What's Considered good?

[Cyclingman1]

This and that:

I do feel that crossing into 10+ W/stroke area takes a good bit of energy. But I keep seeing claims of rowing at wattages a good deal beyond that. If that is the case, I'm not a strong rower.

RE: comparing cycling to rowing. One thing is similar: effort is required for good outcomes. Gearing on a bike is used to accommodate terrain. Gearing down to go up a hill does not imply easy effort. I generally try to keep the cadence and pressure on the pedals the same on a bike regardless of terrain or gear. Biking really is no easier than rowing. Try riding a 15 mile time trial. At the end, a maximum effort will have one falling off the bike just like on a rower. One thing that I have never done on my bike is come up with a hypothetical cadence (RPM) and insist on staying there and adjust all other riding parameters accordingly. I pedal at a RPM that I feel comfortable with.

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.

You are quite correct, I do not do this. I row at a rate that I feel comfortable with, much like cycling. I pull with the power that I can do or want to based on the time that I intend to row. As I indicated before, I will pull 10+ W/S for a 6:40+ 2K, but will drop it down to about 9W for a strong 5K keeping the SPM the same. I keep notes on all my rows and virtually every one is at SPM from 31-34. The DF's have varied quite a lot more. I'm still experimenting with DF. I did my first erg event at DF 170. But I had only been rowing 5 weeks. Did not have time to play with other settings. But I definitley do not vary the rate up and down to change speed.

Carl: I think there is some confusion about your rate. Maybe you can clarify.

[hjs]

RE: comparing cycling to rowing. One thing is similar: effort is required for good outcomes. Gearing on a bike is used to accommodate terrain. Gearing down to go up a hill does not imply easy effort. I generally try to keep the cadence and pressure on the pedals the same on a bike regardless of terrain or gear. Biking really is no easier than rowing. Try riding a 15 mile time trial. At the end, a maximum effort will have one falling off the bike just like on a rower. One thing that I have never done on my bike is come up with a hypothetical cadence (RPM) and insist on staying there and adjust all other riding parameters accordingly. I pedal at a RPM that I feel comfortable with.

I never said cycling is more easy, I say cycling does other training. Rowing at low rate (submaximal) means, taking a hard stroke, take a real easy recovery etc.
Cycling means, just paddling up and down in a same cadans, not pushing hard, and waiting for a few seconds. Cycling often has 90/110 rpm, rowing 20/30.

For cyling technique does hardly play a role, rowing (otw) is mostly technique, you can be fit and stronge but without technique you get nowhere. Cycling technique is taking curves etc, different matter, not rpm related at all.

[johnlvs2run]

I want to clear up some misconceptions, partitially as response to Nosmo's postings and also to others.

First of all the issue is about free ratings, vs restricted ratings, not low ratings vs high ones. There is no issue at all with low ratings vs high ones, and doing both are perfectly acceptable and desirable. Of course everyone rows at "low" and "high" ratings, depending on their speed, and their conceptions of what low and high are. Rowing slow at low ratings is a good way to practice a 1:1 ratio.

The difference between free ratings and restricted, is that with free ratings you can strive for the perfect stroke, which is a 1:1 ratio. This can only be obtained with smooth fast transitions, and developing the recovery to be no longer the the drive, or at least as close to the same time as possible. A check of the top lightweight rowers Stephansen and Ebbesen shows that their drive:recovery ratios are 47-48%, very close to a 1:1 ratio, as measured from the ends of one transition to the other. I have checked this quite a few times to ensure the ratios are accurate.

Restricted ratings are wrong, clunky, and distorted for the exact reason that the ratios are wrong, clunky and distorted. Some people row so terribly at restricted ratings that their ratios are as low as 33% or even worse. A good measure of the wrongness of the stroke is the SPI which, the higher the SPI the more oblong and distorted the stroke, counter productive and a total waste of time. Check Caviston in the CrashB video, 2005 I think it was, and you can see that he rows like a stagecoach with square wheels. Of course there have to be pauses and problems when the ratio has been practiced to be totally wrong.

A lightweight by definition is 165 pounds or less, not someone who weighs in two days before the race, and weighs 180 pounds by the time it is held. To break a weightlifting world record, the person is weighed before and after the event, to ensure they meet the weight requirements.

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. {some] Rowers however train differently

Yes, this is exactly the issue. The proper way is to strive for the perfect stroke, the 1:1 ratio from drive through recovery

There is no such thing as "watts per stroke", as watts are a measure of power per second. Inserting a pause time for more seconds does not increase the power, but decreases the power! The ridiculous notion that pausing between strokes increases the power, is ridiculous. To see the watts/power per second, watch the pace on the monitor, or switch to the reading of watts, which is already shown on the monitor.

[Citroen]

The difference between free ratings and restricted, is that with free ratings you can strive for the perfect stroke, which is a 1:1 ratio.

Says who?

How do you invent the crap you write on here?

[Nosmo]

... The ridiculous notion that pausing between strokes increases the power, is ridiculous....

This I agree with. Pauses any where in the stroke is bad technique, weather one is rowing at 40 spm or 14 spm.

[Nosmo]

A check of the top lightweight rowers Stephansen and Ebbesen shows that their drive:recovery ratios are 47-48%, very close to a 1:1 ratio, as measured from the ends of one transition to the other. I have checked this quite a few times to ensure the ratios are accurate.

You know I do believe you. When they are rowing intervals or races. Have you ever measured the ratio of a warm up, or a typical 20K steady state workout for either of them?

[johnlvs2run]

You know I do believe you. When they are rowing intervals or races. Have you ever measured the ratio of a warm up, or a typical 20K steady state workout for either of them?

No I have not. I feel the races are most important, with the greatest focus of intensity and accuracy.

In my own practice, I focused on minimizing the transitions between strokes when I first got a rowing machine, long before I had heard of the Danes or the forum. So I noticed this first own my own, which I don't consider unique, as it is a natural thing to do. Later I noticed the Danes and others do the same thing in their races.

[Nosmo]

You know I do believe you. When they are rowing intervals or races. Have you ever measured the ratio of a warm up, or a typical 20K steady state workout for either of them?

No I have not. I feel the races are most important, with the greatest focus of intensity and accuracy.

In my own practice, I focused on minimizing the transitions between strokes when I first got a rowing machine, long before I had heard of the Danes or the forum. So I noticed this first own my own, which I don't consider unique, as it is a natural thing to do. Later I noticed the Danes and others do the same thing in their races.

Exactly. Restricted rate rowing is for specific training effects, and for ingraining certain technical habits. Which is all we have been saying all along.

[johnlvs2run]

Exactly. Restricted rate rowing is for specific training effects, and for ingraining certain technical habits. Which is all we have been saying all along.

I didn't notice anyone except me saying restricted rate rowing ingrains specific bad technical habits, but appreciate the sentiments anyway.

With your size, I imagine you're much better in a boat than you are on the erg.

In reconsideration of Stephansen rowing with the considerable resistance of ropes in a boat, it could well be that he is still very close to a 1:1 ratio at the 20 spm, due to the much slower movements.

[Bob S.]

In reconsideration of Stephansen rowing with the considerable resistance of ropes in a boat, it could well be that he is still very close to a 1:1 ratio at the 20 spm, due to the much slower movements.

1:1 at 20spm?!! That would mean taking a full second and a half drive for the drive, which would be an incredibly weak drive for a strong rower like Stephanson or any one else for that matter.

Methinks there is a strong odor of troll in the air. And I should be embarrassed for biting at the lure.

Bob S.

[ausrwr]

John, please stick to something that you know about.

On water rowing is clearly not that thing.

Low rating work does not restrict you from rating high. A mate of mine had the WR in the quad until a few weeks ago. In his single, he did a vast amount of work rating 14 to 16. It didn't stop him rating 34 to 36 down the course. I do most of my training at low rates. The last time I raced, I happily came down the course (well, the last 250 of it) at 38.

Drive time / recovery time: at 18, you're looking at 1/2.5 or even 1:3. If you're 1:1, you're doing something vastly, incredibly wrong. 1:2 is totally reasonably at 20. It will be not "ideal" as the rate comes up, as the drive time goes down, and the recovery down as well.

"As you train, shall you race": so, all of your training is at the intensity and rate at which you race at? I do hate to tell you, but Ebbesen, Luini and Stephansen all do rate restricted work. You're just not interested in considering it.

You're not exactly open minded in terms of your consideration of just how and why other training methods might work. I can see that as a heavyweight, low rate and restricted rate suit me, and that that might not be the case for lightweights (notwithstanding that most of the fast lightweights I know do a deal of restricted rate and low rate rowing) to the same degree.

However, I don't think a blind adherence to being "natural" helps. Rowing isn't, I'm afraid, free expression.

[johnlvs2run]

There is no doubt in my mind that I would row much better on the water than the erg. The erg is a machine that rewards people for weight and height, with very little consideration to form and fitness. The water would not have the same restrictions, at least not to the same extent. The issue of weight would be almost neutralized.

Low rating work does not restrict you from rating high.

Again:

the issue is about free ratings, vs restricted ratings, not low ratings vs high ones.

Drive time / recovery time: at 18, you're looking at 1/2.5 or even 1:3.

In such case, I see the timing being way off, and a terribly lopsided stroke. I have seen this happen many many times, in fact have pointed out many times that this is a long time convention amongst rowers. It's also one of the primary reasons that most rowers are not able to maintain their speed over distance.

If you're 1:1, you're doing something vastly, incredibly wrong.

I'd rather do it right and have it thought wrong, than to constantly do it wrong and have it thought right.

1:2 is totally reasonably at 20. It will be not "ideal" as the rate comes up, as the drive time goes down, and the recovery down as well.

Pardon?

Why not do your low rate rowing at a 1:1 ratio, i.e. a similar ratio to what you would aim for in a race? I have done almost all of my rowing in this manner, and have covered more than 100,000 meters in a day several times. So it is not impossible for anyone to train with a 1:1 ratio. I would not presume that just because the Danes race at close to a 1:1 ratio, that they don't do much of their training the same way.

"As you train, shall you race": so, all of your training is at the intensity and rate at which you race at?

The form is kept the same, not the rate or intensity. It would be wrong to lower the pace to 20 spm with wrong ratios and to keep the same intensity. You are trying to criticize 1:1 by using the example of 1:3 <--- .

I do hate to tell you, but Ebbesen, Luini and Stephansen all do rate restricted work. You're just not interested in considering it.

Sure they do. At a 1:1 ratio and 43 spm. The standard is the race, not the practice that gets there.

You're not exactly open minded in terms of your consideration of just how and why other training methods might work. I can see that as a heavyweight, low rate and restricted rate suit me, and that that might not be the case for lightweights (notwithstanding that most of the fast lightweights I know do a deal of restricted rate and low rate rowing) to the same degree.

I have practiced at all ratings, all drag factors, and observed these things for myself. You have not done this. To see who is not open minded, look at who responds with knee-jerk reactions on this thread, without for what happens with racing. Of course there are other and much better ways to get there than by training the neural pathways to respond the exact opposite of the form and style that are used in a race.

However, I don't think a blind adherence to being "natural" helps. Rowing isn't, I'm afraid, free expression.

Not when natural means restricting the training, and trying to tell others that they have to row the same way.

[Nosmo]

There is no doubt in my mind that I would row much better on the water than the erg.

Do you have any idea how funny that is?

[Nosmo]

I can see that as a heavyweight, low rate and restricted rate suit me, and that that might not be the case for lightweights. (...) to the same degree.

This seems to is a very common sentiment, but really it is not necessarily a big factor. Heavyweights and lightweights, men and women all do low restricted rates for the same reason.

Heavyweight may have a 20% longer slide, so 16 spm for a heavyweight may be the equivalent to 19 spm for a lightweight all other things being equal. But things are rarely equal. If they are not going the same speed and are not the same strength then the difference may be much less.

The limiting factor for low rate rowing is often balance. Boats are much less stable at low speed, so the trouble one has rowing at very low ratings is often/usually maintaining balance rather then slide control and timing, simply because the boat is going much slow. Balance is also often easier for a lightweight.

A lightweight may also have a much easier time maintaining a slow even slide because the ratio of body to boat weight is lower.


When I've done long steady state in a 1x at 16 or 18 spm in a single, It has sometimes been hard to exactly match a taller rower simply because I've had to pull really hard to keep up with their longer stroke. But that would have been the case if they were shorter and much stronger then me.

[johnlvs2run]

There is no doubt in my mind that I would row much better on the water than the erg.

Do you have any idea how funny that is?

Yes indeed, about as funny as your distorted opinion of your prowess in a boat.

However it's really sad that C2 can't make any slight improvements in their rowing machines to negate the advantages of dead weight vs fitness. Such dead weight is a negative on the water, and fitness obviously comes to the fore - which anyone with a brain should be able to see.

The Oartec Slider, for example, already helps to neutralize the advantage of weight on their erg.