Discussion On Adjustments ...

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Dec 29 2005, 09:32 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 29 2005, 09:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By way of trying to return this thread to its original intent:<br /><br />It seems to me that one place where individual mass does make a noticeable difference is in the monitor's estimation of calories expended.  <br /><br />The basic C2 equations are:<br /><br />Power (watts) = 2.80 / Pace (sec/meter)³ <br /><br />The calories are calculated from the power (in watts) assuming a 25% efficiency in conversion of human energy to flywheel energy and a 300 calories/per hour cost to move the body up and down the slide (this is based on a 175 lb person): <br /><br />Kcals/hr = Power (watts) x (4.0 x 0.8604 Kcals/watt) + 300 Kcals/hr<br /><br />This built-in equalization inflates the calories burned for lighter rowers and deflates it for heavier rowers.  Regardless of how much power per unit of body mass is involved, rowers less than 175 lbs must expend commensurately less energy to move their bodies up/down the slide.  Rowers heavier than 175 lbs must expend more.  There's no argument about it, it's simple physics.  Moreover, the faster the stroke rate, the more energy is involved.<br /><br />And as long as I'm thinking about ways to improve the PM, how about adding both a stroke counter (ErgMonitor already does this) and a way of tracking modal stroke data as well as averages?  <br /><br />As things stand, there's no way to distinguish on the PM3 between a "30' r20" test <br />done in 586 strokes and one done in 614 strokes.  Let's say both rowers turn in exactly the same result on test day: 7500m/ 2:00 avg. pace.  The former clearly has a significantly more powerful stroke: 10.4 spi vs 9.9 spi.  But without an accurate stroke count, this may not be apparent.  Even to a coach watching the proceedings.<br /><br />Modal data also would be great for all the additional information (e.g. drive length, drive/recovery ratio) that ErgMonitor tracks.  Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, but I think it can probably be calculated via spreadsheet if the log files are exported.  However it would be nice if the process were automated.... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You would have to export the stroke data and calulate a mode, and probably do some rounding in the mean time since we provide high resolution for the SR's.<br />Modal data for ratio or stroke length is more difficult due to the limitations ot the system (a data point each ~3.5cm of handle travel, which could give an individual error of 7cm), thus making the Average value for these a good indication at least in steady state pieces with minimal rate variations. Hmmm, S10PS? <br /><br />You could slice up a piece into pretty small "splits" and look at the average SR's for each of those.<br /><br />If the SR was changed to give 0.5 resolution on the PM, fudging the 30' R20 test would be a bit more difficult. (I suppose that's why you chose the stroke counts you did, SR 19.6 Vs 20.4, both displayed as 20.) More importantly I would be interested in the DF and ratio, which could influence which rower was indeed taking a more useful stroke for moving boats. Basically it's not a simple answer. Force profile comparison would also help.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 29 2005, 10:20 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 29 2005, 10:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 28 2005, 02:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 28 2005, 02:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you could try a series of races ... 500M through HM ... during the year ... and use:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... ht_adj.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... asp</a><br /><br />??? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just bumping this up because it's such a great idea ... an online series based on a third party's weight equalization algorithm.<br /><br />Come on John and Paul, lets RACE!!!<br /><br />I'll bet you could even get a few sponsors, and our British friends can point us to a wagering house where we can get some odds and lay down some bets!<br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />"Such a great idea" might be pushing it a bit, but the conditions would be acceptable. But John would not consider it "fair" because there is nothing to factor in his advanced age, though he does talk as if he considers himself "more fit" than this "out of shape fat boy" which has no bearing on age at all.<br /><br />John also ran away from his "bet" by giving it no value, which was too bad, as it had potential to make things interesting.

[[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-->One other point that might be relevant is that I have yet to see one other person on this entire board, or on the British board, refer to their PATT times, or make any claim that they have found this useful. Can anyone direct me to a single other person who has found PATT to be a useful training tool? Just curious. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I like the PATT scores, find them useful, and refer to them all the time. By and large, I am on JR's side on this one. People in and around the C2 fora seem in denial most of the time about the effect of (1) weight and (2) age on erging performances. <br /><br />The PATT scores are just a measure of your competition, if you go to well attended 2K races, or if other sorts of races with similar attendance were held. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

On the other hand, I am with PaulS in being puzzled why JR wants to set up races at all. If JR liked to race, I presume he would go to races. But he doesn't. PaulS also seems to avoid races on the erg--and has explained why (the possibility of injury, etc.). <br /><br />It is clear to all, certainly, that both JR and PaulS would have to get quite a bit better (now) to be contenders in their divisions, so what PaulS suggests about valuing personal improvement over comparisons seems entirely sensible.<br /><br />The challenge to both PaulS and JR is really this: to get quite a bit bettter first (now, at this advanced age), before they natter at one another about their comparative prowess at racing.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 29 2005, 12:59 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 29 2005, 12:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The challenge to both PaulS and JR is really this: to get quite a bit bettter first (now, at this advanced age), before they natter at one another about their comparative prowess at racing.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Been there, done that, and I still have the T-Shirt. I guess when I see something that is faster than what I have actually done, I would consider your challenge above to be something more than your own "nattering". <br /><br />I'm just hoping to see some of your results, that you speak about nearly endlessly.<br />I've been able to see mine already, though I'm a bit more private about them, but that's just me. Don't talk - - Do it!

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 29 2005, 12:59 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 29 2005, 12:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->puzzled why JR wants to set up races at all. If JR liked to race, I presume he would go to races. But he doesn't. </td></tr></table><br />I don't really want to set up any races but thought it would be fun to have some friendly competition over the next few months. However if there were races close by, I would certainly prepare for and attend them. The closest race that I know of is in Long Beach in February. I have thought of that but would need to drive through the Los Angeles smog and pollution to get there, plus Long Beach is right in the midst of it all. Then it would probably be too hot for my liking. Yes I am selective. However if there were any races within, say 60 miles of me, then I would certainly want to attend them.<br /><br />I am more interested in online racing and would like to partake in them, when it is possible to get a second computer set up on the garage by the rowing machine. This might be awhile, but I am looking forward to taking part in them.<br /><br />I don't have any particular prowess or inclination to be faster or better than anyone else.<br /><br />My motivation is to do well for myself, and to do my best to accomplish things, though this is an ongoing journey. And I find satisfaction from many others doing well and not just myself. I would rather, for example, get 4th in a field of 20 or so where all went on to fast times, instead of winning by a minute or so and everyone else doing poorly.

[[old] John Rupp]

I do admire greatly, however, those who are able to run away from the field and are way out in front.<br /><br />This raises the standards for everyone else.

[[old] John Rupp]

Sorry -- I was trying to edit a typo.

[[old] John Rupp]

...

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 02:08 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 02:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 29 2005, 12:59 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 29 2005, 12:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->puzzled why JR wants to set up races at all. If JR liked to race, I presume he would go to races. But he doesn't. </td></tr></table><br />I don't really want to set up any races but thought it would be fun to have some friendly competition over the next few months. However if there were races close by, I would certainly prepare for and attend them. The closest race that I know of is in Long Beach in February. I have thought of that but would need to drive through the Los Angeles smog and pollution to get there, plus Long Beach is right in the midst of it all. Then it would probably be too hot for my liking. Yes I am selective. However if there were any races within, say 60 miles of me, then I would certainly want to attend them.<br /><br />I am more interested in online racing and would like to partake in them, when it is possible to get a second computer set up on the garage by the rowing machine. This might be awhile, but I am looking forward to taking part in them.<br /><br />I don't have any particular prowess or inclination to be faster or better than anyone else.<br /><br />My motivation is to do well for myself, and to do my best to accomplish things, though this is an ongoing journey. And I find satisfaction from many others doing well and not just myself. I would rather, for example, get 4th in a field of 20 or so where all went on to fast times, instead of winning by a minute or so and everyone else doing poorly. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You drove to Mexico for a dental appointment for goodness sakes, didn't that take you through the same smog, and into worse for that matter?<br /><br />Your final paragraph is well said. Though winning by "a minute or so" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else did poorly, I'd be quite certain they had done what they were able, which is all that any of us can do.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 02:08 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 02:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do admire greatly, however, those who are able to run away from the field and are way out in front.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />It's tough to buy this, as you have acted so contrary to it many times in the past.<br /><br />But hey, I'm not one to overlook the rare occassion when you get something right.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 02:08 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 02:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This raises the standards for everyone else.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Indeed it does.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

PaulS,<br /><br />Stop being a jerk!

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 29 2005, 03:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 29 2005, 03:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PaulS,<br /><br />Stop being a jerk! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Whoa there happy puppy, what did I do now?<br /><br />Oh well, so it goes.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

(Comments moved here from the "Boston Erg Marathon" thread, where yet another discussion of adjustments is threatening to take over....)<br /><br /><i><span style='color:red'>Note for the comedy-challenged: what follows is <b>satirical commentary</b>, on the compulsion to adjust performances so that lightweights make us fatties look pathetic.</span></i> <br /><br />IF you really want to compare "underlying physiological performances as reflected in erg scores" on the basis of weight, why not correct for non-essential body fat. Unlike lean muscle mass, it won't improve your 2k erg score. It will slow you down, mainly because there's an energy cost to accelerating/decelerating it on every stroke. It also requires at least some oxygenated blood that otherwise could be put to some more useful purpose. Technically the correction factor could be derived rather easily by having the erger sit butt-naked on a seat/scale that measured body fat via bioelectrical impedance.<br /><br />When I did my 6:19.7 in October I probably had about 22% body fat. I have no real idea what Watt's body fat percentage was when he did his 6:25.8, but I'm guessing he was pretty close to the minimum level of essential body fat for adult males. To make the numbers easier let's assume 7%.<br /><br />Plug our respective 2k scores into C2's current weight-adjustment calculator and you get:<br /><br />Watt: 6:25.8 raw; 5:46.0 adjusted per C2<br />NH: 6:19.7 raw; 6:13.3 adjusted per C2<br /><br />Now let's see what would happen if I were to shed 15% of my aggregate weight in the form of non-essential fat:<br /><br />NH: 6:19.7 raw, 6:00.1 adjusted per C2<br /><br />And this is ignoring any gains in pace that must come from having to accelerate/decelerate less mass per stroke, or from not having to oxygenate (even minimally) quite as much tissue. Let's ignore the latter, hold stroke rating constant at 32, and for simplicity' sake assume a slide length of 1 meter. In itself, dropping the excess fat should then improve available power by about 10 watts/stroke. That'd be enough to move me from a 6:19.7 to around 6:16.8.<br /><br />Plug that into C2's current weight-adjustment calculator and you get:<br /><br />NH: 6:16.8 hypothetical raw, 5:57.4 adjusted per C2. <br /><br />Hey, what do you know. If you believe these Ruppified adjustments, underneath all that blubber my body's apparently working pretty hard after all. Why, I've already nearly achieved ant-like, oops make that lightweight intensity! Possibly the only thing better would be to discover (like Moliere's bourgeois gentleman) that I've actually been speaking prose all my life -- even though I'm merely a heavyweight .....

[[old] raymond botha]

Listening to this has got to be the best comic relief I've had for a long time and I'm sure beats the unlikekly event of a race off. <br /><br />Thank you all.

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Dec 30 2005, 09:46 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 30 2005, 09:46 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Comments moved here from the "Boston Erg Marathon" thread, where yet another discussion of adjustments is threatening to take over....)<br /><br /><i><span style='color:red'>Note for the comedy-challenged: what follows is <b>satirical commentary</b>, on the compulsion to adjust performances so that lightweights make us fatties look pathetic.</span></i>  <br /><br />IF you really want to compare "underlying physiological performances as reflected in erg scores" on the basis of weight, why not correct for non-essential body fat.  Unlike lean muscle mass, it won't improve your 2k erg score.  It will slow you down, mainly because there's an energy cost to accelerating/decelerating it on every stroke.  It also requires at least some oxygenated blood that otherwise could be put to some more useful purpose.  Technically the correction factor could be derived rather easily by having the erger sit butt-naked on a seat/scale that measured body fat via bioelectrical impedance.<br /><br />When I did my 6:19.7 in October I probably had about 22% body fat.  I have no real idea what Watt's body fat percentage was when he did his 6:25.8, but I'm guessing he was pretty close to the minimum level of essential body fat for adult males.  To make the numbers easier let's assume 7%.<br /><br />Plug our respective 2k scores into C2's current weight-adjustment calculator and you get:<br /><br />Watt:  6:25.8 raw; 5:46.0 adjusted per C2<br />NH: 6:19.7 raw; 6:13.3 adjusted per C2<br /><br />Now let's see what would happen if I were to shed 15% of my aggregate weight in the form of non-essential fat:<br /><br />NH: 6:19.7 raw, 6:00.1 adjusted per C2<br /><br />And this is ignoring any gains in pace that must come from having to accelerate/decelerate less mass per stroke, or from not having to oxygenate (even minimally) quite as much tissue.  Let's ignore the latter, hold stroke rating constant at 32, and for simplicity' sake assume a slide length of 1 meter.  In itself, dropping the excess fat should then improve available power by about 10 watts/stroke.  That'd be enough to move me from a 6:19.7 to around 6:16.8.<br /><br />Plug that into C2's current weight-adjustment calculator and you get:<br /><br />NH: 6:16.8 hypothetical raw, 5:57.4 adjusted per C2. <br /><br />Hey, what do you know.  If you believe these Ruppified adjustments, underneath all that blubber my body's apparently working pretty hard after all.  Why, I've already nearly achieved ant-like, oops make that lightweight intensity!  Possibly the only thing better would be to discover (like Moliere's bourgeois gentleman) that I've actually been speaking prose all my life -- even though I'm merely a heavyweight ..... <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This sounds good to me, NavHaz. I'd like to see across all sports. We could have a BF%-adjusted 100 meter dash and a BF%-adjusted marathon in the Olympics, too. It's about time that fatties like me got the recognition we deserve. Just because someone trains hard and changes their body composition (or happens to have the genetics) to excel at some event is no reason to reward, admire, or emulate them. <br /><br />I think we should do the same thing for vertically-challenged people, too. We could require tall basketball players to give the short ones more room to shoot and to stay further from the basket so that the short guys have a better chance at rebounding, too. (Or else, we could just adjust the short players stats to reflect how they would have done if the had been taller.) Similarly, we could develop formulas to credit me with the rowing performance I would have had if I were 4 inches taller. <br /><br />Oh, never mind . . . no one cares about <i><b>my</b></i> needs.