Does Aerobic Capacity Differ For Different Sports?

[[old] Carl Henrik]

Remador,<br><br>Yes hwt rowers have a higher absolute VO2max than cyclists, but to make a meaningful comparison between what the difference in benefits are for different sports I am trying to hold as much else constant as possible. Just changing the sport. <br><br>We know size has an impact on your V02max so this must be held constant, especially since growing to 2meters tall and 100kg is not from rowing, or we would have no lightweights (though some muscle gain can be expected). <br><br>There are not many 2 meters tall and 100kg heavy cyclists training for the olympics, and I've never seen any such statistics. Therefore I limited my comparison to lwt rowers that wheigh the same as cyclists. At this weight, rowers don't look so tough when seeing the V02max values<br><br>I guess this is where it contradicts your statement that rowers have the highest relative values. I should find some references on the opposite to put up here...when I have time. <br><br>ps, I edited a sentence for clarity in my prevous post.

[[old] remador]

Carl,<br><br>In the fist place, let me tell you that, by reading your posts here in the forum, I built the opinion that you are a quite informed and smart guy .<br><br>Getting into it:<br><br>I still think that even lwt oarsmen have a very, very high VO2 max value, in average. Anyway, it's better to quote an expert (although I think you've probably read this text allready).<br><br>Maximal Oxygen Consumption<br>The absolute values for oxygen consumption [oarsmen], as an average are among the highest reported among endurance athletes. These values represent the average of 25 and 35 athletes. The VERY best males (in the lab) have achieved values of 7.0 liter/min at max. Let me tell you, that is an extraordinary absolute V02 value! The very best females are at 5 liters/min, also extraordinary. This is not terribly surprising since rowers are very large for endurance athletes, and oxygen consumption increases with body size. However, when maximal oxygen consumption of rowers is scaled linearly with bodyweight, the values are less impressive. While 71 ml/min/kg is quite a "respectable" value (Average males of the same age are at 45 ml/min/kg), it is far from the 80-87 ml/min/kg values that currently typify the world elite cross country skiers and runners. The best female cross country skiers are over 70 ml/min/kg compared to about 60 for the female rowers. Are rowers undertrained, or undertalented? One problem with this comparison is a matter of scaling. Maximal oxygen consumption does not increase linearly with increased body mass (Click here for more on this). So, dividing VO2 by bodyweight is not really appropriate. Without going into details here, it is more appropriate to scale VO2 max to bodyweight^2/3. In the table below, I do this and contrast the data with 1) untrained males of normal weight, as well as 2) at the weight of elite rowers , and ) elite cross country skiers. This will give you some idea of where rowers stand relative to the two extremes. Well I suppose being normal is not really an extreme, but you know what I mean. <br><br><br>Elite Rowers have a maximal aerobic capacity about 1.75 times higher than same-age untrained males. However, compared to world class skiers, the best rowers are about 8-10% lower in maximal aerobic capacity, even after accounting for bodyweight differences with allometric scaling. (See Far right Column in table above). This is based on available physiological data from around the world. The reasons for this difference are unclear. From a strict probability standpoint, we could argue that the subset of candidates for elite rowing that meet the "size requirements" for success from which performers are ultimately pulled is smaller than the pool from which skiers (and runners)are drawn. These sports have less restrictive size demands, biomechanically. So, maybe the ultimate rowing athlete has not yet been discovered! Considering how good elite rowers are right now, I don't think I want to face him when and if he is! <br><br><br>Dr. Stephen Seiler<br><br>I would add that, assuming x-country skiing is practiced in particular O2-poor environments, we should minimize the differences between oarsmen and x-skiers. On the other hand, I think the author is right: maybe the ultimate oarsman has not been discovered, yet.<br><br>Sorry not to put here some data about cycling, but haven't got the time, right now!<br><br>AM<br>

[[old] jav1]

Please excuse an utter novice for a first post here.<br><br>I am picking up a concept II rower tomorrow to add some strengthening dimension to my CV fitness training. I currently heart rate train on a treamill and bike but my problem is that as my conditioning has improved, it has become harder to maintain higher heart rates on the current equipment I have. My presumtption was that the rower, by virtue of additional muscle group involvement, could impart a higher CV loading and more readily allow training at higher hart rates... by what I've read here, am I mistaken?<br><br>I currently use the Karvonen method and am trying train at the 60-70% range. I am not (cuurently) interested in competitive rowing, but do want to focus lean muscle maintenane and CV health... am I making a mistake with this type of training?<br><br><br>jav

[[old] FrancoisA]

Hi Jav,<br><br>You have made a good choice in buying a Concept2 rower. It is an excellent piece of equipment.<br>As far as CV workouts are concerned, you will be able to reach and maintain for long period of time high heart rates on the rower. I had the same concern before buying my Concept2 last February. I am quite fit for my age (46) and a good runner and swimmer, yet maintaining a 160pbm for 40min is not a problem, but it is not exactly a piece of cake! <br>I found that rowing requires a more "explosive" kind of strength than running and involves more muscle groups than biking. I find it close to swimming competitive breastroke, if that means anything to you.<br><br>Francois Audet

[[old] Carl Henrik]

Thank you remador, I hope I have not come across as too informed and smart I'm just an enthusiast reading what's on the net mostly and discussing with others. Please keep questioning my posts.<br><br>All I could come up with on this was that there are no rowers on the lists of the highest weight related VO2 max values. Look here for example:<br><br><a href='http://www.geocities.com/alleghenyrnp/c ... o2_cal.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/alleghenyrnp/c ... br><br>The table of VO2:s there I have seen on other sites as well. I don't know what the original source is. The table on it's own is not a very powerful argument for rowing not giving as high a score as cycling in general but at least something. When looking at lwt rowers(they have the best weight related values among rowers) then there is no inherent reduction of number the candidates for top values due to size requirements, lwts are average size. Still, isn't there fewer people trying rowing than cycling? The "pool" may still be smaller for lwt rowers than for cyclists or x-countryskiers which would explain the lack of top values.<br><br>I did some calculations on this. <br><br>The calculations are based on normal distibution of VO2max amongst athletes. This is a flaud assumption when looking at the extremes but at least it gave me something to calculate with. Also I assumed that that it is about as many lwt rowers that have a value of 82 (75kg around 6:10@2k) or more as crosscountry skiers that have 90 or more.<br><br>The scenario is this: We have two pools of athletes. The pool A (cross-country skiing) is x times bigger than pool B (rowers) so that we are equally likely to find a handful of athletes with VO2max 90 or above in pool A as we are to find a handful of athlets with VO2 82 or above in pool B. What is the order of x?<br><br>What I found was that x is on the order of 10^3. In reality I don't think there is a thousand times as many skiers as rowers, which means that it is probably not only the smaller pool size that keeps rowers from the top spots. I would think it has to do with low cadence, high strains during drive and static efforts limiting blood flow as well, but just speculating here.

[[old] ebolton]

I've noticed lower HR on the rower than on the bike for myself, even for a higher percieved effort on the rower. I think that because the body is closer to being horizontal and the legs are pumping in unison, the position and motion takes some work off the heart. You probably don't develop as much of a VO2 max and other CV training adaptions as you come closer to your overall potential on the rower because of this, in general.<br><br>Ed<br><br>

[[old] FrancoisA]

Hi Ed,<br><br>Regarding positions of the body on the erg and on the bike, I find both quite similar and just as "horizontal", especially when one is in the aero position on the bike!<br>I am training 3 to 4 hours a day in multi-sports (swimming, running, biking, erging and x-country skiing) and find them equally demanding in terms of CV. I can reach 180pbm in any of those sports! It is in running, x-country skiing and on the erg that I can maintain a high heart rate for long periods of time (i.e my HR at lactate threshold is higher for those sports than it is for swimming and biking).<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Francois Audet (46 lwt)

[[old] remador]

Carl,<br><br>Nice discussion!<br><br>I am not, meanwhile, convinced by your - good - argument. And I'm basing this position on the following reasons:<br><br>1 - As I've stated before, xc-skiers tend to have higher vo2 max registered values <i>not only</i> because of the absolute number of athletes able to practice the sport, but also - maybe mostly - because of the particular environment in which they train and compete, where vo2 max is a critical factor, at least more than on rowing, where, for instance, anaerobic power/muscular strength plays a bigger role. Thus, we have not a direct correspondence between population growth and registered values.<br><br>2 - I assume you based your calculations on some frequency distribution (unless you have made it through a theorical distribution). The issue is that I wouldn't give a definitive credit to the data that are most frequently registered. To stand this statement, I say that rowing has not the same attention that other sports have for the people who colect those data. Or else, how would we explain that, for instance, Matthew Pinsent, that has the highest vo2 max value ever registered on the uk, tends not to be mentioned in the uk information? Or how would we explain that some tables by which are made "rankings" of sports average vo2 max put sports like football (soccer), tennis or squash in position and there is not a word about rowing? <br><br>3 - I think the thing is more complicated: vo2 max is usually measured on a treadmill. Knowing that these values are somewhat sport-specific, direct comparisons are, at least, fragile.<br><br>AM

[[old] eurofoot13]

I also think that one needs to include the limiting factor in speed as well. I know that I personally have not equalized my levels of muscular and cardiovascular fitness. The limiting factor in all my PB's was most definitely muscular. While I always cannot physically push anymore, I oftentimes don't find myself passing out or at maximal respiratory rates. In my opinion, this is due to my broad background in endurance sport. For the past 5 years of my life, I've done general CV work, whether it's soccer (football to you brits), skiing, running, or rowing, I've always done the base cardio. Thus, I never reach maximal VO2 values, as I can never sustain the power in my limbs for such an effort.

[[old] lightrower6]

Eurofoot, you obviously just have a very low vo2 max. Don't give bullshit that you are not muscularly strong enough. Doing an all out 2k is at your vo2 max, not matter your power or whatever you want to call it. Obviously, if you have been training for 5 years at "endurance" sports you would and should be able to go faster. The limiting factor is probobly genetic.

[[old] JSamuel]

According to the Concept2 Training Guide part of the reason for the diffrering MHR in different sports is that rowing is done seated while running, for example, in done upright. The heart has to work that little harder to counteract gravity while running than in rowing so the MHR is higher (and for rowing it should be higher that swimming where the body is spported by the water).<br><br>If this is the case, would resting heart rate be effected too? I was running a lot in the summer and my RHR was in the high 40's but now I've just been rowing for the last few months my RHR is up by about 10bpm even though the volume and intesity of my workouts seem higher.

[[old] GeorgeD]

<!--QuoteBegin-JSamuel+Jan 4 2005, 08:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (JSamuel @ Jan 4 2005, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If this is the case, would resting heart rate be effected too? I was running a lot in the summer and my RHR was in the high 40's but now I've just been rowing for the last few months my RHR is up by about 10bpm even though the volume and intesity of my workouts seem higher. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br> No this would not be caused by rowing in that sense, it may be that you are not as fit on the erg as you were running. The perception of intensity would be quite different I would think to the someone new to rowing.<br><br>regds George