Discussion On Adjustments ...

[[old] hjs]

<br />(2)Weight has nothing to do with athletic excellence.<br />(3) A lightweight performance of equal time, gender and age is superior to a heavyweight performance<br />(4) Concept2 have the technologhy to build this into the machine<br />(5) Everybody would then compete on a level playing field providing gender and age classifications remain.<br /><br />It would be very interesting to see how a 75k lightweight time compares to a world Champion 120k heavyweight time in the same age group.<br /><br />Anyway, Untrained, Unathletic 120k bodybuilders should not be allowed to record faster times than me on the 2k.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris <br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />A 120 k bodebuilder can nver be Untrained and be unfit. And to ad to this, a lot of them do aerobic training for 1 or 2 hours a day short before their competition. So they should be able to pull a decent 2 k time.<br />I don't see why a lot of lightweights think that their performances are superior to that off a heavyweight. <br />In other sports we also don,t look at weight or hight? running, cycling, swimming. <br />To row the fastest you have to be tall, heavy, strong and fit. <br /><br /><br />ps<br />you also have to be quit young, people above their 50 's are no more in their prime. No matter what some people keep on saying

[[old] hjs]

[quote=John Rupp,Dec 26 2005, 05:40 PM]<br />[quote=PaulS,Dec 26 2005, 07:32 AM]Isn't lifting 100kg once an equal performance no matter who is lifting it?[right] [/quote]<br /><br />No.<br /><br />John<br /><br />Is running a 100 meters the same for long and short people?<br />Is highjumping the same for short or long people?<br />If you could choose teammembers for a basketball team. They are equaly technical. Would you take the shorter people?<br />

[[old] hjs]

[quote=PaulS,Dec 26 2005, 10:40 PM]<br />[quote=ranger,Dec 26 2005, 11:00 AM]there is no reason why sheer muscle mass should be an advantage. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />You're kidding, right?<br /><br />I suppose there should be no penalty for additional weight that is not muscle mass either, but you know, that's life.<br /><br />So to be completely "fair", a detailed body composition analysis would have to be done for every racer and then only lean body mass would be included in their "race weight". Then of course the shorter athletes should be given some sort of allowance, but wait, perhaps the taller rowers could be restricted in the length of stroke allowed, so it would match the shortest stroke lengths.<br /><br /> If we ajust enough, we al finish the same. And me thinking that race is just about the differance in talent, training and willpower, but I am wrong accourding to some 50 plus lightweights hahahaha

[[old] raymond botha]

Hi George ,<br /><br />A great topic in my view <br /><br />I stay @ 6000ft and have observed the following . The disadvantage of training @ altitude is lower intensity as defined by outright pace. The advantage is I have more capacity when I go down to the coast . To realise this potential I have to take advantage within that window to train up my intensity. It is impossible to attain the same times @ altitude than @ coastal level hence a qualifying time would have to make allowances for this . <br /><br />My personal experience is when I go to the coast I am amazed how much lactic acid I produce soon after arriving. My perceived effort is lower due to the oxergyen richness allowing me to train harder and more significantly longer. I am very quickly able to train for 1 and a 1/2hrs as appossed to 1 hr at altitude. <br /><br />It feels like I can train at an intensity close to my maxmimum strength with endurance @ the coast unlike feeling like my lungs are the limiting factor @ higher altitudes .<br /><br />Lets turn it around > lets have the competitions @ altitude and see what people say. <br /><br />Andreas van Tonder , my country mate also stays @ altitude (although not as heigh), ask him how he feels. He makes some comments in the PB thread as does Mike Caviston on the WP thread (in the last day or 2) regarding this issue. While I realise your role in this discussion George , it continues to amaze me that people can't grasp the reality of altitude training. I can only conclude they have never experienced it<br /><br />Its also no use comparing cycling etc where wind (reduced) resistance comes into play as I can't see how this helps an erger. Any idea how fast we travel on the erg ? km/hr ?<br /><br />The fact for me remains you can no train as hard at altitude but you can extend yourself aerobically within the window following a coastal trip . In my opinion it takes a while of training to realise this benefit.<br /><br />As they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander , why not come train altitude prior to a meet ? <br /><br />Regards<br />Ray

[[old] Citroen]

<!--QuoteBegin-raymond botha+Dec 27 2005, 01:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(raymond botha @ Dec 27 2005, 01:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lets turn it around > lets have the competitions @ altitude and see what people say.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So the venue for the 2006 BIRC is the summit of Ben Nevis. Is 4,406ft (1,344m) high enough?

[[old] ranger]

<!--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-->We are racing ergs here not boats and all that crap about sitting lower in the water etc etc has nothing to do with Indoor rowing. </td></tr></table><br /><br />O.K. Then the competing boats on the screen during competitions and workouts should be done away with, as should all reference to the sport as rowing.<br /><br />Not likely, I think.<br /><br />How you are "doing" on the erg depends entirely on the numbers the monitor produces. It is just a machine. Interestingly, the machine was made to simulate, as closely as possible, training and performance in rowing, not in sliding up and down a rail going nowhere or any other activity. So why not calibrate the machine so that its monitor produces numbers that match as closely as possible a comparable performance, by yourself, on the water, in a boat?<br /><br />If you just want to exercise on the machine, that is a different matter. Just to exercise, rather than participate in a rowing race, there is no reason you need to track things like distance travelled and pace. You don't go _anywhere_ on the erg! For this purpose, you only need to track things like watts and calories, which have nothing necessary at all to do with rowing paces and distances but everything to do with _other_ sorts of exercise machines--steppers, elipticals, etc.<br /><br />Iif you call the sport "erging" and dissassociate the erg from rowing entirely, "erging a 6:00 2K" makes no sense whatsoever. While erging, you don't go anywhere, at any pace. You just generate wattage and burn calories. <br /><br />If you wanted to race ergs, as ergs, you could indeed have, say, 6:00 races and decide the finish in terms of average wattage achieved. <br /><br />Is that what you are suggesting George? <br /><br />"I did the 6' erg at an average of 480 watts."<br /><br />If so, let's be consistent. No reason to have distance and pace at all.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 27 2005, 08:14 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 27 2005, 08:14 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How you are "doing" on the erg depends entirely on the numbers the monitor produces. It is just a machine. Interestingly, the machine was made to simulate, as closely as possible, training and performance in rowing, not in sliding up and down a rail going nowhere or any other activity. So why not calibrate the machine so that its monitor produces numbers that match as closely as possible a comparable performance, by yourself, on the water, in a boat?<br /><br />If so, let's be consistent. No reason to have distance and pace at all.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />My guess would be that C2 simply made a decision regarding the standard "virtual boat speed" based on scientific evidence of the power requirements for moving that boat in the real world (M4-).<br /><br />RP claims to do just what you are suggesting, and in spite of a 20+ year history in the market, remains far behind the C2 in popularity for the simple reason that a 6:00 2k on an RP means absolutely nothing without further data.<br /><br />The C2 Indoor Rower IS consistent in reporting results, that's what makes competition on it far more popular than I would imagine it would have become.<br /><br />The implied proposal of a 6 minute competition with the Avg Watts being the criteria for "scoring" would be seemingly valid. However it takes away a component of most competitions, i.e. being faster generally means that you get to finish in less time.<br /><br />The term "Indoor Rowing", though strange to those outside the community, is easily understood by all inside. I dont' know a lot about Cricket, but could care less what "short format" or "regular" mean, and feel no need to have Cricketeers provide new terms to help me understand, if I want to understand it's simply a matter of getting an explanation.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 27 2005, 01:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 01:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->me thinking that race is just about the differance in talent, training and willpower[right] </td></tr></table><br />Yes but C2 has adjusted out the effects of weight on performance, i.e. removed the penalty that fat heavy people would normally have, for example in a foot race or a boat.<br /><br />If you have a 250 pound old man and a young 105 pound athletic woman both get on a scale, it is easy to see the difference. <br /><br />One is heavy and out of shape, the other is light and fit.<br /><br />You not being able to see the difference doesn't matter, as weight is easy to measure, even with a simple bathroom scale.<br /><br />Considering the highly technical adjustments that have already been included on a rowing machine, it would not be so difficult to include one for weight.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 27 2005, 09:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 09:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 27 2005, 01:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 01:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->me thinking that race is just about the differance in talent, training and willpower[right] </td></tr></table><br />Yes but C2 has adjusted out the effects of weight on performance, i.e. removed the penalty that fat heavy people would normally have, for example in a foot race or a boat.<br /><br />If you have a 250 pound old man and a young 105 pound athletic woman both get on a scale, it is easy to see the difference. <br /><br />One is heavy and out of shape, the other is light and fit.<br /><br />You not being able to see the difference doesn't matter, as weight is easy to measure, even with a simple bathroom scale.<br /><br />Considering the highly technical adjustments that have already been included on a rowing machine, it would not be so difficult to include one for weight. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />"heavy and out of shape" is an advantage?<br /><br />You live in a very strange world.

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 27 2005, 06:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 06:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 27 2005, 01:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 01:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->me thinking that race is just about the differance in talent, training and willpower[right] </td></tr></table><br />Yes but C2 has adjusted out the effects of weight on performance, i.e. removed the penalty that fat heavy people would normally have, for example in a foot race or a boat.<br /><br />If you have a 250 pound old man and a young 105 pound athletic woman both get on a scale, it is easy to see the difference. <br /><br />One is heavy and out of shape, the other is light and fit.<br /><br />You not being able to see the difference doesn't matter, as weight is easy to measure, even with a simple bathroom scale.<br /><br />Considering the highly technical adjustments that have already been included on a rowing machine, it would not be so difficult to include one for weight. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Again a lot off bullshit bye John.<br /><br />The 250 pond man can be very fit and the 105 pound woman a crackhead. <br />Apparently a little man can't imagine big man to be fit. I see a lot off them in the gym . being a bag off bones isn't the same ass being fit <br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 27 2005, 09:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 27 2005, 09:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"heavy and out of shape" is an advantage?[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hmmm no.... it's a huge disadvantage.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 27 2005, 06:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 06:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you have a 250 pound old man and a young 105 pound athletic woman both get on a scale, it is easy to see the difference.  <br /><br />One is heavy and out of shape, the other is light and fit.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Dec 27 2005, 10:20 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 10:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 250 pond man can be very fit [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, he is heavy and out of shape -- so he can't be fit.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--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-->being faster generally means that you get to finish in less time. </td></tr></table><br /><br />On the erg, you don't go anywhere. You just generate watts. Therefore, there _is_ no starting line and finishing line. There is just a comparison of the average watts generated at the end of the race. Distance and pace, as they are now reported, are entirely a product of the calibration of the monitor. They have nothing to do with what the erg does. Distance and pace have to do with what _boats_ do. <br /><br />Boats are propelled by rowers. Rowers have weights. A boat propelled by one rower has the weight of that rower added to the boat. When boats are propelled by rowers, the weight of the boat plus the weight of the rower(s) in the boat (etc.) also has to be propelled. All else equal, boats propelled by rowers generating X wattage and weighing Y move more quickly than boats propelled by rowers generating X wattage and weight Y + Z, where Z is a positive number. Etc.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

Just for the sake of argument let's take John's hypothetical 250lb and 105lb athletes.<br /><br />Using C2's Weight adjustment formula:<br /><br />250lb Actual Pace = 1:30.0<br />250lb Adjusted Pace = 1:28.5<br />105lb Adjusted Pace = 1:28.5<br />105lb Actual Pace = 1:49.1<br /><br />There is no gender adjustment formula that I am aware of.<br /><br />So in essence, this particular 145lb difference results in a 19.1 second pace handicap for the light athlete, or just under a 1:20 over a 2k. If both athletes were of similar fitness, this doesn't seem to be particularly out of line.<br /><br />Now since John likes to compare himself to Hwts, let's look at what that might yield.<br /><br />270lb Actual Pace = 1:34.9 (Recent 2k from NavHaz)<br />270lb Adjusted Pace = 1:34.9<br />143lb Adjusted Pace = 1:36.4<br />143lb Actual Pace = 1:51.00 (John's 2k PR of all time, just to give him all the advantage possible)<br /><br />Looks like even in the "adjusted world", the Hwt wins the 2k by 6 seconds, so the Hwt is obviously in far better shape since weight has been accounted for.<br /><br />Finally, the Erg is not a boat, so the competition on the Erg can only reflect things that can be measured by the Erg, and that is Avg Watts generated, which is then converted to some virtual boat speed to cover a set distance. <br /><br />More Avg Watts = Faster Pace = Less time to cover 2000m, simple as that.<br /><br />Then of course we seperate genders and age classes to allow more people to be in a position to attain a top 3 finish and be rewarded with a "prize" of some sort.<br /><br />In the end, There can be only 1 recognized "Fastest time", and currently that is 5:37.0 for 2k by Matthias Siejkowski when he was 35 years old, which should tell us at least a little about aging and fitness potential. He also has the recognized "Fastest time" for 2500m when he was 25 years old. Kind of takes away a lot of excuses, doesn't it?

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 27 2005, 10:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 10:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 27 2005, 09:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 27 2005, 09:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"heavy and out of shape" is an advantage?[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hmmm no.... it's a huge disadvantage. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's not what you said above.<br /><br />It must be difficult for you to keep track of the thoughts in your head, and it's starting to become more an more obvious in your posts.