What is needed for sub 6??

[jbell]

The thing Chad is saying is , you can only improve a certain amout and that is not that much. Most monster ergers pulled strog times, the minute they started doing it. Look at the sub 18 mens results. Those guy's are young but already very fast.
Sure you have to train, but mother nature is the most important factor.

To come back to yor 7.07. If you reasenable fit pulling this you will never come close to 6 flat . Harsh but the truth.

I didn’t say 7:07 was very fast, I said I thought it was good for a freshman after only 2 seasons of OTW rowing. Reading some of the other posts here, I can see where lung size would make a huge difference, although I think with enough work someone could break 6min for a 2k. I realize how varying lung size could help/ hurt someone going for sub 6min, but wouldn't the way his body uses/distributes the oxygen be more important? This is the start of my 3rd crew season, so I still have a lot to learn, but is it possible to reach a level where no amount of training will make you faster?

[Pete Marston]

Just to give some context to the increase in power to get to a 6mins 2k.

1:30 split = 480watts
1:35 split = 408watts
1:40 split = 350watts
1:45 split = 302watts

So to go from a 7min 2k to a 6min 2k you need an increase of 59% in your power. Can you imagine putting over half as much power again into every stroke?

My best is currently about 435watts for a 2k, so I still need 45watts more power, which is 10% extra power over the whole 2k. 10% extra power for less than 12 seconds off the time!

[hjs]

The thing Chad is saying is , you can only improve a certain amout and that is not that much. Most monster ergers pulled strog times, the minute they started doing it. Look at the sub 18 mens results. Those guy's are young but already very fast.
Sure you have to train, but mother nature is the most important factor.

To come back to yor 7.07. If you reasenable fit pulling this you will never come close to 6 flat . Harsh but the truth.

I didn’t say 7:07 was very fast, I said I thought it was good for a freshman after only 2 seasons of OTW rowing. Reading some of the other posts here, I can see where lung size would make a huge difference, although I think with enough work someone could break 6min for a 2k. I realize how varying lung size could help/ hurt someone going for sub 6min, but wouldn't the way his body uses/distributes the oxygen be more important? This is the start of my 3rd crew season, so I still have a lot to learn, but is it possible to reach a level where no amount of training will make you faster?

I am not saying that your 7.07 is not good. I am only saying that after 2 years of rowing the real beast's row much faster then that.
And yes it is not lungsize , it is overal talent. You need a strong hart, good lungs and strong muscle. It's a total package.

But don,t focus to much on your times, train, eat and rest well and you will achieve what is in you.

And have fun doing it !!

[almostflipped]

but is it possible to reach a level where no amount of training will make you faster?

Yes. At that point gains are made in efficiency as opposed to physiological adaptation. Now, that being said, with only a year or so of training under your belt (and given your age) you are no where near that range. Moreover, given that you are in high school still, your training volume is not even close to maxed out either. Keep putting in the meters and see what happens, most rowers don't really peak in ability till their late 20's.

[jbell]

Well, I think I know what you guys mean as far as gifted. I just read Graham Benton pulled a 6:34 his first time on an erg That is just insane.

[Pete Marston]

Well, I think I know what you guys mean as far as gifted. I just read Graham Benton pulled a 6:34 his first time on an erg That is just insane.

If you call gifted being 6'6, then yes, Graham is gifted. Graham pulled a 6:03 in his first race, and that was even with stopping, putting the handle down, and doing his footstrap back up that had come undone at the start - that was more impressive.

Btw, I'm not sure where your story came from, but it's hard to believe he saw an erg in the corner of the gym, thought "I've never seen that before, I know, I'll do a 2k". I'm sure he'd used it before.

You'd expect a tall, gym going male to be pretty fast, given basic technique, their first time on the erg though. My first ever 2k in the gym was a 6:42, and then when I started training on it from then I got to 6:30 within 6 weeks of 4 x 20min sessions a week. (And I'm only a little guy.)

[p-fitz]

If you call gifted being 6'6, then yes, Graham is gifted.

You'd expect a tall, gym going male to be pretty fast, given basic technique, their first time on the erg though.

You do Graham a disservice by crediting his erg score to his height. There's a lot more to it than that. To imply (as you have) that everyone who is 6' 6" should be sub-6 minutes is silly. Let's give credit where credit is due, and not minimize Graham's (or anyone else's) performance by attributing his success solely to his height.

[jbell]

If you call gifted being 6'6, then yes, Graham is gifted. Graham pulled a 6:03 in his first race, and that was even with stopping, putting the handle down, and doing his footstrap back up that had come undone at the start - that was more impressive.

Btw, I'm not sure where your story came from, but it's hard to believe he saw an erg in the corner of the gym, thought "I've never seen that before, I know, I'll do a 2k". I'm sure he'd used it before.

You'd expect a tall, gym going male to be pretty fast, given basic technique, their first time on the erg though. My first ever 2k in the gym was a 6:42, and then when I started training on it from then I got to 6:30 within 6 weeks of 4 x 20min sessions a week. (And I'm only a little guy.)

Not many people who are 6ft 6in could just hop on an erg and get 6:34. I'll agree that being 6ft 6 does give him a huge advantage, but still, first 2k ever being 6:34 is very impressive. I agree that a person that is 6ft and breaks the 6min barrier is certainly more gifted than Graham (until he breaks 5:40) in my opinion. Does anyone know what his stroke rate was?

[Ray79]

Jbell

Have you seen this thread on the UK forum??

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12807

Sub 6 from a 5ft 11 Lwt who is 18 may not be far off

[jbell]

Jbell

Have you seen this thread on the UK forum??

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12807

Sub 6 from a 5ft 11 Lwt who is 18 may not be far off

Thanks for the link Ray. That is very interesting. To be honest, I'm surprised no lightweight has ever broken lightweight. I can see how hard it would be, but still there must have been some 6ft 3in lightwieght that could do it. Maybe even a lightweight that is 6ft 2in. What is lightweight considered? 165? What about college for freshmen?

[Nosmo]

If the Training guide is to believed (www.concept2.co.uk/guide/ ) ...

A 6:00 2K for a 165 lbs person coressponds to a VO2 Max of 93.3 ml/kg/m.
+/- 10%.

Assuming he is effecient at the low end of this, then he needs at least 84 l/kg/m which is certainly world class genetics. Above 90 and you are talking someone like Lance Armstrong or Floyd Landis--very rare.

To go below 6 min, choose your parents very carefully. Of course massive quantities of EPO, HGH, and testosterone will help too... if it doesn't kill you first.

[Pete Marston]

You do Graham a disservice by crediting his erg score to his height. There's a lot more to it than that. To imply (as you have) that everyone who is 6' 6" should be sub-6 minutes is silly. Let's give credit where credit is due, and not minimize Graham's (or anyone else's) performance by attributing his success solely to his height.

I said nothing of the sort that everyone who is 6'6 should be sub6 for 2k. I simply said that a 6:34 first off 2k from someone who is 6'6 is not hugely impressive to me, from someone with a weight training background as Graham had at the time. I also questioned where the story came from. It certainly wouldn't have been his first time on the machine, as he found he was good when taking part in a 500m race in his gym, where he did 1:18. Now that's good, tall or not. He then decided to do a bit of training to see how he could do for 2k. His gym instructor / personal trainer at the time works for the same company as me, and she spoke with me about some training sessions for Graham to get him in shape to row a 2k. He then went on to do a 6:09 in the gym, and a 6:03 in his first race, as I said. It was soon after this that our club, the Mad team, was put together, and we began training for our 100k WR attempt.

[igoeja]

Lung volume matters, but only at the top of the sport, in that rowing is one of the few sports where lung volume can be a limiting factor in performance. It likely does not impact the majority of non-elite rowers.

[Nosmo]

Lung volume matters, but only at the top of the sport, in that rowing is one of the few sports where lung volume can be a limiting factor in performance. It likely does not impact the majority of non-elite rowers.

If this is in reference to my preveous post, I was refering to VO2 max which is a measure of oxygen uptake, not lung volume. They somewhat related but are really two different things. Oxygen uptake is directly realted to how much power one can produce over extended periods of time. It is much more important in a hour piece then in a 2K, but it still critical in a 2K.

[igoeja]

It was another poster that seemed to place too much emphasis on lug volume; I know the difference and the term applied was "lung volume", not VO2Max, relative or absoute.

I was correcting what I preceived to be a misunderstanding of the importance of lung volume.