10% Higher Rowing Power

[frankencrank]

A pause at the catch would be the best. The reason is at the finish, there would be a tendency to continue to contract the power generating muscles, interfering in their rest. Pausing at the catch would allow those muscle additional rest so they could generate more power during the power phase, all things being equal.

eccentric contraction of a muscle is contraction while lengthening. Concentric contraction is contraction while shortening. You are doing concentric contraction bringing the drink up to your lips and eccentric contraction putting the drink down.

This is contradictory to one of the first sporty thing I recall being taught, and proved time and again since. If a pause at the catch is best then why can everyone jump higher by ‘bouncing’ into a vertical jump rather than starting in a static crouched position?

Indeed, a pauze will remove some of the stored elastic energy and waist energy. A pauze will also slow the rate down, which has to e compensated by either using a more forcefull stroke or increesing the movement of the other part of the stroke. Both will not be efficient.

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

[hjs]

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

I have not, you come up with the wierdest things. I get you like to use you mind and think up stuff, but indeed nobody will be doing this, because it does not work that way. So no need to read your explanations, cause they can’t be right.

Actually, pausing at the end of the stroke does happen, but thats for taking a short rest, not for being faster.

[frankencrank]

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

I have not, you come up with the wierdest things. I get you like to use you mind and think up stuff, but indeed nobody will be doing this, because it does not work that way. So no need to read your explanations, cause they can’t be right.

Actually, pausing at the end of the stroke does happen, but thats for taking a short rest, not for being faster.

We surely didn't pause at the end of the power stroke. The body, of course, paused but the hands were returning immediately. The body couldn't move until the hands were going to be able to clear the knees.

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

[faach1]

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

I have not, you come up with the wierdest things. I get you like to use you mind and think up stuff, but indeed nobody will be doing this, because it does not work that way. So no need to read your explanations, cause they can’t be right.

Actually, pausing at the end of the stroke does happen, but thats for taking a short rest, not for being faster.

We surely didn't pause at the end of the power stroke. The body, of course, paused but the hands were returning immediately. The body couldn't move until the hands were going to be able to clear the knees.

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

Frank, do you know that the person who you are slating and being unnecessarily sarcastic with is a veteran of this sport? Who furthermore is an oracle of knowledge and who possess a wide ranging knowledge bank pertaining to (but not limited to) indoor rowing.

[Citroen]

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

If you adopt that attitude to other forum members you won't be welcome here. You've been warned. Your next outburst will get you some time off the forum to learn some respect for other forum users.

[hjs]

We surely didn't pause at the end of the power stroke. The body, of course, paused but the hands were returning immediately. The body couldn't move until the hands were going to be able to clear the knees.

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

I did not say you or whatever, I said there are people who DO And some where even fast. Not saying they should either. The fact you don’t know means little.

Don’t want to start a fight and won’t do, I do know though pretty well how the body works during sports. And you are doing a good job in proving you don’t. You now have come up with 3/4 strange ideas. If they would work, you would easily be able to prove them. But ofcourse you can’t.
You are also pretty arrogant to think you can come up with simply ideas, and think that thousends of other people who have put in lots of work and thinking where wrong. But he, its a free world, go ahead and think up whatever you can.

[Nomath]

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

If you adopt that attitude to other forum members you won't be welcome here. You've been warned. Your next outburst will get you some time off the forum to learn some respect for other forum users.

I like to side with frankencrank, who replied to a question with which I started this topic. Others found his answer absurd and started an ad hominem argument. I enjoy the diversity and odd ideas on this forum. Don't kill it for the sake of formalities or established reputations.

[frankencrank]

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

If you adopt that attitude to other forum members you won't be welcome here. You've been warned. Your next outburst will get you some time off the forum to learn some respect for other forum users.

Huh? Did you miss the smiley face? My response was denigrated despite the poster admitting he didn't read it? Why is someone commenting on something he didn't read? People denigrating other posts without reading them (apparently because of who is doing the posting) are the ones who should be banned.

[frankencrank]

We surely didn't pause at the end of the power stroke. The body, of course, paused but the hands were returning immediately. The body couldn't move until the hands were going to be able to clear the knees.

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

I did not say you or whatever, I said there are people who DO And some where even fast. Not saying they should either. The fact you don’t know means little.

Don’t want to start a fight and won’t do, I do know though pretty well how the body works during sports. And you are doing a good job in proving you don’t. You now have come up with 3/4 strange ideas. If they would work, you would easily be able to prove them. But ofcourse you can’t.
You are also pretty arrogant to think you can come up with simply ideas, and think that thousends of other people who have put in lots of work and thinking where wrong. But he, its a free world, go ahead and think up whatever you can.

My friend, you don't have a clue what my idea is nor why I think it would be an improvement. The idea relates to the paper of the original poster (although it is somewhat different), no pauses involved, which is why I mentioned it. I seemed to be the only one who "guessed" correctly. So much for "common sense." While my idea could have an effect on ergometer power I believe it would be more effective on the water. But, what do I know?

[frankencrank]

I have not, you come up with the wierdest things. I get you like to use you mind and think up stuff, but indeed nobody will be doing this, because it does not work that way. So no need to read your explanations, cause they can’t be right.

Actually, pausing at the end of the stroke does happen, but thats for taking a short rest, not for being faster.

We surely didn't pause at the end of the power stroke. The body, of course, paused but the hands were returning immediately. The body couldn't move until the hands were going to be able to clear the knees.

If you don't understand physiology and physics then, I guess, some of my ideas would seem weird and you would be wasting your time reading them. Smart choice on your part.

Frank, do you know that the person who you are slating and being unnecessarily sarcastic with is a veteran of this sport? Who furthermore is an oracle of knowledge and who possess a wide ranging knowledge bank pertaining to (but not limited to) indoor rowing.

Don't care. He somehow decided he could denigrate my post without reading it. No respect for that.

[Citroen]

Don't care. He somehow decided he could denigrate my post without reading it.

Please bear in mind that Henri's first language is NOT English.

[Tony Cook]

This is contradictory to one of the first sporty thing I recall being taught, and proved time and again since. If a pause at the catch is best then why can everyone jump higher by ‘bouncing’ into a vertical jump rather than starting in a static crouched position?

Indeed, a pauze will remove some of the stored elastic energy and waist energy. A pauze will also slow the rate down, which has to e compensated by either using a more forcefull stroke or increesing the movement of the other part of the stroke. Both will not be efficient.

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

I read the paper - the one that concluded ‘10% Higher Rowing Power Outputs After Flexion-Extension-Cycle Compared to an Isolated Concentric Contraction’. Unless I’m completely misunderstanding the title and the paper then this concluded that a flexion-extension drive i.e. bend (flex) legs into the catch position with immediate extension out, provides 10% more power than an isolated concentric contraction. A concentric contraction of the drive being pushing with the legs, isolated means from static, so a pause at the catch.
30 years of training for and then coaching an explosive sport showed me that flexion-extension is more powerful than static extension.
Plyometric training regained popularity a few years ago, I was first introduced to it in the 1980s when I used exercises from volleyball and basketball to increase leg power. Reading up on it plyometric type training was developed in the 1950/60s for eastern block athletes. As there is nothing new it was also used in ancient Asia to train warriors in martial arts by jumping into and out of increasingly deeper pits.
So having read the paper and considered what I’ve read before and your explanation as to why you think that a pause at the catch gives a more explosive drive I decided to discount your theory.

[frankencrank]

Please bear in mind that Henri's first language is NOT English.

How am I to know that? How does that excuse his commenting adversely on my post without reading it?

I simply don't understand the aversion to brainstorming possible improvements? If he thinks my musings to be ludicrous and wants to comment he should try to educate the other readers (he may not care about me) as to WHY my thoughts are wrong and, perhaps, give some evidence. You know, DISCUSS! Maybe everyone might learn something. I do have some credentials that might actually suggest I might even know something if anyone were to care how I have come to my thoughts.

[frankencrank]

Indeed, a pauze will remove some of the stored elastic energy and waist energy. A pauze will also slow the rate down, which has to e compensated by either using a more forcefull stroke or increesing the movement of the other part of the stroke. Both will not be efficient.

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

...
So having read the paper and considered what I’ve read before and your explanation as to why you think that a pause at the catch gives a more explosive drive I decided to discount your theory.

First, you don't know what my overalll theory is as I haven't stated it. All I said is it was related somewhat to the paper. Here I simply tried to explain the results of the study which you don't like which brings me to...
Second, How do you explain the results of the paper which are, seemingly, contrary to your experience?

[Tony Cook]

I guess neither one of you read my explanation(s) nor the paper. Anyhow, as I read the paper the best explanation in my mind is the "pause" at the catch allowed these rowers to anticipate the drive better for a more explosive catch, explaining the power increase. I doubt anyone is going to actually pause at either the catch or start of recovery anyhow.

...
So having read the paper and considered what I’ve read before and your explanation as to why you think that a pause at the catch gives a more explosive drive I decided to discount your theory.

First, you don't know what my overalll theory is as I haven't stated it. All I said is it was related somewhat to the paper. Here I simply tried to explain the results of the study which you don't like which brings me to...
Second, How do you explain the results of the paper which are, seemingly, contrary to your experience?

First: if you haven’t provided your overall theory then obviously I cannot discount it. I was discounted what you suggested/concluded in your post.
Second: I must have completely misunderstood the results of the paper.