Effects of the drag factor on performance and on physiological parameters

[frankencrank]

This thread is quite lot and a little rambling so I'm curious if you can summarize what novel approach it is exactly that you think you may have found?

I'm not even sure I understand what you're advocating for in your latest response saying there's an optimal contraction speed for a given muscle power (this seems like a very unclear statement to me).

It is all about energy management. Muscle contraction requires energy whether the muscle does work or not. So, isometric contraction requires energy but does no work. disconnecting the muscle from its insertion and contracting it will require energy but will do no work (that will also be the highest muscle speed as there is no resistance). In both these instances the work efficiency is zero as no work is done but energy is expended. In between these two extremes the muscle will do some work (in physics work involves a force though a distance) and there will be an energy cost (there is also an energy cost just keeping the muscle alive).and so we now have an efficiency that is greater than zero. In a muscle the efficiency would be the amount of work done dived by the energy cost. In skeletal muscle the absolute highest efficiency one can get is about 40% with all conditions being perfect.

Power is the amount of work done in a unit time. So, now power is the force the muscle is using times the velocity it is moving. At any given power there will be a best velocity to get the best efficiency. Best efficiency is important because that energy cost requires oxygen. If one isn't optimally efficient the heart and lungs need to work harder than they otherwise would to get that power. When human powered vehicles efficiency is measured they rarely are much above 20% efficiency, so you can see there are a lot of losses. If those losses could be found and minimized there is potentially room for large power gains.

About 25 years ago I invented a device to teach cyclists a better way to pedal (to actually use the full circle). (I discovered this idea when I was playing with the idea of using the rowing motion in a human powered vehicle to set the land speed record.) Our data indicated that with enough training (6-9 months) our typical new user would see power increases of 40%. This number was so large that many gurus simply didn't believe it. In fact, it was very difficult to explain. Simply eliminating the negatives on the upstroke should not give a cyclist more than a 10% increase in power. How to explain 40. There had to be multiple things going on. I have spent a long time trying to figure it all out. I can pretty much explain it now. One of the reasons is the cranks I invented were so hard in the beginning that new users slowed their cadence down (even the pros). This slowed their pedal speed and pedal speed correlates with muscle contraction speed. Scientific studies confirm that pedal speed is the one (and only) metric that correlates with efficiency. there you go, the previous paragraph in action.

In general, most cyclists pedal at cadences that are way to high for optimum efficiency. Some work I did on an elite age grouper found that the optimum pedal speed for him at about 200 watts was about 1.1 m/s. He was riding then at about 1.7 m/s on average. When he was at his optimum pedal speed he saw a 10% increase in power. Not bad for a national champ. I estimate pros (who put out about twice the power) would have an optimum pedal speed of about 1.4 m/s. These are for 2-5 hour efforts (there is some coasting downtime in those races). Much more aerobic than seen in rowing.

Anyhow, I am not taking what I learned about where inefficiencies can be found (and some other ways to increase power) that I learned from my cycling investigations and trying to apply them to rowing. Slide speed correlates with pedal speed and it was my guess that this might be a good area to investigate. On a bicycle it is easy to change pedal speed and keep the power constant. One can change gears and reduce cadence or one can shorten the crank length (smaller circumference) and keep cadence the same, or some combination. That isn't so easy on a shell or ergometer. The only way to reduce slide speed is to increase the resistance. That is what I am trying. increasing resistance seems to reduce slide speed and increase power at the same time in those who try. So, it seems that slowing the muscle contraction speed allows the muscle to generate a bigger force increase than the speed slows. This means a power increase. This would only work if the slide speed is too fast for the power you are at. It seems most are.

So, all I have done is take an observation from cycling and seen if it applies to rowing. Since muscle physiology doesn't change when one gets on a rowing machine one would expect the same result if slide speeds are typically too fast for best efficiency. It seems they are.

I would be surprised if anyone here has ever been told by their coach that a slower slide speed would be important for improved efficiency. People know that higher drags can result in higher power but, I suspect, they don't know why this happens physiologically.

Let me add, this is not a magic pill, take it and you will get faster. You will get faster but only for short endurance. It takes a long time to train the muscles to sustain these changes. It is worth it to do the work but there is nothing magic about it. Still a lot of hard work involved. It is simply using science to guide your training.

Does that answer your question? Is it too technical?

[jamesg]

My theory of rowing is that I use at least three sets of muscles, in sequence, and that they have different force-speed characteristics, from heavier and slower to lighter and faster. This theory is due to my observed limitations: I can't throw with my legs, nor climb stairs with my arms.

Since boats and flywheels go faster during the stroke, my theory suggests I start the stroke with the heavier slower bits, and move on to quicker lighter muscle groups, letting each group do as much work as it can sustain (in a race) or that has some training effect (otherwise).

I trust that any new theory can improve on mine; which in fact is not mine at all, since it's been in use ever since slides were invented. Afloat it has mostly been necessary to trust boatmen and coaches to set the gearing appropriately. But those who use the erg have to set drag personally, with all sorts of excruciating doubts, so need all the help they can get.

[frankencrank]

My theory of rowing is that I use at least three sets of muscles, in sequence, and that they have different force-speed characteristics, from heavier and slower to lighter and faster. This theory is due to my observed limitations: I can't throw with my legs, nor climb stairs with my arms.

Since boats and flywheels go faster during the stroke, my theory suggests I start the stroke with the heavier slower bits, and move on to quicker lighter muscle groups, letting each group do as much work as it can sustain (in a race) or that has some training effect (otherwise).

I trust that any new theory can improve on mine; which in fact is not mine at all, since it's been in use ever since slides were invented. Afloat it has mostly been necessary to trust boatmen and coaches to set the gearing appropriately. But those who use the erg have to set drag personally, with all sorts of excruciating doubts, so need all the help they can get.

Actually, all the skeletal muscles are pretty much the same physiologically but they are levered differently for their intended purposes. So, those big gluteal muscles which seem big and slow and can lift a lot of weight (exert a lot of force) in weight lifters can also exert a lot of force to accelerate the thigh quickly as needed by sprinters. The same is true of the big quad muscles, they can exert a lot fo force to lift a lot of weight slowly or they can exert a lot of force to get the foot moving quickly (kicking).

Runners and weight lifters don't have the option of modifying the machine they are working against to better optimize the muscle efficiency. However, in cycling and rowing we do. You are using your muscles in rowing so my theory is you should try to optimize their use if you can. If there is a conflict between optimum use of the legs or arms, I would prioritize the bigger muscles.

[hjs]

No one should expect anyone to be the first at anything. It would just seem that I am the first here to bring this up. There is plenty of experimental data in the cycling community to this point. It makes physiological sense. No one has presented any data to rebut the idea.

It doesn't matter which machine you use, it seems ignoring this physiological fact (for any given muscle power there will be a most efficient contraction speed) is ignoring an area of potential improvement.

You are certainly not the first. Like said before, most newbies start out at high drag and come down.
Ofcourse, the machine matters, training is specific, the concept2 is not very specific, machines who come closer to otw are better for otw people.

But he, prove me wrong, if you can get people over here, with an established training base break their pb s you are on to something. The little data you did present is saying nothing.

Re cycling, you talk about 40% extra power for amateurs and 10% for pros. I call this 100% bull, sorry. If you could pro’s to get 10% better. All pro teams would fight for you to get you in.

Looking at cycling, the shift we have seen is not in slowing down the movements, but instead going faster at lighter gears.
Armstrong, Froome, Roglic to name a few, push very light gears as mad. So there are other factors that play.
Same for rowing, if it would work, it would have been found out years ago.

[jamesg]

You are using your muscles in rowing so my theory is you should try to optimize their use if you can. If there is a conflict between optimum use of the legs or arms, I would prioritize the bigger muscles.

That's exactly what we do, if we use standard rowing technique. If you try the backstop drill, you can see how the work is distributed, with 70-80% done by the legs and hips.

But if you slow the leg action, you will also be slowing action by other groups, without necessarily increasing force. But since Power = Force x Speed, this reduces power. When there are two linked variables, in this case Force and Speed, exactly as Volts and Amps, to optimize power transfer the impedances must match.

In any case the speed of the action can also be trained, not just force. Today 2k races are done at even rating 48, including in eights and quads, in order to lighten the force but produce more power.

[frankencrank]

You are using your muscles in rowing so my theory is you should try to optimize their use if you can. If there is a conflict between optimum use of the legs or arms, I would prioritize the bigger muscles.

That's exactly what we do, if we use standard rowing technique. If you try the backstop drill, you can see how the work is distributed, with 70-80% done by the legs and hips.

But if you slow the leg action, you will also be slowing action by other groups, without necessarily increasing force. But since Power = Force x Speed, this reduces power. When there are two linked variables, in this case Force and Speed, exactly as Volts and Amps, to optimize power transfer the impedances must match.

In any case the speed of the action can also be trained, not just force. Today 2k races are done at even rating 48, including in eights and quads, in order to lighten the force but produce more power.

Clearly, you don't understand what is going on. Slowing the leg action is not the primary focus. I am increasing the resistance on the legs to slow the leg action. If the leg muscles are contracting too fast for optimum efficiency this better balances the force/speed balance. For any given power there is an infinite variety of force speed combinations to achieve that power. You can see that by simply changing the drag factor and trying to row at the same power. If you make these changes and row at the same power see what happens to HR. It will not be the same at each drag factor even though the power is the same. HR reflects oxygen consumption so that change in HR reflects a change in efficiency at that power.

The limit to what any person can do is not determined by the power they are generating but, rather, by their ability to get oxygen to the muscles being used. Training improves the ability to get oxygen to the muscles being used so power will improve with training. Efficiency simply means you can get more power for the same oxygen delivery if your efficiency is higher. If you care about maximizing power out efficiency is something you should care about. Serious competitors should train both to improve muscle functioning and improve efficiency. If you only worry about one of these you are at a disadvantage against those who work at both.

[frankencrank]

In any case the speed of the action can also be trained, not just force. Today 2k races are done at even rating 48, including in eights and quads, in order to lighten the force but produce more power.

This is the same error in thinking cyclists make. Cyclists think high cadences are more efficient and "easier" because for the same power the force on the pedal is less as the speed of the pedal goes up. The problem is the force on the muscles is not necessarily less because before the muscle can put an ounce of force on the pedal it must accelerate the foot up to the speed of the pedal. That takes muscle energy also, the power cost varies with the cube of the cadence!

So, a high oar handle speed to reduce the force is not necessarily easier. Easier on the muscles is not measured by load on the oar handle but by metabolic efficiency.

[frankencrank]

But he, prove me wrong, if you can get people over here, with an established training base break their pb s you are on to something. The little data you did present is saying nothing.

While I can't "prove you wrong" I can give you another anecdote. One of the volunteers to my experimental group recently set a PB for the 10,000 with a top 10 2021 time (all takers) with a DF 189. At least I assume it was a PB. Would you agree that someone at that level probably has an established training base? What will he be able to do when he has had some time to adapt?

Re cycling, you talk about 40% extra power for amateurs and 10% for pros. I call this 100% bull, sorry. If you could pro’s to get 10% better. All pro teams would fight for you to get you in.

You would be surprised at what pro teams and individuals are using the tool. The list of Olympic and World champions in both cycling and triathlon is quite long that we know about. Greg LeMond told me, when he first saw the tool that he "spent years trying to develop this technique and now people can learn it in months". Paulo Bettini was given a pair to evaluate (We knew the Mapei team doctor, Max Testa, who opened the door for us after we demonstrated it to him) and when the team asked for the pair back he refused to give it. But, what would these people know?

Looking at cycling, the shift we have seen is not in slowing down the movements, but instead going faster at lighter gears.
Armstrong, Froome, Roglic to name a few, push very light gears as mad. So there are other factors that play.
Same for rowing, if it would work, it would have been found out years ago.

The higher the power the faster the optimum muscle speed. The pros are putting out much more power that justifies a higher pedal speed. The problem comes from amateurs copying what the pros are doing thinking that high cadence is a key. If you don't train like the pros you probably shouldn't copy all that they do.

[hjs]

But he, prove me wrong, if you can get people over here, with an established training base break their pb s you are on to something. The little data you did present is saying nothing.

While I can't "prove you wrong" I can give you another anecdote. One of the volunteers to my experimental group recently set a PB for the 10,000 with a top 10 2021 time (all takers) with a DF 189. At least I assume it was a PB. What will he be able to do when he has had some time to adapt?

Re cycling, you talk about 40% extra power for amateurs and 10% for pros. I call this 100% bull, sorry. If you could pro’s to get 10% better. All pro teams would fight for you to get you in.

You would be surprised at what pro teams and individuals are using the tool. The list of Olympic and World champions in both cycling and triathlon is quite long that we know about. Greg LeMond told me, when he first saw the tool that he "spent years trying to develop this technique and now people can learn it in months". Paulo Bettini was given a pair to evaluate (We knew the Mapei team doctor, Max Testa, who opened the door for us after we demonstrated it to him) and when the team asked for the pair back he refused to give it. But, what would these people know?

Looking at cycling, the shift we have seen is not in slowing down the movements, but instead going faster at lighter gears.
Armstrong, Froome, Roglic to name a few, push very light gears as mad. So there are other factors that play.
Same for rowing, if it would work, it would have been found out years ago.

The higher the power the faster the optimum muscle speed. The pros are putting out much more power that justifies a higher pedal speed. The problem comes from amateurs copying what the pros are doing thinking that high cadence is a key. If you don't train like the pros you probably shouldn't copy all that they do.

Re 10k guy, without knowing who he is, and which history he has. This means nothing, people pull pb s daily. You need a big group who on average do better. I can point you a guy whu pulled a pb on low drag also any day.

You are not reacting on my “top pro s paddle at higher cadance not a lower one” what tools are used does not matter. How they race is.

Re amateurs versus pro’s. Ofcourse that is true. Average Joe should not do what the very best do. Here on the forum thats also not the case. Top rowers is all about high volume, low rating aerobic work. Nobody does that.

[frankencrank]

Re amateurs versus pro’s. Ofcourse that is true. Average Joe should not do what the very best do. Here on the forum thats also not the case. Top rowers is all about high volume, low rating aerobic work. Nobody does that.

Nobody does what?

[frankencrank]

Re 10k guy, without knowing who he is, and which history he has. This means nothing, people pull pb s daily. You need a big group who on average do better. I can point you a guy whu pulled a pb on low drag also any day.

So, he does a top 10 time out of over 11,000 people logging a result and you say "people pull Pb's daily" as if this is no big deal. If you say so.

[hjs]

Re 10k guy, without knowing who he is, and which history he has. This means nothing, people pull pb s daily. You need a big group who on average do better. I can point you a guy whu pulled a pb on low drag also any day.

So, he does a top 10 time out of over 11,000 people logging a result and you say "people pull Pb's daily" as if this is no big deal. If you say so.

I have a few Wr s. (Age grouper) And no thats not a big deal.

It would be a big deal if he had stagnated and now all off a sudden would break through those plateau’s. But I see no evidence for that.

[hjs]

Re amateurs versus pro’s. Ofcourse that is true. Average Joe should not do what the very best do. Here on the forum thats also not the case. Top rowers is all about high volume, low rating aerobic work. Nobody does that.

Nobody does what?

200+ km a week. 95/90 % low rate. Which the 5.40 guys do.

[frankencrank]

Re 10k guy, without knowing who he is, and which history he has. This means nothing, people pull pb s daily. You need a big group who on average do better. I can point you a guy whu pulled a pb on low drag also any day.

So, he does a top 10 time out of over 11,000 people logging a result and you say "people pull Pb's daily" as if this is no big deal. If you say so.

I have a few Wr s. (Age grouper) And no thats not a big deal.

If you say so.

It would be a big deal if he had stagnated and now all off a sudden would break through those plateau’s. But I see no evidence for that.

Those were the kind of people I tried to recruit but I can't confirm that he fits that mold. We will see if he stays with the program and where he is 6 months from now.

[frankencrank]

Re amateurs versus pro’s. Ofcourse that is true. Average Joe should not do what the very best do. Here on the forum thats also not the case. Top rowers is all about high volume, low rating aerobic work. Nobody does that.

Nobody does what?

200+ km a week. 95/90 % low rate. Which the 5.40 guys do.

then somebody is doing that. Let me point out that is a "training the muscles" thing and not a "maximizing efficiency" thing. Why can't people do both?