Watts Per Kilogram

[old] gw1 · Post by **[old] gw1** » February 26th, 2005, 10:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Although I kind of like the idea of (say) organizing a 10 x 500 handicapped workout along the lines of a $10/hole skins game in golf </td></tr></table><br /><br />NavigationHazard<br /><br />How many shots a side will you give me? <br /><br />GW

[old] Sirrowsalot · Post by **[old] Sirrowsalot** » February 26th, 2005, 10:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Feb 26 2005, 08:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I defy anyone who is in favor of adjustments to explain why a sport (a measure of physical prowess) should adjust away precisely those factors which make that skill possible. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, one legitimate reason to do so is to foster competition. See for example amateur golf, which has a well-developed handicap system. The point there is not to prove who's the better player intrinsically, but to test who's playing better in relationship to his/her relative skill level as determined by past performance. <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well put. However, I was making a bit of a different point. There has been a tendency on this forum to use "adjustments" to make an argument that a rower who is inadequate in one or many athletic factors can adjust himself and claim equal status or "impressiveness" with an elite rower. In your example above, only a moron would claim that a golfer with a 15 handicap who shoots ten over par one day has accomplished something more or is actually a better golfer than a scratch golfer who shoots one over par. I agree with you that having various weight classes may be a good way to foster competition, but this justification should always be kept in mind by the athlete competing in a special weight or age classification, and he should realize that performing well in his division is exactly that -- performing well in his division. It says very little about his skill or athletic prowess in an absolute sense.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 26th, 2005, 10:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Feb 26 2005, 05:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I defy anyone who is in favor of adjustments to explain why a sport (a measure of physical prowess) should adjust away precisely those factors which make that skill possible. </td></tr></table><br /> </td></tr></table><br />Exactly.<br /><br />Why C2 has designed an erg that adjusts away the factors that would more accurately measure physical skill in a boat is unexplainable.<br /><br />The watts/kg measure, however, does give a great indication of who would do better in a boat, and who wouldn't.<br />

[old] Sirrowsalot · Post by **[old] Sirrowsalot** » February 26th, 2005, 10:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 26 2005, 09:44 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Feb 26 2005, 05:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I defy anyone who is in favor of adjustments to explain why a sport (a measure of physical prowess) should adjust away precisely those factors which make that skill possible. </td></tr></table><br /> </td></tr></table><br />Exactly.<br /><br />Why C2 has designed an erg that adjusts away the factors that would more accurately measure physical skill in a boat is unexplainable.<br /><br />The watts/kg measure, however, does give a great indication of who would do better in a boat, and who wouldn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wow! That's the first reasonable post from John in a long while. Too bad it's probably not indicative of any more general rational understanding.<br />

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 26th, 2005, 11:42 pm

Wrote something but common sense prevailed as I realised I would then be involved in a discussion with no end given the protagonist.

[old] starboardrigged1seat · Post by **[old] starboardrigged1seat** » February 27th, 2005, 3:03 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sirrowsalot @ Feb 26 2005, 09:49 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 26 2005, 09:44 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Feb 26 2005, 05:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I defy anyone who is in favor of adjustments to explain why a sport (a measure of physical prowess) should adjust away precisely those factors which make that skill possible. </td></tr></table><br /> </td></tr></table><br />Exactly.<br /><br />Why C2 has designed an erg that adjusts away the factors that would more accurately measure physical skill in a boat is unexplainable.<br /><br />The watts/kg measure, however, does give a great indication of who would do better in a boat, and who wouldn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wow! That's the first reasonable post from John in a long while. Too bad it's probably not indicative of any more general rational understanding. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I wouldn't go that far. A double in power in a boat only results in a .25 increase in actual speed. That's why heavyweights (or fatweights

) who spin the wheel alot faster than lightweights (anywhere from 10 to 35 seconds over 2k) will only see a 5 to 10 second gap at the elite level compared to lightweights, and possibly smaller over a longer distance.<br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » February 27th, 2005, 4:31 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(starboardrigged1seat @ Feb 26 2005, 11:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I wouldn't go that far. A double in power in a boat only results in a .25 increase in actual speed. That's why heavyweights (or fatweights

) who spin the wheel alot faster than lightweights (anywhere from 10 to 35 seconds over 2k) will only see a 5 to 10 second gap at the elite level compared to lightweights, and possibly smaller over a longer distance. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, the Erg actually does a similar thing, the formula that converts watts to virtual boat speed takes the exponential relationship into account. The reason that the hwts and lightwhats are closer on the water is that it takes less power to move a boat with less displacement through the water, the Ergs virtual boat is a M4- for everyone.<br /><br />I'd propose that C2 has come up with an "Ergometer" that takes care of this "equalization", it's got a big flat end, a skinny end and weighs about 6lbs. (per pair, or each in the case of sweeps)

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 27th, 2005, 5:00 am

I would like to propose that the C2 erg is just that and nothing more, an erg. Its just a machine that measures effort and spits out a number. The fact is that it does that in a consistant manner and doesnt care whether you are tall, short, fat, thin, train 12 times a week or 2. What goes in determines what comes out. How it does this is neither good nor bad it just is. We are all treated equally and that is all that matters. It is the same with the rail being not level, thats the way it is and to say that ii is wrong is the product of a 'bizarre' mind.<br /><br />All this crap about height, weight, kilo's watts, altitude, etc are just that, crap in my opinion - and clinging to 'adjustments' to try and 'level the playing field' just detracts from our own efforts.... in every indeavour in life most of us will be up against someone who is better either because of innate ability or because they work harder ... lifes like that and so it is better to just get on with it again in my opinion <br /><br />George<br /><br />ps why people want to compare erging with what happens to 'on the water' performance is beyond me as well (mind you a lot of things are) - I think indoor rowing has move on into something of value in its own right.

[old] little weed · Post by **[old] little weed** » February 27th, 2005, 6:54 am

as a 5'2", 61kg, 41 year old female newbie (nearly 4 months), i am still finding it difficult to find the answer to the question that nags at the back of my mind....'how fast will i eventually be able to go over a 2k?' (not that i am competitive, but you think about these things when you visit the two forums as frequently as i do!). this is partly so that i can confirm to myself whether or not i am really putting enough effort in. in no way would i suggest that the goal posts are moved. but i wonder whether the answer to john's question would give me a broad indication of my potential over 2k, or any other distance, come to that. it would be nice to know what i'm aiming for, and given that physique has a bearing on one's potential, i don't have too many people to measure up against!<br /><br />jane

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » February 27th, 2005, 11:32 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(little weed @ Feb 27 2005, 02:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>as a 5'2", 61kg, 41 year old female newbie (nearly 4 months), i am still finding it difficult to find the answer to the question that nags at the back of my mind....'how fast will i eventually be able to go over a 2k?' (not that i am competitive, but you think about these things when you visit the two forums as frequently as i do!). this is partly so that i can confirm to myself whether or not i am really putting enough effort in. in no way would i suggest that the goal posts are moved. but i wonder whether the answer to john's question would give me a broad indication of my potential over 2k, or any other distance, come to that. it would be nice to know what i'm aiming for, and given that physique has a bearing on one's potential, i don't have too many people to measure up against!<br /><br />jane <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />LW,<br /><br />Look in your age and weight class in the rankings from completed years, i.e. 2004 and you will see a listing of percentile score for your group (1:56.7 pace for 2k in your case.). I coach my Masters rowers to make the 90th percentile a good starting goal. This doesn't mean they will all get there, but it is not unreasonable. Just don't expect that you will achieve it next week. Do a short test at that pace every once in a while, just to see how long you can hold it, at first it may only be 20-30 seconds, once that feels reasonable, move to 40 seconds, and so on.<br /><br />The toughest part in the beginning seems to be that they mostly have no idea at all what "pulling hard" or "pushing themselves" is, but just like anything, that can be learned also.<br /><br />I got the biggest kick out of my fitness class this past week when I told them that our 4 week schedule was going to give them a break the first week in March and I would see them on the 7th, they insisted on having no break and convinced the club director to change the schedule. I'd put the break in for them, they've been going continuously since November and even started their on-water rowing classes. I've created a bunch of monsters!

[old] little weed · Post by **[old] little weed** » February 27th, 2005, 2:09 pm

i have done that now, and whilst i'm not on the 90th percentile just yet, (actually i'm not even on the 75th!), i'm comfortably better than average for all the previous years, which is good to know. i did my best 2k about 2 weeks before becoming lightweight and, if i can repeat that time, that would see me at quite a respectable place (41st) in the lightweight rankings (if it's on the first page, i'm happy with it!). looking at the indidviduals, in the detail given in profiles, it would seem that very light women can go very fast, as well as those who are closer to the lightweight/heavyweight boundary. there are a lot of very tiny ladies at the bottom end of the rankings though - under 55kg. i guess background has a lot to do with it - i've done no sporting activity at all for over 20 years, so i've got some catching up to do!<br /><br />jane

[old] ninthman · Post by **[old] ninthman** » February 28th, 2005, 12:44 am

It's obviously the man's performance.<br /><br />You can find women that small who are that fast. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. The women's cox winner at the last CRASHB was under eight minutes.<br /><br />The 240 lb man is farther out on the bell curve, and his curve is a tougher one (there's a larger population of 240+ pound male rowers than 110- pound female ones).

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 3rd, 2005, 3:04 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In the real world, the 6:00 performance is better--by definition. In the magical world of adjustments, who knows? Why are you only adjusting for the most obvious characteristics like age, weight, and gender? Why not adjust for V02 max, access to training equipment, coaching, mental toughness, etc. Then maybe we'd all be equal! Hooray! And even John Rupp's 7:22 would be a good time! Whoopee! Until we live in that world however, John Rupp remains a huge joke. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Against popular opinion here, I would go with John on this one. I think that the watts/kg metric is an excellent one--for various reasons. <br /><br />The best reason, I think, is that unlike rowing boats on the water, the erg is primarily a piece of exercise equipment, one that is designed to improve fitness, especially for rowing on the water, but also more generally. <br /><br />For those in comparable condition, VO2max, it appears, varies with lean body mass; and performance on the erg, with VO2 max. It is also generally the case, especially in our world today, that those who are nice and lean are fitter; we tend to be more overweight than underweight. Therefore, a metric of watts/kg makes a lot of sense as a measure of fitness and therefore of performance on the erg. <br /><br />Women should still be in a separate division from men because it is known that they have 20% lower VO2max. They just aren't as lean.<br /><br />Older rowers should still be distinguished from younger rowers because various things that determine performance on the erg regularly decline with age.<br /><br />BTW, I don't see how this plea for a watts/kg metric makes John's 7:24 a "great" score for hte 2K. Most of the good rowers do over 5 watts/kg. John's 2K comes out 3.95. <br /><br />John and I will be in the same division next year, but if John pulled the same watts/kg as I do, he would need to row 6:44. If he did that, regardless of what you folks out there think is a good or bad 2K, I think that, at 65 kg and in his upper 50s, this would indeed be judged a "great" score.<br />John has a little work to do to get to 6:44, though. He is still 40 seconds short.<br /><br />This 30-40 second gap seems to pop up constantly in discussion of "great" scores. Those who do the best on the erg seem to separate themselves by just about this margin from the rest of those who labor on the rail. For instance, many dedicated 50s heavyweights row in the middle 6:30s. But Andy Ripley's 6:07 is just that, about 30 seconds better. Many 40s lwts row in the middle 6:40s. But Mike Caviston's 6:18 is just about that, 30 seconds better. Many 30s lwts row in the middle 6:30s. But Eskild's 6:06 is just that, about 30 seconds better. Many open hwts row in the low to middle 6:00s. But Siejkowki 5:37 is just that, about 30 seconds better. And so forth. <br /><br />Regardless of how you measure it, John is still facing that 30 second gap (as most of you out there are, too). <br /><br />ranger

[old] Sirrowsalot · Post by **[old] Sirrowsalot** » March 3rd, 2005, 3:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 3 2005, 02:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In the real world, the 6:00 performance is better--by definition. In the magical world of adjustments, who knows? Why are you only adjusting for the most obvious characteristics like age, weight, and gender? Why not adjust for V02 max, access to training equipment, coaching, mental toughness, etc. Then maybe we'd all be equal! Hooray! And even John Rupp's 7:22 would be a good time! Whoopee! Until we live in that world however, John Rupp remains a huge joke. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Against popular opinion here, I would go with John on this one. I think that the watts/kg metric is an excellent one--for various reasons. <br /><br />The best reason, I think, is that unlike rowing boats on the water, the erg is primarily a piece of exercise equipment, one that is designed to improve fitness, especially for rowing on the water, but also more generally. <br /><br />For those in comparable condition, VO2max, it appears, varies with lean body mass; and performance on the erg, with VO2 max. It is also generally the case, especially in our world today, that those who are nice and lean are fitter; we tend to be more overweight than underweight. Therefore, a metric of watts/kg makes a lot of sense as a measure of fitness and therefore of performance on the erg. <br /><br />Women should still be in a separate division from men because it is known that they have 20% lower VO2max. They just aren't as lean.<br /><br />Older rowers should still be distinguished from younger rowers because various things that determine performance on the erg regularly decline with age.<br /><br />BTW, I don't see how this plea for a watts/kg metric makes John's 7:24 a "great" score for hte 2K. Most of the good rowers do over 5 watts/kg. John's 2K comes out 3.95. <br /><br />John and I will be in the same division next year, but if John pulled the same watts/kg as I do, he would need to row 6:44. If he did that, regardless of what you folks out there think is a good or bad 2K, I think that, at 65 kg and in his upper 50s, this would indeed be judged a "great" score.<br />John has a little work to do to get to 6:44, though. He is still 40 seconds short.<br /><br />This 30-40 second gap seems to pop up constantly in discussion of "great" scores. Those who do the best on the erg seem to separate themselves by just about this margin from the rest of those who labor on the rail. For instance, many dedicated 50s heavyweights row in the middle 6:30s. But Andy Ripley's 6:07 is just that, about 30 seconds better. Many 40s lwts row in the middle 6:40s. But Mike Caviston's 6:18 is just about that, 30 seconds better. Many 30s lwts row in the middle 6:30s. But Eskild's 6:06 is just that, about 30 seconds better. Many open hwts row in the low to middle 6:00s. But Siejkowki 5:37 is just that, about 30 seconds better. And so forth. <br /><br />Regardless of how you measure it, John is still facing that 30 second gap (as most of you out there are, too). <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />We might even say that you're facing this (almost) 30 second gap too, in comparison to elite lightweights. Your excuse is your age; for others it's that they are too short; for others it's genetic limitations on VO2 max--these are all legimate reasons for not being as fast as the very best, but let's not pretend they can be "adjusted away"--they're quite real...and for whatever reason John pulls a a 7:24 (age, weight, height, other genetic limitatiosn), it's still a slow time.<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 3rd, 2005, 4:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>We might even say that you're facing this (almost) 30 second gap too, in comparison to elite lightweights. Your excuse is your age; for others it's that they are too short; for others it's genetic limitations on VO2 max--these are all legimate reasons for not being as fast as the very best, but let's not pretend they can be "adjusted away"--they're quite real...and for whatever reason John pulls a a 7:24 (age, weight, height, other genetic limitatiosn), it's still a slow time.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The sport of indoor (and outdoor) rowing, as it now stands, already "adjusts away" disparities in age, weight, and gender by having separate divisions along these parameters. So your talk along this line doesn't have anything to do with the sport as it is now done, races as they are now run. Only the hypothetical sport you are playing with in your head has absolutely fast and absolutely slow times. In the real world, these absolutes are "adjusted." I don't know what sport you are participating in, but in the real world, in real races as they are really run, I emphatically_don't_ face that 30-second gap. <br /><br />Oh well. Win a few, lose a few.<br /><br />As I see it, the argument for watts/kg is just a finer (and better) adjustment in terms of a parameter that is already recognized in the sport as it is now run/done.<br /><br />I am agreeing with you more generally about John's 2K time, but not for the reasons you cite, which again don't have anything to do with the sport as it is now run. His argument for a finer adjustment for disparities in weight just doesn't help him much if his aim is to recommend his 2K performance. <br /><br />ranger

Concept2 Forum

Watts Per Kilogram

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness