Rating Up Question

[Jules]

I've been erging for about five months now and I am fairly comfortable with my stroke. Most of my training has been at lower rates and fairly long distances (10K 19 to 22 spm stuff), three to four days per week. I have not yet rowed at any higher stroke rates (above 23 spm) for any significant distances.

I would like to start increasing my rates, but I am wondering how to adjust my pacing to accomodate the additional strokes per minute.

To give you a sense of where I currently am, I did a 10K last night at about 145 watts, at 22 spm (2:14 pace). That is just under 2 watts per kg of body weight for me (1.97 to be precise). That sessions was the top of my UT1 band.

If I want add some 10K rows at 24 or 26 spm, what should my target wattage or target pace be? Is there a "calculator" out there I can reference for some guidelines? Should I start with shorter intervals (pyramiding up to 24 and then 26 spm for 2 minutes and then back down as would be typical of a longer Wolverine Plan workout)? Any other thoughts?

Thanks for the help and any suggestions.

[gregsmith01748]

So right now you are rowing at 6.6 watts per stroke (145W/22spm) If you just increase your watts by about 7 for each additional stroke per minute you'd be keepinig the work per stroke about the same.

So, if you wanted to do some 2K intervals at 26 SPM, you could start at 145+4*7 = 173W as a pace target and see how it goes. Everyone is different, the important thing is to give it a try and then adjust based on how you feel.

[Trev]

Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic or augmentative but watts don't work like that.

If you are doing 200 watts at 20 spm you are not doing 10 watts per stroke, you are doing 200 watts per stroke.

If you reduce or increase the stroke rate, but hold 200 watts, the force per stroke increases or decreases but you are still doing 200 watts per stroke.

[hjs]

Just go with the flow, don,t overthink it. Rating up in this range is pretty easy.

[debinapril]

Hi,
I have never thought of it this way. For me the pace dictates the rate not the other way round. If you were to target 10K at 2.10 pace you would naturally rate up to achieve the pace.

Cheers.

[jackarabit]

Here come the chalkboards and formulae. This is what happens when (x/y)/z takes a name. jack

[Trev]

Here come the chalkboards and formulae. This is what happens when (x/y)/z takes a name. jack

If this were a cycling forum you would have endless posts by coaches, sports scientists and academics all quoting studies and posting graphs and formulas.

It's refreshing on here.

[gregsmith01748]

Trev: I apologize for offending your tender sensibilities. A more appropriate term for what I was talking about was coined by Valery Kleshnev. He calls it "effective Work Per Stroke (eWPS). You can download a spreadsheet to explore the concept here.

http://www.biorow.com/Downloads.htm

[Trev]

Trev: I apologize for offending your tender sensibilities. A more appropriate term for what I was talking about was coined by Valery Kleshnev. He calls it "effective Work Per Stroke (eWPS). You can download a spreadsheet to explore the concept here.

http://www.biorow.com/Downloads.htm

Thanks will read it. I do tend to get a bit bogged down in the minutiae.

[Jules]

Thanks to everyone who replied. Sounds like the bottom line is, as Greg stated, "Everyone is different, the important thing is to give it a try and adjust based on how you feel." I'll admit I do have a tendency to "overthink it," as hjs noted.

debinapril:

I have only been rowing for a relatively short period of time so my focus (right or wrong) has been on trying to bring my times down by concentrating on my form and increasing my power per stroke, while also building my aerobic base. When I started, I was doing 10ks at a much slower pace, but around the same rate. I have been playing with various stroke rates and watts per stroke, but my work so far has all been at or below 23 spm. At this point, five months in, rating up seems like the next logical step to me to significantly improve my times. Touching on what Trev said, I'm not sure I can maintain that 20% increase in total watts at a higher stroke rate over a 10k. To me, going from 145 watts to 173 watts is a pretty substantial reduction in time (about 2:30 over 10K). I completely agree I just need to try it and adjust as necessary.

[Trev]

Trev: I apologize for offending your tender sensibilities. A more appropriate term for what I was talking about was coined by Valery Kleshnev. He calls it "effective Work Per Stroke (eWPS). You can download a spreadsheet to explore the concept here.

http://www.biorow.com/Downloads.htm

The concept is far less complicated if you look at watts rather than pace. But then on water how do you look at power and power might not translate to pace.

But on an erg, if you look at power it's all simple.

[jamesg]

If I want to add some 10K rows at 24 or 26 spm, what should my target wattage or target pace be

If you can maintain the same Work per stroke implied by 145/22=6.6 Watt-minutes (W'), rating up from 22 to 24 suggests 158 W, and 26 is 170W.

In the Wolverine L4 tables, which apply the same logic (roughly constant work per stroke), we see 2.14@22 corresponding to 24/2.09 and 26/2.04 (all after a 2k test done at 7.55). If you have a faster 2k test than this, use the stroke work in that test. For example, a 7½ 2k at 30 is an 8W' stroke.

Whatever system you want to use, the result will be the same: both will put you well into AT, so 40' may be too much. AT work usually starts with 2*7' or similar, with plenty of warmup.

[sharp_rower]

Sorry I don't mean to be pedantic or augmentative but watts don't work like that.

If you are doing 200 watts at 20 spm you are not doing 10 watts per stroke, you are doing 200 watts per stroke.

If you reduce or increase the stroke rate, but hold 200 watts, the force per stroke increases or decreases but you are still doing 200 watts per stroke.

You're correct. I think it's a convenience to just say "Watts per stroke", even though it should really be expressed in "Joules per stroke".

[Jules]

If you can maintain the same Work per stroke implied by 145/22=6.6 Watt-minutes (W'), rating up from 22 to 24 suggests 158 W, and 26 is 170W.

<snip>

Whatever system you want to use, the result will be the same: both will put you well into AT, so 40' may be too much. AT work usually starts with 2*7' or similar, with plenty of warmup.

That's exactly what I was thinking, james (i.e., 40 minutes may be too much given my prior work was high end of UT1). So tonight I targeted 30' r25 at 2:08.5, which would have put me right at 7,000 meters. Didn't make it, but didn't do too badly for a first attempt at rating up:

30' r25
Meters: 6,977
Pace: 2:09.0
watts: 163.1
watts/stroke: 6.52
Average HR: 160

Couldn't quite manage 6.6 watts/stroke, but came pretty close. Most of the session was definitely in my AT zone, but my heart rate didn't really get out of control until a last minute push when it jumped from 165 to 169.

I need to work on my breathing, which was definitely out of synch. I am so used to two breaths at low 20s. The slightly higher stroke rate had me in between breaths.

[Cyclingman1]

This topic is simply bizarre. It's like asking, "I'm not necessarily interested in running faster, but how do I make my legs go faster?" I make the assumption that something more serious is being asked other than literally going up and down the slide faster. That's easy enough to do - just cut down length of slide and adjust exertion to keep the pace constant. Nothing hard about that, though who would want to.

It's not a question of how to do greater SPM. The main question is how to do more Watts, that is, is the average pace/500m greater. SPM is part of the equation. At some point in going faster, one has to increase SPM. Otherwise, Watts/stroke must continue to increase, which is not likely. For example, if one does 120W at 20 SPM, that is 6 W/s. To do 200W at the same SPM, the W/s would have to be 10. It's not likely one is going to increase from 6 to 10. Increasing SPM is a consequence of trying to go faster. Of course, greater fitness is needed. At greater SPM, less recovery time is available. Basically, what I'm saying is that one does not dial up SPM to start with: SPM is not a primary goal. The goal is pace/Wattage. Let the SPM be what it has to be to get there. Of course, one can play with SPM for training purposes, that is, keeping it artificially low to improve Watts/stroke.

What you just did was not primarily a first attempt at 25 SPM. It was a first attempt at 2:09, which required you to do 25 SPM to stay at 6.5 W/s. This is not just a word game. More energy had to be exerted and could only be done at greater SPM and at greater heart rate because the rest time is diminished by 10-15 percent.