Effects of the drag factor on performance and on physiological parameters

[hjs]

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?

It is both, thats why nobody is faster who tried anything else. Its not for nothing that the Wr is already for a few decades more or less the same. Came down from 5.37 to 5.34 over 20/30 years. But alla ofcourse everybody is stupid and never tried all sorts of things.
Luckily you came along, so we soon can expect that record to be smashed kidding ofcourse, lots of sports, rowing included do not move at all. Wr s are stagnant for years.
Shotput, discus, javelin, highjump, longjump etc. only sports where technical changes take place the records do move. If lots of people do a certain sport, people instinctively find the most optimal way to do so. Combine this with a big enough pool so you find the extreme “freaks” and you reach the top humans can do.

I do not see that your ideas hold ground. I am 99,999% certain you will not be able to break the “medium drag” Wr simply by using much more drag.
By the way from memory. I could be mistaken. The 5.37 old wr was done on drag 160/155 Later on it was set at 5.36 on drag 103 and current 5.35 was done on 130. So certainly not a “fixed” 1 drag for all approach.

Edit 5.37 Matthias Siejkowski https://www.row2k.com/features/5/Matthias-Siejkowski/
5.36 Rob Waddel
5.35 Josh Dunkley Smith https://row-360.com/5-35-8-josh-dunkley-smith/

[frankencrank]

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?

It is both, thats why nobody is faster who tried anything else. Its not for nothing that the Wr is already for a few decades more or less the same. Came down from 5.37 to 5.34 over 20/30 years. But alla ofcourse everybody is stupid and never tried all sorts of things.
Luckily you came along, so we soon can expect that record to be smashed kidding ofcourse, lots of sports, rowing included do not move at all. Wr s are stagnant for years.
Shotput, discus, javelin, highjump, longjump etc. only sports where technical changes take place the records do move. If lots of people do a certain sport, people instinctively find the most optimal way to do so. Combine this with a big enough pool so you find the extreme “freaks” and you reach the top humans can do.

I do not see that your ideas hold ground. I am 99,999% certain you will not be able to break the “medium drag” Wr simply by using much more drag.
By the way from memory. I could be mistaken. The 5.37 old wr was done on drag 160/155 Later on it was set at 5.36 on drag 103 and current 5.35 was done on 130. So certainly not a “fixed” 1 drag for all approach.

Edit 5.37 Matthias Siejkowski https://www.row2k.com/features/5/Matthias-Siejkowski/
5.36 Rob Waddel
5.35 Josh Dunkley Smith https://row-360.com/5-35-8-josh-dunkley-smith/

I can assure you I, personally, will not break any WR. I am simply giving people a tool that they can use to, maybe, improve their own performance. Most are not on a quest to set a WR. Those that are can still test to see if the change may help them as I give them a way to test to see if the change might be beneficial. I don't see why you seem to take that personally. I would submit that few have really trained at high drag levels because they have heard "it can't be done" and "you will get injured." We will see what the future holds I suppose.

[frankencrank]

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?

It is both,

I think I misread this. You are saying doing 200km a week at low intensity is training efficiency as it trains endurance/base?

Just how does such a regimen ensure optimum efficiency at race effort?

[hjs]

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?

It is both,

I think I misread this. You are saying doing 200km a week at low intensity is training efficiency as it trains endurance/base?

Just how does such a regimen ensure optimum efficiency at race effort?

90% endurance, 10% speed/race. So at 200k, still 20k a week. Ofcourse very rough numbers and all aimed at 2k.

[frankencrank]

It is both,

I think I misread this. You are saying doing 200km a week at low intensity is training efficiency as it trains endurance/base?

Just how does such a regimen ensure optimum efficiency at race effort?

90% endurance, 10% speed/race. So at 200k, still 20k a week. Ofcourse very rough numbers and all aimed at 2k.

But, what are they doing specifically directed at efficiency?

[hjs]

But, what are they doing specifically directed at efficiency?

I think following instinct, a bit like running and stride length, do we ever here something about that? Think the body finds the most efficient way. And in end the results speak.

[frankencrank]

But, what are they doing specifically directed at efficiency?

I think following instinct, a bit like running and stride length, do we ever here something about that? Think the body finds the most efficient way. And in end the results speak.

Ah, yes. Whatever I am doing is fine because the body finds the most efficient way. Why everyone makes it to the Olympics. No need for science. The actual answer is "nothing"

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

I'm still incredibly confused. For one, while I appreciate the effort and time you put into your response to my comment, I took nothing of substance away from it. Instead of elaborating on the physics of levers and muscle contraction, why not get to the point of what exactly it is you're trying to advocate for in terms of muscle physiology. Maybe I didn't word my comment properly - what is it you are trying to show that you think rowers could do better? You expound at length on things that don't quite answer the question (or maybe I missed it in the previous 8 pages of posts.

There's a lot of red flags for me here like you're insane claims of cycling improvements (reminds me of the RandallFoils in rowing). Not to mention, and I quote, where you say, "all the skeletal muscles are pretty much the same physiologically..."

I am not an exercise physiologist, but I think trying to say all (skeletal) muscles are pretty much the same is absolutely incorrect. For one, fiber type will differ. Additionally, the fiber contraction size varies significantly (e.g. gastrocnemius vs abductor pollicis brevis). Anyway that's neither here nor there because again, this is all just fluff that doesn't really address what your main point is of what improvement you are seeming to advocate for training in rowing that doesn't yet exist.

I'll let others continue entertaining you, but this all seems an exercise in futility.

[frankencrank]

I'm still incredibly confused. For one, while I appreciate the effort and time you put into your response to my comment, I took nothing of substance away from it. Instead of elaborating on the physics of levers and muscle contraction, why not get to the point of what exactly it is you're trying to advocate for in terms of muscle physiology. Maybe I didn't word my comment properly - what is it you are trying to show that you think rowers could do better? You expound at length on things that don't quite answer the question (or maybe I missed it in the previous 8 pages of posts.

There's a lot of red flags for me here like you're insane claims of cycling improvements (reminds me of the RandallFoils in rowing). Not to mention, and I quote, where you say, "all the skeletal muscles are pretty much the same physiologically..."

I am not an exercise physiologist, but I think trying to say all (skeletal) muscles are pretty much the same is absolutely incorrect. For one, fiber type will differ. Additionally, the fiber contraction size varies significantly (e.g. gastrocnemius vs abductor pollicis brevis). Anyway that's neither here nor there because again, this is all just fluff that doesn't really address what your main point is of what improvement you are seeming to advocate for training in rowing that doesn't yet exist.

I'll let others continue entertaining you, but this all seems an exercise in futility.

It is pretty simple. I believe rowers can gain power by paying attention to improving (even optimizing) muscle efficiency. All power comes from the muscles. Our ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles is limited so if we can get more power out of that amount of oxygen (than we do now) it will result in more power to the water.

It is simply looking at the physiology of muscle contraction and using that knowledge to optimize the power portion of the rowing stroke. It isn't intuition. In medicine we try to bring science to the bedside. Here I am trying to bring science (physiology) to the water (or ergometer).

The title of this thread is "Effects of the drag factor on performance and on physiology parameters." It is all interrelated. Changing the drag factor affects the physiological condition of the muscles which changes muscle efficiency which changes the power (or endurance). It can make it better or make it worse. I believe most will see improvement if they increase the drag factor. You need to test to see what is best for you. If you make a big change it will take time to adapt to those changes.

Is that better?

[frankencrank]

I am not an exercise physiologist, but I think trying to say all (skeletal) muscles are pretty much the same is absolutely incorrect. For one, fiber type will differ. Additionally, the fiber contraction size varies significantly (e.g. gastrocnemius vs abductor pollicis brevis). Anyway that's neither here nor there because again, this is all just fluff that doesn't really address what your main point is of what improvement you are seeming to advocate for training in rowing that doesn't yet exist.

All skeletal muscle is essentially the same from a physiological point of view in that there are three types of muscle, Cardiac, Skeletal, and smooth. While there are genetic differences to fiber make up (choose your sport wisely) it turns out fiber type make-up can be changed somewhat through training. The body responds to the stresses it encounters. If all it sees is aerobic activity it will emphasize aerobic muscle (slow twitch) development. So, you are right, there are differences but they are of zero importance to this discussion.

[frankencrank]

Today I did an interval workout as an example as to how one might do an evaluation like this. I decided I would do 10 minute intervals with 3 minute rest trying to keep the HR between 120-125, a pretty easy effort for me but not easy easy. I changed the drag setting between intervals starting at 8, 8.5, 7.5, and then back to 8 (I have been training for awhile at DF 8 so thought I would start there). Doing it this way allows one to estimate the effects of fatigue and dehydration (I didn’t take in any fluids during the run) on the results. Here is what I got.

DS / Watts
8.0/102
8.5/97
7.5/92
8.0/92

From this I think one can conclude that fatigue/dehydration is skewing the results but from this I would conclude that for me, at this power and level of conditioning that 8 is the best drag setting of these 3. But, that is premature. The test should be repeated, testing in different order. Maybe 5 minute intervals (and drink some fluids) would be better so fatigue and dehydration do not play such a prominent role. Go up to 9 and down to 7 to make sure those continue to drop off.

Of course, what one really wants to do is do this test at race effort, because that is what you really want to optimize, race results. I am sure the results would be different if the power were substantially different. I am not ready for such efforts myself as I am still working on base. But, you should get the idea.

[Nomath]

It helps when we adhere to a common language. What you did is to set the damper level to 8 - 8.5 - etc. It would be better if you wrote down the drag factor at these settings (a number between 80 and 200). That is what we can reproduce on our own ergs.

[frankencrank]

It helps when we adhere to a common language. What you did is to set the damper level to 8 - 8.5 - etc. It would be better if you wrote down the drag factor at these settings (a number between 80 and 200). That is what we can reproduce on our own ergs.

When doing intervals the drag factor in each interval doesn't show up and I didn't specifically note it, thinking it would. As I remember the DF at 8.5 was around 200 and at 7.5 about 180. The average DF for the whole effort was 192. What is important is that one is evaluating how a change affects performance trying to keep everything else equal and one would expect there to be a difference regardless of the specific drag factor. People shouldn't compare themselves to me but, rather, to themselves.

[Tony Cook]

This has all gone quiet for a month after a flurry of activity. Anyone got any updates or insights into if anything came of this. I think a couple of posters were involved in the experiment.

[jackarabit]

My brief experience emailing Mr. Day requesting clarification of the prescribed test protocol for “study” participants was not encouraging. I attempted to do a workout which I thought fleshed out the somewhat deformable instructions and did it twice. Mr. Day thanked me for my effort and told me it had confirmed his “expectations” of the trial (his expectations of an indulged geriatric wannabe more likely). Two days on, he found another participant whose very respectable performance in terms of volume and absolute horsepower was final confirmation that his study model was sound and productive of the result he expected it to produce.

Amorphous test protocol. Minuscule study population. Hypothesis become Capital T Truth. On to the very tiny lecture circuit (thread) with revolutionary, ego-enhancing findings.

Frank Day, nuclear engineer, medical doctor, triathlete, inventor of a crankset with clutched arms said to have been toyed with by Big George Hincapie. Portrait of a man well-acclimated to the twilit zone between nominal success and __________?