Erg Versus Water

[old] Kudos · Post by **[old] Kudos** » October 23rd, 2004, 8:10 pm

the reason why lighter athletes are at more of a disadvantage in rowing than those who are lighter in other endurance sports has to do with rowing motion in general. Its all about leverage, which heavily favors weight and height which give you an advantage especially erging and in rowing as well, where as in other common endurance sports its almost strictly a power to weight ratio, rowing is not as simple.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 23rd, 2004, 8:41 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Carl Henrik @ Oct 23 2004, 07:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> 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.  </td></tr></table> Sure. <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/rowphys.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/rowphys.ht ... r> With the opperative section being: "Maximal Oxygen Consumption The absolute values for oxygen consumption, as an average are among the highest reported among endurance athletes. These valuse represent the average of 25 and 35 athletes. The VERY best males (in the lab) have achieved values of 7.0 liter/min at max. Let me tell you, that is an extraordinary absolute V02 value! The very best females are at 5 liters/min, also extraordinary. This is not terribly surprising since rowers are very large for endurance athletes, and oxygen consumption increases with body size. However, when maximal oxygen consumption of rowers is scaled linearly with bodyweight, the values are less impressive. While 71 ml/min/kg is quite a "respectable" value (Average males of the same age are at 45 ml/min/kg), it is far from the 80-87 ml/min/kg values that currently typify the world elite cross country skiers and runners. The best female cross country skiers are over 70 ml/min/kg compared to about 60 for the female rowers. Are rowers undertrained, or undertalented? One problem with this comparison is a matter of scaling. Maximal oxygen consumption does not increase linearly with increased body mass (Click here for more on this). So, dividing VO2 by bodyweight is not really appropriate. Without going into details here, it is more appropriate to scale VO2 max to bodyweight^2/3. In the table below, I do this and contrast the data with 1) untrained males of normal weight, as well as 2) at the weight of elite rowers , and ) elite cross country skiers. This will give you some idea of where rowers stand relative to the two extremes. Well I suppose being normal is not really an extreme, but you know what I mean." I like the thought that we hwt Oarsman need some sort of comfort in dealing with the lwts that statistically never beat us, in spite of our having to haul more mass along. - Paul Smith PS - You can read the entire study above if you want an analysis of rowing/erging performance across sex and weight variables; lwts are far close on water for exactly the reason that they sink the boat less.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 24th, 2004, 2:41 pm

Thanks Paul, I've read the article a few times before. It doesn't quite adress the origin of the different oxygen consumption measurements and how they have spread from laboratory to the athletes dialogs in different sports. Perhaps you could help me with a real problem though... that is more on topic. When I'm in a team boat sculling in a low rate. I often hear that my oar is too short a time in the water compared to others in the boat. My blade is fully covered and the distance of my blade path in water is usually longer or equal to those of those making the comments (I am 193cm fingertip to fingertip, long arms). I don't like pulling less hard so usually the problem remains. This mean my oar travels faster angularly and the blade has a larger "slip" in the water. Am I just pulling harder (too hard) than the others or what can I be doing wrong?? I am less efficient in a single scull than those making the comments, given erg times and weights. Surely I am loosing energy all over the place, but is perhaps my force(distance) curve profile (not area) incorrect so to make this specific phenomenon?

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 24th, 2004, 3:22 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Carl Henrik @ Oct 24 2004, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> When I'm in a team boat sculling in a low rate. I often hear that my oar is too short a time in the water compared to others in the boat. My blade is fully covered and the distance of my blade path in water is usually longer or equal to those of those making the comments (I am 193cm fingertip to fingertip, long arms). I don't like pulling less hard so usually the problem remains. This mean my oar travels faster angularly and the blade has a larger "slip" in the water. Am I just pulling harder (too hard) than the others or what can I be doing wrong?? I am less efficient in a single scull than those making the comments, given erg times and weights. Surely I am loosing energy all over the place, but is perhaps my force(distance) curve profile (not area) incorrect so to make this specific phenomenon?  </td></tr></table> If rigged properly, all in the boat should be finishing at a very similar angle since it is determined by the inboard and span, so the only area where you might be able to get to a longer arc length would be by reaching to a more acute angle at the catch. Intuitively you may think that to stay longer in the water I've got to reach further so give it all you can when lunging out for the catch. However this won't help, mostly due to the fact that it completely screws up your catch timing and the ability to load the handle quickly. The more quickly you load the handle the longer you will be in the water, and by quick, it's measured in 100th's of second. i.e. you begin the catch with the collar up against the oarlock but away from the pin, when the oar is halfway buried your drive starts, then when the collar gets to the pin the blade is fully buried and taking the load. All of these things happen in <0.1 sec regardless of rating. As the drive continues, the shaft bends, lengthening the potiential time in the water as long as you are still in the first 1/3rd of the drive. If there is any delay to this at all, any arc that you had simply passes you by and when you apply pressure late the blade slips into the finish and you have to release early. Never mistake a fast moving handle for high force, it's easy to do. Work toward making your puddle as small and tight as you can, while at the same time feeling for a high amount of force on the handles (obviously you could leave no puddle at all with no force on the handles, but your team mates won't appreciate that.) Remember Work = Force x Speed x Time and with drive times in the 0.7-0.4sec range a change of even 0.1 sec is significant, though litterally a "blink of an eye". If you can get yourself set up with ErgMonitor, or send me a *.STR file from RowPerfect, I could give more detailed feedback on force profile. Even a digital pic of a PM3, as long as you check the version and say if it is 62 or 82, would work in a pinch. If you are not familiar with hydrodynamic lift, and how it relates to an oar, that will be good information to study also. - Paul Smith

[old] James Bailey · Post by **[old] James Bailey** » October 26th, 2004, 7:41 am

Accepting that VO2 max does not increase as a linear function with body weight, a top rower and top XX-skier still show a difference in relative VO2 max (don't ask for the evidence to support this - I read it somewhere). One theory as to why rowers have a lower VO2 max/kg for a given body weight is because (and think about this - I think you will find its true) rowing is the only endurance sport which requires "work" by the respiratory system not connected to breathing. During the drive part of the stroke, the torso is working hard keeping your back straight and upright. Sit on the erg and have a think about what your torso is doing - the drive part of the stroke prevents free and easy breathing. Your chest is actually quite compressed at the catch (relative to a runner or swimmer etc.) Runners and cyclists do not have this interference. I accept with practice rowers find a good rhythmical breathing patten, but its not as easy as running. James PS This is not my theory - I read it.

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » October 26th, 2004, 9:43 am

James, Finally, I "heard" someone that says something in which I was thinking a great deal of time ago! In fact, a major problem in rowing is doing aerobic work without being able to input the same amount of O2 you would in another activity, for the same intensity. Thus (even harder on water, where the chest compression is huge), oarsmen and ergers migth be a breed of freaks who do a kind of work (max. aerobic effort with minimal O2 intake) that I can't name. AM

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » October 26th, 2004, 10:28 am

It is harder to breath when swimming than rowing (not that I have ever rowed a boat in a race). Swimmers don't have the chest compression, but are forced to limit their breath significantly. Almost a third of the race is done in and out of the walls without any breath, and even when you are stroking you are limiting your breathing, sometimes not breathing between strokes. But there may be similarities, and the contrast with running is significant. At least for me when I was swimming, you don't usually get "tired" during the race and that usually was not the limiting factor in your performance. Your technique breaks down and/or limits your ability to go faster. Except for butterfly, swim races are usually fun. Notice how after the Olympics the swimmers hardly look tired after the race, and can do multiple races in a day (or an hour as in a meet). Rowing in contrast leads to total physical exhaustion at the end of a race (at least for me) and running races usually leads you to be gasping for breath, but not necessarily "tired" in the same way, so there is something different about the exhaustion level between the sports. I think it is possible that an O2 deficit is one of the limiting factors for swimmers and rowers, and that is different than for runners and cross country skiers, who otherwise get to breath as much as they want/can. But actually the reason I am posting here is to ask Paul what he means by this: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Even a digital pic of a PM3, as long as you check the version and say if it is 62 or 82, would work in a pinch. </td></tr></table> Is there a difference in the force curve image between different firmware versions on the PM3? Do we know what they are? I had asked this question a couple of months ago and never got an answer back then.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 26th, 2004, 11:25 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (michaelb @ Oct 26 2004, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Even a digital pic of a PM3, as long as you check the version and say if it is 62 or 82, would work in a pinch. </td></tr></table> Is there a difference in the force curve image between different firmware versions on the PM3? Do we know what they are? I had asked this question a couple of months ago and never got an answer back then.  </td></tr></table> Well, I'll answer you here then. I recently updated my own, and a bunch of other PM3's to Ver 82, and the first thing I noticed (I always display the Force/Time curve) was that far less of the initial part of my drive was missing. I'd estimate that it was about 20cm missing up through Ver62, but now it may well be less than 10cm. (The resolution is not quite good enough to discern precisely) If rowing at very low pressure it appears to begin at the origin, but that changes rapidly as the pace is picked up. A definitive answer regarding the Y axis scale would be nice, it is difficult to tell if it remains static or adjusts to a slight degree. In Ver82 it looks as if the hash marks represent about 22Kg, but that seems a strange figure to have settled on. I'd made some stick-on templates that were fine for Ver62, but needed to be updated for Ver82. - Paul Smith

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » October 28th, 2004, 9:32 am

This is an interesting clue: A critical look at the way rowers breathe. Within the last five years, increasing scientific attention has been paid to the lung function of rowers. In most sports, even endurance sports, it is not the performance of the lungs that is the limiting factor to improvements in overall performance; rowers, on the other hand, because of the enormous amounts of oxygen required by their muscles, may be more susceptible than most to limits in performance caused by inadequate lung function. Maximal ventilation rates of rowers have been observed at up to 240 litres per minute of air transported in and out of the lungs. To put this in perspective, a typical value for an untrained male would be between 100-150 litres per minute during maximal exercise. Whether all rowers could achieve such a high ventilation rate is questionable, and yet it could be advantageous to do so. Recent work by Faulman et al (‘A comparison between lung function analysis and a rowing performance test in élite and club standard rowers’, Journal of Sports Sciences, 1996, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 81) has added to the growing evidence that élite rowers have superior lung function compared to club rowers. A complicating factor in all this is that the respiratory muscles are also used in the actual force production during the rowing stroke, as well as for breathing itself. As a result, the breathing pattern has to be synchronised with the stroke rate, and two breathing patterns have been identified to meet the demands of different rowing speeds. They are: one expiration during the stroke and one inspiration during recovery, and one complete breath during stroke and one during recovery (Steinacker et al, ‘Pulmonary mechanics and entrainment of respiration and stroke rate during rowing’, International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1993, vol. 14 (Suppl 1), pp S15-S19). The research team of Smith et al (‘Respiratory responses of élite oarsmen, former oarsmen and highly-trained non-rowers during rowing, cycling and running’, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 1994, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 44-49) found that it was only élite oarsmen who could maintain a similar ventilation rate during maximal rowing as during cycling and running, and they suggested that this was possibly the effect of years of training that had slowly overcome the problem of the rowing stroke’s interference with breathing patterns. Unfortunately, it appears that the training responses of the respiratory muscles are relatively small and slower to achieve in comparison to typical upper and lower body skeletal muscles, and the key to training them might simply be months and years of hard toil. Having said that, even with the limited training effects on maximal ventilation rates, a faster improvement does seem to come in how long a submaximal breathing rate can be maintained, and this is obviously promising. Specific training regimes to improve lung function have yet to be recommended, but if the evidence suggesting that lung function is the limit to performance continues to grow, this may be only a matter of time. Read this and more at: <a href='http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0960.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0960.htm</a> AM

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » October 28th, 2004, 9:43 am

Sorry, couldn't help sharing this: Applied physiology of rowing. Hagerman FC. Elite oarsmen and oarswomen possess large body dimensions and show outstanding aerobic and anaerobic qualities. Oarsmen have VO2max values of 6.1 +/- 0.6 L/min and have incurred O2 debts of between 10 and 20 litres. The caloric expenditure of rowing estimated from the O2 cost of a 6-minute rowing ergometer exercise was calculated at 36 kcal/min, one of the highest energy costs so far reported for any predominantly aerobic-type sport. Aerobic and anaerobic calculations show that 70 to 75% of the energy necessary to row the standard 2000m distance for men is derived from aerobiosis while the remaining 25 to 30% is anaerobic. Women achieve VO2max values of 4.1 +/- 0.4 L/min and slightly lower anaerobic values than men. The relative 60 to 65% energy contribution of aerobic metabolism and 35 to 40% for anaerobiosis is not surprising since women compete at 1000m. Rowers also exhibit excellent isokinetic leg strength and power when compared with other elite athletes and oarswomen produced higher relative leg strength values than men when lean body mass is considered. Muscle fibre type distributions in oarsmen resemble those of distance runners while women tend to have a slightly higher proportion of fast-twitch fibres. An average power output of 390 +/- 13.6W was produced by oarsmen for 6 minutes of simulated rowing while women were able to develop 300 +/- 18.4 for 3 minutes of the same activity. Mechanical efficiency for rowing was calculated at 20 +/- 0.9%. Oarsmen also achieve very high ventilation volumes being able to average above 200 L/min BTPS for 6 minutes of simulated rowing; women ventilate 170 L/min BTPS for 3 minutes of this exercise. Excellent VO2/VE and O2 pulse values demonstrate outstanding cardiorespiratory efficiency. Both oarsmen and oarswomen utilise a unique physiological pattern of race pacing; they begin exertion with a vigorous sprint which places excessive demands on anaerobic metabolism followed by a severely high aerobic steady-state and then an exhaustive sprint at the finish. Tolerance to excessive anaerobiosis is evident by very high lactates and O2 deficits measured during the first 2 minutes of exercise. Physiological profiles of successful international calibre rowing athletes have been established as a result of studies described in this review and the data have been used in a variety of ways to improve rowing performance. AM

Concept2 Forum

Erg Versus Water

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training