Noob: importance of drive-to-recovery ratio

[arown]

Hi, am new here and couldn’t find a good answer using the search on this forum, so here goes: I’d like to better understand whether or to what extent the 1:2 drive:recovery ratio is frequently recommended to beginners.

The reason I ask is that my lap pace over 5-10K distances improved to ~2’02” having started rowing 3 days/week a couple months back initially at ~2’25” pace, and my natural ratio tends to be close to 1:1 with a SR of ~25, but when I tried to switch to 1:2 this weekend, my average pace and SR dropped to 2’12”-2’15” and SR to 15-18. I do feel the aggressive push off burn in my legs much more with the 1:2 ratio and need the longer recovery time, but nevertheless seem to tire more overall and tire sooner and as a result achieve lower average power compared to my 1:1. It almost feels like I don’t have the explosive strength needed in the ~one second of drive to allow me to rest ~2 seconds in the recovery, so I might as well push off a bit more meekly and use less recovery time.

Two questions:
1) Should I persist with the 1:2 ratio hoping that my average pace will improve as I develop more strength and get used to the new form (has happened before, i.e., my pace first became worse with a form improvement but soon outpaced my previous best)?

2) Is the 1:2 ratio just a cue for good form for beginners or is it something to stick with longer term? Olympians doing 2K rows seem to have a 1:1 ratio, but then they are superhuman, so I’m not sure what the norms for mortals, especially a relative beginner.

Forties, 6’1”, ~143 if it matters.

[arown]

Bump; anyone?

[Tony Cook]

1:2 at 20SPM but don’t obsess about it.
The important thing is to build a strong stroke and that is best done at no more than 20SPM. At 16SPM the rest time should be longer. Think of 1 sec drive time - so 2 sec return = 20 spm. 1 sec drive time and 3 sec recovery = 12.5 spm. As the wheel will have slowed more the drive will be ‘heavier’ but always has to be dynamic.
What does your force curve look like?
What drag factor are you using? You may need to adjust that to 120-130.

[MPx]

My feeling reading your post is that you've taken one piece of guidance to heart, but let it get out of context.

So 1:2 is it good, yes. But when do you use it. In training to help develop a stronger stroke - maybe try looking at the force curve screen? In a significant section of your training you would expect to be rating low - and for steady state low HR stuff going slow too. Classically this might be r20 to give the 1sec drive to 2sec recovery. But should you be doing 1:2 when going faster or for a TT - no of course not. You train a strong stroke @ r20 so that when you get to r30 using the same stroke (1:1) you're going fast. Obviously its more tiring and you'll need a bigger engine to keep going. But that's a different bit of your training - the steady state r20 stuff is aimed at developing the strong stroke with good form and the aerobic base. The faster interval stuff gets you used to faster stoke rates, less recovery, used to the discomfort of transition and going anaerobic, lactic tolerence and lots of other stuff- and none of that is at 1:2.

So IMO:
1: Yes stick to 1:2 for long slow steady state sessions at ~70% HR max. Your pace may (should) improve over time as your fitness improves and you can do more work at the same low HR. But these sessions aren't really trying to better your last best time. Once a week you might have a hard session (intervals or TTs) where stroke rate and pace are much higher and no HR cap and maybe 1:1. They will hurt, but that's the sessions when you should be trying to get quicker each time.

2 The olympians I've seen in training have always had (what looks to me) a ridiculously slow stroke 1:2 or more. But if you see the numbers on the PM their pace is amazing - eg 1:40 @ 20spm for 30 mins to get 9k is one of their classic tests. In a 2k race they are of course considerably faster paced and rated.

[max_ratcliffe]

I agree with Tony, get some lower rate work in.

If you feel the fatigue in your legs, that suggests that you're doing things right (lots of lower back or arm soreness would suggest the opposite).

Some people approach this topic with a zeal that borders on the religious, but in general we all need a balance of stroke rate and stroke power to go our fastest. Going at more than, say, 34spm for a 2k is generally considered a bit high, and you get a lot of inertial losses from just moving your body up and down that rail at that spm. Conversely though, Eddie Hall isn't winning any 2k races - stroking power isn't everything.

The 2k WR was set at 34spm (~590W, so an SPI of 590/34~17.3 Watt-minutes/stroke).

OTW they rate higher, because
a) the boat moves so the body doesn't move in space back towards the catch; and
b) excessive power application is very hard to do in a boat without disrupting the way it runs.

Keeping an eye on SPI can be a good way of planning how to train. If a rower wants to row a 2k in 7min (~300W), then an SPI of 10 means that they need to rate 30 to achieve that). 30 is a perfectly okay rate for a 2k, (I sometimes base my TTs on rate alone, knowing that the stroke is fairly constant so the pace will more or less take care of itself). However, if the stroke is only, say an SPI of 7, then that 2k would need to be done at 300/7~43 spm, which is unlikely.

Off the top of my head, here are some possible target rates for time trials, although of course YMMV:

1k 36
2k 32
5k 28

True sprints (100m, 1', and even the 500m) are different animals and rate wins there, but outside the scope here.

Training should be done at a lower rate (don't flog yourself), with steady state work typically between 16-20 for the long stuff (UT2), and 20-22 for harder aerobic stuff. Practice reducing your rate in small steps (24 next week, 22 the week after, etc), as going from 25 to 16 in one fell swoop will feel really weird and your stroke may be a bit jerky and discontinuous.

[mitchel674]

Don't you like rest and recovery?

Keep you drive snappy. I try to keep my drive time under 0.78 seconds. This gives me a nice time to recover.

What does your force curve look like?

[Nomath]

From what I have read, the human machine gets more efficient the closer you get to a continuous application of force. So for a PB I would recommend to shorten the recovery, possibly to less than 1:1.
For developing a strong stroke, you might concentrate on the leg push after the catch which is helped by a slow recovery.
However, there is also the glorious satisfaction of a very strong pull followed by a long dying out of the flywheel noise. In a gym, it sounds like a stag's cry during a rut.

[Dangerscouse]

It sounds to me like you're going through something that I went through i.e. your ego is playing with your thoughts.

You're going slower with a 1:2 drive rate, and this doesn't sit well as slower is regression, but in reality it isn't as you need to take a step back to take two steps forward.

I remember when I did my first ever 30r20, as I had always rowed at r28-30 before that, and I lost about 300m. Now, after a lot of ego bruising sessions there's still a difference of 300m between the free rate and r20, but both have also improved by circa 300m.

Don't fall into the trap that everything you do has to be as good as you can be, as you need to work on your weaknesses. This can be a mix of low, medium and high rates, and I regularly row at r20, r24/25 and r28/29, so make sure to use different challenges.

Take comfort in that strength is quicker to build than aerobic fitness, so you're in a decent place to get better quicker

[jamesg]

Olympians doing 2K rows seem to have a 1:1 ratio,

In boats and when racing at 40 or more; some get up to 48.

In rowing and erging what we train is the stroke: this can be done at any rating, but for endurance, distance is needed, so the rating is kept down allow to allow this. Low rates such as 18 to 23 reduce the overall average power to a load that our CV system can carry but that can have a training effect.

A good stroke is very hard work. You might have to pull at a force of 60kg over a distance of at least a meter, maybe 120cm, and fast. Don't think this is particularly hard for you; even I at 80+y pull 40kg at up to 2m/s.

The Work done per stroke will be 60*1.2*g/60 = 12 Watt minutes. At rating 18, Power 12*18 = over 200W.

Suggest you start there.

The ratio will be what it turns out to be with your drag setting and speed of action. Oarsmen like comfortable rhythms such as 4:1 and 3:1; 4:1 will be hard enough to start with, so suggest you adjust drag and your pull force appropriately (seen in Ergdata).

[JaapvanE]

even I at 80+y pull 40kg at up to 2m/s.

Impressive. I hope in 30 years I can still pull that.

[max_ratcliffe]

<>
The Work done per stroke will be 60*1.2*g/60 = 12 Watt minutes. At rating 18, Power 12*18 = over 200W.

Suggest you start there.
<>

I think this might be a bit ambitious. The OP is tall enough but at 143lb is very much a lightweight. 12 is an big stroke and "starting there" before the body is accustomed to it could lead to injury.

[dabatey]

Can I suggest having a go at a 'plan' which prescribes stroke rate and pace in tables so you know for definite what you need to do for each workout. I found this enormously helpful. The drive ratio will tend to follow without thinking about it.

One such plan is the 'C2 training Plan' (Original or Interactive) from the Version 2 (V2) training document, and a second is the 'Wolverine Plan'.

The C2 plan is probably the easiest to follow and takes less time out of your day.

To use the prescribed paces/rates in the C2 plan you'd have to have a go at a fast 2K in order to know your set paces for each workout, and it would also be useful (but not required) to have a Heartrate Monitor to see whether you are ending in UT1/UT2etc heartrate territory.

[jamesg]

I think this might be a bit ambitious.

Right, thanks, I didn't note the 143lb = 65 kg. An easier start for the pull might be 50-60% weight, so 32-38 kg.

If L=1.2, then work = 1.2 * 36 g /60 = 7 W-min; and at rate 20, 140W.

[arown]

Thank you, all the feedback is extremely useful to me. Coming from running and cycling, I certainly have a lot to learn about rowing. Will continue training at low SR and greater recovery for the most part as I row primarily for aerobic cross training and lower leg strength. (Don’t yet feel confident enough, especially about my form, to train more aggressively with anaerobic intervals etc.)

@tony, Mpx, mitchel: Don’t know my force curve coz I’m on a Waterrower and their Bluetooth module is out of stock, so I probably need to get their Smartrow kit to get more in-depth stroke analytics.

@max_ratcliffe: SPI sounds like a great metric to monitor, thanks.

[Citroen]

@max_ratcliffe: SPI sounds like a great metric to monitor, thanks.

Except it isn't. As you go faster the recovery time comes down. So your SPI for a 1K is way different to that "metric" for a 10K or HM. It will hamper your training if you spend too much time fussing about SPI (in just the same way that fussing about HR hampers your training).