Different techniques

[jamesg]

My thought of a "better" technique involves more power to the water (or, ergometer).

That's not a problem. This type of progression is always built into race training schedules. The time scale is usually the year.

If your stroke is already of full length and pulled with the ideal sequence, there is no risk in pulling harder and faster as you get nearer race day. If we don't do this, how can we expect to see any training effect, whether on strength or endurance? Doing the same thing every day is fine for keeping fit, but not for racing.

In progressive race training plans such increased power levels are associated with shorter pieces, as in the Interactives. This leads to the 80% slow 20% fast idea, with this ratio varying over the entire schedule.

This system was adopted in the 1950s for amateur rowing, copying what watermen had been doing for centuries. After the year's work pulling a heavy skiff with passengers aboard, get in your shell and go fast. The system was so effective that such professionals had to be banned from amateur rowing.

[frankencrank]

My thought of a "better" technique involves more power to the water (or, ergometer).

That's not a problem. This type of progression is always built into race training schedules. The time scale is usually the year.

If your stroke is already of full length and pulled with the ideal sequence, there is no risk in pulling harder and faster as you get nearer race day. If we don't do this, how can we expect to see any training effect, whether on strength or endurance? Doing the same thing every day is fine for keeping fit, but not for racing.

In progressive race training plans such increased power levels are associated with shorter pieces, as in the Interactives. This leads to the 80% slow 20% fast idea, with this ratio varying over the entire schedule.

This system was adopted in the 1950s for amateur rowing, copying what watermen had been doing for centuries. After the year's work pulling a heavy skiff with passengers aboard, get in your shell and go fast. The system was so effective that such professionals had to be banned from amateur rowing.

It seems to me you are discussing training methods, not rowing technique changes. From a training perspective the most important thing is time on the slide followed by the nuances you mention above. That improvement is a training effect, not from a change in technique. The original post had to do with different technique which I took as rowing technique, not training technique.

I just started another thread about the three main areas that I see regarding rowing technique that have potential for power improvement regardless of training technique. check it out and give me your thoughts.

[jamesg]

Training is a part of technique, since we have to know how to do it and then use that knowledge.

Two of the areas you name mean pull harder. The third depends on blade design, where C2 is already active.

[frankencrank]

Training is a part of technique, since we have to know how to do it and then use that knowledge.

Two of the areas you name mean pull harder. The third depends on blade design, where C2 is already active.

One trains to a certain technique. They are different things to me.

This two areas may mean "pull harder" to you. It doesn't to me. In fact, one may even allow you to pull less hard. And, the last has nothing to do with blade design. As I said, all about technique changes. Why don't you go to that thread so we can discuss it.

[Tsnor]

Current rowing technique is believed faster and safer.

Do you (or anyone here) have any clue as to what that belief is based upon?

For the faster part -- that's easy. Olympic athletes use the fastest technique. They all left the old style and went to the new technique. They would only have changed the technique they used/knew/coached if the new approach was faster. Given racing, a side by side technique compare gives obvious results.

I did read a study on safely based on the load applied to the spine a few years ago that exactly answers your question, but now I can't find it. The claim was that the spine was in a biomechanically superior position to handle the force of the leg drive in the current technique than in the old one. I did trip across these while looking for that study.

This discusses the implications of shoulders first "the rower swings hard with the upper body, diverting more stroke force through the upper body and increasing rib cage pressure." https://rowingstronger.com/2018/09/10/l ... es-rowing/

This analyzes the forces in the stroke: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435926/

This is an example of the type of spinal loading research that is done, and does point out spinal load during a drive is 7X body weight. It does not compare the different rowing techniques load on the spine. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... TER_ROWING

[frankencrank]

Current rowing technique is believed faster and safer.

Do you (or anyone here) have any clue as to what that belief is based upon?

For the faster part -- that's easy. Olympic athletes use the fastest technique. They all left the old style and went to the new technique. They would only have changed the technique they used/knew/coached if the new approach was faster. Given racing, a side by side technique compare gives obvious results.

Thanks. The does seem sort of obvious (unless the rowers got bigger and stronger). Anyhow, I only know what I was taught back in the days of iron ships and wooden men (or was it the other way around?). What about current technique makes it faster?

I did read a study on safely based on the load applied to the spine a few years ago that exactly answers your question, but now I can't find it. The claim was that the spine was in a biomechanically superior position to handle the force of the leg drive in the current technique than in the old one. I did trip across these while looking for that study.

This discusses the implications of shoulders first "the rower swings hard with the upper body, diverting more stroke force through the upper body and increasing rib cage pressure." https://rowingstronger.com/2018/09/10/l ... es-rowing/

In my physician days I sub specialized in treating chronic pain. Regardless of position, when rowing all of the stroke force must go through the upper body. Not sure how the rib cage pressure gets increased except in sweep oarsmen that do a lot of twisting before the catch. That being said, I don't remember any rib cage pressure (nor do I feel any now on the ergometer). Further, I don't remember a single soul getting injured on the water. running and weight room is another thing. but, that was back in the day when we were lucky to get an hour on the water in during the week and two on the weekends. Anyhow, those injuries sound more like overuse injuries than specific stress from technique injuries to me. That is a coaching problem if that is the case.

Regarding technique, this is about all I could see they said on it regarding reducing injuries: "Teach athletes how to achieve stroke length with lumbopelvic rotation, rather than flexion and extension of the lumbar and thoracic spine. Some spinal flexion is natural and desirable to effectively distribute load across the vertebrae, but the majority of the power of the drive and reach on the recovery should come from pelvic rotation." The problem is the thoracic spine has almost zero mobility. And, it seems to me pelvic rotation would be hard to do when you are sitting on your butt. Does anyone know of a video describing what is meant here? A lot of what they describe here for technique sounds like what we were doing in the '60's (that is 1960, not 1860 for those who are wondering) so I still don't understand how technique has changed.

This analyzes the forces in the stroke: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435926/

"Rowing injuries are primarily overuse related."

This is an example of the type of spinal loading research that is done, and does point out spinal load during a drive is 7X body weight. It does not compare the different rowing techniques load on the spine. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... TER_ROWING

This is an interesting paper to me although I am not sure what to make of it. I think it would be of more interest if their subjects had been active competitive rowers rather than "sporty" people who had a familiarity with rowing. Then, we might know if these thoracic curvature changes meant anything other than poor adaption to the stress. Most of the loads in the thoracic spine are taken by the ligaments.

[loblaw]

There seems to be a ‘standard technique’ for the Rowerg, which I suppose over time has proved to be the most effective. From this the same advice goes out to newbies - shins vertical, don’t over compress, hinge at the hips, sit tall, 11-1 o’clock, nice power curve etc.
Watching rowers at the World Champs pushing good times raises question about the ‘standard’ though.
In my race (M55) the winner, Kent Pettersson from Sweden pulled 6:21.9. If he’d posted his video on here he would have had lots of advice on how to correct his faults. His shins never got anywhere near vertical, maybe 90 degree bend at the knees with a quick, short, powerful half slide leg drive, body rock at the same time and really hard pull into his torso at the end. Not much lean back. He seemed to leave half a stroke on the rail every time but beat the rest of us.
Others with hands going up and down, excessive lean back and others.
Maybe individual techniques suit certain people?

My analysis of rowing technique suggests what I learned many eons ago (the year we swept the IRA's) leaves lots of room for improvement. My analysis suggests a much shorter stroke should be substantially better. If you would like to try out my thoughts PM me. I am looking for some guinnea pigs right now.

Actually, every biomechanical analysis shows that a longer stroke is better. Impulse (force x time) accelerates the boat so longer stroke gives you a bigger area under the curve. This is borne out by the obvious fact that it is not a coincidence that rowers are tall.

Short stroke high rate can be fast for a short time but too much energy wasted going back and forth so it's inefficient. Again, this is borne out by observation where you don't see anyone racing down the course (or on a machine) at 50 spm for more than 10-15 strokes at most.

It's magnified on the water because the angle of attack of the oar gives another physics advantage to the tall rower by allowing the arc of the stroke to be greater (more length). The greatest example of this--which is not initially obvious-- is that the primary reason that the same two people go faster in a double (2 scullers) than in a pair (2 rowers) is that the stroke is longer.