Catch And Resistance

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 4th, 2004, 8:40 pm

George, You must have misread one of my messages. I understand Paul's plight, how difficult it is and am wishing him good luck. Certainly you can have no contention with my wishing him well. Especially considering how accepting you are of his erroneous nonsense, you could be a little bit more accepting of my graciousness. In any case I think you should follow Paul's program if for no other reason than you are so enamoured with his stumbling ineptitude. I am saying this with all sincerity and mean this as a compliment to Paul and his misguided "helpfulness" to others who choose to get mislead by his ramblings. I agree the style of "Ebbesen" is more suited to lightweights who are less than 6'2, though there is a continuum between and beyond. Apparently you do see some sense in this discussion, condescending that Ebbesen's style would not be suitable for you.

[old] gw1 · Post by **[old] gw1** » October 4th, 2004, 8:58 pm

GeorgeD you make a good point re the individual nature of each rowers physiology and style. When you take ito consideration also the different objectives and levels of aspiration, to me there are so many options in how to reach your goals. Years ago i wrote the Australian Surfboat program, that many people over the years have either tried in its original form or modified. Since completing it the first time about 15 years ago, I don't think i've followed it to the letter once. Each year, in the never ending search for progress i'll modify one or or more of the components, even though my goal remains the same. We must keep our mind open. Gary

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 4th, 2004, 10:26 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (gw1 @ Oct 5 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Years ago i wrote the Australian Surfboat program, that many people over the years have either tried in its original form or modified. Since completing it the first time about 15 years ago, I don't think i've followed it to the letter once. Each year, in the never ending search for progress i'll modify one or or more of the components, even though my goal remains the same. We must keep our mind open. Gary  </td></tr></table> Hi Gary, yes I have a copy of your programme ... tks , and went thru it the other night and looked at how it tied in with info I have from the likes of Paul S, Ranger, Dwayne, Pete M, and Graeme B and others. It all goes into making building a picture in my head and my laptop of what I 'think' will work for me, but as in all these sort of endeavours some aspects will and some wont and it will take vigilance and honesty on my part and some thought in hindsight of what added to my equation and what didn't. This is a big part of the fun ... if all you had to do was sit on an erg and row for ever to get quick then where would us 'back street' physiologists be . I like listening to everyone from the 'old timers' to the 'newbies' , as I dont have all the answers and probably not even most so I can learn from them all, both the sucesses and the failures (we learn most from our failures there is no doubt). I have gone from hopeing to break 8:00 to just under 6:30 in 9 months and take some satisfaction in that but I know I have made many mistakes and wasted some time and maybe cld have gone quicker .... but best of all I am wiser. We all are on here if we stop and listen first before commenting. I make comments and replys and ask questions on here for a totally selfish reason and that is because it makes me feel good, it makes me feel like a part of a comunity of like minded people who suffer the same and sweat the same and desire the same, and thats most enjoyable. Along the way, I learn, get inspired, get provoked (to think), can offer some adice, maybe help someone ... not hbad is it really. That is why I get pissed off when others abuse this 'family' by their own nastiness. Tks Gary for your input ... it is taken on board and valued like EVERYONE elses. - George

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 4th, 2004, 10:37 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 5 2004, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> George, You must have misread one of my messages. I understand Paul's plight, how difficult it is and am wishing him good luck. Certainly you can have no contention with my wishing him well. Especially considering how accepting you are of his erroneous nonsense, you could be a little bit more accepting of my graciousness.  </td></tr></table> Well John I guess that sums you up ... first of all I got angry at your response but quickly got over it as I began to feel sad for you. Sad that in the space of a couple of days and a few poorly chosen comments you have alienated yourself from much of the community ( I concede that is an assumption). For those of us who erg primarily alone I have no doubt that this forum is a chance to share with others in a truely global sense in a many faceted community ... sad that you choose to throw a rotten apple into the box. - George

[old] KMurphy · Post by **[old] KMurphy** » October 4th, 2004, 11:43 pm

Hello everyone. Though I'm super new to rowing I would like to throw out a few thoughts. First, the whole idea of doing some training strapless, at low DF and low stroke rates does make a lot of sense to me. In just the week + I've had my erg I've been able to find a nice beginner rythem at 19-20smp DF110 and strapless (latest was 35' @ 18spm 2:15.5 pace DF110) that has helped me come close to good form without having someone in person to assist me. By using SPI etc I can see quantitatively what I feel when I row that I'm beginning to learn how to develop power in the stroke. I am very greatfull to the likes of Pirate, George D, Paul S etc for these types of tips as I feel they are saving me from lots of trial and error. Though I've read a lot of postings (searching the back posts on the forum) on the whole debate of fixing to 10mps, I'm still not completely sure I understand why that would be optimum for racing though I can easily see the benifits for measurement in training. It's very hard to improve on things you can't quantify. As I have a science background and no program for a living I have a lot of experience with testing things. I'm curious if anyone has done any type of testing along these lines. What if you get a bunch of rowers that are already in good conditioning? (oh I guess we have those on this forum). What if they all did a certain set of fixed rows and reported the results? IE we all know you can get the same pace by via the spectrum of fast/weak strokes to slow/strong strokes. What if you row the same 6-10K or whatever piece one per day at the same target pace but go from a low SPM to a high one. Record your HR pattern for each piece and graph. My gut feeling would be that at both ends you would be inefficient due to going to fast or pulling to hard and that there would be an optimum valley in the middle representing your best spm/stroke power combination for that pace. If a lot of people would do this same thing it would possibly reveal if there is a correlation between height/weight and the sweet spot. Could be that around 10mps is the spot for everyone. Could be it's different for everyone. Could even very by age as the age rate of muscle strength and CV fitness may not match which would mean the spot might slide one way or the other as you age. sorry if this is all whacked, but I have a very curious mind. For what it was worth. Kenneth Murphy 32M 6'5" 110KG 2k 7:56 newbie

[old] Mikebell · Post by **[old] Mikebell** » October 5th, 2004, 10:42 am

This morning, I did 5000M, strapless, DF 110, ~10-11mps. Aside from an awful time (~2 minutes off my norm), it made me extremely conscious of my technique, from catch through to recovery. If reinforced the notion of constant motion, eliminating the small hesitation that can occur at the end of the drive. One thing (and this is probably because I am new to the whole strapless thing), did anyone else feel a tad unstable at the end of the drive when you lean back? I am going to give it another try this evening and see how it goes. . . .

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » October 5th, 2004, 11:11 am

KM 10 metres per stroke is almost obligatory, given the geometry of oars. During the pull, the boat moves around 3 to 3½ metres, according to the lengths of the oar or scull and the angle we pull them through. Then with a slow recovery we let the boat run for another 6-7m and hey presto we have the 10m. Boats let us do all this in a little short of 3 seconds, so at rating 22-24. This is called paddling, cv training, UT1, UT2, Wolverine L4 and any other name you want. It represents about 95% of the work we do on the erg or afloat. We have to pull hard to do it, so it is training. We also have the excellent rhythm you already found: 2:1, and this is essential. We can keep it up for a long time and so get some training done and refine our technique. If possible, we use it in racing too On the erg, the problem is that other ratios are possible, albeit uncomfortable and wasteful energy wise. Hence the need to mimic rowing, not least because novice oarsmen may well start on the erg and we don't want them getting into bad habits, the technique will be difficult enough as it is.. Maybe shorter ratios are used during sprnts or tests on the erg, but we give up after a few minutes. For example 1:1 would mean rating 35 or 40 or so and putting in about 50% more Watts. I read of people falling off the erg in such cases. So there seems to be little point in recommending that sort of thing. Even in a 2k test I prefer 2:1, and my last was 7:21 at 27-28. I'm happy with that. I don't know if everyone finds the 2:1 ratio as magic as I do, but I sure know I wouldn't want to row at any other rhythm. Anyone who tells you different has never stroked or sat behind a good stroke and maybe has never been afloat.

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » October 5th, 2004, 11:15 am

This “magic” drag setting of 110. Why is that so special to every one? Why not 105 or 112. Without sounding rude, is it a case of “well Dwayne and Ranger use it, so it must be great as they are quick” I think people should be careful, what works for some does not work for all. This is meant in a caring way. Sir Pirate

[old] Mikebell · Post by **[old] Mikebell** » October 5th, 2004, 2:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This “magic” drag setting of 110. Why is that so special to every one? Why not 105 or 112. Without sounding rude, is it a case of “well Dwayne and Ranger use it, so it must be great as they are quick” </td></tr></table> I like this thinking. I usually erg at a DF of 150, erging at a lower DF (IMHO) doesn't seem to mimic when I am in a shell. . . .

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 5th, 2004, 2:36 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Oct 5 2004, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> This “magic” drag setting of 110. Why is that so special to every one? Sir Pirate  </td></tr></table> There is no "Magic" DF, and the selection of your ideal DF would be a very laborious process since techniques vary widely. OTOH, if you want to match up a crew to row in a boat well, they had better be able to produce similar speeds at similar strokes rates and DF's on the Erg, otherwisse you are not "matching" anything. For example: Pulling a 2:00 at DF=200 and a 2:00 at DF=100 have completely different drive speeds, and if length is held constant the ratios will be totally different also. The one thing that is assured when in a boat is that you are all moving at basically the same speed realtive to the water and this is what would determine the "collective" Drag Factor that should be matched on the Erg if possible. If you are planning on rowing along in a fast boat, low DF's are the obvious choice, for Slow Boats pick High DF's. I think this is where some confusion exists in the understanding of DF. While the power required for a given speed (Pace on the PM) is always the same, that is because the translation is simply XAvgWatts = YPace for the virtual boat. I think that a likely parallel would be Oar Length (assuming constant inboard length), at the same boat speed a much longer oar would require more time on the Drive (High DF) than a Shorter Oar (Lower DF). The boat would be propelled further on the drive with the longer outboard and take a bit more time. This would be similar to the relationship between the Flywheel RPMs and drive Speed. At DF200 the rpms may be around 1000, but at DF100 the rpms might be closer to 1500 (these are just examples, I don't have exact figures in front of me at the moment). This means that at the low DF you will have to be moving 50% faster to even catch up to the flywheel before energy can be added. Now you might think something like "I can get more force on the flywheel at high DF's", but that's only due to the limit on muscular contraction rate. Ideally we need to train at appropriate contraction rates as they relate to the goal of racing together, so DF selection becomes a team issue. A shorter person may want to select a higher DF so that they can get the same distance credit while on the drive as a taller rower, and this could be carried to the boat with an adjustment to the rigging so that they are able to get through the same arc length as the taller person, though at most levels this is not done and the rowers all use equipment that is not that personalized. Dang, this is too long already.... Cheers, Paul Smith

[old] becz · Post by **[old] becz** » October 5th, 2004, 2:56 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (jamesg @ Oct 5 2004, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Maybe shorter ratios are used during sprnts or tests on the erg, but we give up after a few minutes. For example 1:1 would mean rating 35 or 40 or so and putting in about 50% more Watts. I read of people falling off the erg in such cases. So there seems to be little point in recommending that sort of thing... I don't know if everyone finds the 2:1 ratio as magic as I do, but I sure know I wouldn't want to row at any other rhythm. Anyone who tells you different has never stroked or sat behind a good stroke and maybe has never been afloat. </td></tr></table> Well, I've watched for a while, been amused and bemused, and figure my 2 cents is worth as much as anyone else's. Based on 15 years of rowing experience (on and off the water), I would agree that 10 mps just happens to be a good average value. I mean, look at the range that's been talked about, ~8 to about ~12. However, to row at only 10 mps in training is ridiculous (IMHO). If one desires to keep it simple, then by all means go ahead and never stray from 10 mps. Easy to track, easy on the brain, etc. You'll be an average rower. However, better rowers will find themselves doing pieces above and below this value. You'll get a lot farther if you base your training on heart rate, and measure improvement by faster scores on certain test distances (IMHO). Or maybe all the national team coaches have it wrong. I included the quote above because it's curious to me. No one who reaches rarified air on the erg or in a boat races at a 2:1 ratio. As you improve, you'll be trading rate for pace naturally (let's call it TRFP, since it's become such a popular phrase). Here is a link to several elite scullers and sweep rowers (on the water), with drive to recovery time listed on most: <a href='http://www.invernessrowingclub.co.uk/catchpos.html' target='_blank'>Catch Positions of the Great, the Good, and the Ugly</a> (It also features the famous [not elite] PS!) They are all racing at ~1:1 drive to recovery time. And they are all stroking a rate of about 35-37 (exactly where the quote above recommends you don't go). Are they TRFP? Of course! Due to physical limitations, you can only go so fast when keeping it to 10 mps. What's the next option? Bring the rate up. Did these elite athletes train at only 10 mps. I doubt it.

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » October 5th, 2004, 3:20 pm

I now see why I view things different from you PaulS. I have never rowed on the water. I just see the concept 2 as a piece of gym equipment; I don’t see it as what it really is…..an aid to people who row on the water. It’s great to read your views on what you feel the purpose of the Erg is and the ways to use it to assist an individual/crew of water rowers; you put your points across in a very clear manner. This is one of the great uses of forums like this, sharing and educating. You still won’t get me rowing strapless though. Sir Pirate

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 5th, 2004, 4:07 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (becz @ Oct 5 2004, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Based on 15 years of rowing experience (on and off the water), I would agree that 10 mps just happens to be a good average value. You'll get a lot farther if you base your training on heart rate, and measure improvement by faster scores on certain test distances (IMHO). Or maybe all the national team coaches have it wrong. I included the quote above because it's curious to me. No one who reaches rarified air on the erg or in a boat races at a 2:1 ratio.  </td></tr></table> You're right, it just happens to be a good average value. It has to do with what C2 decided to do with the programing of the PM2, mostly a coincidence, but there is something behind it also. HR based training is not the end all be all of training, All national team coaches do not subscribe to it, and if they did they would indeed be wrong. IMO As far as using Neil's page to determine Ratios, don't put too much stock in that, you can not determine ratio from a casual look at video frames and he has made the mistake of defining "drive" and "recovery" relative to blade direction WRT the hull. It is a lot closer to 2:1 than 1:1 in reality. And yes, TRPF is just fine once you have reached other limitations, it's the only thing left to do. "Not Elite", I'm hurt! - Paul Smith PS - Pirate, I'll keep working on you....

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 5th, 2004, 5:47 pm

Hi Pirate ... re the 110df it is just a nice figure and easy to remember. When I am erging it may be anywhere between 108/9 and 110/111 not really much of an issue but it is significantly less than my 130df And I very much agree that in all discussions it needs to be remembered that erging and rowing are not the same tho there is much that can be learnt from water rowing (physiology does not change). My goal is to erg fast - George

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 5th, 2004, 6:12 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Oct 5 2004, 09:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> And I very much agree that in all discussions it needs to be remembered that erging and rowing are not the same tho there is much that can be learnt from water rowing (physiology does not change). My goal is to erg fast - George  </td></tr></table> Well, you are built a lot like Matthias Siejkowski who has not only "THE" WR for 2K (at 35 years old), but also the WR for 2500M (at 28 years old, I think.), so make sure that what you consider "fast" is indeed that, no fault in setting goals high. First you have to "Beat The Girls" though, and a lovely countrywoman, named Georgina, of yours has set that standard. Though there is an Aussie gal that is coming on strong and Rowing at our Local State University (University of Washington). Spinning the wheel fast is best accomplished with exactly the same drive that moves a boat well, it's the recovery that can be vastly different and gain some advantage on the Erg, but it still must be managed so that you don't beat yourself into submission. Sometimes it seems to be suggested that fast Erging and Rowing are mutually exclusive, which comes from the observation that faster Ergers may not be in Fast boats. Of course there are the Schlenkers, VanBloms, Karpinnens, Waddells, etc... that show it is not necessarily true. It seems more rare to be a fast "Dry-Erger". Erg on, Paul Smith

Concept2 Forum

Catch And Resistance

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training