Can I extrapolate 100m performance for 500m in terms of DF and spm?

[Sakly]

I assume I have to be "training partners" with them in order to see the details?

I wouldn't get caught up with trying to compare DFs with other rowers if that's what you're trying to do. It's only a means to make you most efficient, so that can be different for you compared to others.

I agree, generally speaking. I would only be interested in the relative differences between 100m and 500m DFs with experienced heavy-weight sprinters.

I am no "real" heavyweight with 78kg, but last 500 and also last 4x1k intervals were done at DF 150 and that felt good at rate ~30 for the intervals. My steady state are mostly around 120 actually, but I don't set the DF to exact values as I don't care. When I started erging I used around 135.

[GlennUk]

Studies show Lower and Higher DF have the same training effect.

Would it be true to say that whilst in theory this is true it will depend on the discipline for example if i erg at a given pace at a DF 200, then ergin at the same pace at 100Df takes the same amount of energy.

However, the perceived effort to the rower changes, and may prevent the rower achieving the same performance?

FOr example, if i erg a a pace of 2:00/500m at a DF of 115 my usual, i can do that for several hours, however, if ierg at the same pace but change the df to 200, i have no idea how long i can erg at that df, but suspect i would not be able to maintain it for the same duraiont.

I am no trying to be argumentative, but make the point as the way we deliver the power to the erg will also affect our performance, and athough we are talking about the difference between 100/500m here, in my recent experience this also seems to hold true with what might be perceived as relatively small changes in DF.

I have been trying to improve my 100m pb and as a result have played with the DF, i find that a df of 210-215 appears to be the sweet spot for me between getting the flywheel moving and then delivering the max input to the erg i can for the remainder of the 100m.

Raising the Df to 235 i think it was, completely changes my performance negatively, and my time increases for the 100m. Simialry i dropped it to 190 with a similar result, ie my peforamnce drops in deteriariates.

The changes are relatively small, but when 0.x of a seconds counts, there does a ppear to be a difference. This is based on my limited experience so happy for others to point out that i have misunderstood. I should add, that i have got as far as trying to analyse the data outputs form the log to determine how many strokes it takes to achieve the lowest pull for a give DF, the point being that this is not an entirely subjective view, but acknowledging that the data outputs do not make the direct comparisons easy.

[Tsnor]

Studies show Lower and Higher DF have the same training effect.

Would it be true to say that whilst in theory this is true it will depend on the discipline for example if i erg at a given pace at a DF 200, then ergin at the same pace at 100Df takes the same amount of energy.

However, the perceived effort to the rower changes, and may prevent the rower achieving the same performance?

FOr example, if i erg a a pace of 2:00/500m at a DF of 115 my usual, i can do that for several hours, however, if ierg at the same pace but change the df to 200, i have no idea how long i can erg at that df, but suspect i would not be able to maintain it for the same duraiont.

I am no trying to be argumentative, but make the point as the way we deliver the power to the erg will also affect our performance, and athough we are talking about the difference between 100/500m here, in my recent experience this also seems to hold true with what might be perceived as relatively small changes in DF.

I have been trying to improve my 100m pb and as a result have played with the DF, i find that a df of 210-215 appears to be the sweet spot for me between getting the flywheel moving and then delivering the max input to the erg i can for the remainder of the 100m.

Raising the Df to 235 i think it was, completely changes my performance negatively, and my time increases for the 100m. Simialry i dropped it to 190 with a similar result, ie my peforamnce drops in deteriariates.

The changes are relatively small, but when 0.x of a seconds counts, there does a ppear to be a difference. This is based on my limited experience so happy for others to point out that i have misunderstood. I should add, that i have got as far as trying to analyse the data outputs form the log to determine how many strokes it takes to achieve the lowest pull for a give DF, the point being that this is not an entirely subjective view, but acknowledging that the data outputs do not make the direct comparisons easy.

Hi Glenn. You make good points, and I don't know the answer to any of them.

Tony Cook did a really neat experiment where he rowed steady state and monitored his split and his heart rate -- internal and external measures of load. He then varied his DF from 80 to 180. At each DF he rowed the same split and looked at his heart rate. There was no trend at all in HR vs DF. Eyeballing the data there was ZERO difference in HR at Split over a very wide range of DF. One of the neater posts I've seen. Worth looking at if you haven't seen it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=206252&p=558823#p558801

It's clear that short erg sprints in competition (100M, 500M) benefit from different rowing technique (shorter stroke, higher feet, high SPM) and likely higher DF. In my mind the higher DF and higher SPM are linked, but no data to support this.

It's also clear that OTW we use a totally different stroke (1/2 or 3/4 slide, reduced layback and arms) to get the boat started in standing-start races. Low boat speed gives very high DF on the oar, as the boat picks up speed the DF is reduced. When starting the oar feel is >>200 DF. When the boat is flying the DF is light and drive speed is critical. For me, my erg at DF 115-ish and an 8 under power feel similar. (When we are starting from dead stop non-race we typically just use normal stroke and a lot less power until the boat is moving. "Build for 5 <strokes> then..." Race starts are fun, but we don't do them a lot.)

The quote you selected "Studies show Lower and Higher DF have the same training effect." called out training effect, not performance, and was relying on this study which used well trained college club rowers and compared workouts at DF 100 and DF 150. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _of_Rowing
The purpose of the study was to test the effect of drag factor on the physiological responses typically used to measure how hard you are training. The study concluded "It appears that drag factor has little, if any, effect on V˙O2, HR, BLC, R, and W/V˙O2 at D100 versus D150 at the club level preseason. It is unlikely that rowing at drag factors as low as 100 would compromise the aerobic intensity of the exercise when performed either at steady state or maximal work-loads. Training should therefore be performed at lower drag factors if doing so prevents injuries of the low back "

[jamesg]

Studies show Lower and Higher DF have the same training effect.

Because the work done is the same. So put it in the middle and forget it.

[GlennUk]

Studies show Lower and Higher DF have the same training effect.

Because the work done is the same. So put it in the middle and forget it.

Whilst physically one can argue the 'work done in terms of energy required' is the same for a given pace, I am not entirely convinced this translates directly in terms of an athlete's performance necessarily, which i guess is the point i was trying to make in my previous post.

I would agree that generally it matters not what DF one uses as long as for whatever discipline one is following, that one can achieve the performance desired, e.g. a 2K target time.

Training effect and optimum performance are not entirely the same (i think?).

Our ability as athletes to apply the necessary power into the chain to achieve our absolute performance over any given distance relies on a combination of spm, plus force applied over the drive distance for each stroke (again i think?).

I believe that the amount of energy an athlete can put into the chain over any given distance or duration, can be affected by the DF they select, and based on my experience, there appears to be quite a narrow range of optimum setting for me (and possibly others) when considering short sprints.

[GlennUk]

Tony Cook did a really neat experiment where he rowed steady state and monitored his split and his heart rate -- internal and external measures of load. He then varied his DF from 80 to 180. At each DF he rowed the same split and looked at his heart rate. There was no trend at all in HR vs DF. Eyeballing the data there was ZERO difference in HR at Split over a very wide range of DF. One of the neater posts I've seen. Worth looking at if you haven't seen it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=206252&p=558823#p558801

I had seen that thread, but had not really looked at Tony's post in detail it is interesting, but is no entirely counter to my point in the sense that it Tony was not seeking to achieve a pb in any of those reps. Were he doing so he may have selected a df to suit that distance.

It's clear that short erg sprints in competition (100M, 500M) benefit from different rowing technique (shorter stroke, higher feet, high SPM) and likely higher DF. In my mind the higher DF and higher SPM are linked, but no data to support this.

Surely the evidence comes from the data of those who set the fastest times? Im doing some digging and will revert if/when i get some info, along with the sources of that info. The logbooks that are open in the M 100m rankings shows a df 188 and upwards (top 35 ish)

[Sakly]

Whilst physically one can argue the 'work done in terms of energy required' is the same for a given pace, I am not entirely convinced this translates directly in terms of an athlete's performance necessarily, which i guess is the point i was trying to make in my previous post.

I think I get your point.
Recent 500m CTC lead me to focus more on shorter distances which are not my favorite/strength distances as I am more on the side of "slow muscle worker" and not able to create much explosiveness. So I decided to set the DF to 150 and see if I can get faster with it. It feels easier for me to get down to 1:35 - 1:30 at that DF compared to 115-125 which I use for steady state rows.
Surely I am able to get there with 115, too. But not sure if I can hold that for 1:30 to finish the run in the same time.

[btlifter]

Whilst physically one can argue the 'work done in terms of energy required' is the same for a given pace, I am not entirely convinced this translates directly in terms of an athlete's performance necessarily, which i guess is the point i was trying to make in my previous post.

I think I get your point.
Recent 500m CTC lead me to focus more on shorter distances which are not my favorite/strength distances as I am more on the side of "slow muscle worker" and not able to create much explosiveness. So I decided to set the DF to 150 and see if I can get faster with it. It feels easier for me to get down to 1:35 - 1:30 at that DF compared to 115-125 which I use for steady state rows.
Surely I am able to get there with 115, too. But not sure if I can hold that for 1:30 to finish the run in the same time.

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion... being more explosive or "fast twitch" lends itself to a lower DF. As a slow twitch guy myself, I utilize a high drag.

***of course, one must have the requisite muscular strength to be able to maintain efficiency with a higher drag***

[GlennUk]

***of course, one must have the requisite muscular strength to be able to maintain efficiency with a higher drag***

A point i have tried to make, poorly i guess.

[Sakly]

Whilst physically one can argue the 'work done in terms of energy required' is the same for a given pace, I am not entirely convinced this translates directly in terms of an athlete's performance necessarily, which i guess is the point i was trying to make in my previous post.

I think I get your point.
Recent 500m CTC lead me to focus more on shorter distances which are not my favorite/strength distances as I am more on the side of "slow muscle worker" and not able to create much explosiveness. So I decided to set the DF to 150 and see if I can get faster with it. It feels easier for me to get down to 1:35 - 1:30 at that DF compared to 115-125 which I use for steady state rows.
Surely I am able to get there with 115, too. But not sure if I can hold that for 1:30 to finish the run in the same time.

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion... being more explosive or "fast twitch" lends itself to a lower DF. As a slow twitch guy myself, I utilize a high drag.

***of course, one must have the requisite muscular strength to be able to maintain efficiency with a higher drag***

And I don't get why this is the popular opinion, because a fast flywheel can only be accelerated by a fast catch - this is plain physics.

And your note - I think this is self-explanatory. You can only use a load which you can handle. I know not everyone is doing so, you can see all these ego - lifters in the gyms as well, but if one thinks about it and is honest to himself...

[Nomath]

As a general rule, stroke rate and damping factor should be coupled : higher stroke rate → higher DF ; lower stroke rate → lower DF. In a 500 m sprint you probably won't be able to maintain the stroke rate used in a 100m sprint : it will be lower. The DF should be reduced proportionally to the stroke rate (e.g. 5% lower stroke rate → 5% lower DF).

[RayOfSunshine]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion... being more explosive or "fast twitch" lends itself to a lower DF.

And I don't get why this is the popular opinion, because a fast flywheel can only be accelerated by a fast catch - this is plain physics.

My ignorance was due to thinking of it as a squat vs fast/slow twitch. I have stronger than average legs (and am fast twitch) therefore I must have a higher DF. Also, my ego probably got into the way. Ignorance + Ego = a really bad mix (and back).

Realizing I was wrong was huge for me.

[Sakly]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion... being more explosive or "fast twitch" lends itself to a lower DF.

And I don't get why this is the popular opinion, because a fast flywheel can only be accelerated by a fast catch - this is plain physics.

My ignorance was due to thinking of it as a squat vs fast/slow twitch. I have stronger than average legs (and am fast twitch) therefore I must have a higher DF. Also, my ego probably got into the way. Ignorance + Ego = a really bad mix (and back).

Realizing I was wrong was huge for me.

I am also stronger than average for lower body, but slow twitch. This is why I lack peak performance, but can work hard for a very long time. I immediately realized that really low drag is not right for me
Good that you changed your mind

[GlennUk]

For info, I have been doing some 'research' and have spoken to a number of 'fast' sprinters, the lowest df so far has been 180, the highest 246.

[Laaban]

For info, I have been doing some 'research' and have spoken to a number of 'fast' sprinters, the lowest df so far has been 180, the highest 246.

Thank you! This supports my own trials on the 100m. Higher DFs have produced faster times so far (at DF200 so far)