Body movement patterns for more effective rowing...

[PaulS]

Since we can't post to the USIRDS thread, and there is a good discussion going on there long the similar line, I wanted to start this one up as well.

I have posted many times regarding the notion of making the Drive and recovery a "mirror" of each other, and now it seems that the scientific research is beginning to catch up.

It appears that we will eventually fall into a mirroring pattern, though it's unclear if we will mirror what is being done on the recovery or what is being done on the drive.

I would suspect that it will be more likely to pattern after what is being done on the recovery, since the recovery is more easily done in just about any way imaginable, and this leads eventually to not only a bad recovery, but a less effective drive as well.

However, we can certainly debate this, it will be much like determining whether or not a Zebra is a white animal with black stripes or a black animal with white stripes.

For some research in this area www.biorow.com is a good reference, the most recent issue 2006 Number 7 arrived in email recently so should be on the web shortly.

[Byron Drachman]

I have posted many times regarding the notion of making the Drive and recovery a "mirror" of each other, and now it seems that the scientific research is beginning to catch up.

What a coincidence. When I first saw the stroke cycles I remember being struck at how similar the recovery run backwards from the catch by clicking and the drive are, the only significant difference being a difference in the height of the hands:

http://www.invernessrowingclub.co.uk/pe ... /paul.html

Byron

[PaulS]

I have posted many times regarding the notion of making the Drive and recovery a "mirror" of each other, and now it seems that the scientific research is beginning to catch up.

What a coincidence. When I first saw the stroke cycles I remember being struck at how similar the recovery run backwards from the catch by clicking and the drive are, the only significant difference being a difference in the height of the hands:

http://www.invernessrowingclub.co.uk/pe ... /paul.html

Byron

Oh Boy! Who's that chubby fellow?

That whole thing started off quite a project by Mr. Wallace. I was originally giving him some input on how the seat and Erg (or flywheel carriage on the RP) should move thorughout the stroke, and he did the usual "show me" snappy comeback, so I did and so it started. That must be nearly 3 years ago at this point.

One of the "tricks" I like to use when reviewing video is to run it backwards, as since we "know" what we are supposed to see and tend to fill it in with expectations far more than reality, it's a great way to catch subtle issues, as they won't appear quite so subtle from the new perspective.

Cheers.

[jjpisano]

Paul S:

Thanks for the link to biorow. The abundance of info will keep me busy for a while.

One intrigueing point comes from the last last line of the latest newsletter: Athletes with late force peaks have success on the ergometer. I always thought it's important to peak early. This line counters what I always thought.

I'll have to read more on the subject.

[johnlvs2run]

Perhaps you thought that was important because you listened to PaulS, and he has always first disagreed with me -- whoops -- and then later agreed.

He used to say the drive should be 1/3 of recovery, and most of the force should be at the start of the drive. Now he is admitting he was wrong and agrees with me, saying the drive and recovery should mirror each other.

But don't despair. If you wait 5 minutes he will change his mind, once again, or go back on what he has said so affirmitively.

[PaulS]

Paul S:

Thanks for the link to biorow. The abundance of info will keep me busy for a while.

One intrigueing point comes from the last last line of the latest newsletter: Athletes with late force peaks have success on the ergometer. I always thought it's important to peak early. This line counters what I always thought.

I'll have to read more on the subject.

Well, it's based on the POWER calculation in the PMx's, and why the "high finish" has found a place in Ergo Competitions, when the flywheel is moving it's fastest, putting in a bit more oomph creates a power peak even though the force may be less.

Remember High Force moving slowly can equal Lower force moving quickly when equating POWER. Producing high force will always be difficult and limitted by overall strength. I've discussed this before in the context of Erg testing by coaches, and without accounting for rate in some way it will not be that productive, if skill levels are identical. The guy that has a similar time, but rates 5 stroke higher simply won't have the per stroke power to help the 7 other guys when the rate must be equal for the boat. i.e. being able to do 2 reps of 100lbs does not guarantee the ability to do 1 rep of 200lbs, though the reverse is assured.

Nice to see Johnny the Corrosive Quack has come by, and just for the record, the "Mirroring" of the drive and recovery is not related to being of equal time, the drive is still done in a much shorter period than the recovery, a 1:2 or greater ratio.

Sorry John, no way to agree with you, as you are most often 180deg off the mark, but you like it that way, so no need to change. Cheers. BTW, your pal Ranger has gone as insane as yourself, you both picked a battle you were simply not equipped to fight.

[NavigationHazard]

Paul S:

Thanks for the link to biorow. The abundance of info will keep me busy for a while.

One intrigueing point comes from the last last line of the latest newsletter: Athletes with late force peaks have success on the ergometer. I always thought it's important to peak early. This line counters what I always thought.

I'll have to read more on the subject.

Actually that's not what Kleshnev means at all. The last section of RBN No. 6 reads:

the front-loaded curve F2 creates the most even power distribution. The back-loaded [or late-peak curve] F1 requires double the peak power. In rowing this late power peak would overload the trunk and
arms, which are weaker body segments than legs.

Therefore, one of the advantages of the front-loaded drive in rowing is a more even power distribution, when the handle is accelerated. On ergometers, the advantage is much smaller owing to a more even handle velocity (RBN 2005/3). Athletes with a late force peak are more likely to achieve success on ergometer [sic].

This is a bad mistranslation of the last line. In the Russian original (remember, Kleshnev is Russian), he writes:

Спортсмены с поздним пиком усилий могут добиться больших успехов на эргометре, чем в лодке.

A more accurate translation: "Athletes with a late force peak can achieve greater success on the ergometer than in the boat."

In other words, he's not making a ringing endorsement of a late force peak at all. All he's saying is that there's rather less physiological cost from it on an erg than in a boat. And a front-loaded curve is still superior, wet or dry....

[johnlvs2run]

don't despair. If you wait 5 minutes he will change his mind, once again, or go back on what he has said so affirmitively.

[PaulS]

Excellent Nav! That does indeed make a lot more sense.

[johnlvs2run]

I have posted many times regarding the notion of

Excellent Nav! That does indeed make a lot more sense.

OMG he flip flops again!

Now we're back to all the force is put on the handle at the start, drive is 1/3 of recovery (NOT mirroring), and force is greater when the handle is slower, i.e. with a heavy DF. Last week it was the light drag factor with the greatest peak force.

What a crack up. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!

Can flip flopping get any better than this????? I think not!

[PaulS]

I have posted many times regarding the notion of

Excellent Nav! That does indeed make a lot more sense.

OMG he flip flops again!

Now we're back to all the force is put on the handle at the start, drive is 1/3 of recovery (NOT mirroring), and force is greater when the handle is slower, i.e. with a heavy DF. Last week it was the light drag factor with the greatest peak force.

What a crack up. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!

Can flip flopping get any better than this????? I think not!

John (aka Rupp-a-duck Duck), I'll explain it again, not for you, since you have no ability to understand, but for others that may drop in; there has been no inconsistency in what I have said, ever.

Drive to Recovery Ratio, D:R, is quite close to 1:2 in race conditions, and a bit greater than that during tranining, though I would like to see both being very similar. i.e. "We will race how we train." (Nothing at all about "mirroring" here, it is not applicable.

The Drive and Recovery are a Mirror of each other, in the sense that the handle move from slow to fast on the drive and fast to slow on the recovery. The body also follows a "mirrored movement pattern", i.e. Legs, Torso, Hands, Hands, Torso, Legs or the sequence description I prefer, which is the same, just different words describing it, Knees, Sternum, Elbows, Elbows, Sternum, Knees.

Lower DF's will require a higher peak force for a give pace, if stroke length is kept the same, because the Drive time will be shorter and the same avg power will have to be generated in a shorter period of time. Obviously the reverse is true for higher DF's.

The "Left leaning haystack" shape for the force curve is the best for moving boats, and as it turns out, the best from a biomechanical and energy expenditure perspective also. Not really a surprise since we work from the largest to smallest muscles during the drive, and rowing was developed as a way for man to move boats across water, and we tend to design things to fit our body structure relatively well. i.e. We all fit on the Erg, without anything more than minor adjustment in foot height, and even that is not really a requirement, as although it can be changed in racing shells it is quite common for a 6'5" person to have their heels at exactly the same height as a 5'6" person that uses the same boat without any problems.

There are other hydrodynamic reasons why the early force peak is more effective, but explaining how an oar blade works is beyond the scope of the present discussion.

Now, I would suggest you get back under your toadstool, before you embarass yourself any more. What would your "Life Coaching" clients think of this idiocy you display here? Go talk with your mentor and perhaps they can straighten you out. Your are not Muhammed Ali, but you do have a nice "Rupp-a-Dope" strategy, just when you say what must be the most stupid thing imaginable, you outdo yourself on the very next go.

[becz]

Drive to Recovery Ratio, D:R, is quite close to 1:2 in race conditions,

This is probably more true for a 1x, but an 8+ (at least a good one) is typically much more like 1:1.5. Here's a good example; the Dutch '99 crew, rowing the body of the race at about 0.6 seconds on the drive, and about 0.9 seconds on the recovery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2EJ5CVb7pk

and a bit greater than that during tranining, though I would like to see both being very similar.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Should we hope to train at our race ratio all the time? Is that the most effective way to train the body's various systems that will be contributing to effective rowing?

[PaulS]

Drive to Recovery Ratio, D:R, is quite close to 1:2 in race conditions,

This is probably more true for a 1x, but an 8+ (at least a good one) is typically much more like 1:1.5. Here's a good example; the Dutch '99 crew, rowing the body of the race at about 0.6 seconds on the drive, and about 0.9 seconds on the recovery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2EJ5CVb7pk

and a bit greater than that during tranining, though I would like to see both being very similar.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Should we hope to train at our race ratio all the time? Is that the most effective way to train the body's various systems that will be contributing to effective rowing?

You did pick one of my favorite rowing videos, the body of that race is done at R37, though they do start out at a R44 and maintain it for quite some time during the first 500m. R37 is 1.62 sec per stroke, and this is where the definition of "Drive" gets a bit tricky, as I don't consider it to be determined by handle direction, or even by the blade being in the water, instead I choose to define drive at the time during the stroke which the system as a whole is not suffering negative acceleration. We don't have instrumentation on that boat in particular to find this accurately, however it looks like it might be for as much as 0.5 seconds when at R37. During the first 5 strokes it is probably longer, but that is expected as the boat is just getting up to speed.

I've also been told that particular 8+ was known to push clear of the dock and take off right at R50 in a rather impressive display.

And for your final question, no, I think that we should train at the "right" ratio for the majority of the time (BTW - This is a non trivial problem that has not been perfectly solved.). That is, the most efficient ratio for moving the boat, and secondarily the best ratio physiologically (though we can adapt somewhat, so sticking closer to the efficient boat ratio, which is governed by physical laws that are not so adapatable, would be prudent). Perhaps I should give a plug to S10PS at this point, just to stay hard headed on that point.

When we race, there is obviously going to some sacrificing of efficiency for speed ("Trading rate for pace") since the only goal is to cross the line before the competition. This can be learned very quickly if the fundamental habits are in place, sometimes called "sharpening". There is never a problem of getting a crew to row inefficiently by rushing the recovery and compressing the ratio, the problem that needs solving then is to get them to actually increase the speed of the whole system while doing so, and that comes from not sacrificing too much of the distance per stroke through performing the recovery quickly but in a way that still resembles closely what is efficient.

I'd guess that you have read some of the Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters and there are some that deal with the ratio of Drive to Recovery. Kleshnev breaks the whole stroke into may micro cycles, labelling then D and R for Drive and Recovery, however it can clearly be seen that by my definition some of the D's would be R's. I don't mind his definition system as it seems quite precisely defined as to what is happening with the rower and blade, but it is not a good system for defining actual Drive to Recovery Ratio. One newsletter has pictures of a 2- during the various microcycles and the blades were clear of the water during some of the D phases. I have a problem with saying there is any propulsive energy adding to the speed of the system when the only interface available to do so is not connected. YMMV.

Did that help, or just add to the confusion?

Cheers.