Strokes Per Min.

[old] gyrfalcon · Post by **[old] gyrfalcon** » December 30th, 2004, 8:57 am

I have been using the erg for about 3 yrs on and off but after looking at the forum obviously using it poorly. used just to do 6 days week 20 mins/ day @a spm of about 28 keeping a per 500m of about 2.02 - 2.05 cranking up to 1.42 for the last 5 mins before warming down for ten mins no real method - just maintaning fitness when working offshore Just started again after looking at the forum and noticed very low stroke rates of 20-24 spm. Been doing the 3 min, 2min, 1min, routine for 40 mins as seen on here with /500m rates of 2.15 2.10 and 2.00 /500m respectively, and can feel the benefits, however, what rate /500m should I be looking at when using the low stroke rates and what setting should the damper be on? Using the erg at the moment to lose 15 pounds and to get my fitness to where it used to be. Thanks

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » December 30th, 2004, 5:28 pm

A lot depends on your shape and size, but if you could keep up 1:42 for 5 minutes, 2:05 at 20-22 should be easy for 30-40'. I've learnt in another thread (UT2) that even Olympic oarsmen do plenty of work at 2:05 - 2:07. Nice, it means we don't have to suffer to get fit. Damper 3-4.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 30th, 2004, 5:52 pm

If your goal is to lose weight, then it would be better to keep up your rating.

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » December 31st, 2004, 1:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If your goal is to lose weight, then it would be better to keep up your rating.  </td></tr></table> If your goal is to lose weight it's better to keep up your POWER. You burn more calories in the aggregate that way. Better to develop power through lower rating work - save the high ratings for speed work. Oh yeah, I forget... you and Paul S have a "blood feud" (like the pro "wrestlers") over this issue on this forum. However, I tend to agree with PaulS on this point. The Wolverine Level 4 style workouts burn hella calories - while you're on the erg and long after as well. Happy new year to all! D

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 31st, 2004, 2:17 am

Who weighs more, you and PaulS.... or me. That's the answer to your question. Power for a short distance does not burn more calories over time and distance. If that was the case then sprinters would be lighter than marathoners. They aren't. It is true that power -- over distance -- burns more calories compared to not being able to maintain that power. In this regard, note that you can maintain more power at ANY distance, by keeping your rating up higher. Provided, of course, that one has a good technique.

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » December 31st, 2004, 12:08 pm

Hi John, Relative weight has nothing to do with it. I'm 6'4", I think Paul is up there too. Therefore I think it's logical to assume that we are going to weigh more than you. The key is YOUR LEVEL OF BODYFAT. Scale weight only gives you half the story. My last bodyfat analysis around 6 weeks ago was around 10.2% at a bodyweight of 244 lbs. I would be surprised if you are substantially lower than this. I am in the unique position of having to lose weight, but I have to actually lose MUSCLE and not primarily fat. - The only solution to that is long distance erging to ensure a negative calorie balance. The last part of the quote goes into the whole "trading rate for pace" argument of which I will not enter. However, I tend to believe that like weightlifting and dieting, there is probably more than one correct approach - just do the one you feel most comfortable... The trick is to not do it so long that your body adapts to the workout. Cheers, D

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 31st, 2004, 2:28 pm

100 pounds for 7 inches in height? Surely you jest. Even figuring a liberal 5.5 pounds per inch, this would be only an additional 38 pounds. As to percentage of body fat, I was 5.3% at age 40, measured with 6 to 8 different methods including underwater weighing. At 10.2% you've got 25 pounds of fat. Also consider that fat INSIDE THE MUSCLE FIBERS is productive for endurance exercise, whereas fat outside the fibers is not. Thus two people with the same percentage could very well have completely different profiles of fat distribution. Whether you believe in trading weight (rate) for pace, you'd be hard pressed to argue that you could go faster at lower ratings than competitive ones, unless your technique was terrible and/or you didn't have the fitness and energy to maintain them. A rower is going to generate more power at 30 strokes per minute than at 20.

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » December 31st, 2004, 2:46 pm

Yeah John, but who's faster? Your extremely unorthodox training recommendations would only hold any sway at all if you were producing results with them. Physicist (183cm, 70kg, 4% body fat and can row well over an hour rating 20 at your 2k pace.)

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » December 31st, 2004, 2:51 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Dec 31 2004, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> A rower is going to generate more power at 30 strokes per minute than at 20.  </td></tr></table> But won't be able to maintain it for longer. And I'm a lightweight who's very competitive at low stroke rates!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 31st, 2004, 5:02 pm

Physicist, What is your age, and your half marathon time at 20 spm? Xavier, I'm very impressed that you rowed a 1:30 for 500 meters at 20 spm! What do you mean "won't be able to maintain it for longer"?

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » January 1st, 2005, 9:00 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Dec 31 2004, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Xavier, I'm very impressed that you rowed a 1:30 for 500 meters at 20 spm! What do you mean "won't be able to maintain it for longer"?  </td></tr></table> Not sure about the 1:30 500m @ 20spm, I think you must be getting me confused with someone else! What I meant is that at 30spm, I'd be pulling around 1:40-1:42, and I certainly can't keep that up for 30min, whereas I can keep going at 20spm (between 1:50 and 1:56). It's all about whether you're happy rushing the slide just to get the rate up, and as I row on the water as well, that's a big no-no. Xav

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 1st, 2005, 12:45 pm

I'm 23. I've never rowed a half-marathon: I have routinely rowed 20k at about 1.51 rating 20. I look forward to an arbitrary and arcane calculation in order to explain to me why I am, in fact, slower than you...

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 1st, 2005, 2:32 pm

Okay, your premise is that 20 spm is faster than 30 spm, and you seek to prove this by saying your hour time is faster than mine. A very strange method of "proof". Why not just do a time trial with each stroke rate and find out for yourself. Apparently you have done this and satisfied yourself that you are faster for the hour at 20 spm. Okay that is fine with me, though your technique must suck big time. In any case for the sake of curiousity, let's compare your hour PB at 20 spm with my time for the half marathon. Checking the PAT tables, your 20 spm 1:51 PB pace for the hour at age 23 is 81.6% of the WR 2k pace of 1:30.6 for your age. My 1:57.8 pace for the halfmarathon at age 56 is 85.5% of the WR 2k pace of 1:39.8 for that age. Thus these arbitrary and arcane calculations show that your hour PB at 20 spm isn't all that you crack it up to be. What did you hope to prove by this? Oh I see, you were taking a roundabout way to prove that 30 spm is faster and generates more power than 20 spm. Congratulations, in your roundabout way you suceeded in proving my point.

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 1st, 2005, 3:05 pm

Lol, thank you for that John. I've read too many of your demented ramblings over the years to be drawn into argument with you. If it's OK with you I will just periodically post random replies to the shit you spout, giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your unique brand of logic. I consider this an important task, as new rowers who stumble across the forum need to know about you. I couldn't care less about you pissing your time away training like a muppet: it grieves me to think that some unsuspecting novice might listen to you and try to copy.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 1st, 2005, 5:13 pm

You're quite welcome, Physicist. However, if anyone is to be emulated then I would recommend long time world record holder Eskild Ebbesen.

Concept2 Forum

Strokes Per Min.

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control