Paying attention to physiology

[Dutch]

You are probably too young to remember Jack LaLanne. I am not. Jack did real pushups. Over 1000 in 23 minutes. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0124 ... 23-minutes
I don't think it is too much to think someone, who has properly trained for it, might be able to repeatedly push away 40-50 lbs 300 times in 10 minutes. If not, how about 25?

I have just looked up Jack LaLanne, he certainly looks physically capable. but alas not one video of him doing a proper press up, there is interviews with him and he does a variation of a press up but none proper.
In fact it is very hard to find a proper video of any of the claimed world records for press ups.

I do think that 25 pounds could possibly be done, yes.

[frankencrank]

You are probably too young to remember Jack LaLanne. I am not. Jack did real pushups. Over 1000 in 23 minutes. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0124 ... 23-minutes
I don't think it is too much to think someone, who has properly trained for it, might be able to repeatedly push away 40-50 lbs 300 times in 10 minutes. If not, how about 25?

I have just looked up Jack LaLanne, he certainly looks physically capable. but alas not one video of him doing a proper press up, there is interviews with him and he does a variation of a press up but none proper.
In fact it is very hard to find a proper video of any of the claimed world records for press ups.

I do think that 25 pounds could possibly be done, yes.

I guess it would be possible to devise a two stage spring system, a lower load at the beginning of recovery (25lbs) when the arms are extending then a higher load (50lbs) when the arms are straight and the more capable legs are doing the work.

I am brainstorming here, thinking about ways to possibly better balance the muscle work and maximizing the power output of the athlete.

[frankencrank]

Let me clarify one thing about what I mean by "balanced muscle" use. In the cyclist it is easy as the 4 muscle groups have pretty equal capabilities so they end up doing pretty equal work. But, if you are trying to balance muscles that have different capabilities (arm and legs) then balanced would mean working at the same percentage of their ability. So, they wouldn't be doing equal work but they would be working relatively the same. the percentage one would aim for would depend upon the type of race, sprint vs endurance.

Performance is always limited by the weakest link. I would like for them all to be used equally, according to their ability, so the weak link doesn't exist.

[Dutch]

Let me clarify one thing about what I mean by "balanced muscle" use. In the cyclist it is easy as the 4 muscle groups have pretty equal capabilities so they end up doing pretty equal work. But, if you are trying to balance muscles that have different capabilities (arm and legs) then balanced would mean working at the same percentage of their ability. So, they wouldn't be doing equal work but they would be working relatively the same. the percentage one would aim for would depend upon the type of race, sprint vs endurance.

Performance is always limited by the weakest link. I would like for them all to be used equally, according to their ability, so the weak link doesn't exist.

If you have a muscle imbalance, then as I understand it muscles can compensate for other weaker muscles. Weight training can help make weaker muscles stronger, so may help to balance out the load.
You, in the above example, are trying to make the the arms and legs pull to their full capability, with a push by the arms which will helps the the handle to be returned to the catch, it will have to be pushed, and the stored energy as you call it comes from the weight coming down to assist the drive.
So the only muscles being trained extra are, the arm muscles and maybe some secondary isometric benefit to the chest muscles on the way back to the catch with the device.
Then as you start the next drive phase, the weights drop thus assisting all drive muscles.
The muscles on the drive do no extra work, they are assisted. So you get your own drive force plus a bit of added force/assistance from the dropping weight, thus more watts equalling a further distance.
To me it looks like you are over thinking it. To summarise you will only give the drive muscle assistance not give them extra training or balance by having a weight drop to help them.
The only extra muscle training I can see with this device is in the triceps muscles, secondary the forearm and minor the bicep and some isometric from chest flexing, pushing away the handle back through the recovery. You also have to have a tight grip in order to return a bigger weight. Some possible pressure around the thumb joint maybe, as well.
I think the whole device will be like having a tailwind when on a bike, it will assist. it wont make extra muscle or train the leg muscles as I see it having watched you on the device for the erg.
If the aim is to find an assistance for rowing a rowing as an experiment then fair do I think you have succeeded.
But what is your ultimate intention for it?

[frankencrank]

Let me clarify one thing about what I mean by "balanced muscle" use. In the cyclist it is easy as the 4 muscle groups have pretty equal capabilities so they end up doing pretty equal work. But, if you are trying to balance muscles that have different capabilities (arm and legs) then balanced would mean working at the same percentage of their ability. So, they wouldn't be doing equal work but they would be working relatively the same. the percentage one would aim for would depend upon the type of race, sprint vs endurance.

Performance is always limited by the weakest link. I would like for them all to be used equally, according to their ability, so the weak link doesn't exist.

If you have a muscle imbalance, then as I understand it muscles can compensate for other weaker muscles. Weight training can help make weaker muscles stronger, so may help to balance out the load.
You, in the above example, are trying to make the the arms and legs pull to their full capability, with a push by the arms which will helps the the handle to be returned to the catch, it will have to be pushed, and the stored energy as you call it comes from the weight coming down to assist the drive.
So the only muscles being trained extra are, the arm muscles and maybe some secondary isometric benefit to the chest muscles on the way back to the catch with the device.
Then as you start the next drive phase, the weights drop thus assisting all drive muscles.
The muscles on the drive do no extra work, they are assisted. So you get your own drive force plus a bit of added force/assistance from the dropping weight, thus more watts equalling a further distance.
To me it looks like you are over thinking it. To summarise you will only give the drive muscle assistance not give them extra training or balance by having a weight drop to help them.
The only extra muscle training I can see with this device is in the triceps muscles, secondary the forearm and minor the bicep and some isometric from chest flexing, pushing away the handle back through the recovery. You also have to have a tight grip in order to return a bigger weight. Some possible pressure around the thumb joint maybe, as well.
I think the whole device will be like having a tailwind when on a bike, it will assist. it wont make extra muscle or train the leg muscles as I see it having watched you on the device for the erg.
If the aim is to find an assistance for rowing a rowing as an experiment then fair do I think you have succeeded.
But what is your ultimate intention for it?

I think you underestimate some of what is going on. Many muscles must be used to push that weight up (or stretch the spring in the shell). It starts with the pectorals and triceps pushing the hands away from the chest, like a push up. But, the trunk muscles must also brace the trunk. The psoas (the hip flexors) are involved in rotating the trunk forward and bringing the knees up and the hamstrings also help raise the knees and draw the foot toward the butt. All of these would be contributing to storing that potential energy just as many muscles are involved during the drive phase. It simply isn't that hard or different from what is being done now as long as the transition occurs slowly. Start with one pound and keep adding weight as you adapt.

The whole goal of this operation is to provide a way for the rower to increase power substantially beyond what can be done using traditional training methods and techniques by utilizing more muscles more efficiently in power generation. It is based on a similar technique that has proved itself in cyclists being translated to rowers.

If anyone at an elite level would actually choose to to do this I would see it as being similar to the "Fosbury Flop" moment in high jumping. Or, the use of "aerobars" in cycling. A superior method being demonstrated in competition over traditional methods that were previously deemed optimum. Nobody who is serious about winning would ever be able to go back to the old ways. Then, winning would go to those who were able to optimize the new technique.

Maybe rowing, as a way of maintaining "tradition", might start a new "unlimited" class that would allow springs and ban them for classic competition. A way to expand the sport maybe.

[Carl Watts]

The only point of modifying the rower the way you have is to provide additional training to some muscles.

You should note that this will only be beneficial if you then take off the modification and run all your actual rows on the unmodified rower and show gains in performance otherwise its a pointless exercise. I could get a 10% performance gain tomorrow by just chucking my Model D on a set of Concept 2 slides if I really wanted to and not tell anyone its on slides.

Take it from me, people get very upset on here if you start ranking times on a modified rower, been there and done that with a 6 minute flat 2K last year to try and make a point on an entirely different subject.

Anyway its all a good discussion. The body is pretty complex, its not a machine so all you have to come back to is your heartrate but even trying to get consistency here for comparisons is quite difficult from one day to the next. Unless your an elite athlete there are just to many variables and you lack consistency. For example there would have to be quite a sudden big jump in efficiency that dropped my average heartrate by say 5 bpm constantly over several test rows to say its made any difference as a couple of bpm just gets lost in temperature and humidity changes alone without all the other variables thrown into the mix.

Have you actually done any rows on it for comparison ? If I recall the weights you have used have only equalized the 7 to 9lbs shock cord resistance when the cord is brand new.

I would point out that some CrossFit gyms have actually fitted a stronger elastic shock cord and I would predict that a large strong and heavy rower would actually get an advantage from that. The reason is as already stated, the legs are far more efficient in the drive than in the recovery so that what must be 80 to 90% of that stored energy in the shock cord assists you greatly in the recovery.

I guess your argument is your shifting the loading from the legs which are doing 60% of the work to other muscles in the body that are not utilized at all to try and improve the overall efficiency ? I read years ago that for rowing, the legs do 60%, the arms do 15% and the back is doing 25%. This was unfortunately not broken down further into the specific muscles used.

[frankencrank]

The only point of modifying the rower the way you have is to provide additional training to some muscles.

You should note that this will only be beneficial if you then take off the modification and run all your actual rows on the unmodified rower and show gains in performance otherwise its a pointless exercise. I could get a 10% performance gain tomorrow by just chucking my Model D on a set of Concept 2 slides if I really wanted to and not tell anyone its on slides.

Take it from me, people get very upset on here if you start ranking times on a modified rower, been there and done that with a 6 minute flat 2K last year to try and make a point on an entirely different subject.

Anyway its all a good discussion. The body is pretty complex, its not a machine so all you have to come back to is your heartrate but even trying to get consistency here for comparisons is quite difficult from one day to the next. Unless your an elite athlete there are just to many variables and you lack consistency. For example there would have to be quite a sudden big jump in efficiency that dropped my average heartrate by say 5 bpm constantly over several test rows to say its made any difference as a couple of bpm just gets lost in temperature and humidity changes alone without all the other variables thrown into the mix.

Have you actually done any rows on it for comparison ? If I recall the weights you have used have only equalized the 7 to 9lbs shock cord resistance when the cord is brand new.

I would point out that some CrossFit gyms have actually fitted a stronger elastic shock cord and I would predict that a large strong and heavy rower would actually get an advantage from that. The reason is as already stated, the legs are far more efficient in the drive than in the recovery so that what must be 80 to 90% of that stored energy in the shock cord assists you greatly in the recovery.

I guess your argument is your shifting the loading from the legs which are doing 60% of the work to other muscles in the body that are not utilized at all to try and improve the overall efficiency ? I read years ago that for rowing, the legs do 60%, the arms do 15% and the back is doing 25%. This was unfortunately not broken down further into the specific muscles used.

I am not sure what your concern here is. I am not asking anyone to cheat. I invented a device that gave experienced cyclists a 40% improvement in power in one season. Such improvements are unheard of using traditional training and were not easy to explain. Over the years I have come to understand the many aspects that contributed to that total improvement. Part of it was the PowerCranks were so hard the new user naturally slowed their cadence just to get some endurance. I believe that accounted for 10-15% of the improvement. Some of it came from simply getting them to unweight completely on the upstroke, which could account for another 10% or so. The rest came from improving the pedaling coordination to apply muscle power more tangentially and using all the available muscles in a more balanced fashion. Because I have also been a rower in years past I recognized that many of these principles could be applied to rowing. I tried to present the major points and where they came from in my slide-show. So, the only point is not to train some more muscles but, rather, give the rower a way to dramatically improve beyond their current potential. I don't believe the rower can gain 40% like the cyclist because not all the mechanisms are available to the rower but 25-30% is not out of the question in my mind. That is the point.

Awhile back I tried to gather up some people to participate in an experiment to demonstrate the drag factor issue to the group similar to what I did for that cyclist in the slideshow. Not a single person who signed up could stay with the program, apparently because it interfered with training too much or was just too strange. So, I was forced to give my cycling experience (and Kane's data) to make my point.

Have I done this experiment myself? Yes, but on the bicycle. After I did that experiment and was riding 2-3 mph faster than I ever had before I looked to see if the idea could be patented. That makes my data suspect anyhow as I couldn't believe how little power I put out on the rowing ergometer compared to the bike. At one point that was also part of my presentation (trying to explain that difference) but I took it out as irrelevant to my main point that this group would be interested in. So, I am not a good subject and I would be biased anyhow. I leave it to others to run the experiment.

My arguments are based on science and physiology. No one has come forward and said I got anything wrong in this regard. So, if anyone here is serious about getting better and find themselves stuck in a rut they might just be willing to give these ideas a try. Two of them don't require modifying anything, simply some tedious testing. Another requires a slight modification to the ergometer and shell on the water. If that person then wins a medal at the Olympics (they got 3 years to get it right) would you then be willing to give the ideas a whirl?

People do not like change. I am proposing a big change. It will make many uncomfortable.

[gouldilocks]

Fast forward 5 years after training almost exclusively at high DF(200 - 360)

How on earth did you get a DF of 360?

You take off the mesh grille, which lets more air in - the colder it is the higher the max df due to the cold air being denser - the highest reading I've seen is df 385. The monitor resets to 0 when it gets to 256(damper approx. 7.5) so a reading of df 100 at max is actually 356.

Paul G

[frankencrank]

Fast forward 5 years after training almost exclusively at high DF(200 - 360)

How on earth did you get a DF of 360?

You take off the mesh grille, which lets more air in - the colder it is the higher the max df due to the cold air being denser - the highest reading I've seen is df 385. The monitor resets to 0 when it gets to 256(damper approx. 7.5) so a reading of df 100 at max is actually 356.

Paul G

I am very impressed. A question for you. When I was playing with pedal speed on my bike one way of reducing pedal speed but keeping cadence up is to shorten the crank length. I just kept shortening the crank length once a week (enough time to adapt to new length) until I got to what was clearly too short (85 mm). I then started lengthening again, feeling more power, until it felt too long (about 145 mm for me). which is how I settled on a best crank length for me (135mm). My guess is you may have similar data in your 5 years of playing with these very high drag factors.

I haven't really done this work on the rowing ergometer because the 200 DF simply doesn't feel too hard. Can you relate your experience in this regard?

[Carl Watts]

I don't want to appear rude but the Drag factor is a mathematical result derived from the normal maximum operating range the fan in the housing is going to see. It can cope with a very low number as the fan housing gets blocked but anything over the mid 250's is a problem.

You cannot pull the side fan housing off because the math goes to the weeds and you get an erroneous result. You can pull the stainless mesh out but you cannot leave the side cover off.

I know this because I tried to fiddle the results with each generation monitor from the PM2 to the PM5. Each generation of monitor got smarter and the micro in it got faster and more capable of doing the required math it needed to do in real time.

Even the PM3 was pretty smart, it expects to see variables coming in within a range and big enough changes outside this are seen as "impossible" and the monitor spits the dummy with everything its trying to display and basically does an "I cannot compute" on each stroke.

Just because the monitor is trying to display a drag factor of 300 doesn't mean the drag factor is actually 300, it starts spitting out complete rubbish with the pace, spm the works.

Use your PM5 on a Model D and use ErgData to upload the result to your logbook then attach a link here. Pretty sure you will start to see a load of rubbish in the graphs.

I'm not saying that it doesn't feel like a really high drag, its just the monitor can no longer be relied on to give you accurate and meaningful data.

My Model D has a DF of between 80 and 220. Its not rocket science, crudely speaking its like an infinite numbers of gears on a bike between your highest and lowest or a CVT transmission on a car.

[gouldilocks]

"It can cope with a very low number as the fan housing gets blocked but anything over the mid 250's is a problem.

You cannot pull the side fan housing off because the math goes to the weeds and you get an erroneous result. You can pull the stainless mesh out but you cannot leave the side cover off.

I know this because I tried to fiddle the results with each generation monitor from the PM2 to the PM5. Each generation of monitor got smarter and the micro in it got faster and more capable of doing the required math it needed to do in real time.

Even the PM3 was pretty smart, it expects to see variables coming in within a range and big enough changes outside this are seen as "impossible" and the monitor spits the dummy with everything its trying to display and basically does an "I cannot compute" on each stroke.

Just because the monitor is trying to display a drag factor of 300 doesn't mean the drag factor is actually 300, it starts spitting out complete rubbish with the pace, spm the works."



As I've already stated previously - taking the side fan housing off makes absolutely no difference to anything and is a pointless exercise - I have only removed the mesh grille.
Having tested and monitored the DF exhaustively over many millions of metres, taking it up in small increments through the df 256 where it reverts to zero I am pretty confident that the readings of df 256+ are accurate enough to be meaningful and the PM3 readouts are consistent through many, many sessions.
I have also been erging long enough(40 million + metres) to know what each different pace feels like and am also confident that the pace calculation is correct. It goes without saying that the spm is very easy to check and this is accurate too.

Unfortunately I don't have a PM5 or Ergdata to either prove or dis-prove my findings.
The only issue important to me is that my training incorporating rowing at high df maximises the health and well-being benefits I derive from the machine.

Paul G

[Tony Cook]

I don’t get where there is any advantage in this.
With the bike cranks I can see that by disengaging the gearing on the way up more effort has to made on the push down, and there is no assistance on the up foot so the whole weight has to be lifted by muscles. To me there has to be a pay off somewhere but I’m not interested enough to go into that now.
For the rowing rig up it makes it harder to return. Fine, that means more push the chest and arms and more muscle effort on the leg flexor muscles. BUT the reward is less effort on the drive phase of the rowing stroke, because it is weight assisted. Assuming for everything else, the stroke length, drive time, etc is the same.
Hang 1kg on the rope and you have to push an extra 1Kg back but you pull 1kg less on the work part of the stroke.
Taking this to its extreme you could hang 50kg on the rope which will pull the handle back with no effort required by the person on the seat. The person performs a series of seated bench press/leg curl type repetitions to get the handle back to the start of the drive phase and then lets gravity pull the handle back, registering speed and distance covered with minimal drive effort from the rower.
Okay, train like that and your return gets really strong while your drive gets progressively weaker. When you’re in a race where you can’t have the machine rigged up then you will be stronger on the return (where no work goes into the speed) but weaker on the drive - where all the speed comes from.
Why is this good?

[MartinSH4321]

"It can cope with a very low number as the fan housing gets blocked but anything over the mid 250's is a problem.

You cannot pull the side fan housing off because the math goes to the weeds and you get an erroneous result. You can pull the stainless mesh out but you cannot leave the side cover off.

I know this because I tried to fiddle the results with each generation monitor from the PM2 to the PM5. Each generation of monitor got smarter and the micro in it got faster and more capable of doing the required math it needed to do in real time.

Even the PM3 was pretty smart, it expects to see variables coming in within a range and big enough changes outside this are seen as "impossible" and the monitor spits the dummy with everything its trying to display and basically does an "I cannot compute" on each stroke.

Just because the monitor is trying to display a drag factor of 300 doesn't mean the drag factor is actually 300, it starts spitting out complete rubbish with the pace, spm the works."



As I've already stated previously - taking the side fan housing off makes absolutely no difference to anything and is a pointless exercise - I have only removed the mesh grille.
Having tested and monitored the DF exhaustively over many millions of metres, taking it up in small increments through the df 256 where it reverts to zero I am pretty confident that the readings of df 256+ are accurate enough to be meaningful and the PM3 readouts are consistent through many, many sessions.
I have also been erging long enough(40 million + metres) to know what each different pace feels like and am also confident that the pace calculation is correct. It goes without saying that the spm is very easy to check and this is accurate too.

Unfortunately I don't have a PM5 or Ergdata to either prove or dis-prove my findings.
The only issue important to me is that my training incorporating rowing at high df maximises the health and well-being benefits I derive from the machine.

Paul G

I have the same experience. I only use >256 DF for 100m TTs, and have a PM5 + ergdata where the pace graphs always look very similar with DF 200, 250, 300 or 360. No way the numbers are rubbish. The only difference: with DF 360 I'm 2-3 tenths of a second faster than DF 200

[frankencrank]

I don’t get where there is any advantage in this.
With the bike cranks I can see that by disengaging the gearing on the way up more effort has to made on the push down, and there is no assistance on the up foot so the whole weight has to be lifted by muscles. To me there has to be a pay off somewhere but I’m not interested enough to go into that now.
For the rowing rig up it makes it harder to return. Fine, that means more push the chest and arms and more muscle effort on the leg flexor muscles. BUT the reward is less effort on the drive phase of the rowing stroke, because it is weight assisted. Assuming for everything else, the stroke length, drive time, etc is the same.
Hang 1kg on the rope and you have to push an extra 1Kg back but you pull 1kg less on the work part of the stroke.
Taking this to its extreme you could hang 50kg on the rope which will pull the handle back with no effort required by the person on the seat. The person performs a series of seated bench press/leg curl type repetitions to get the handle back to the start of the drive phase and then lets gravity pull the handle back, registering speed and distance covered with minimal drive effort from the rower.
Okay, train like that and your return gets really strong while your drive gets progressively weaker. When you’re in a race where you can’t have the machine rigged up then you will be stronger on the return (where no work goes into the speed) but weaker on the drive - where all the speed comes from.
Why is this good?

what you missed is the work done on the recovery would be done using more efficient slow twitch muscles allowing one to use less fast twitch muscles during the drive. This saves oxygen overall allowing the reduction of the push to be not quite as large as the increase during recovery resulting in an overall increase in power. The heart has the ability to adapt to almost any aerobic load if given enough time. So, with time, the rower should be able to increase back to he previous level of push resulting in a further increase. What limits ability is when the rower goes anaerobic. Balance muscle use increases that level. Nothing in the rules prohibits modifying the shell to allow this technique.

[Tony Cook]

I don’t get where there is any advantage in this.
With the bike cranks I can see that by disengaging the gearing on the way up more effort has to made on the push down, and there is no assistance on the up foot so the whole weight has to be lifted by muscles. To me there has to be a pay off somewhere but I’m not interested enough to go into that now.
For the rowing rig up it makes it harder to return. Fine, that means more push the chest and arms and more muscle effort on the leg flexor muscles. BUT the reward is less effort on the drive phase of the rowing stroke, because it is weight assisted. Assuming for everything else, the stroke length, drive time, etc is the same.
Hang 1kg on the rope and you have to push an extra 1Kg back but you pull 1kg less on the work part of the stroke.
Taking this to its extreme you could hang 50kg on the rope which will pull the handle back with no effort required by the person on the seat. The person performs a series of seated bench press/leg curl type repetitions to get the handle back to the start of the drive phase and then lets gravity pull the handle back, registering speed and distance covered with minimal drive effort from the rower.
Okay, train like that and your return gets really strong while your drive gets progressively weaker. When you’re in a race where you can’t have the machine rigged up then you will be stronger on the return (where no work goes into the speed) but weaker on the drive - where all the speed comes from.
Why is this good?

what you missed is the work done on the recovery would be done using more efficient slow twitch muscles allowing one to use less fast twitch muscles during the drive. This saves oxygen overall allowing the reduction of the push to be not quite as large as the increase during recovery resulting in an overall increase in power. The heart has the ability to adapt to almost any aerobic load if given enough time. So, with time, the rower should be able to increase back to he previous level of push resulting in a further increase. What limits ability is when the rower goes anaerobic. Balance muscle use increases that level. Nothing in the rules prohibits modifying the shell to allow this technique.

Maybe it’s beyond me. To me this is like saying in order to be better at bicep curls if I attached spring/rubber band to the weight that made the arm extension harder, but by definition, the work phase (flexi on) easier then by developing slow twitch muscle fibres in my triceps my biceps would find it easier to lift a heavier weight.
I can sort of see that if you can train yourself to work at the same drive power while having an artificially imposed return then with the assistance of the weight at the end of the rope then you will go faster. Makes sense if you can drive at power ‘x’ then with a weight assisting the drive with ‘y’ power potential energy then your drive will be x+y. That’s just like saying if you got a mate to help you pull the handle back on each stroke then you will go faster. Then it’s not you making the boat go faster, it’s you and the weight/your mate.
With the weight you just have to get the extra fitness to be able to push ‘y’ effort back on the return while not losing stroke rate.
As soon as you remove the weight then your drive phase returns to x.
You seem to be saying the the extra work involved in pushing back the weight in the return makes you more efficient aerobically. Why not train to put that extra work in on the drive phase? Then you are getting stronger/more powerful in the muscles that make the erg/boat go faster.