Relatively Weak 2km Time

[Gammmmo]

In general, we could only speak of “relative” weak distance if a population would do the exact same training and then see how that would translate to the different distances. Of course this will never be possible in practise.

And there is the secondary aspect that we, as athletes, are not the same people as we used to be. The 2010 version of myself felt old and slow compared to the college (1990s) version of myself. Now, at 48, I think back on 2010 and am pissed that I didn't do more with my "youth." Though, and I know this for a fact, back in 2010 I was ramping up for an Ironman so at that time thought I was doing all I could in terms of training.

My point being, not only is it hard to compare to other athletes, I also have a hard time comparing to myself!

My Hour PB from last week left me relatively chuffed but had I rowed, even casually, a decade ago, that might have just been a normal effort and nothing to write home about. I had the same problem in running in as far as I never ran a marathon until after I was done with serious training and racing. If I had, I think my PB would be a lot let pedestrian! But we'll never know because I waited until I was "done with real running" to do one.

Ha! I know this one. Mid 30s I did some erging and only managed to *just* eclipse my times in my mid 40s by taking it more seriously and having more knowledge. I don't think that counts for THAT much though where fitness is absolute like it is with the erg (once decent technique is dialled). It's quite re-assuring to perform at a similar level to you might've previously because it proves you very roughly found your level with what you could reasonably do. Sometimes people say we're all capable of SO much more than we have already done...but I'm not so sure if you give it a good go and particularly so on multiple occasions in life. Quite frankly, if you're truly REALLY good at a sport it's obvious very quickly and without much effort either.
When I look back to my 20s when I did cycling I made so many mistakes. Now with the web and all the information available (not to mention more people willing to provide services for money to impart knowledge or coach the amateur athlete) there are fewer excuses if you're smart about getting faster. As an aside in some sports where fitness isn't the be-all-end-all it is possible to use this knowledge to go alot faster - case in point early 40s for me with cycling where I improved my aerodynamics to such a point I was turned from a moderately above average cyclist in my 20s to one of the best amateur time triallists in the UK (national medal, regular top 5 placings at high profile events). Now THAT was very sweet.

[OregonERG]

Ha! I know this one. Mid 30s I did some erging and only managed to *just* eclipse my times in my mid 40s by taking it more seriously and having more knowledge. I don't think that counts for THAT much though where fitness is absolute like it is with the erg (once decent technique is dialled).

For me there are two things going on here:

1) Did I take the sport seriously when I were young? If so, I am not going to set PBs when I am old by "trying harder" since, ostensibly, I was already trying very hard back then. I highly doubt that by "getting serious" in his 40s, Seb Coe could have run even better as a masters athlete by stretching and eating right! "Train smarter and not harder," they say. I hear that from folks who didn't train much in their prime...

Luckily for some of us on the erg, we never really rowed when we were young, so our times now are indeed PBs!

2) A second point is that it is slightly less the case when there is a lot of technique involved (golf, tennis) or gear involved (cycling) because those both act as filters against the raw vitality of youth. And even better if the sport doesn't deal out a lot of impact/pounding or demand a ton of fast-twitch power.

You see where I am going with this... I think I will still like the Erg at 50 but I doubt I'll be running the 1500m.

[OregonERG]

Yes, youth is wasted on the young, you are now again young compared to yourself in 10 years time whats been done is done, you are living in the now. If you work on your stroke, you will be amazed what you still can do. Erging is an old man sport, its really friendly agewise.

I am happy to hear this... I think the non-impact aspect of it will really serve me well. My knees and hips and ankles feel better thanks to rowing but, I don't know if it is the rowing helping or just the fact that last month I ran 100km less (which I replaced by the erg mileage). Either way, I am happy.

[Sb13ky]

I would work at lower rates like others have said and fix your form so you are using your legs more. I come from a triathlon background so I’m aerobically fit. I erged a 6:54 2k within my first week on the erg, 6:48 after 3 weeks. My best time now is 6:42. I do have quite a large pb in me, but the change in my fitness was learning to drive from my legs at lower rates so I can apply that power to higher rates. I can rate high, but I had no power per stroke. Went from a 1:57 30R20 in a month to doing steady state at 1:58-2:00 now. It would be outdated now, but I believe my 30R20 is about 1:53.8 or something like that. I figure sub 6:30 is in the books relatively soon now from learning to drive from the legs properly.

[OregonERG]

I would work at lower rates like others have said and fix your form so you are using your legs more. I come from a triathlon background so I’m aerobically fit. I erged a 6:54 2k within my first week on the erg, 6:48 after 3 weeks. My best time now is 6:42. I do have quite a large pb in me, but the change in my fitness was learning to drive from my legs at lower rates so I can apply that power to higher rates. I can rate high, but I had no power per stroke. Went from a 1:57 30R20 in a month to doing steady state at 1:58-2:00 now. It would be outdated now, but I believe my 30R20 is about 1:53.8 or something like that. I figure sub 6:30 is in the books relatively soon now from learning to drive from the legs properly.

I do think I can get more out of my legs, so I will try to work that angle. The downside is that I need a lot of recovery from "leg days" and it messes up my running and easy rowing sessions.

I did a harder leg effort on the erg last week and it almost derailed my training plans for the weekend! That is one of the problems of being older (I am almost twice your age). You can do good sessions but then you need ages to recover before you can do another one! For example, I want to row hard today but I am still wasted from last Thursday-Friday-Saturday's training set.

[OregonERG]

I erged a 6:54 2k within my first week on the erg, 6:48 after 3 weeks. My best time now is 6:42.

Those are GREAT times and you should be very proud of them. You can also take even more pride in knowing that you weren't given those results by sheer luck of being 6'6 or something!

Can I ask what sport you were doing prior to hitting the erg that first time?

[jamesg]

I do think I can get more out of my legs, so I will try to work that angle. The downside is that I need a lot of recovery from "leg days" and it messes up my running and easy rowing sessions.

Ergdata can help control that type of work, since we can see average force and also length. These are both important since Work = Length x Force. The rowing stroke is articulated around the muscle sequence legs - trunk - shoulders so that we use the appropriate set during the pull, as the speed of the pull increases. This progression also offers best length, by allowing high initial acceleration with the legs, shortening the slack.

Stroke development involving these two parameters F and L is best done at low ratings (18-23) so that we can train the stroke itself and our endurance at the same time, without exhaustion. The Power reading offers direct control.

Watts/Rating tells us how much work there is in each stroke and meters/stroke tells us how far the boat goes. 10-11m is the usual minimum.

[rascott]

It seems like everyone on these boards rows a 6:34 or 6:43 or something.

Plenty of 7 minute plus people on here!
(interesting thread, thanks)

[iain]

I do think I can get more out of my legs, so I will try to work that angle. The downside is that I need a lot of recovery from "leg days" and it messes up my running and easy rowing sessions.

I did a harder leg effort on the erg last week and it almost derailed my training plans for the weekend! That is one of the problems of being older (I am almost twice your age). You can do good sessions but then you need ages to recover before you can do another one! For example, I want to row hard today but I am still wasted from last Thursday-Friday-Saturday's training set.

You don't have to go all out to improve the use of your legs. Initially you may get DOMS if you haven't been using your legs to a great extent, but soon you should find that you can do hours at 18SPM close to the work per stroke required for a sub-7 (2:05 pace or thereabouts). Essentially what you are learning is using a greater proportion of your muscle fibres in the drive. Fitness wise using each fibre on 50% higher proportion of drives at 2/3 of the rating is the same. There will be some additional recruitment of fast twitch fibres, but this should not be excessive. I typically row an all out 2k at a little over 8W/min, but I can manage 12 for a few strokes at a time, so we do not use anything like all of our fibres for any stroke under normal rowing. As a result, the fats twitch fibres have plenty of time to recover and the lactate they produce is happily taken up by the aerobic fibres.

I would also repeat the advice on the mental side. An all out 2k is a special kind of hell that few are prepared to maintain. Nothing in endurance compares in intensity (although of course the pain that is endured is for a much longer time). The only way to go there is to work up to it with intense short rows. I suggest you start very short say with 1 min on and 1 min off for say 10 reps. Here the rating will be 40 or more. Initially this will be fine, but you won't be able to recover in the min if done at the right intensity and the second half will hurt. By the end you may find your legs no longer responding and you will need to shorten your leg drive and up the rating to maintain the pace. This is required for the end of the 2k.

All this said, you need to decide what it is worth giving up to maximise your 2k, if you would rather have fresher legs, you are doing plenty to remain fit and healthy now so just don't worry about it!

Best wishes whatever you decide.

- Iain

[OregonERG]

I would also repeat the advice on the mental side. An all out 2k is a special kind of hell that few are prepared to maintain. Nothing in endurance compares in intensity (although of course the pain that is endured is for a much longer time). The only way to go there is to work up to it with intense short rows. I suggest you start very short say with 1 min on and 1 min off for say 10 reps. Here the rating will be 40 or more. Initially this will be fine, but you won't be able to recover in the min if done at the right intensity and the second half will hurt. By the end you may find your legs no longer responding and you will need to shorten your leg drive and up the rating to maintain the pace. This is required for the end of the 2k.

Thanks for the advice! I think I will try the 10 x 1 min. workout. That sounds like a brilliant way to suffer.

[Gabe_G]

Fascinating read of back and forth banter. I guess I feel compelled to throw my two cents in here on the topic of stroke rate. From a pure efficiency standpoint, it makes sense to train at a low SPM. The professional coaches are not wrong, if you want to be fast on the erg and produce better times there is nothing to dispute here.

But that brings me to the practical application. Most of us here (unless I am gravely mistaken) do not row competitively. That doesn't mean we don't compete with ourselves, but as someone who absolutely loves the erg, I don't care how my times compare to others. I don't care of someone says my stroke is "weak" because I prefer a high SPM. I use rowing for general fitness and I love it. To get stronger, I lift weights - heavy compound movements. I cross train, because I love to run and cycle. I also prefer higher cadence cycling.

The point is, if you are competitive in your sport of choice, then you must follow the wisdom of those that know the sport. But all too often, that advice is applied to the recreational athlete where it really doesn't matter if you are the most efficient or not. The entire goal of using the erg for this type of athlete (recreational) is to provide exercise. Gaining an extra 3% efficiency at the expense of enjoyment doesn't make a lot of sense to these people. I, personally, hate rowing at a low SPM. I *can* do it, but I don't like it. Personal preference. If, say, I decided to compete, I would suck it up and force myself to train in a way that will produce better times.

All that said, sometimes I wonder when people post on these boards: What is your true goal? To compete with others? To compete with yourself? To gain functional years to your life as you age? I think people mistakenly think their goal is X when it is really Z. Look inward, what is it you want?

[OregonERG]

What is your true goal? To compete with others? To compete with yourself? To gain functional years to your life as you age? I think people mistakenly think their goal is X when it is really Z. Look inward, what is it you want?

What I want most of all in rowing is to break 7 again. But I love doing longer steady-state workouts. I'd rather row for an hour at 1:55 pace than do 3x2 minutes at 1:45. That is the problem. My preferred training doesn't align with my goal. I think the hour at 1:55 is only good for rowing an hour at 1:55 pace (which is getting easier and easier for me to do), but I doubt it will ever get me under 7:00.

So yep, my erg goal and my daily training don't really align...

[iain]

What I want most of all in rowing is to break 7 again. But I love doing longer steady-state workouts. I'd rather row for an hour at 1:55 pace than do 3x2 minutes at 1:45. That is the problem

It comes down to whether the "pay off" of the sub-7 is worth the price of intense workouts. Personally I haven't the drive required to do enough mid-pace training to optimise my threshold for decent 5k - 1hr times relative to longer or shorter distances. There is a natural pull to any round number, especially sub-7, but at the end of the day it is artificial. So at heart do you really desire a sub-7 that much? If so, you are more than capable and know the kinds of workouts required. It is a cliche that an FM is 1000's of km where the final 42195 is timed. Similarly a good 2k involves a dozen or more sharp workouts only the last of which is the goal. It is down to you whether you are happy to commit to that.

[Tobias Stoehr]

Fascinating read of back and forth banter. I guess I feel compelled to throw my two cents in here on the topic of stroke rate. From a pure efficiency standpoint, it makes sense to train at a low SPM. The professional coaches are not wrong, if you want to be fast on the erg and produce better times there is nothing to dispute here.

But that brings me to the practical application. Most of us here (unless I am gravely mistaken) do not row competitively. That doesn't mean we don't compete with ourselves, but as someone who absolutely loves the erg, I don't care how my times compare to others. I don't care of someone says my stroke is "weak" because I prefer a high SPM. I use rowing for general fitness and I love it. To get stronger, I lift weights - heavy compound movements. I cross train, because I love to run and cycle. I also prefer higher cadence cycling.

The point is, if you are competitive in your sport of choice, then you must follow the wisdom of those that know the sport. But all too often, that advice is applied to the recreational athlete where it really doesn't matter if you are the most efficient or not. The entire goal of using the erg for this type of athlete (recreational) is to provide exercise. Gaining an extra 3% efficiency at the expense of enjoyment doesn't make a lot of sense to these people. I, personally, hate rowing at a low SPM. I *can* do it, but I don't like it. Personal preference. If, say, I decided to compete, I would suck it up and force myself to train in a way that will produce better times.

All that said, sometimes I wonder when people post on these boards: What is your true goal? To compete with others? To compete with yourself? To gain functional years to your life as you age? I think people mistakenly think their goal is X when it is really Z. Look inward, what is it you want?

There are also professional rowers doing their base work at rate 26 with very light pressure (coached by Robert Sens). Strength is trained with other training like intervals or weights. Also some very fast (world record holders) masters rowers prefer high rate for the base work.

Nothing wrong with it.

[jamesg]

What I want most of all in rowing is to break 7 again.

According to the French protocol, for a 7' 2k you'll need to be able pull a single 500 at pace 1:32-1:33.

I found 500s for this purpose were best done at not more than 35-36, using a full stroke.

The 2k could then be paced 1:42 - 1:47 - 1:47 - 1:43.

The Power ratio between paces 1.33 and 1.45 is 70%.