Tried the erg for the first time ever; 6:56 2000m

[rowingrookie]

Regarding mega-meters per week to get better. Definitely not needed. It would more than likely beat you down than train you. Marathon runners train around 100 miles a week or 4x race distance. If you are focusing on 2K, 200K a week is completely unnecessay. I can't put a number on what it should be for you, but I would think that anything over 50K a week is excessive - less is fine.

I personally like 5K as a distance that pertains well to 2K. It increases endurance while not being too much slower than 2K. 500m intervals are still the best for 2K.

Noone here is even remotely suggesting that erg rowing has a whole lot to do with OTW rowing. In that case erg rowing is mostly a fitness tool. But there of tons of people in these forums who have never been in a scull or eight. The complex interaction of handling an oar while pushing/pulling hard is not present. I stand by my comment that rowing on an erg is not all that complicated. Obviously maintaining pressure on the handle while simultaneously pushing with legs or later in the stroke pulling with the back has to be done. It's not really a big deal. I dare say anyone attending Crash-B would see that rowing technique among top rowers does vary.

Don't be intimidated by suggestions that improvement in rowing is going to be some monumental, complicated task. You put time and effort in, you will improve - maybe even a lot. Your first-time 2K time says that you have some innate talent. Someone said that your time is "middle of the pack." Yeah, on your first row. How many times had those other "middle-packers" rowed. Undoubtedly, many.

Thanks for the reply, cyclingman1. While obviously you all know much more than me about rowing, it makes sense to me that I wouldn't want a ton of volume to start, as that would quickly lead to overtraining. Like you said it also seems like doing 5k's and intervals would be good ways to train for 2k race distances. The 5k seems like it would give you enough cardiovascular training to complete the 2k at as fast rate, while not going so far overboard on the long cardio training as to lose fast-twitch muscle fibers and speed/strength. I can also understand what hjs means though, at one point further in ones rowing career, I expect multiple-times-a-day rowing and lots of volume is necessary to reach the top tier. If that's what the elite rowers are doing, it must work. I admit it does still seem a little strange/un-necessary to train for hours and hours a day, doing 85-90% slow steady-state, for a race lasting 5.5-7.5 minutes...

It also does seem like the erg is pretty simple to get the hang of like you said. But if my main goal is OTW racing, I'm still a little afraid to pick up some bad habit that will be hard to reverse when I eventually get on the water, which is my real goal. My main interest in erg training is how it can help me to be better on the water, when I eventually get there.

Also why is everyone saying/implying that the erg is somewhat useless for improving on the water? It seems there are two main components to being fast OTW- technique and fitness. Wouldn't the erg be good for getting the fitness level required to go fast on water? The actual movement seems to be basically the same. Why else would rowing clubs train on ergs on rainy/windy days and in the winter?

Also thanks for the the encouragement, cyclingman1. I realize 6min or less is extremely hard, and maybe I don't have what it takes to reach that. But I am not afraid to work very hard, and really push myself if I find I do like rowing a lot and if I have a lot of potential. Which is why I came to this site, to get some perspective and learn some more about it. So thanks so far everyone.

[rowingrookie]

Back to the SS vs intervals. Both are useful and most training programs incorporate both. One quite popular erg program, the Pete Plan, schedules a couple of interval sessions, one with many short intervals and one with 4 longer intervals each week. It has three long steady state sessions and one long, intense session that can be a Personal Best (PB) attempt. It runs in a three week cycle, with variations in each week's schedule, mostly in the interval pieces. Another popular one is the "Interactive Programme" found on the UK C2 site. That program is much longer term, starting out with mostly SS and gradually bringing in speed work in a build up to the competitions. these are especially popular in the UK where there is a lot more indoor rowing competition than in the US. They are strictly designed for the erg, not for OTW. The Wolverine plan was developed for rowing on the water at the U. of Michigan, where they were no doubt stuck with doing a lot of erg work waiting for the ice to clear. It is a more complex program than the others and has a big emphasis on long pieces with varying pace and stroke rate for working on control.

Bob S.

Pete's plan sounds pretty good to me, some intervals, some steady-state, and variation. After I get my technique down, I might look into using that program. Thanks for the info!

[hjs]

I can also understand what hjs means though, at one point further in ones rowing career, I expect multiple-times-a-day rowing and lots of volume is necessary to reach the top tier. If that's what the elite rowers are doing, it must work. I admit it does still seem a little strange/un-necessary to train for hours and hours a day, doing 85-90% slow steady-state, for a race lasting 5.5-7.5 minutes...


Also why is everyone saying/implying that the erg is somewhat useless for improving on the water? It seems there are two main components to being fast OTW- technique and fitness. Wouldn't the erg be good for getting the fitness level required to go fast on water? The actual movement seems to be basically the same. Why else would rowing clubs train on ergs on rainy/windy days and in the winter?

Re volume, every sport above say 5 minutes is mostly aerobic, that systeem can improve for a long time and is best trained without going anaerobic. Runners, swimmers, rowers, skiers thet all mke monster meters.

Anaerobic system, that is less traineble, and does react faster, so yes it is needed to train but in 6/12 weeks you can reach your peak on that. Training it for a longer period won,t help, plus it does make your aerobic system less.

Re erging/ rowing, yes they seem to be alike, but are not, with erging alone technique otw will be useless. Toprowers will therefor seek better wetter in winter.

Re cyclingman, he claims not to do muvh volume, but does not mention his background, he did a lot of volume on th bike, thst did build his heart lungs and mitochondria in his mucle.

[Carl Watts]

Good first up row for sure, took me about 18 months of training to get there.

What is most relavant however in terms of you improving is your rating or SPM. You mentioned your were going pretty fast and this will be the limiting factor as you can only rate so fast, at some point to improve your time you need more power per stroke and I suspect your rating will need to drop sharply as everyone new rates to high.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

Erging will absolutely provide you with the fitness aspect of rowing. So yes erging with help with your rowing in that regard.

Technique is another issue. Takes years to get technique down. Especially sculling. More so in a 1x

[Bob S.]

I wrote this as a PM, but I see that it is still sitting in the outbox and has not been sent, so I decided to post it on the open forum.

Also why is everyone saying/implying that the erg is somewhat useless for improving on the water? It seems there are two main components to being fast OTW- technique and fitness. Wouldn't the erg be good for getting the fitness level required to go fast on water? The actual movement seems to be basically the same. Why else would rowing clubs train on ergs on rainy/windy days and in the winter?

The erg is fine for maintaining fitness and that's why OTW rowers use them when it is not possible to work out on the water. But the erg is rather forgiving with regard to bad habits. A number of people have done very well on the erg with much less than ideal technique. Even experienced OTW rowers find that bad habits creep in when they spend a lot of time on the erg. Several have reported this in rather strong terms on the forum (and on the UK forum). The movement is not really the same, especially on a static erg. C2 first came out with slides and later developed the dynamic. Oartec and RowPerfect both have come out with indoor rowers that more closely simulate the movement of rowing a boat. I believe that RowPerfect even includes a seat the can rock from side to side to introduce a certain amount of balance training. I haven't seen one so I don't know how it works. There is also a rocking seat add-aon available for the erg and one company introduced a gimmick called ShoxBox, which are springs mounted under the feet of the erg to give the feel of pitching of a boat as the weight of the rower moves back and forth:

http://www.shoxbox.biz/

One enterprising member of this forum devised his own rocking seat and even made rotating handles for his erg so that he would still have the feel of feathering.

That bring up another point that I have not thought of. On the erg your hands stay in line, close to one another the distance is constant and the motion is just back and forth. In sweep rowing your hands are closer together and they have to move in a large arc. The arm and body movement is unsymmetrical and sweep rowers tend to row just on the starboard side or just on the port. Not many develop the technique needed to switch sides. In sculling it is quite different, each hand moves in its own arc and, in the middle of the drive and of the recovery as well, the hands cross over and the rigging has to be set to account for this. If it set for left over right then you have to row that way all the time unless you completely change the rigging. Also, in sweeps, the feathering is done just by one hand, the one closest to the blade. In sculling, of course, each hand is feathering its own oar.

Regards,

Bob S.

Added thought: Oartec has a model that simulates the motion of rotating oars, either a single sweep oar or the pairs oars of a scull. I have never seen one.

[rowingrookie]

Thanks again everyone!

@ Carl Watts, yes, I think you are right, I was rating too fast. Looking back I was rushing the recovery. But for doing a 2k as fast as you can, wouldn't you normally have a fast rate?

@ Bob S., thanks once again for the thoughtful description. Makes a lot of sense. As far as sweeps go, you said most people just stick to once side and don't learn the technique for the other side. I am left-handed, would that give me a benefit on one side over the other?

[Bob S.]

Thanks again everyone!

@ Carl Watts, yes, I think you are right, I was rating too fast. Looking back I was rushing the recovery. But for doing a 2k as fast as you can, wouldn't you normally have a fast rate?

@ Bob S., thanks once again for the thoughtful description. Makes a lot of sense. As far as sweeps go, you said most people just stick to once side and don't learn the technique for the other side. I am left-handed, would that give me a benefit on one side over the other?

I have wondered about that myself, but I have never heard it discussed. when I first started sweep rowing, I chose port, mostly because all the boats back in those ancient time were rigged with seats 1, 3, 5, and 7 on the starboard and 2, 4, 6, and stroke on the port. My main reason was that I had this idea that the stroke seat was the most important. In a sense it is: the rower in the port seat should have a mental metronome. But I also figured that since port oars are feathered with the right hand and I am right handed that it would help to use my more dexterous hand for that. I have no idea how most people chose. In retrospect, the best approach is to learn sculling first. That has a lot of advantages. You develop the feathering technique evenly on each side and, in a single, you are forced to do your own balancing. Good scullers rarely have trouble if they take up sweep rowing afterwards, but the opposite is not the case. I learned sweep rowing as a university student and didn't take up sculling until after I retired. I never did learn to scull very well.

Re rate: For racing, time trials, and personal best attempts, yes, a fast rate is appropriate, especially for a relatively short piece like a 2k. For a marathon (42,195m) or a half marathon, it shouldn't be necessary to rate any higher than what you would use for a long, steady state piece done for endurance - but with a rate increase for a sprint in the last few hundred meters.

For training, it depends on what type of workout you are doing. Low rates (say 16-24spm) are suitable for moderately-paced, long, endurance pieces. High rates (30-45) are needed for interval speed work.

For the 2k, heavyweights tend to stay in the low 30s and lightweights in the high 30s. Again, for a finishing sprint, most rowers of either category will kick up the rate a bit for a 2k, say for the last couple of hundred meters.

Bob S.

[Carl Watts]

Yes you need a fast rating for the 2Km, however if you want to improve your time then obviously somethings got to change. You cannot simply continue to "Rate up", it doesn't work you have to put in more power per stroke.

Also by nature the pace is a cubic law so what seems like only a few seconds to take off becomes ever increasingly a massive percentage increase in power required.

You cannot help but have the greatest respect for anyone that can get down to anything close to a 6:00 2K.

[rowingrookie]

I have wondered about that myself, but I have never heard it discussed. when I first started sweep rowing, I chose port, mostly because all the boats back in those ancient time were rigged with seats 1, 3, 5, and 7 on the starboard and 2, 4, 6, and stroke on the port. My main reason was that I had this idea that the stroke seat was the most important. In a sense it is: the rower in the port seat should have a mental metronome. But I also figured that since port oars are feathered with the right hand and I am right handed that it would help to use my more dexterous hand for that. I have no idea how most people chose. In retrospect, the best approach is to learn sculling first. That has a lot of advantages. You develop the feathering technique evenly on each side and, in a single, you are forced to do your own balancing. Good scullers rarely have trouble if they take up sweep rowing afterwards, but the opposite is not the case. I learned sweep rowing as a university student and didn't take up sculling until after I retired. I never did learn to scull very well.

Bob S.

I will keep your advice in mind about learning to scull first. Also, with sweep rowing, it seems like one of your arms/one side of your back would be doing a little more work? Or at least their range of motion is a little different.

Yes you need a fast rating for the 2Km, however if you want to improve your time then obviously somethings got to change. You cannot simply continue to "Rate up", it doesn't work you have to put in more power per stroke.

Also by nature the pace is a cubic law so what seems like only a few seconds to take off becomes ever increasingly a massive percentage increase in power required.

You cannot help but have the greatest respect for anyone that can get down to anything close to a 6:00 2K.

This makes sense. That's interesting (and also depressing) about pace being exponential. Having only been on the erg/rowing twice in my life, I guess I can't even really imagine what it takes to get to 6min. I guess this ignorance could be a good thing in a way. Also curious, how much of achieving that time is just being gifted genetically? Obviously the people that reach that level train extremely hard, but for the average rower, is that time realistic with enough training and work? Or for most rowers even if say, they are around 6'3'' 195lbs like me, is that out of reach because of genetic differences in VO2 max, heart size, etc.?

[Bob S.]

There is a handy dandy pace to watts calculator available from C2

http://www.concept2.com/us/interactive/ ... /watts.asp

But here is a table that has some values already available at the bottom of the post.

It is not actually exponential in the strict sense of the term, bur rather the value in watts is proportional to the inverse cube of the pace. As quoted from that website:

Screen shot 2012-08-15 at 4.35.44 PM.png (17.28 KiB) Viewed 6924 times

In other words, if you want to cut the pace in half, you have to increase the power by a factor of 8. From a pace of 4:01.0 to a pace of 2:00.5, you have to increase the power from 25 watts to 200 watts. 125 to 1000 for 2:20.9 to 1:10.5.

Note that a 25 watt increase in power for a 1:11.1 pace is only a 0.6 second drop. The same power increase at a 2:06.0 pace would give you a 5.5 second drop – a 22 second improvement in 2k time in contrast to only 2.4 seconds in the first case.

The physics of all this is covered here:

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/

Bob S.

[Carl Watts]

You could argue its 100% genetic at the top level of any sport.

Sure its a massive amount of training but your never going to achieve the Elite level without having the ideal body proportions or some additional freak internal to compensate for the lack of height or if you just plain lucky you get the whole package and your name is Rob Waddell.

The rest of us mere mortals just have to be satisfied with personal bests, which actually is pretty rewarding and just going Sub 7 was a buzz.

[hjs]

This makes sense. That's interesting (and also depressing) about pace being exponential. Having only been on the erg/rowing twice in my life, I guess I can't even really imagine what it takes to get to 6min. I guess this ignorance could be a good thing in a way. Also curious, how much of achieving that time is just being gifted genetically? Obviously the people that reach that level train extremely hard, but for the average rower, is that time realistic with enough training and work? Or for most rowers even if say, they are around 6'3'' 195lbs like me, is that out of reach because of genetic differences in VO2 max, heart size, etc.?

Talent is by far number one. And the most gain you get in first year. I have found that a fit young man can become 20/30 seconds faster from his starting point. If you are unfit or did not try hard at your first attempt a lot more.
You seem to have a good built, but going from 6.56 to 6.00 seems a ver long short, most sub 6 rowers start out faster and crack 6.30 in the very early stages.

Ps for talent look at the 800 in london. A 17 and a 18 year old on the podium....... At that age you cant have trianed tht much. So talent and being fit is the most important factor. Fitness is often relative poor among ergers, most are on the fat side.

[Bob S.]

You seem to have a good built, but going from 6.56 to 6.00 seems a ver long short, most sub 6 rowers start out faster and crack 6.30 in the very early stages.

After I read this post from hjs, it occurred to me that the actual power numbers might be useful here. A 6:56 2k is a 1:44 pace or 311.1 watts. A 6:00 2k is a 1:30 pace or 480.1 watts. 480.1/311.1 - 1.543. In other words, it would take over a 50% increase in power to go from a 6:56 2k to a 6:00 2k.

Bob S.

[Cyclingman1]

A person probably does not realize the work that it takes to improve only slightly in time. I know that I had no concept of what it takes for improvement. For example, earlier this yr I wanted to improve from approx 6:56/1:44 pace to approx 6:40/1:40 pace. That is a decrease in pace of only 3%. But to achieve that requires the expenditure of 350 Watts compared to 311 Watts, a 12.5% increase in wattage. I did finally make it, but it took some pretty intensive effort. I'm sure our OP will find all of this out in due time.

In these forums there is the continual posting by many that goes like this: "I now row at this speed and want to improve to this speed. How can I do this?" Then several people weigh in with advice. And that is the last that the OP is heard from. It sure would be good if the OP would update his or her progress.