Given The Choice..

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 17th, 2005, 10:10 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (hwt @ Jan 17 2005, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> John I believe you have it backwards.  </td></tr></table> Nothing new there. But really hwt, I'm the only one that gets to "pick on" John, especially when he is 180deg out.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 17th, 2005, 10:59 pm

Lower rating will challenge your drive (but make it easy on your recovery time). Your program should also counterbalance that training skew with the specific challenge of rowing a 2k which does have a considerable lack of recovery time. How to balance these things in your plan depends on a lot of individual things (like how sensitive you are to a given stress or how much time you have to train). For racing 2k, I think it is worth it to choose a "low" rate for some percentage of your sessions to add to the repetoire of training stresses. See this link for a great view on rating and training bands from the Danish Rowing National Team Physiologist. <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/guide/guide.p ... sonalising' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/guide/guide.p ... alising</a>

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 12:13 am

Hwt, I wouldn't consider the 2k a sprint. However, you can keep the same meters per stroke for all distances. Thus a maximum of 10 mps for hwts and 8 mps for lightweights. Yes we're all after more power, and you can build more power with a high/er rating. Low ratings build comparatively more strength but less power, because the recovery part of the stroke is too long.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 12:20 am

Jim, That's a nice article. Eskild Ebbesen exceeds the maximum for a 2k by more than 7 strokes with his 41.3 spm, and his other events are likely in proportion to his 2k. Also note the Danish Olympic Champions rated 39 spm in their 4x. The entire team keeps this rating, not just Ebbesen. The examples in the article are evidently minimums, and not the most desireable, nor what they actually do.

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » January 18th, 2005, 3:45 am

John, You obviously missed my question last time I asked it! From where do you claim to know so much about exactly how Eskild trains? Please don't use him as an example if you don't fully understand what he is doing and why he's doing it. You're talking from a position of having half the amount of knowledge needed to know what's going on, but then acting as if you have all the knowledge. If you like, I'll be nice, and help you out a bit on some of the points for which you're missing information. 1. The reason Eskild rows at a high rate during a 2k test: He's a freak. Well, not in a nasty way, but his physiology is very odd, and it turns out that for him, the best strategy physiologically is to rate very high, and transfer a portion of the work from his legs to his back. It will not be true for almost everyone else in the world, and should not be used as a model necessarily. It is better to use examples from programmes that consistently produce good results with different athletes (for example Romanian or German women). 2. The reason their coxless 4 (note that the abbreviation is actually '4-' not '4x', which is a quadruple scull) rates 'so high': It's very different on the water to on an ergo. The distribution of masses is different around the system. On a 'static' (quotes added to keep PaulS happy!) ergo, the weight of the 'boat' is roughly the weight of the Earth. The weight of the rower is as normal. In a boat, the weight of the boat is about 17.5kg per person, with the weight of the rower no different. This makes it less energy sapping to change direction, so it is less costly to maintain a higher rate. The upside of maintaining a higher rate is that the physiological efficiency of the system is improved through a lower requirement for peak force. The example to quote is Lance Armstrong's pedalling technique. Hence crews tend to rate higher on the water than on the 'static' ergos when racing. (Note there is generally a trade off as rate increases further as it becomes harder to perform certain technical elements of the stroke.) The difference in rating between water and ergo leads to a school of thought that says that the static ergo won't predict on-water performance as well as it might. Interestingly, when testing was done with Greg Searle while he was single sculling in the late 1990s, it was found that his most efficient race rate/gearing/stroke length corresponded very closely with data obtained from testing on a Rowperfect ergometer. Mel

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 18th, 2005, 11:26 am

John, I'll assume that Jensen is not suggesting minimums without saying so. If one of his athletes happens to perform erg WR's better at "recommended training band test SR" + 7 then I'll let his professional judgment make the call whether this feedback is significant to warrant an adjustment. Eskild may well train his 2k race pace at 30 to 34 spm. I've always found 2k erg racing to be a wild hayride compared to the discipline of training days (even at the most elite levels). I would not conclude much on an analysis of a hayride. ( I would not totally discount it either).

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 5:30 pm

Jim, You are welcome to assume or disassume as you wish. That is of no consequence to the issue. My observations are of what the Danish team actually DOES in reality. The ENTIRE TEAM goes at higher ratings than the program. Thus the range in the program IS a minimum that every one of the rowers exceed. This is quite simply REALITY. No assumptions nor logic are required.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 5:33 pm

Also, you misread the article. It does NOT say "train his 2k race pace at 30 to 34 spm". Geesh where did you get that from??? A lot of assumptions going on!!! Quote from the article: Race pace over 2,000m, stroke rate 30 to 34. We already know Eskild Ebbesen's race pace. It is 6:03.2, at a rating of 41.3 strokes per minute.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 5:37 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Mel Harbour @ Jan 17 2005, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> From where do you claim to know so much about exactly how Eskild trains?  </td></tr></table> Yes!

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 18th, 2005, 6:46 pm

I read that Band B is 90% to 100% of max and max is defined as "output for 2000m piece". He prescibes a rating of 30-34. If Eskild were to follow this guidance (and I'm only suggesting he might) then he would rate at 30-34 when he trains at a power output that is 90 to 100% of his "2000m piece" power.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 7:47 pm

Jim, In that case, I would also suggest that he might. However, 30-34 spm would only be 80% for Ebbesen. [ 6:03.2 / .90 ] at [ 41.3 x .90 ] = 1:40.9 pace at 37.2 spm This is 8 meters per stroke, the same as Ebbesen's "Race pace over 2,000m" (quote from article).

[old] donm79 · Post by **[old] donm79** » January 18th, 2005, 8:11 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Jan 18 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Mel Harbour @ Jan 17 2005, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> From where do you claim to know so much about exactly how Eskild trains?  </td></tr></table> Yes!  </td></tr></table> Huh? Mel has posted a lot of valuable information and has rightly criticised your ramblings. In the interest of keeping the quality of discourse on the forum at as high a level as possible, maybe you could respond intelligently?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 18th, 2005, 9:05 pm

I just did. Read it again. Next time ask an intelligent question.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 19th, 2005, 3:20 am

What Jim says about racing being different from training (a wild dash, hayride, etc.) seems to be especially true in Eskild's case. As I remember, though, he only rates 38 spm through most the race, high, yes, but not that high. The average rate over the whole race is higher than that because of Eskild's wild dash at the start and more normal dash to the finish, things that are pretty unique to racing, not done very much in training. Eskild doesn't rate 42 spm through the center of the race. If you train sprinting at a few spm below your race rate, with a little heavier stroke, you can lighten up a little when you race, which helps with all kinds of things--relaxation, oxygen consumption, and heart rate. If you train at a high rate, at your race rate, for example, you don't get this advantage when you race. The same thing is true in your distance training. If you train over long distances with a strong stroke and a low rate, you get both stronger and more aerobic. Then when you race over a long distance, you can lift the rate a few spms and get the same beneficial effect. The rowing feels more relaxing and easier and your heart rate is more controlled than it would have been if you had trained at a higher rate. ranger

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » January 19th, 2005, 3:26 am

I don't see how it's an inteligent answer. Obviously my knowledge of grammar is letting me down. My question 'From where...' requires an answer describing a place, either literal or virtual. So it might be something like 'I speak to Kurt quite regularly by email', 'I've been to a conference where he went into some detail about this' or something like that. You've just answered with the word 'Yes', which simply doesn't answer the question at all. But then this isn't the first time that you've pulled that sort of trick. The pattern is quite consistent: <ul><li>You post some information that is true</li><li>You make some wild assumptions</li><li>You can then manage to fit the true data so that it appears to support your otherwise unfounded beliefs</li><li>People point out the logical holes in what you have written</li><li>You deal with these questions by writing replies that are complete non-sequitors, and then refuse to say any more on the subject as you claim you've so obviously dealt with the question</li></ul> Like others have said before, it doesn't bother me if you choose to do something completely barmy. The fear is that you'll suck other people into your cult! Oh and you also didn't bother reading my post - you pressed on, assuming that the whole team rates 39ish when they do a 2k ergo. You have absolutely no data to support this idea. There's a simple reason you have no data to support it - it's not true. The 2k race on the water and the 2k race on the ergo are two different things and people will use different techniques, rates etc for them. If you don't believe me, let's look at Matt Pinsent. His 'mid-race pace' at the Olympics was probably around rate 34-36 or so. Certainly large portions of the race will have been done above that level. But when he does a 2k ergo, what does he rate? 32ish during the middle. In other words something different. When I ride my bike, my legs go round at quite a reasonable cadence (let's say 70-80rpm). Does that mean that I row or erg with my legs moving at that rate? No, it's obviously quite ridiculous to transfer data like that. The same is true of rowing on the water and rowing a static ergo. Mel

Concept2 Forum

Given The Choice..

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training