Watts Per Kilogram

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Mar 5 2005, 09:09 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Mar 5 2005, 09:09 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This endows your phrase, "Win a few, lose a few" with new meaning. You've won a few competitions against over the hill, lightweight fellows, yet you've lost the main competition of actually performing at an elite level in the open category. This is perfectly understandable. You're around thirty years past your prime. You've worked incredibly hard--you've won the old-timer's baseball game, the master's tennis game, the senior pga tournament--but let's not pretend that's the same thing as winning the World Series, <span style='color:blue'>Wimbledon</span>, or the Master's. Hope that clears things up. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Actually, Wimbledon has recognized two age categories for some time. Semi-formal play among Juniors began in 1947, and was raised to official Championship Status in 1975. As far as the organizers are concerned, Juniors now play in the same tournament as everyone else, albeit in age and gender-differentiated divisions. Moreover, as far as the Club organizing the competition is concerned, for the past twenty-nine years a player winning one of the Junior titles has been every bit as much a champion as the winner of the Gentlemen's or Ladies' singles.<br /><br />See <a href='http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/juniors/ ... story.html' target='_blank'>Wimbledon Tennis Club -- Juniors History</a> for details. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I guess, but there is far more prestige associated with winning the open tournament rather than the juniors tournament: tv coverage, fame, etc. Everyone knows Roger Federer; how many people can name the junior tournament winner? Not many. And then there's the more important fact that the open winner is likely to be a much better tennis player (and for those of you who have been so confused by the Rupp's world of adjustments that you've forgotten what "better" means; it means that the open winner could defeat the junior winner if they played a match--not too complicated really.)

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Mar 5 2005, 10:39 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 5 2005, 10:39 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So come again? If you discount age, how do talented, hard working rowers such as these use their "own previous results" to assess how their training is going from year to year as they get older? <br /><br />I don't understand.<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Rich,<br /><br />Excellent point. Previous results are only equivalent through age 33 or so, and for those of us attempting to delay the inevitable.<br /><br />I like the comparison of rowing on the water vs erg.<br /><br />The expression "ergs don't float" is quite indicative of this, i.e. those who trade weight for pace on the erg would simply find that excess a hindrance on the water.

[[old] allapologies916]

110 pounds is a coxswain weight, and super lightweight... 240 pounds is pretty heavy... add in weight ratio from concept 2 and the man only drops 10 seconds according to water time, the woman drops almost a minute and a half... All Im saying is... how many female coxswains pull an 8:02 for a 2k? Most cant even hold that for the normal 1k coxswain race... The man may be at 6:00, but he is 240 pounds. The real question to this poll is... how tall are they both? But either way, I feel that woman's performance is much more because she is coxswain weight and is pulling what a lot of junior (under-19) heavyweight girls are trying to hit. 240 pounds is just too much weight to make 6:00 seem like a good thing

[[old] jamesg]

The hypothetical woman delivered 4W/kg for 8 minutes, and the equally hypothetical man 4.4 W/kg for 6 minutes. Allowing a tenpercent diff due to higher weight incidence of primary ad secondary sexual organs, fat etc in women, and perhaps unfavourable evolutionary pressure, the woman worked at the same W/kg level for 2 minutes more. So she has more endurance, if both collapsed exhausted at the end. If we define this as "better" then she did better. <br /><br />Who "gets there first" depends on the sport: hill climbing on a bike, my guess is the woman would win by miles.<br /><br />I've read that an ant can lift a hundred times his own weight, and an elefant a ton. So which is stronger? wgad?

[[old] NavigationHazard]

Although even if the hypothetical woman were to pull a sub-six 2k, and win the Olympics by open water, she still couldn't get tenure in math or the sciences at Harvard.*<br /><br />Damn that 'unfavorable evolutionary pressure.'<br /><br /><br /><br />*At least under the institution's current lamebrain President.

[[old] Canoeist]

Anybody that can row 2K in six minutes gets my respect.<br /><br />If we looked at watts per kilogram, we would all be soundly beaten by my hyperkinetic 9 year old 60 pound son. At what age does performance peak for watts per kilogram? I think a 40 pound five year old would do quite well. (33% less weight than my son!) But then you have a motivation problem. You would have to somehow interconnect the five year old's game boy to the PM2. <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Paul Flack

[[old] Carl Henrik]

<!--QuoteBegin-Canoeist+Mar 7 2005, 04:11 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Canoeist @ Mar 7 2005, 04:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anybody that can row 2K in six minutes gets my respect.<br /><br />If we looked at watts per kilogram, we would all be soundly beaten by my hyperkinetic 9 year old 60 pound son.  At what age does performance peak for watts per kilogram?  I think a 40 pound five year old would do quite well.  (33% less weight than my son!)  But then you have a motivation problem.  You would have to somehow interconnect the five year old's game boy to the PM2.  <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Paul Flack <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />That was funny, and a good point!<br /><br />I also respect anyone pulling sub 6, even if it's a 2.5m 170kg monster. Perhaps his performance does not indicate a very high aerobic quality in his body tissues, but the performance, when taking all factors involved in rowing together is impressive to me (Just being that big is actually also impressive). The total weighted sum of talents is larger. <br /><br />The open category one can look at as being designed so that people will be impressed by the _sum_ of all attributes involved in making a performance. <br /><br />The lwt category has put a limit on mass, and therefore the total sum will be less. At world class level the sum will still be impressive but not so high as that achieved by the heavier fellows, therefore the sum will be less impressive. <br /><br />Often it is spoken of that lwts have good technique (I don't know if that's to cheer us up for being slower and I'm not one of those technique guys...yet ), apart from that it will be the quality of the mass that will make the performance. What impresses, I think, at lwt level is the quality of the mass which is just as good as that of heavyweights or even better (that is likely since the pool of suitably large individuals is much, much larger). <br /><br />Another feature that might make lwt performances more impressive to people is that these guys are normal size so that people can relate to their body limitations/abilities in another way. But on the other hand, just being big is impressive in itself. <br /><br />When you anwser what you think is most impressive, lwt performances or hwt performances, that anwser will tell something about your character. If you are trying to change someones anwser to this question you are trynig to change someones character and that is usually tricky. You can try to educate each other on the actual "facts" but if you get so far as to agree on these and no change in opinion has been made then...well I don't think you will see a breakthrough very soon. <br /><br />Cheers and good rowing!

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-Canoeist+Mar 7 2005, 11:11 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Canoeist @ Mar 7 2005, 11:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anybody that can row 2K in six minutes gets my respect.<br /><br />If we looked at watts per kilogram, we would all be soundly beaten by my hyperkinetic 9 year old 60 pound son.  At what age does performance peak for watts per kilogram?  I think a 40 pound five year old would do quite well.  (33% less weight than my son!)  But then you have a motivation problem.  You would have to somehow interconnect the five year old's game boy to the PM2.  <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Paul Flack <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm not sure about that, but then again I'm not well versed in what nine-year-olds can pull on the erg. Let's say an elite lightweight pulls a 1:32 average pace: that's<br />450 watts, and let's say your son weighs one third his weight (it's actually more than that) Can your nine year old son pull a 2k at a 2:12 pace (150 watts) or below? Something tells me that he can't--I would guess he's far slower than that, but then again I could be way off. More generally though, your point is well taken.

[[old] PaulH]

<!--QuoteBegin-allapologies916+Mar 5 2005, 06:51 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(allapologies916 @ Mar 5 2005, 06:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->110 pounds is a coxswain weight, and super lightweight... 240 pounds is pretty heavy... add in weight ratio from concept 2 and the man only drops 10 seconds according to water time, the woman drops almost a minute and a half... All Im saying is... how many female coxswains pull an 8:02 for a 2k?  Most cant even hold that for the normal 1k coxswain race... The man may be at 6:00, but he is 240 pounds.  The real question to this poll is... how tall are they both?  But either way, I feel that woman's performance is much more because she is coxswain weight and is pulling what a lot of junior (under-19) heavyweight girls are trying to hit.  240 pounds is just too much weight to make 6:00 seem like a good thing <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think your post highlights an important problem with the question. I think the man's performance is 'better', because he went faster, and going faster is what competitive erging is about. But I think the woman's performance is much more impressive, given the comparative disadvantage she is at.<br /><br />Cheers, Paul

[[old] Roland Baltutis]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 26 2005, 11:51 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 26 2005, 11:51 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just now checked age 25 lightweight women, as you said you did, and found only 3 women out of 10 who have rowed 8:02 or faster. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />A couple of weeks a go two girls from our rowing club did 7:10 ( I believe that would have got 3rd place in this years Crash Bs open Lwt women's race) and 7:20 in a local 2K time trial on the erg. They were both around 25 years of age. The girl that did 7:10 was no more than 55 kg and had no figure to speak of. She was as skinny as a rake, but from what she tells me, she has a very high V02 max.<br /><br />Neither of their times are recorded in the C2 website rankings. I tried to encourage them to do some erg races but they weren't interested. They both said they hated doing ergs and only wanted to row on water.<br /><br />I'm sure there are other girls like these that fit the same criteria that haven't bothered entering their times in the C2 rankings.<br /><br /><i>Keep it smooth, keep it relaxed<br />Roland Baltutis</i>

[[old] Carl Henrik]

Wow, those are great scores for light females! From concept2s vo2max approximation formula (2kWattage*14.4+65) they would have 74.9ml O2/(kg * min). But I think it's a bit optimistic for trained males...or pessimistic concerning technique and efficiency...=) Off course, these are lwt females and should have relatively less anaerobic power so perhaps it is a suitable approximation.<br /><br />There any many men who do not enter there scores either. Does not on water rowers in general "hate" the erg? <br /> <br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Excellent time!<br /><br />55 kg is 121 pounds (not 110). This is 5.12 watts per kilogram. <br /><br />7:10 is close to the lightweight world record.<br /><br />An equivalent time watts/kg for 61.36kg would be 6:54.6.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Mar 10 2005, 11:54 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Mar 10 2005, 11:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Excellent time!<br /><br />55 kg is 121 pounds (not 110).  This is 5.12 watts per kilogram.  <br /><br />7:10 is close to the lightweight world record.<br /><br />An equivalent time watts/kg for 61.36kg would be 6:54.6. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />AFAIK the current WLW record is 6:56.7, by the marvelous Lisa Schlenker. <br />

[[old] Laupi]

I am surprissed of this discussion - it does not make real sense. Soulds like a weird comparison. You might also ask what is better for weight - fat or muscles mass..... or what is better for sex - penis length or diameter? Might sound bizarre at first - but think about it - its indeed comparable to the extend required. Its a matter of perspective in such respect.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Laupi+Mar 22 2005, 12:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Laupi @ Mar 22 2005, 12:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am surprissed of this discussion - it does not make real sense.  Soulds like a weird comparison. You might also ask what is better for weight - fat or muscles mass..... or what is better for sex - penis length or diameter? Might sound bizarre at first - but think about it - its indeed comparable to the extend required. Its a matter of perspective in such respect. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Don't worry, after some time here, nothing will surprise you anymore.