All watts all the time

[jjpisano]

About a month ago, I was asked to write about why I watch watts and why I talk about my workouts in terms of watts. I've been thinking about it in the back of my mind ever since and I regret that I have come up with little intellegent to say on the subject.

I talk about my workouts in terms of watts because:

1. Watts are easy to use with respect to intensity and you can figure out training bands more easily with watts. Figuring out training bands using pace/500m is not quite as easy.

2. If you know in what your training band you are, you can more easily figure out a good stroke rate for a particular intensity. Figuring out an appropriate stroke rate using pace can get complicated.

3. Watts is the primary unit that is being measured by the rowing machine and everything is derived from there. Might as well go to the source and look directly at the number that is being directly measured and not at a derived number.

4. Watts gives you a better idea of how much you really have to improve if you want to hit a certain goal. For instance, last year I did a 6:52 2k. My goal for this year is 6:40. That's only a 12 second improvement which seems to be 12/412 faster than a 6:52 or I have to go 2.9% faster. In point of fact, a 6:52 is 320w and a 6:40 is 350w. My power output has to improve 30/320 or about 9.4%. I could kid myself and say I have to go 2.9% faster or I could be bluntly honest with myself and say that I have to be 9.4% more powerful.

5. With these first four thoughts in mind, I've gotten in the habit to think primarily in watts. Problem is the vast majority of people think and communicate in pace. That can be a problem. So my task is to convert you to think primarily in terms of watts.

What do you think?

[johnlvs2run]

1) Watts are proportional to pace, so there is exactly no difference between determining training bands based on either watts or the pace.

2) Pace is better to use because when you use the pace, you already know the pace you are going!

3) With watts, you don't know your pace, and have to do a calculation to find it.

4) By using pace, the watts have already been converted to pace.

5) Pace shows you exactly how much you have to improve to get a faster time on the monitor. That is not obvious with the watts.

6) If you want to improve from 6:52 to 6:40, you know this will take a 12 second improvement.

7) You don't know the watts for either of these, nor the watts you need to improve, unless you do a calculation to find them.

8) By using the pace you don't need to calculate anything as the pace is already showing on the monitor.

9) Your pace and time are the measures used in competitions including the rankings.

10) You can input your time and pace directly into the rankings, but you can't do this with watts.

11) When you post your watts on the forum, no one knows what pace you did unless you post that too or they have to bother to calculate the pace from the watts. You might as well just use the pace in the first place, as using the pace is much easier and more useful than trying to use watts and then have to convert everything you do back to pace.

[Kodiak]

Hi Jim:

What I would suggest you do if you would like a more lively discussion on this issue is to check out the C2 UK site. Here is the link (if you didn't have it already):

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/

This is NOT meant to disrespect the knowledgable posters here. There is just a larger viewing audience "across the pond". And, IMO, this is an interesting topic, especially for a newbie like myself. I'm sure you'd get some strong - and useful - input over there.

Jim

P.S. I live in the US, by the way.

[tomhz]

Problem is the vast majority of people think and communicate in pace. That can be a problem. So my task is to convert you to think primarily in terms of watts.

What do you think?

Jim, I agree with your post. But as long as the majority of the c2 community is talking pace I will do so too.
I don't think you will succeed in converting us to think in terms of Watts. And if you will succeed, you still need to convert BIRC, WIRC, EIRC and other races to publish results in terms of average watts. Impossible!

Tom

[jjpisano]

Kodiak:

I occasionally go to the British Concept2 website and am amazed at the number of participants and the quality of many of the posts. I used to lurk but am posting more than ever recently because I would like to help stimulate the same level of discourse here at this website.

Just trying to provoke some thought. I knew I could count on Mr. Rupp to respond.

[PaulS]

Jim, watt R U think'in?

Y knot think in terms of Joules Input each drive, and work toward improving that? It at least gets quite interesting on the mental math side of things.

Do you really have trouble deciding on training bands using pace, check out STM, it's quite simple, really.

Watts are a nice way to monitor consistency of your stroke and rate, as they do offer a quite fine resolution of what was produced from stroke to stroke. One of the reasons we increased the Pace resolution to mm:ss:x in ErgMonitor.

How do you decide on SR using watts? And then how do you know if you are on that particular SR?

Oh, did you ever get your copy of Rowing Faster?

[jjpisano]

Problem is the vast majority of people think and communicate in pace. That can be a problem. So my task is to convert you to think primarily in terms of watts.

What do you think?

Jim, I agree with your post. But as long as the majority of the c2 community is talking pace I will do so too.
I don't think you will succeed in converting us to think in terms of Watts. And if you will succeed, you still need to convert BIRC, WIRC, EIRC and other races to publish results in terms of average watts. Impossible!

Tom

Tom:

I'm not trying to change the erg world with respect to erg race times. I'm trying to persuade people that training is best thought of in terms of watts because you can figure out things more easily with watts.

[jjpisano]

Jim, watt R U think'in?

Y knot think in terms of Joules Input each drive, and work toward improving that? It at least gets quite interesting on the mental math side of things.

Do you really have trouble deciding on training bands using pace, check out STM, it's quite simple, really.

Watts are a nice way to monitor consistency of your stroke and rate, as they do offer a quite fine resolution of what was produced from stroke to stroke. One of the reasons we increased the Pace resolution to mm:ss:x in ErgMonitor.

How do you decide on SR using watts? And then how do you know if you are on that particular SR?

Oh, did you ever get your copy of Rowing Faster?

Yes, Paul. I did get my copy, thanks to you.

[TomR]

Jim,

Because of your reports of your training, I now record my sessions in both pace/500m and watts. I'm not yet quite sure what the record of watts is telling me. I am, however, struck by your example: As you note, you are aiming to improve by a mere 3% (measured by pace), but that turns out to be a more daunting 9% when measured by power. That's a big improvement you're chasing.

Good luck.

Tom

[michaelb]

Rowpro lets you display both using the PM twin on the computer. So I usually set it that way. I wish RP's graph feature allowed you to more easily zoom in a narrow range of watts since the wide scale doesn't let me really notice a trend or variation at a glance when I am rowing.

I agree that everyone should row with watts as the display at least some of the time. Hitting a specific watts target is much harder (generally 4x harder, since there are about 4 watts for each second of pace) and rowing that way can really help lock in your focus and consistency. I think it also helps people understand the nonlinear relationship between watts and pace which you illustrate so clearly in your example (the relationship is nonlinear in the real world, but may not be in the bizarro world).

On the forum issue, I am not convinced that the UK forum really generates more rowing related discussion. My impression over there is that there are ongoing discussions on the team threads, but that any and every rowing related thread turns into the next big thread about Ranger. This forum hasn't recovered from being twice hacked, but that will hopefully just take time.

[arakawa]

1) Watts are proportional to pace [...]

On what basis do you make this statement?

I assume you mean to say that watts are inversely proportional to pace. Otherwise, your statement statement doesn't even agree with the zero-th order observation that it takes more power to lower pace.

[johnlvs2run]

When the pace is getting faster, would you say the watts are getting inversely faster?

Pace and watts are proportional.

They are not inversely proportional.

[HardGainer]

Watts is the primary unit that is being measured by the rowing machine and everything is derived from there ...

I don't think this is strictly correct. My understanding is that the primary quantities measured by the machine are flywheel angular positions and time intervals - from which flywheel accelerations and decelerations during stroke and recovery phases may be calculated, drag torque and handle force may be calculated, power may be calculated, etc. etc.. All other quantities can be derived but it's rather academic as to which is derived from which other. Once the measured quantities are available and the relationships between all the quantities have been defined, it's simply a matter for rearranging the algebraic formulae and calculating the various quantities in whichever sequence the software engineer chooses to follow.

Watts are proportional to pace

I thought that, far from the power being proportional to the pace, the average power (one possible unit of measurement of which is the Watt) was related to the pace in a C2 rower by the formula:

Power = 2.8 / pace^3, where the Power is in Watt, pace in sec/m.

In other words, it's an inverse cubic relationship rather than a proportional relationship.

So, for example, a pace of 1:30.0/500m would be a pace of 90.0/500 or 0.180 sec/m and the corresponding average power would therefore be:

2.8 / 0.180^3 = 2.8 / 0.00583 = 480W (approximately).

Pace is better to use because when you use the pace, you already know the pace you are going (sic)

... and if you push the little button on your monitor you can just as easily know the average power (Watts) you are exerting.

With watts, you don't know your pace, and have to do a calculation to find it

The point being made here is not clear, neither are most of the other points that follow that quote in the second contributor's posting, except for the point about posting ratings. Well if that's what turns him on ... I guess he has a very minor point. Very minor because, again, once you've finished your row you can display your time, rate, distance or whatever it is you want to post into the ratings at the push of a button on the monitor.

[GeorgeD]

I think that an advantage of rowing with watts displayed can be that I see a direct relationship between effort and output that is unambiguous. If I row for a minute at 200w and then the next at 220w I know I have done 10% extra work for that minute (at least I assume that is how it works) - that same relationship is not immediately evident when using pace.

I dont think it can be underestimated the psychological advantage of using a means of measuring effort that is somewhat removed from the norm - not making it very clear I know but sometimes I find it more relaxing to not row fixated on the 'pace'

George

[GeorgeD]

On the forum issue, I am not convinced that the UK forum really generates more rowing related discussion. My impression over there is that there are ongoing discussions on the team threads, but that any and every rowing related thread turns into the next big thread about Ranger. This forum hasn't recovered from being twice hacked, but that will hopefully just take time.

I agree Michael. I much prefer the format on this forum and would love to see more 'discussion' of training - the issue of hacking I think it also relevant on the UK forum only there the hacker is known as you pointed out and works a thread at a time.

George