Why So Slow With The Rates?

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 21st, 2004, 6:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Perhaps the greatest problem with training at low rates is that when the rower then switches to high/er rates the ratio is totally off. The tendency is then to keep pulling short (drive is a low percentage of stroke) and hard with a longer recovery, with the result of trading rate for pace, i.e. losing effective pace and running out of rate as the rating goes higher because of the inferior ratio. However keeping a good drive length and ratio means that pace will be gained as the rating is increased, i.e. gaining pace with rate. </td></tr></table> John-- Yes, after training at low stroke rates, high stroking power, and high ratios, it takes a while to switch back to high stroke rates, lower ratios, and lighter stroking. If there is time to do this before racing, there is no damage done, though. I like to make this transition with my Zatopeks, which involve a lot of rowing with a light stroke at a high pace but with this rowing broken into short bursts over many repetitions. With the Zatopeks, I like to start with 250s and then work through 500s to 1Ks. The hope is that my off-season work on stroking power and technique will make the "light stroking" I do in my Zatopeks more powerful than it was previously. We'll see if this is the case. Today, I felt pretty good doing 250s in Zatopek format at 1:32. I used to do Zatopek 250s at 1:36. If I can now do a full Zatopek of 250s at 1:32, I will have improved 4 seconds per 500 on this workout as a result on my work on technique and stroking power. Granted, this is not yet a gain in the 2K, but it is a certain sort of training effect. I hope the same effect will show up when I try Zatopek 500s. I used to do these at about 1:40. I think I can now do them at 1:36--again, an improvement of 4 seconds per 500. The same effect would appear in Zatopek 1Ks if I could do them at 1:40. I used to do them at 1:44. You are also right that major gains in training can be made with rate, but you miss why. These gains in rate also result from off-season rowing at low stroke rates and high stroking power. After extended rowing at low stroke rates and high power, when you switch to lighter stroking and high rates in the racing season it is easier to get the rate up, even though you don't really need to get the rate up to reach your former race paces. For instance, today I was doing some 250s at 1:30 and 38 spm, a nice high rate. Granted, I used to do 1:30 pace at about 44 spm, a higher rate, but for me, 44 spm is the beginning of considerable mechanical strain and therefore disorganization in technique. With a stronger stroke, 1:30 pace (at 38 spm) now feels very smooth and controlled, but with still a good high rate. This result might not come soon, but at some point I would like to do 500s at 1:30. I now have a stroke that can make this possible. To this point, my best performance on 8 x 500m has been about 1:34, again, 4 seconds per 500 above 1:30. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 21st, 2004, 6:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Take a look at how smooth Eskild Ebbesen is at 41.3 strokes per minute and 8 meters per stroke. Then watch someone who's been training at 16 spm! Major difference.  </td></tr></table> John-- You have no evidence that Eskild does not do some training at 16 spm. Those who row a lot at low stroke rates also rate higher than 16 on many rows; 16 is a minimum, not a norm. 20-22 spm is probably a norm for slow spm rowing. 26 spm seems to be a maximum. I would assume that Eskild rows a zillion meters at 20-22 spm and a high SPI. Anyway, the more relevant fact about Eskild's racing is that he races at 11 SPI, not that he races at 8 meters per stroke. Sure, if you can maintain 11 SPI, up the rate as far as you can! As it turns out, the only way to race effectively at 42 spm and 11 SPI is to row a lot of meters _way_ above 11 SPI (13 SPI? 14 SPI?) but at lower rates. Then when you trade rate for pace during a race, you can still maintain 11 SPI at 42 spm (if you are Eskild!). You can't train yourself to row at 42 spm and 11 SPI by rowing a lot at 8 meters per stroke, lower stroke rates, and 7 SPI! Would that it were true, but the claim is absurd. Pulling lighter and less quickly while going slower does not train you to pull more heavily and faster while going faster! Eskild does not train at 8 meters per stroke. You have no evidence for the claim, and given what it implies, the claim is ridiculous. ranger

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 21st, 2004, 10:46 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Oct 22 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I would assume that Eskild rows a zillion meters at 20-22 spm and a high SPI. </td></tr></table> As you say Ranger some people here appear to making assumptions that those who train at low rates do so all the time and then would try to switch to a higher rate the next day for a 2k .... as we know this is patently not true. Low rating high SPI is a tool, I guess a bit like hill running... it makes us stronger 'in its time, in its place, in its season'. This is balanced with other forms of training and then we bring them all together as we enter the pre-competition phase and build pace using our strength and technique. Low rate work, high rate work, intervals, steady state, recovery rows, days off .... they are all part of the jigsaw that goes together to make us what we can potentially become - but as each of us are individuals the picture on the jigsaw box is different for each one of us and hence the pieces are different as well. We can watch someone else assemble their jigsaw and maybe learn some better ways of doing things but in the end we have to create our own picture. - George ps I really dont look like Eskild and my wife is very happy about that !!

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 21st, 2004, 10:47 pm

Double click ...sorry

[old] andyArvid · Post by **[old] andyArvid** » October 22nd, 2004, 12:01 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Oct 21 2004, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Low rating high SPI is a tool, I guess a bit like hill running... it makes us stronger 'in its time, in its place, in its season'.  </td></tr></table> Bingo. This comment sold me. Since I've followed this forum, I have been always been skeptical (but respectful) of all this low rate stuff. I did not see how it applied to me. Never mind all the pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo. As a runner, I always did more hill workouts than interval workouts especially during the pre-season or early-season. Thanks for the analogy George....

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 22nd, 2004, 3:02 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Low rating high SPI is a tool, I guess a bit like hill running... it makes us stronger 'in its time, in its place, in its season'. This is balanced with other forms of training and then we bring them all together as we enter the pre-competition phase and build pace using our strength and technique.  </td></tr></table> George-- Yes, the analogy between slow spm rowing and hill running is good is certain ways. Relative to a norm, both involve an elevated CV strain relative to pace. In my time, I have done a lot of both, though, and it should also be recognized that slow spm rowing has even greater advantages as a training tool than hill running because the reduction in pace in slow spm rowing is not due to changes in resistance (gravity) and therefore does not demand a change in technique in the drive phrase of the stroke/stride. In fact, just the opposite, if you would like. In rowing, by just slowing down the rate, you can use just the drive you use in a 2K in order to row a marathon. If I could row a 6:24 2K at 36 spm (and 11 SPI), I could use the same drive in my stroke to row a 2:35 marathon at 24 spm (and 11 SPI). ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 22nd, 2004, 3:21 am

John-- I suppose the other thing that should be mentioned is this: I already row at close to 8 meters/stroke when I race, about 8.5. Yes, if I could row at 38 spm (using the same SPI) rather than 36 spm, I would row right at 8 meters per stroke, and I would love to be able to do that and indeed _try_ to do something like that when I race (but don't succeed). I don't know about this for sure, but I would guess that Eskild succeeds in raising the rate (while pulling harder than me) because he is just way, way better (not be mention younger). I am not sure that my inability to raise the rate to 38 spm has anything to do with my training or what I might do (in addition) in my training, so I guess I am not sure what you are getting at. Sure, if I raced at 12 meters per stroke, or whatever, I could see your point. I would agree entirely that this would be inefficient. But, really, I don't think that my inability to raise the rate when I race (and therefore lower the meters per stroke to 8 from 8.5) is due to my neglect of a lot of light stroking when I train! It is due to CV limitations, limitations that I probably can't change by _any_ sort of training. I am 53 years old; Eskild is (what?) 31? Graham Watt's ability to row at 38-39 spm might also derive from the fact that his is just a bit better CV-wise than I am. My work on low stroke rowing and stroking power is just exploring the possiblity that I might be able to make up this limitation in CV capacity with improved power per stroke (without lowering the stroke rate and therefore (some of) the CV strain). Rowing well has _something_ to do with technique and power per stroke. Or don't you think so? ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 22nd, 2004, 6:56 am

This morning: an hour of skipping, 5K warm up, 30 x 250m at 1:32 (2K - 5), 250m paddle inbetween. Total: 20K. These 250s at 1:32 are still surprisingly easy. I did a couple intervals at 1:30 (2K - 7), including the last. I will add 10 more 250m intervals tomorrow. That will make 40, a half Zatopek. Then I will keep stretching the workout until I reach 80. A full Zatopek of these 250s at 1:32 is entirely possible; I recover completely between the intervals. No lactic acid at all, just a little blow and I'm ready for the next one. Great workout for technique, relaxation, speed, and strength. Still 117 df. but, compared to yesterday, a little lighter on the stroking (38 spm, 11.8 SPI) exactly the stroking power I would like to race at. ranger

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » October 22nd, 2004, 12:27 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 21 2004, 06:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Take a look at how smooth Eskild Ebbesen is at 41.3 strokes per minute and 8 meters per stroke. Then watch someone who's been training at 16 spm!  </td></tr></table> John - Simple question - How do you know Eskild Ebbesen's training process? JimR

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 22nd, 2004, 4:00 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Oct 22 2004, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> This morning: an hour of skipping, 5K warm up, 30 x 250m at 1:32 (2K - 5), 250m paddle inbetween. Total: 20K. I recover completely between the intervals. No lactic acid at all, just a little blow and I'm ready for the next one. Great workout for technique, relaxation, speed, and strength. Still 117 df. but, compared to yesterday, a little lighter on the stroking (38 spm, 11.8 SPI) exactly the stroking power I would like to race at.  </td></tr></table> Rich, Nice workout. What pace did you do in between, or what was your overall pace for them? Thanks

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 22nd, 2004, 4:07 pm

Jim, Here is a comment from the Supercanoa site. Marilyn: "You don't like water rowing and you don't like one of the favourite training plans either, the Wolverine. What do you now have against the plan?" Anders Brabæk: "Large parts of the wolverine plan suggest training which is inconsistent with the advice that I am getting from my "trainers". This especially concerns the large amount of training with a very low SPM that the wolverine plan suggests. "In this context I should probably mention that I get my workout plans and training advice from Eskild Ebbesen and x-elite rower Jesper Engelbrecht (Jesper has among other records a 1 hour PB of 18660m from the mid nineties! Eskild is probably known to most ergometer rowers. "I have decided to follow their advice and when the Wolverine is not consistent with their recommendations I believe that it is the Wolverine plan that is wrong."

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » October 22nd, 2004, 4:19 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 22 2004, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Jim, Here is a comment from the Supercanoa site. Marilyn: "You don't like water rowing and you don't like one of the favourite training plans either, the Wolverine. What do you now have against the plan?" Anders Brabæk: "Large parts of the wolverine plan suggest training which is inconsistent with the advice that I am getting from my "trainers". This especially concerns the large amount of training with a very low SPM that the wolverine plan suggests. "In this context I should probably mention that I get my workout plans and training advice from Eskild Ebbesen and x-elite rower Jesper Engelbrecht (Jesper has among other records a 1 hour PB of 18660m from the mid nineties! Eskild is probably known to most ergometer rowers. "I have decided to follow their advice and when the Wolverine is not consistent with their recommendations I believe that it is the Wolverine plan that is wrong."  </td></tr></table> John - OK ... but it still doesn't describe anything about training ... I guess it doesn't really matter, to each his own. I gues the point I am trying to make is that training is not racing. It seems that when someone wants to talk about training you keep putting out Eskild's name and his erg racing style ... and I can't see how it matters. I believe there is a VERY small group of people who believe training should be exactly like racing. Everyone else thinks they are two different things, the goal of training being an improvement in racing performance. JimR PS ... did you every figure out how to get to a 7:20 2K???

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » October 22nd, 2004, 4:21 pm

John did you ever stop to consider: 1.) that there is usually more than one way (at least when it comes to training) to get the same result ? Whatever Eskild is doing obviously works for him, while whatever Mike Caviston was doing via the Wolvie plan was obviously working for him as well... (he like Eskild was also the owner of a WR in his age group for a while if I'm not mistaken...) The question for debate (I'm guessing) will be "which is the BEST way?" 2.) That maybe Eskild could have gone under 6:00 by now if he actually used the Wolverine Plan ? Contest the merits of the Wolverine all you want, John, I use it and count me in with the others who will attest to its efficacy. training with Wolverine Level 4s = serious horsepower upgrade. peace, D

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 22nd, 2004, 4:58 pm

Diesel, Yes excellent point, there are many ways to success. Thank you for that. As to which one is "better", EE's or the WP, my choice is to go with long time world record holder Eskild Ebbesen. Others choose the WP. That is fine with me. However THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO SUCCESS. In my opinion the religious hysteria about the slap happy WP is counter productive, as many could very well be better of without doing most of the low rate rowing that the WP entails. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO SUCCESS.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 22nd, 2004, 5:01 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (JimR @ Oct 22 2004, 01:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> It seems that when someone wants to talk about training you keep putting out Eskild's name and his erg racing style ... and I can't see how it matters.  </td></tr></table> Jim, It doesn't matter to you because you just want to argue and you are in love with the WP. So why do you ask any question since your mind is already made up? As to my own rowing training, it is coming along very well thank you. How about yours?

Concept2 Forum

Why So Slow With The Rates?

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training