Distance Per Stroke

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 19th, 2005, 9:59 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(jamesg @ Apr 19 2005, 12:50 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> FD Watts (or Power) has dimension Work/Time. Rating has dimension 1/Time. So if you divide Power by Rating, you get Work. In our case, the work done per stroke, even tho some call it spi. I don't understand why you can't see any meaning. Work is nothing other than Force x the Distance moved by the point of application of the force. In our case, the force we apply x the net stroke length (i.e. the complete stroke, less the catch distance). If Work is meaningless, then everything else is meaningless too, as work always comes into the equation. </td></tr></table> Jamesg You are reading more into what I said than I actually said. Watts, work, Power are all very meaningful, Strokes and stroke rate are meaningful. Work = force * distance = joules Power = (force * distance)/time = watts spm is strokes per minute What you say above makes a lot of sense except that time in the power calculation is not the same time as used in the stroke calculation and can not converiently cancel out to give work. In strokes per minute the time is set to a static one minute. In the power calculation the calculation is made many times per minute and averaged so that at 30 spm the time in the power calc is 2 seconds. If you adjust your calc so that times are equal then you are left with power which is what I have been saying all along. Watts are what is meaningful. Dividing Watts by spm gives a meaningless index. SPI started out as a attempt to compare rowers at different rates, recently it has morphed into all kinds of things in an attempt to make it meaningful. If it was meaningful in the first place then all these gyrations people are using to make it meaningful would not be necessary. And still no one has proved any of my examples wrong, nor have they answered the basic question. If you can show that a higher SPI is not always best how can you trust it. Come on, if SPI is meaningful, then prove my examples wrong. If you have blind faith that SPI is meaningful, there is nothing I can do about that, if it makes you feel good use it, I don't care, but a least be armed with the facts and if you are going to impart this knowledge to other oarsmen, at least let them know that this index is in dispute and may not help them in their training. Anything less is a diservice to others. Sorry, the last paragraph was my rant. Fred

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » April 19th, 2005, 10:28 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Clearly 10 W'/stroke at 20 is different from same at 35, but that's the point - it's different as to Cv load, not muscular load. </td></tr></table> My point is that I think there is a difference in muscular challenge. Yes the force is the same, but lets dig a little deeper and see that force is a product too. (good old M*A). At faster paces (e.g., faster flywheel speeds) the acceleration (change in V) is less and therefore the mass is much greater (you are "pumping" a lot more air). I can not tell you exactly what this means to the complexities of motor unit recruiment, but I do know that recruiment patterns (and therefore the exact fibers that need the rush of blood and the extraction of lactate) are sensitive of the speed of contraction. I still contend same spi rowing is different drive speed and to tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly what tires us out (the mass or the acceleration). The thing that intrigues me about 10mps is that changes in rating move proportionally to changes in average flywheel speed. The two systems (rower and erg) engage one another very harmoniously throughout the different physical demands. If you look at the Danish Plan, it is clear that the higher power rowing is developed at lower SPI than the Endurance rowing. They do let the rating fly at higher power rowing (but yes, keep it quite "in check" at the lower power "'endurance" training bands).

[old] Alan Maddocks · Post by **[old] Alan Maddocks** » April 19th, 2005, 11:24 am

Fred, Just out of interest ... Do you think it important that rowers should work in training on developing the ability to generate 'powerful' strokes? If the answer is YES, how do you advise that this is achieved? Alan.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 19th, 2005, 11:44 am

Alan, Surely you know that higher ratings generate more POWER than lower ones.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 19th, 2005, 11:48 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Apr 18 2005, 11:02 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>BTW, it is pretty humorous to see this on-going, passionately dismissive argument against the advice in the C2 training manual, which (I presume) has been the standard regimen for the development of generations of world champion oarsmen. ranger </td></tr></table> What is really humorous is seeing little countries like Denmark and Italy kick the butt of the giant U.S. year after year after year after year. And yet the U.S. continues to go blindly down the wrong path. I find this to be quite hilarious.

[old] Alan Maddocks · Post by **[old] Alan Maddocks** » April 19th, 2005, 11:56 am

John, I don't recall the Danes, Italians etc. defeating Redgrave, Pinsent & co. The Brits spend the vast majority of their TRAINING time working at low spm. building up power PER stroke. Of course, when it comes to racing they translate this into more power over 2000m by rating higher. In short, (and Ranger has tried to explain this to you, but you do not appear to be listening) Training & Racing are 2 DIFFERENT things! Alan.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 19th, 2005, 1:41 pm

Alan, The Danish and Italians are World Champions, as well as Eskild Ebbesen and Elia Luini holding the lightweight World Record on the Erg. Not sure where you think Redgrave and Pinsent fit into that, but perhaps that's because because they think training and racing are 2 DIFFERENT things. By the way didn't one of them drop out of the London marathon a few days ago.

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 19th, 2005, 2:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Alan Maddocks @ Apr 19 2005, 11:24 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Fred, Just out of interest ... Do you think it important that rowers should work in training on developing the ability to generate 'powerful' strokes? If the answer is YES, how do you advise that this is achieved? Alan. </td></tr></table> Alan My background is more weightlifting that rowing, but I did row in college (1974-5) and I picked up erging when I found the Concept 2 Model C at my Gym in 1998. Since the majority of my training (25+ years since age 12) has been in powerlifting and Olympic style lifting, I tend to put more stock in the cardio vascular than in the strength part of rowing, I am quite strong but not powerful as I am quite slow and my strength drops way off after a few strokes. To answer your question, Yes, a powerful stroke is very desireable and I would recommend Low rate training and strapless training to improve the power of the stroke, Long steady rows that push your limits to improve the cardio vascular system and some interval training that would simulate higher stroke rates found in racing. As for workouts, I have tried one of the plans I found on the British C-2 site and I have tried the Wolverine Plan, I have respect for both. Fred

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » April 19th, 2005, 6:37 pm

Granting that training and racing plans vary from individual to individual, and that no one solution is optimum for everyone, I should think that Redgrave and Pinsett's nine combined Olympic gold medals suggest they knew what they were doing as rowers. Pinsett's enduring 5k erg record also speaks volumes about his erging abilities and training strategy. I invite you to look it up and marvel (and it is rumored that he actually went faster before Athens). Redgrave in his 40s as a marathon runner is another story altogether. But I don't see what that has to do with an argument about spi.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » April 19th, 2005, 6:56 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Apr 19 2005, 02:37 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Granting that training and racing plans vary from individual to individual, and that no one solution is optimum for everyone, I should think that Redgrave and Pinsett's nine combined Olympic gold medals suggest they knew what they were doing as rowers. Pinsett's enduring 5k erg record also speaks volumes about his erging abilities and training strategy. I invite you to look it up and marvel (and it is rumored that he actually went faster before Athens). Redgrave in his 40s as a marathon runner is another story altogether. But I don't see what that has to do with an argument about spi. </td></tr></table> Touche' It was James Cracknell who did not run in the recent Marathon however. Easy rule for rowers and running: If it ain't bigger and scarier than you, don't run. There is a reason that Marathon runners are 4'10 and 75lbs, everything is bigger and scarier. Fred, just to stay on topic, the problem you are having in finding meaning in SPI (or the lack thereof) is that you are also making assumptions about what is "better", i.e. is lifting 200lbs "better" than lifting 100lbs twice? Are you "better" if you can do 8k in 30 minutes at a SR=20 or SR=30? etc.....

[old] hwt · Post by **[old] hwt** » April 19th, 2005, 8:23 pm

This may be a little off topic, but does everyone understand the absolute joy of finding a wide open flat piece of water and while rowing @ 16 or lower watching how much distance you can get between your puddles. There is nothing in the world like it.

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 19th, 2005, 8:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Apr 19 2005, 06:56 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Fred, just to stay on topic, the problem you are having in finding meaning in SPI (or the lack thereof) is that you are also making assumptions about what is "better", i.e. is lifting 200lbs "better" than lifting 100lbs twice? Are you "better" if you can do 8k in 30 minutes at a SR=20 or SR=30? etc..... </td></tr></table> I'm not the one with the problem. I'm not the one coming up with lame analogies, instead you should be showing me where my examples are wrong. and yes I make an assumption that completing a 2k piece faster is better. Anyone disagree? You tell me, is completing 8k in 30 minutes better or worse than completing 8k in 30 minutes, to me its the same, power output is the same, power output per stroke is the same, the force, time and distance components of power may change inversely within the calculation, but power remains the same. If you doubt it, row 2 pieces of equal duration, 500m 1k, 2k or 8k, anything you want. Set the monitor to show 500m time splits and maintain a split chosen by you for the duration of each piece, the goal being to complete each piece in the same time. Row one piece at say 22spm and the other at say 28spm (or 20 and 30 if you can handle it). It is given that very few people can complete the above activity and actually achieve the exact same time for each piece but try. When you display the watts at the end of each piece they will be the same (if you actually did achieve equal times or they will be close enough that you will see that the experiment worked). This is getting tiring, if there is something I don't understand then use my examples and point out my errors, surely I will understand if you use my examples. I have put up real world examples that SPI is meaningless. And I am answered with anecdotes and lame analogies. If I am wrong then prove it, show how my examples are wrong, I really am man enough to accept that I could be wrong. With all due respect, it is time to put up or shut up. Fred

[old] Mike Niezgoda · Post by **[old] Mike Niezgoda** » April 19th, 2005, 10:54 pm

Fred, I'll try to be straight forward.... Your math is correct, but your conclusions are wrong. I think you are trying to conclude that the tradeoff between Stroke Rate and Watts output does not exist. The tradeoff does, in-fact, exist. Here are three equations that mean the same thing: 1) SPI = Watts / SR 2) SR = Watts / SPI 3) Watts = SR * SPI These equations tell us that in order to increase Watts, a rower can: A: Increase SR and maintain the same SPI B: Increase SPI and maintain the same SR C: Increase SR and decrease SPI (but can only decrease SPI a limited amount) D: Increase SPI and decrease SR (but can only decrease SR a limited amount) Once a rower crosses the lower limits of SPI or SR in options C or D the average Watts output decreases. You used equation (1) in your 920 examples. As stated above in option C, I agree with you that you can increase SR, simultaneously decrease SPI, and increase Watts. Notice that as you went higher in Watts, you had to increase your SR as well. You were walking along the threshold of where a rower will achieve a higher Watts output from an increased SR. Do your math only varying one metric at a time. Here are an infinite number of examples where if a rower is able to maintain an SPI while increasing SR, a higher Watts output is achieved: Using equation (3), for any fixed SPI, increase the SR. For every case, a higher SR will achieve a greater Watts output. Ball in your court, prove any one of my statements in this post wrong. - Mike Niezgoda

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » April 19th, 2005, 11:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 19 2005, 04:58 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I really am man enough to accept that I could be wrong. With all due respect, it is time to put up or shut up. Fred </td></tr></table> Okay, you're the one making the challenge to do the two pieces, do it yourself, I already know what I would do, S10PS, and when doing that, every faster pace represents a higher SPI. And frankly, I've seen very few that can produce handle force in my league, ooops, did I say "very few"? That should be none. Oh crap! That was a pretty tall claim (for an old fart) wasn't it? As far as I can tell, you would conclude that rowing 1k in 4 minutes is the same whether you do the first 500 in 1 minute and the second in 3, or just hold it steady the whole way, so get cracking on proving that.... or shut up.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 20th, 2005, 12:45 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 19 2005, 04:58 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I have put up real world examples that SPI is meaningless. And I am answered with anecdotes and lame analogies. If I am wrong then prove it, show how my examples are wrong, I really am man enough to accept that I could be wrong. </td></tr></table> Fred, You should realize they know you are right, and that spi and s10ps are meaningless. This is WHY they only answer you with lameness. There is no other way for them to respond.