Erg Versus Water

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 17th, 2004, 4:52 pm

There has been a bit of discussion lately about the differences between water and erg technique and training methodology. I thought it might be interesting to have a thread where we can collate the information that those with experience of both might like to share their knowledge, as often those of us who only erg try to make sense out of it from a limited perspective. Maybe some points of discussion may be: Physiology Rate Effort Technique Intervals Steady state Mental approach yada yada yada I am really interested in furthering my education on this matter and would appreciate it if it didn't turn into TO much of a dog fight Tks George

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » October 17th, 2004, 5:06 pm

I'm a water fan... I think that erging is a necessary evil, but rowing on the water is more fun and it also seems like a better way to develope... I mean u won't flip if u have bad tenique erging but on the water you will... it also seems like more fun, u'r actually experiancing different things... u catch crabs, u row in chop... and hopefully don't flip but it's not uncommon. Anyway that's my oppinion. ~Sara "Life's short... row hard" "real athletes row, the rest just play games" "Shut up and row"

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 17th, 2004, 5:54 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (gorow9 @ Oct 18 2004, 10:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I think that erging is a necessary evil, but rowing on the water is more fun . ~Sara "Life's short... row hard" "real athletes row, the rest just play games" "Shut up and row"  </td></tr></table> Maybe Sara , but for many of us unfortuanately (or not) going backwards and forwards in one place is our only option so 'doing it well' becomes the goal .... hence the question above. I guess this is not about which brings more pleasure but how 'We who live to erg' can learn from the 'on-the-water' experience as some things will fit and some wont. - George

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » October 17th, 2004, 6:33 pm

True true... it is often the only option... much less time consuming and probably cheaper. I'm one who has trouble exercising on stationary equipment... not too good in winter so that's why I concider it a necessary evil... but it's great exercise and good in general. ~Sara

[old] gw1 · Post by **[old] gw1** » October 17th, 2004, 8:15 pm

"necessary evil...." Perfect description! However the C2 is IMO a great fitness tool, perfect both general fitness training and rowing specific fitness comparisons. In the days prior to the C2. To supplement our on water training we used to have to do endless wind sprints, stadium stairs, or sand dune sprints they are no lesser evils. Gary

[old] grandslam · Post by **[old] grandslam** » October 17th, 2004, 8:19 pm

Add a set of slides to your erg and you will feel the "run" of the "boat". After using slides, getting back on a stationary erg is like getting out of the boat and getting on the dock machine (college rowers remember that wonderful training tool). It actually take a little technique to use the slides, or you will be slamming into the front and back stops. I'm even working on a platform to set up my erg/slides on that will allow the erg to rock laterally, and require balance as well. Cheers, Jeff Sauter

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » October 18th, 2004, 10:06 am

For me the big differences between rowing/sculling and erging are: History. The oldest organised race there is (Doggett's) started in around 1795, and it's for professional scullers: my father, a Thames pilot, won it in 1935. I started as a professional sculler too, age 11, landing banana boat headropes off the West India Dock entrance for him, in a dinghy. I raced on the Thames a lot too, but as an amateur. Going afloat calls it all up. Us oarsmen are part of the great tradition of Steve Fairbairn and a thousand other names and even on the Cam in an 8, being told by a boatman (acting coach) to wake up and decide whether we want a s* or a haircut. The erg can be part of this too. Season: Erg is winter, sculling summer; Fear. The erg doesn't frighten me, but in a 1x I try to avoid thinking I'm 4-5km from the boathouse, the waters' cold, the wind's rising.. Cost. A good 1x costs 3-4000 plus the sculls. Plus all the accessories, journey, club, time. Technique. It's useful on the erg and helps to get as much power to the flywheel as possible, for any given total effort, but it's not essential to getting fit. On water it enables us to move the boat and can well save our lives, and it's impossible to get fit without good technique. Environment. I'm lucky - my Italian lake is surrounded by often snowy mountains, and pulling at 7-8 am with fish jumping, gulls screaming, hull bubbling, sculls creaking, mist lifting, sun rising... makes you wish it weren't such ** hard work. I reckon the year round combination erg/scull and consequent well being is unbeatable; there may be differences, but the essentially similar CV, full body, hands-on character of both works a miracle in spring when you go afloat. You don't have to worry about soft hands, soft rear, no endurance; in a dozen strokes all the balance and technique come back and it's fun from day one. Then again in autumn when on the erg you can dream of next time, and find you've lost nothing and indeed have gained.

[old] phowd · Post by **[old] phowd** » October 18th, 2004, 10:50 am

OK, I've been erging since March (almost 8 months) so I'm new to it. I just got in my first shell (3 actually) this past weekend. The third one I got out of, twice, and not at the dock. My past atheltic background - competitive swimmer age 11-22, nothing, literally, after that. My impressions as a rank beginner at both- The erg is a great fitness tool - I lost 40+ pounds in the course of a million meters with no modification to what I was eating. Great for total body workout and CV fitness. Easy to begin to get those benefits, and incredible feedback from the machine to track progress both during and between workouts. I will probably erg for the rest of my life, in part to make sure it is a long one. Sculling. Spent the past weekend at a sculling camp in SE Virgina, Calm Waters. Perfect introduction to the sport. Anyway, I was totally unprepared for how much it is a precision/finesse sport. By that, I mean, if you get one hand an inch or two low, or high, or ahead, or behind of where it is supposed to be, you are swimming. Or, perhaps, I should be more precise. Session 5, in a Peinert 26, dipped my left hand maybe 2 inches at the catch while trying to extend to get my chin over my shins, and followed it straight into the lake. By the end of 8 sessions on the water I got to the point where I could probably go 20 strokes at 10 SPM before I broke form and had to regroup. I now have incredible respect for those folks who can actually apply erg-like power while sitting on the water, not that I didn't before, but I now know how hard it really is, and I sure didn't before this weekend. Next - can I take the water experience and modify my erg style so they are more alike? Time will tell, I guess. What I do know is that the erg will never duplicate or replace the balance and fine motor skills sculling demands in the hands and arms. It isn't designed to, so that isn't a surprise for those who do both. I'm sure people out there with more experience and history will be able to adddress that. Newly humbled, Peter

[old] Godfried · Post by **[old] Godfried** » October 18th, 2004, 11:53 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (jamesg @ Oct 18 2004, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For me . . . </td></tr></table> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (phowd @ Oct 18 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>OK, I've . . . </td></tr></table> Thanks - this is what I like to read - tell me more.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 18th, 2004, 3:36 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Oct 17 2004, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I thought it might be interesting to have a thread where we can collate the information that those with experience of both might like to share their knowledge, as often those of us who only erg try to make sense out of it from a limited perspective. Physiology Rate Effort Technique Intervals Steady state Mental approach Tks George  </td></tr></table> See <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/effiperf.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/effiperf.h ... br> "In rowing, both the hydrodynamics of the racing shell and the technical mastery of the rower contribute to rowing efficiency. However, even on a stationary ergometer, elite rowers are more efficient than well trained but non-elite oarsman. This is not due to a difference in fiber compostion. So, it appears that subtle changes in rowing technique can continue to contribute to improved rowing efficiency and performance with additional years of training." While one involves moving a boat across water and the other spinning a flywheel, they share the feat of moving a handle at a certain height through a range of motion. The flywheel won't care much what you do on the recovery phase, but your body will. Having enough recovery time to facilitate continuing at a high level of exertion is important. Rowers at the highest level can do similar things to what even the worst Erger can do with relation to trading rate for pace by shortenting the recovery period, allowing less flywheel slowing, hence a higher Avg Power (watts) to produce a faster pace without rasing peak force. However, just as is pointed out in the article above, Absolute V02max gets you "invited to the dance", the relative VO2max (O2/min/kg) was invented to make the numbers appear larger for lighter athletes, apparently to make them feel better. If you look at a force curve, it's easy to see that the same area under the curve at the same Stroke rate will produce the same pace. The curve could be low and long, or tall and short, while maintaining the same area. Ratio would be different for each of these cases, providing more rest for the higher force production curve and less for the lower peak force (just as it should be, right?). But would the idealized rectangular force profile be "optimal"? No, for the basic reason that we tend to be a bit more powerful with our legs, than with our lats, which would hedge the peak force toward the catch. (This happens to work out well on the water, but that is another discussion that I won't go into now.) So, since we are involved in a "Power/Endurance" sport (Rowing or Erging) there will eventually be a balance that must be reached. i.e. You will want to maintain as high a constant power input as possible, within the constraint of a cyclic activity, while working to failure for the specified distance. Summary: The training will be the same, the technique will vary somewhat due to the peculiarities of the system involved. Rowers can translate what they do pretty easily to the Erg (obviously, that's what the machine was designed for afterall), but Ergers (unless training with the water in mind) will do things that would be less than optimal in a boat, and develop habits that are being reinforced by the PM readout, even though they don't understand some of the dependencies involved in that output. - Paul Smith

[old] chickenlegs · Post by **[old] chickenlegs** » October 19th, 2004, 11:06 pm

rowing vs erging physical differences: 1. rowing involves balance which needs to be learned and practiced. the better the balance the higher the efficiency. 2. rowers have to accelerate their own mass (+ the boat which can be considered a constant), ergers have to accelerate the flywheel (constant for all athletes) ==> therefore mass/power ratio has a greater effect in rowing than in erging (compare top lightweight vs top heavyweight times for rowing and erging). there are of course other obvious differences: water/land, outdoor/indoor, cost, time, location restrictions, psycological effects. my 0.02 $.

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » October 21st, 2004, 11:12 pm

Peter, Did you start in a racing single? Assuming you did that's good I learned in virtually a floating bathtub then in a "dolfin" then the "trainer" training racing single then into the skinny boat. I'm liking the slider idea also... whoever mentioned that... it's late I can't remember names for more than a few seconds now anyway do they make a worthwhile difference for cost? Also about what's the cost? I must say that would be great if you could just let the boat run up the slide and pull without rushing the slide and there would be less trying to slow down the stroke... Anyway enough of my sencless rambling... I'm so tired no one probably understands anything so I'll go ~Sarah

[old] phowd · Post by **[old] phowd** » October 22nd, 2004, 11:09 am

Sarah <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Did you start in a racing single? Assuming you did that's good I learned in virtually a floating bathtub then in a "dolfin" then the "trainer" training racing single then into the skinny boat.  </td></tr></table> We started (3 sessions - 4.5 hours) in Maas Arrows (wide, flat bottom), then 2 sessions in a Bay 21, then I has 3 sessions in a Peinert 26 (reasonably skinny for a 6'2" 225 lb newbie.) I went swimming during the first two of those sessions, once each time. I went with my wife, this was the first time either of us had been in a shell of any configuration, so we had a lot to learn. And we still do, obviously. But it is great fun! (She graduated up to a Peinert x25 and didn't swim. I tease her that just shows she wasn't pushing hard enough. In my dreams.) I think the idea was to let us learn the basic sculling technique without worrying about tipping out, then move us along and let the boat force our improvements. If you "listen" to the boat, it can tell you an awful lot about how to move - not all, but alot, at least at the absolute beginner level. Peter

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » October 23rd, 2004, 2:41 pm

Ok That makes more sense I think I know what boat you're talking about with peinert some of out boats at the boat club are that brand. It's amazing how much you learn in just a short time because you're forced to learn fast and with an erging background you can even have a somewhat powerful stroke and some speed. Anyway I have to say the first few times in a boat are an incredible learning experiance... I remember I was around 10 and was sitting on a few foam pads in a giant "floating bathtub" but it was fun!! ~Sara

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 23rd, 2004, 3:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>VO2max (O2/min/kg) was invented to make the numbers appear larger for lighter athletes, apparently to make them feel better </td></tr></table> Paul, do you have anything to back up this claim on where and why this tool (O2/min/kg) was first introduced? I find it quite surprising that it was in rowing, and to make lwt's feel better! It would seem more likely, at a glance, that it was introduced in running or crosscountry skiing, or road cyckling and that the reason for this was that a very strong correlation to performance was there, as opposed to rowing. Given this hypothesized history, I would say that the absolute VO2 was later introduced to make the heavy athletes feel better, even though they were left panting far behind the smaller ones on the track/the trail/the road. Why the (O2/min/kg) has come into the rowing world is probably just because the concept was out there and people likt to have fun with numbers and make comparisons, no matter how useless. It can lead to interesting questions though, like why can a 75kg rower not reach 7l VO2Max (barely 6l), but some cross country skiers at the same weight can? (this means 93 ml/(min x kg))

Concept2 Forum

Erg Versus Water

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training