Jacking the erg - Effective training?

[hjs]

Then he put it back to the regular c2 jacked in back position and bettered all of his pb's again.

So his experiments prove that raising the front 4 inches made no difference to his times.

Anyway the point is that we should be able to adjust the slope of the railing, so it is at any level that we want.

The normal position isn,t jacked. Jacket is changing the position from what it is.
And no I don,t think it should be possible to chance it. This will only cause more problems.

Paul said his times became better when lifted the front.

[johnlvs2run]

The normal position isn,t jacked.

The regular c2 position is jacked up 2 inches in the back and the railing is not level.

Jacket is changing the position from what it is.

Right.

Any change from a level railing is called jacking the erg.

And no I don,t think

Sorry.

it should be possible to chance it.

Yes I agree.

This will only cause more problems.

It would be easier to change then, so the problems would be less.

Paul said his times became better when lifted the front.

Yes. Then he lifted from the back like c2 again, and bettered all those times again.

So this proves that jacking the erg one way or the other made no significant difference to the times.

However, training with the railing at different heights provides a good training effect. PaulF agrees with this.

[hjs]

John op planet Ruppian only you make the rules. Luckely I live on earth.

[Francois]

For the benefit of those living on planet Earth and using common logic, this is what Paul said:

I did a series of tests with one two inch plank under the front of the erg. I set my fastest times in ten of the ranking categories in a little over a week testing that way.

I did some tests with the back end raised. Performance was miserable. And it hurt the legs! This is really a good way to develop your legs and I should go back to training this way.

Of course, on Bizzaro World the above sentences mean something entirely different!

[johnlvs2run]

RAILING HIGHER IN FRONT

(1a) Paul hung the front of the erg from a window sill. The front of the erg was raised up a couple of feet. It was hard to approach his usual times this way, because it was difficult to pull himself back up the railing but Paul felt "this is really a good way to develop your legs".

(1b) After training this way, Paul put the erg where the railing was sloped front to back by raising the erg 6 inches in front. As c2 has the erg raised 2 inches in back, this was a net 4 inches in front and bettered all of his performances

RAILING HIGHER IN BACK

(2a) Paul then put the erg where the railing was sloped back to front by raising the erg 6 inches in back. c2 has the erg already raised 2 inches in back, so this was a net 8 inches in back. It was more difficult to push up the railing with his legs this way and his times were slower but, similarly to hanging the front from a window sill, Paul felt "this is a really good way to develop your legs".

(2b) Then Paul put the erg in the regular c2 position, i.e where the railing is sloped back to front from c2 having the erg raised 2 inches in back. He again bettered all of his times, i.e. his times were now faster with the railing sloped in the regular c2 position than with the erg in any other position.

CONCLUSIONS

(3a) This shows that from having the railing sloped with the erg raised a net 4 inches in front to a net 2 inches in back resulted with NO significant difference in performance.

(3b) Hanging the front of the erg hanging from a window sill in front or, similarly, 6 inches higher than usual in back, resulted in slower performances but "is really a good way to develop your legs".

[smb69]

You disagree, and then you agree with me, make up your mind.

You can't have it both ways.

Either it's a good predictor or it isn't.

A high correlation doesn't mean a good predictor.

If you predict a 4:00 mile and someone runs 4:00 / .88 = 4:33 then do you consider that a good predictor.

vo2 max is a very weak predictor of performance.

that is not what correlation means.. a 4:33 mile is not .88 correlation to a 4:00 mile..

[johnlvs2run]

I didn't say that .88 is a good predictor.

To the contrary, I said .88 is NOT a good predictor.

To determine predictability you need to square the correlation, thus .88 x .88 = .7744.

A 5:09.9 mile X .7744 equals a 4 minute mile, which is not even close.

For predictability you need a correlation of .99 or higher than this, which will give a variability of .98 or higher.

To think a correlation of .88 would be a good predictor is ridiculous.

[smb69]

no.. in statistics, the correlation of .88 would be the value of r squared. there is no reason to square the correlation. a .88 correlation to a 4:00 mile would be much much closer than 4:33. i dont know where you got that number. the relationship is also not linear. but regardless, i don't know exactly how different physiological correlations are to other statistics, but in general a larger than .75 correlation between two things is deemed to be highly correlated.

[johnlvs2run]

Again you need to read more closely.

A correction of .88 MAY OR MAY NOT be considered to be high.

Regardless of that, however, a correlation of .88 does NOT establish a high predictive relationship.

You cannot take one value, and predict a 2nd value with any certainty when the correlation between them is only .88.

The correlation needs to be at least .99 or higher for there to be a reasonable accuracy of prediction.

In the case of vo2 vs performance, the LOW IN THIS INSTANCE correlation of .88 shows there is a VERY LOW PREDICTABILITY between vo2 max and performance.

[jamie]

You're out there John, please review your math & english courses. What Paul said is perfectly clear and is quite useful for changing up the muscles used during rowing.

[johnlvs2run]

Jamie,

My discussion is probably way over your head but at least the intention should be clear.

I have said several times that c2 should design the erg so the slope is adjustable.

It is a mistake that they don't.

[jamie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

John, Please read the above and explain to me what .88 means wrt VO2 max

[johnlvs2run]

The web page you posted backs me up.

"A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors."

It is funny that you posted a page and didn't understand what you posted.

[jamie]

I understand what I posted. Please read the link further and comment again.

Any published paper is reviewed by peers. They have established a link to the variables in question. I'm sure I could get a similiar correlation number for people who have blue eyes and row but there is no link to race time. Its a research paper, you have to show the link, they did and that's why it was published (original work). Have you ever published a paper?

[johnlvs2run]

Please read the link further and comment again.

Well I quoted it already above.

What would you like, for me to quote the whole thing.