7:48.7 -> 7:30

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » August 14th, 2005, 3:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(peeb @ Aug 14 2005, 11:26 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> p.s. I searched a bit around this site and the uk site, but couldn't pin down the following - what's the relationship between the '8 watts' above and the much larger watt reading that appears when I set the PM3 to show watts? </td></tr></table> The large number on the display is the actual output. The 8 waats per stroke, or other number used, is as it says and relates the total watts shown to the spm. So, using 8 watts per stroke then at 2o spm you should be showing 160 watts, at 22 spm 176 watts and so on. I find it good for helping develop nice smooth steady stroke as matching spm and watts output requires a lot of concentration. You can start with whatever number you like; the main point is that it helps develop technique so it should not be so hard that it causes you to lose technique. The spm can be varied and as you progress you can increase the watts per stroke so that you start to develop a more powerful stroke. The aim is that you then start to maintain the power output at higher spm and so become faster. Takes time but an interesting drill to include as part of the training program. Neil.

[old] peeb · Post by **[old] peeb** » August 14th, 2005, 5:36 pm

Hum, almost exactly the same as my experience. So either the running improved your fitness in a way that the rowing was not doing, or the rowing on water improved your technique, or a bit of both - any feel for which? <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Gregg @ Aug 14 2005, 12:45 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I actually had the same 2k time as you this year during the season. It was my first year rowing and I had the same dilemma. I started the year rowing an 8:08 and dropped about 10 seconds a month training 3 days a week on the erg. Then it seemed that I had plateud. I was stuck at around a 7:45 range when I started running. Running 2-8 miles a day 5 days a week. I was also rowing on the water around this time, in about a month's work I got back on the erg and pulled a 7:31, for me running long distances works better than erging, and I feel better afterward...to each his own I suppose. </td></tr></table>

[old] peeb · Post by **[old] peeb** » August 14th, 2005, 6:04 pm

Agh sorry what was I doing asking that question - of course you said watts per stroke. Well I modified my rowing style and noted a major improvement today. This may be a bit specific but I will describe it anyway in case it's useful for any other beginners working on their stroke. I now think there were two problems with my stroke (1) rounding the back in the forward position (2) wrapping the shoulders forward when in the forward position I would guess that I've had this problem from early on, and I got into these habits in order to get the handle all the way to the gate. After the replies I got a few days ago, I had started to concentrate on keeping my back straight. Then halfway through the session today, (not as the result of any conscious reasoning) I started to try moving forward in such a way that my chest opened forward, my head stayed up, and my shoulders widened so that they felt as though they were behind my chest by the time I was in the fully forward position. I had to pivot much more at the hips. This is completely different to my existing stroke where I have been rounding my shoulders forward and making my chest concave. Well it felt hugely different and better. And for the first time I felt my leg-straightening was really transmitting some power into the stroke. The funny thing is that if someone had asked me this time last week if my form was ok, I would have said that I was doing something pretty much as described in the intro on this web site. Now I suspect that I may have looked like a floppy bit of spaghetti attached to the handle! This could be where someone steps in and says 'nope still sounds wrong' (hope not!). Anyway, thanks again to the forum, I feel like I have made some significant progress as a result of the feedback, Paul. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(neilb @ Aug 14 2005, 02:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(peeb @ Aug 14 2005, 11:26 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> p.s. I searched a bit around this site and the uk site, but couldn't pin down the following - what's the relationship between the '8 watts' above and the much larger watt reading that appears when I set the PM3 to show watts? </td></tr></table> The large number on the display is the actual output. The 8 waats per stroke, or other number used, is as it says and relates the total watts shown to the spm. So, using 8 watts per stroke then at 2o spm you should be showing 160 watts, at 22 spm 176 watts and so on. I find it good for helping develop nice smooth steady stroke as matching spm and watts output requires a lot of concentration. You can start with whatever number you like; the main point is that it helps develop technique so it should not be so hard that it causes you to lose technique. The spm can be varied and as you progress you can increase the watts per stroke so that you start to develop a more powerful stroke. The aim is that you then start to maintain the power output at higher spm and so become faster. Takes time but an interesting drill to include as part of the training program. Neil. </td></tr></table>

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » August 15th, 2005, 4:21 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(peeb @ Aug 14 2005, 05:04 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> This could be where someone steps in and says 'nope still sounds wrong' (hope not!). Anyway, thanks again to the forum, I feel like I have made some significant progress as a result of the feedback, Paul. </td></tr></table> Sounds good. Shoulders back, chest out, head up, back straight, pivot from the hips etc all good stuff. As regards rowing on the water I started this about 3 months ago and the technique chalenge is immense. On water you need to get it really right otherwise the boat does not move very well (at least in the direction you would like) and it will not be balanced. Good habits on the erg will always be of benefit but time on the water will certainly help cure bad habits. (Also, when starting on water you tend to be part of a novice/beginner group at a local rowing club with the benefit of good coaching from the start.) Water is a challenge but an interesting one and when it goes right it is so good. You should try it. Neil

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » August 15th, 2005, 11:21 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(neilb @ Aug 14 2005, 12:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>using 8 watts per stroke then at 2o spm you should be showing 160 watts, at 22 spm 176 watts and so on. </td></tr></table> 160 watts on display is 160 watts per stroke. 176 watts on display is 176 watts per stroke. 220 watts on display is 220 watts per stroke.

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » August 15th, 2005, 12:17 pm

John doesn't phrase it very well, but the nub of what he's saying is basically correct. You cannot have a concept of 'power per stroke'. It just doesn't exist. What the monitor displays is the average power output over the time interval of one stroke. If you take the stroke rate (strokes/min), and convert it to strokes/second you can derive the quantity of energy per stroke. Hence, the much vaunted 'Stroke Power Index' that some people go on about, is nothing more, or less, than energy per stroke in a very odd unit. Mel

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » August 15th, 2005, 4:16 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Aug 15 2005, 11:17 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>John doesn't phrase it very well, but the nub of what he's saying is basically correct. You cannot have a concept of 'power per stroke'. It just doesn't exist. What the monitor displays is the average power output over the time interval of one stroke. If you take the stroke rate (strokes/min), and convert it to strokes/second you can derive the quantity of energy per stroke. Hence, the much vaunted 'Stroke Power Index' that some people go on about, is nothing more, or less, than energy per stroke in a very odd unit. Mel </td></tr></table> Mel, I tend to like the "concept" of power per stroke as one way to help try and maintain a smooth output as you increase the spm. To me it sort of helps to ensure I remain focused on stronger stroke and resist the temptation to go faster simply by applying less pressure and just upping the spm. In simple terms it helps me to train to go faster by developing more power at a given spm so then when I apply the higher spm for racing I can hopefully obtain better results. Also I think that it helped me to develop a smooth and regular stroke which has helped a lot on the water. I know when I started out the equivalent of 9 watts per stroke was hard work whereas now I find that 11 is comfortable. Putting aside for the moment the theory and physics of all this what would you say is the better way to help develop the stronger stroke? Restricted rate work, meters per stroke or just plain old split times? Neil

[old] peeb · Post by **[old] peeb** » August 15th, 2005, 5:56 pm

Neil, I see what Mel is saying (I think) and it's that your number is energy per stroke, not power per stroke. To plug in some numbers to illustrate - 1. Say my spm is 25, and my power is 150 watts. 2. That means I am outputting 150 Joules per second. 3. Therefore I am outputting 150*60 Joules per minute. 4. Therefore I am outputting 150*60/25 Joules per stroke. That last number is energy (Joules) per stroke. You proposed keeping the following constant during training - power divided by spm 5. For the above numbers, power divided by spm is 150/25. This is a scaled value of (4) i.e. it is energy per stroke but in an odd unit, Paul. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(neilb @ Aug 15 2005, 03:16 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Aug 15 2005, 11:17 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>John doesn't phrase it very well, but the nub of what he's saying is basically correct. You cannot have a concept of 'power per stroke'. It just doesn't exist. What the monitor displays is the average power output over the time interval of one stroke. If you take the stroke rate (strokes/min), and convert it to strokes/second you can derive the quantity of energy per stroke. Hence, the much vaunted 'Stroke Power Index' that some people go on about, is nothing more, or less, than energy per stroke in a very odd unit. Mel </td></tr></table> Mel, I tend to like the "concept" of power per stroke as one way to help try and maintain a smooth output as you increase the spm. To me it sort of helps to ensure I remain focused on stronger stroke and resist the temptation to go faster simply by applying less pressure and just upping the spm. In simple terms it helps me to train to go faster by developing more power at a given spm so then when I apply the higher spm for racing I can hopefully obtain better results. Also I think that it helped me to develop a smooth and regular stroke which has helped a lot on the water. I know when I started out the equivalent of 9 watts per stroke was hard work whereas now I find that 11 is comfortable. Putting aside for the moment the theory and physics of all this what would you say is the better way to help develop the stronger stroke? Restricted rate work, meters per stroke or just plain old split times? Neil </td></tr></table>

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » August 16th, 2005, 12:49 am

Paul, Yes. My way of phrasing it was wrong (I could have said "keep the power reading per stroke a constant factor, say 8, of the spm" ) but whether it is showing power, energy or whatever I think it is helpful as one of the ways to maintain a discipline of steady technique/stroke at different spm. The temptation is often to go faster by simply increasing the spm and if you do this without having spent time and effort developing the power/energy/effort (whatever it is called) per stroke the gains can be limited. Neil

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » August 16th, 2005, 3:32 am

The other issue I have is that keeping the energy per stroke constant is a rather arbitrary decision. I don't disagree that it's useful to work for higher energy per stroke at all rates, but I wouldn't aim to keep the energy input the same at all rates. Mel

Concept2 Forum

7:48.7 -> 7:30

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training