Altitude And Air Resistance

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 5:34 pm

BigBuck, ...... *Yawn* .... pardon me.... When Matthew Pinsent breaks 4 hours for a marathon, let me know.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 5:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Steve_R @ Feb 19 2005, 01:28 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It could also be the case that at altitude, the body will shift to a higher percentage of anaerobic contribution to 2k times. If this is the case and the athlete's ability to operate through the metabolism of glycogen has not been consumed over 2k, there may not be as significant an impact to 2k times but this would only be mitigated by training in these conditions. People with higher lactate thresholds could also compensate for the added anaerobic needs at high altitude. </td></tr></table> Steve, Excellent analysis! Yes the higher anaerobic component at altitude is an aid to shorter distance times, as well. In my opinion, rowing the 2k is much like running the 800 meters, where equivalent times at altitude can be run.

[old] rjw · Post by **[old] rjw** » February 19th, 2005, 5:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 07:12 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Raoul, Have you ever competed at altitude??? I have, both running and cycling. And I have trained at altitude, as well. Out of shape it is very "difficult" to approach sea level times at altitude. But when in top distance conditioning, it is possible to come very close to them running, and to far exceed them with cycling and rowing. </td></tr></table> John, Yes I have competed at altitude - extensively. Cycling - I agree that cyclists can go faster at altitude (see reason stated earlier). Runners do not get that same advantage because they are not going as fast as cyclists but agree that they do move easier. The only problem is that the decreased O2 slows them down more than the decresed air resistence (shorter races excluded). Erging - you travel even a shorter distance (leg drive + body lean) so there is virtually no advantage of altitude yet all the disadvantage of decreased O2. I would assume that we could expect decreasing performance relative to the decrease in O2 levels for a given altitude. Even though you extrapolate from cycling to running to erging, there are diffferent physics involved. Raoul

[old] BigBuck · Post by **[old] BigBuck** » February 19th, 2005, 5:47 pm

John I'm just fascinated to know your answer to this! Do you think that a fit person should, in a 30min test at Rate 20, be able to row further at an altitude of 2000m than at sea level?

[old] rjw · Post by **[old] rjw** » February 19th, 2005, 5:52 pm

[quote=John Rupp,Feb 19 2005, 09:39 PM] [quote=Steve_R,Feb 19 2005, 01:28 PM] In my opinion, rowing the 2k is much like running the 800 meters, where equivalent times at altitude can be run. [/quote] 800 metre run ~ 1:40 2,000 metre row ~ 5:37 Not the same beast. Anything to make your point. Let's see a rational debate. Raoul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 6:09 pm

Raoul, You couldn't rationally say that riding a bike for 2:00 is the same as running 800 meters. No way. Cycling is much easier and you can go much farther with the same effort and energy expenditure. The same with rowing. What you have with cycling and rowing is a mechanical advantage from machine, that extends the range of time and distance performed. When you drive a car this is extended even farther.

[old] rjw · Post by **[old] rjw** » February 19th, 2005, 9:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 10:09 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Raoul, You couldn't rationally say that riding a bike for 2:00 is the same as running 800 meters. No way. Cycling is much easier and you can go much farther with the same effort and energy expenditure. The same with rowing. What you have with cycling and rowing is a mechanical advantage from machine, that extends the range of time and distance performed. When you drive a car this is extended even farther. </td></tr></table> John, I do not understand your comments. Depends what you are talking about but you change your tune so often its like trying to nail jello to the wall. A maximal effort for 800 metres running or for 2:00 minutes on the bike (20 seconds longer than WR for 800 m run) are both very difficult. Of course you go farther on the bike - that's a no brainer - but you and I were talking about the efficiencies or not of racing at altitude, not about distance travelled for effort expended. Now, don't mix rowing for erging. I was discussing erging. If you were talking about rowing (as in on the water), I think that times would increase with elevation as well because the drag of the water overwhelmes the reduction in drag due to elevation. You are left then with reduced O2 slowing you down. Raoul

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » February 19th, 2005, 9:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 19 2005, 01:39 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In my opinion, rowing the 2k is much like running the 800 meters, where equivalent times at altitude can be run. </td></tr></table> Really? A fast 800M (Running) is under 2 minutes (just guessing on the conservative side), and a fast 2k (Erging/rowing) is under 6 minutes (equal conservatism). So you equate one event, with another that is 3 times (or more) as long? Astounding!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 10:35 pm

Raoul, The discussion is about rowing on an erg, as regards times at altitude.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 10:39 pm

PaulS, Your fastest 10k the last 3 years is 78% PATT. PATT percentages are based on age, gender, and weight class. The men's heavyweight division, overall, does not have the same high quality percentage of athletic rowers as the 50-59 lightweight division. Thus you can row a time that is 47 seconds slower than the WR awg, and still be in the 90th percentile. However, because of greater fitness in lightweights, it makes a much higher quality time, and higher PATT percentage, to get in the 90th percentile. This is why the PATT percentages are so useful, as they equate all rowers, across age, gender, and weight class (AWG).

[old] rjw · Post by **[old] rjw** » February 19th, 2005, 11:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 20 2005, 02:35 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Raoul, The discussion is about rowing on an erg, as regards times at altitude. </td></tr></table> Then you agree with me - finally!!! A 2,000 metre erg (row) at altitude is slower than at sea level. Well done John. Raoul

[old] rjw · Post by **[old] rjw** » February 19th, 2005, 11:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 20 2005, 02:39 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS, Your fastest 10k the last 3 years is 78% PATT. PATT percentages are based on age, gender, and weight class. </td></tr></table> John, Do you recalculate your PATT scores every year based on your best time for a given age or have you used your PB times and increased your age every year thereby artificially inflating your PATT scores? Raoul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 11:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(rjw @ Feb 19 2005, 07:20 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Then you agree with me - finally!!! A 2,000 metre erg (row) at altitude is slower than at sea level. Well done John. Raoul </td></tr></table> Raoul, Calm down. I have no comment about boats, but this thread is about erg times being "faster" at altitude, because of the beneficial effects of the reduction in air resistance.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 11:52 pm

Raoul, I developed PAT and PATT recently, thus haven't used it in previous years. The intention is to keep the PATT calculation percentages the same and to not redo them. The PAT 2k times will be updated each year as new World Records are set. Calculation of PATT times is done from the age the PB was done, or the times and age for the current year, either way. You would not use your current age with a time from a previous year.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 19th, 2005, 11:56 pm

Additionally if you have a certain PATT percentage and the World Record is bettered, then your PATT percentage will go down. For example if it was 90.5% then it might go down to 90.2% etc.

Concept2 Forum

Altitude And Air Resistance

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions