybe you can recall Caviston's stroke rates in his last few competitions, and his terrible jerky form, not smooth at all. Plus he got slower when he developed that program, not faster.

Of course most everyone trains at different rates, because most everyone rows at different speeds. But not everyone restricts their ratings, which is what the discussion is about, not low ratings, as for me 26 would be low, and many used to restricting their movements would consider that to be high.

Every elite rower I've met does trains at a wide variety of stroke rates.

Do say hello to Eskild Ebbesen, Elia Luini, and Henrik Stephansen the next time you see them.

Every coach I've met prescribes a wide variety of stroke rates for different workouts. Every top rower can and does row at low rates and high rates in training.

So every rowing coach you've ever met has prescribed a restriction of stroke rates. Really, but none of them discourage high rates? The only reason for prescribing rates in a boat is to coordinate the movements between rowers. Anyway I'm not singling you or anyone out as restricting your ratings. Maybe you don't do this, though you already admitted you do, however it is definitely a convention of the rowing community to do this.

You can listen to a few people on these boards who say not to train at low rates, or you can listen to almost every other coach and elite rower who say there is benefits to doing distance training at low rates.

I never said to not row at low rates. I rowed most of my meters at low rates (26 spm), but not restricted rates. I did not make a practice of purposely stalling between strokes, which is what you suggest to do with the WP, meanwhile saying oh no no you really do high rates - sometimes. That is exactly the reason that Caviston and others who follow that method have such jerky form in races. They are racing exactly the same way they train.

That said you may achieve all your goals and never row below 27 spm. If you can't stand it, then you are obviously much better off doing your workout at high ratings then not doing them at all.

The general admonition to row intensely at 18 or 20 spm does not take into consideration that not everyone is 6'7" and 260 pounds, not everyone has a torso twice as long as their legs and hands that hang down to their knees. What is 18 spm for someone like that could well be 27 spm for someone of more normal proportions, but not normal for the rowing community.

[jamesg]

In the end it doesn't matter what rate we row at, so long as we get the HR up: the erg is designed to let us get and stay fit, and it does this if we use it often and long and hard enough.

If we want to be a bit more analytical however, training plans usually specify either HR or pace for their workouts. We can do them at the rating we prefer. If we use HR, it ends there. However if we use pace, a certain rating and a certain pace together imply a certain stroke and work content. All I need then is a stroke that's doable and useable within a practical range of ratings, say 18 to 35 (for me) so that I can either go fast, or go long, or both, as the training plan suggests, simply by adjusting the rating.

In mathematical-engineering terms, I use a net stroke length which is roughly 60% of my height and handle force half my fit weight (say BMI 23). My result is 7.3; I pull slightly harder at high ratings (no doubt the devil sticks his oar in too) and slightly less at lower rates, so in fact I pull between 7 and 9 Watt minutes.

The maths is simple: Weight/2 x Height x0.6 x9.81 (acceleration due to gravity) / 60 (seconds in a minute) = Stroke Work in Watt minutes (which is Watts/Rating).

You're probably more athletic than I am (not difficult) so can use a tougher criterion. What is it?

PS: gurus. The usual "low rate" answers are for people who say they pull 50 W or less, at 30-35. The answers say drop the rating, pull full length, or go slower on the recovery; all basically the same. I also say do a backstrop drill with increasing length so you can see what a full length stroke is, with full leg use; in other words, learn to row.

What would your answer be?

[Cyclingman1]

It is hard to really "feel" numbers. What do they mean. Like Watts/stroke or Meters/stroke.

My PB 2K of 6:40.7 @ 33 SPM (349 W) breaks down (assuming math is correct) to 10.6 W/stroke and 9.1 m/stroke.

If I could pull 14 meters per stroke at the same speed then I could go at 21.5 SPM. But I could not come close to that. That would also mean 16.3 W/ stroke, also a number way beyond me.

When I look at these hypothetical numbers, it makes me wonder even more about rowing at low rates. What does it do? I would drive myself nuts trying to pull 16.3 W/stroke and probably pull every muscle in my body. I don't think I am really all that weak. 10.6 W is not some eye-opening number but it darn sure wore me out.

[SirWired]

Cyclingman... I don't think anybody is suggesting you attempt to do a PB 2k at 21.5spm. No proponents of low-rating training advocate going at a low rating while you race, or try for a PB time. The low-rating rows are supposed to be used for the longer, slower, workouts.

[Cyclingman1]

Yes, I gather that low-rate advocates are for the most part speaking of training. But even then, the numbers seem rather daunting.

To take my previous hypothetical of rowing at 21.5 SPM which at 1:40/500m is a wattage output of 16.3W/stroke:
Let's say I slow down to 1:50/500m for a 6K row. If I row at 21.5 SPM that is still 12.2 W/stroke. Even with the additional rest, that wattage would wear me out in no time - way before 6Km is reached.

What I actually do is pretty much keep my rate the same, 33 SPM, for longer distances. My wattage per stroke is then 8.0 W for 1:50 pace. The reduced pull wattage can be sustained for the longer distance.

So how do I train to pull the 10.6 W I need to pull 6:40.7? Intervals, in a word. A 1:34/500m pull for 250-500m at 33 SPM requires 12.8 Watts. But notice that is for 500m not 6Km. It overloads me but does not exhaust me. That kind of training gets me used to 10.6 W for 2Km.

[SirWired]

For the low-rate workouts, you aren't thinking long enough (or slow enough)... to take the Wolverine plan as an example; the rate-restricted workouts are 40-70 minutes of work time... way more than a 6k.

If you consult the Wolverine Plan pace chart, a 16SPM 2' work subsection (the absolute lowest spm he specifies for any of the workouts), for an athlete with a 2k pace of 1:40, is done at a 2:05 pace. That gives a W/stroke of 11.2 (and 15mps); tough, but doable over two minutes for an athlete of that fitness level. The average Wolverine Plan restricted-rate work subsection appears to be around 20spm, which, using the same 2k time, would be done at a 1:57 pace. This is 10.9 Watts per stroke, and 12.8mps.

At your example of a 21.5 pace... he only specifies even spms, so we'll round that up to 22spm. The suggested pace for that is 1:52, which works out to 11.3 Wps, and 12.2 mps.

I'm not saying that long, low-rate, workouts are your cup of tea. Many different training methods have been used to great success, so it'd be utterly foolish to say that a single method is best for everyone. But I am saying that they are not nearly as unreasonable as you think they are.

[Cyclingman1]

Basically, I just have to admit that I am not a very strong rower. The idea of rowing at 11.3W/stroke for any significant amount of time wears me out just looking at the number - I don't care how slow my rate is that would be tough. I'll stick to my wimpy 8 W/stroke @ 33 SPM or so for longer distances, or, actually, less than that if I was rowing 40-70 mins, which would undoubtedly put me around 6.5 W. I have not rowed longer than 37 mins yet. I did one 10K at 36:38.

You are right - we all have our goals and techniques.
Being pretty new to rowing, I just had no idea that people rowed at 20 SPM or less - one pull every 3 to 4 seconds. I could take a sip of coffee between pulls.

[SirWired]

I just thought I would point out that in the Wolverine Plan (kind of the "poster child" for restricted-rate rows), gives only vague general guidelines for spm for anything BUT the extended-length workouts. The plan specifically says to let the spm develop naturally for the faster, shorter, pieces. There is plenty of room with the plan for "rowing your fastest."

The intent of the long restricted-rate workouts is clear: They are there to encourage powerful strokes over a long period of time; the idea being that when it comes time to go faster, you pull more of those powerful strokes over a shorter period of time.

[jamesg]

Schedules like the Interactive allow for UT2 training at 45-60% of 2k Watts, as also the L4, implicitly. If we maintain the same stroke we used in the 2k, which might just have a positive technical and training effect, then the rating too would be 45-60% of 2k rating, or maybe a little higher if we ease up on the stroke for the very long pieces. The positive CV effect is there anyway, if the Watts are.

NB I think there's no doubt that a stroke work that's too high is not better. That's it seems has been demonstrated. In medio stat virtus

[gregsmith01748]

I used the WP for about a year and it was an excellent structure. It took a while to get used to the lower rates in the L4 workouts, but as has been pointed out, they are done is a very specific format to maintain constant power per stroke as the rate is dropped. I used to actually repeat "no wimpy strokes" as a mantra as I bulled my way through more challenging L4 sessions.

The real point that I want to make is that the WP was designed for a very specific purpose. To help the Wolverine women rowers win a championship. As such, it was critical to have a plan that would result in 8 women with a similar build and aerobic capacity rowing in as close to an ideal form, identically, over a 2000 meter course. It isn't bad training for longer distances, but the whole plan is optimized around maximizing 2K performance. And the focus in L4s on restricted stroke rates is to make sure that Sally in seat 4 and Jill in seat 6 have exactly the same muscle memory in terms of stroke pressures for different rates.

If you are training to optimize your performance on the erg over a longer distance, or your physique or preference is to row at a faster rate, it's totally up to you. In my experience, spending a lot of time rowing at restricted rates really helped with my form and my 2K time. It also helped with my longer distances, but not as much.

[Nosmo]

John,
There is are so many missunderstandings and things that are just plan wrong that it is hard to know where to begin.

including Caviston's constant mind numbing hour long time trials at 18 spm

He has never done a constant 18 spm for an hour. L3's are done higher then that. L4's vary the stroke rate every 2 minutes. Neither are ever time trials.

Plus he got slower when he developed that program, not faster.

He got the world record after he developed the WP, which was a life time PR at age 40.

Do say hello to Eskild Ebbesen, Elia Luini, and Henrik Stephansen the next time you see them.

I have no idea where you get this. You insist they don't do low restricted ratings, but I have not seen evidence of this. Perhaps in the few months before the Olympics or world championships they don't but that is a very different statement.

So every rowing coach you've ever met has prescribed a restriction of stroke rates. Really, but none of them discourage high rates? The only reason for prescribing rates in a boat is to coordinate the movements between rowers. Anyway I'm not singling you or anyone out as restricting your ratings. Maybe you don't do this, though you already admitted you do, however it is definitely a convention of the rowing community to do this.

Many rowing coaches discourage high rates before people have the technique to handle it. They don't want to ingrain bad technique. It is not easy to rate high, especially in a boat. Once people have the technique to do higher ratings coaches proscribe it.
The convention is to do long pieces at low rates and intervals at high rates. Some advocate only row rates in the off season, but they advocate intervals and high rates during the race preparation phase.

I did not make a practice of purposely stalling between strokes, which is what you suggest to do with the WP, meanwhile saying oh no no you really do high rates - sometimes.

I do not advocate stalling ever. Quite the contrary. One of the purposes of rowing at low rates is to practice being smooth and controlled. Stalling between strokes is exactly what you don't want to do. Rowing at low rates is a way to teach yourself to be smooth and connected. If you are stalling between strokes then you are better off not rowing at low rates. If you would like to see a video of me rowing or racing at high rates I'd be happy to provide them. Then you can decide if I'm jerky or not.

The general admonition to row intensely at 18 or 20 spm does not take into consideration that not everyone is 6'7" and 260 pounds, not everyone has a torso twice as long as their legs and hands that hang down to their knees. What is 18 spm for someone like that could well be 27 spm for someone of more normal proportions, but not normal for the rowing community.

Again I don't know what you are talking about. I'm 5'7" and 150 lbs(a few lbs lighter in top shape). My coach i s over 6' and 180 lbs. My double partner last year was 142 lbs and under 5'6". This year my main doubles partner is a about 5'10" and about 160 lbs. She is a big advocate of low ratings, and she has been to a national selection camp.

[Carl Watts]

As above and I take my advice from an OTW nationals winner here in New Zealand and his rating while racing in a single was 32 to 34 SPM so thats the ultimate aim.

It is also obviously easier for me to rate up a couple of spm from 28 to improve the pace by a little over a second than to be already going in the high 30's and to try and find some extra pace.

Just by coincidence in his lead up years he was also racing at 28spm and coming 3rd or 4th.

[johnlvs2run]

I see no point to responding to Nosmo's distortions and everything wrong in his post.

The point has been clearly made anyway, that newbies (and everyone else) ARE constantly pushed into restricted rate rowing, concurrent with constant objections that this is NOT the case, followed again by "but you should try restricting your rating."

It is also obviously easier for me to rate up a couple of spm from 28 to improve the pace by a little over a second than to be already going in the high 30's and to try and find some extra pace.

Carl, I thought you said that 28 was too high for you and you didn't row at 28 anymore?

I think it's a great idea to cover up the rating and meters on the monitor, to row just by time, and see what movements result in the fastest times on the monitor based on the effort, whether moderate, easy or fast. In fact I have done this many times, and doubt that anyone else on the forum has done this - with FREE rating not restricted.

[hjs]

Basically, I just have to admit that I am not a very strong rower. The idea of rowing at 11.3W/stroke for any significant amount of time wears me out just looking at the number - I don't care how slow my rate is that would be tough. I'll stick to my wimpy 8 W/stroke @ 33 SPM or so for longer distances, or, actually, less than that if I was rowing 40-70 mins, which would undoubtedly put me around 6.5 W. I have not rowed longer than 37 mins yet. I did one 10K at 36:38.

You are right - we all have our goals and techniques.
Being pretty new to rowing, I just had no idea that people rowed at 20 SPM or less - one pull every 3 to 4 seconds. I could take a sip of coffee between pulls.

You are a very strong rower, given your age yo have a strong 2k pb.
Your problem, if it is a problem, os your cycling background, in cyling you use a one motion, the push and pull fase are 1on 1, you use that same motion on the erg. Your results show that it is perfectly possible to get results this way.
Rowers however train differently, instead of increesing the power per stroke to go faster, they keep the power pe stroke alike, roughly but up the rating to increese he speed.
Rowers have a mantra, always take good strokes, cyclers don,t they often paddle at a very easy pace and low gear.
Rowing is a power endururance sport, cyling is must more pure endurence. The erg can be seen as a cyle, and used like you show.