Strokes Per Min.

[[old] Sir Pirate]

God bless you John , I don’t think you would win any popularity contests on this forum, what with your battles with PaulS and now with Physicist. If it is any consolation, I enjoy reading your posts; you look at things from a completely different angle to the rest of the rowing community yet are still not afraid to stick to what you believe in. I don’t think I have ever agreed with one thing you have ever posted on this forum (or the UK) but that does not stop me reading your posts………..and disagreeing <br><br>Sir Pirate

[[old] John Rupp]

Sir Pirate,<br><br>Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy my messages.

[[old] starboardrigged1seat]

It would seem to me, that if the goal is weight loss, the best idea would be a balanced diet of workouts, ranging from low stroke rate steady state for long periods of time (40 to 60 minutes), medium distance intervals during which higher quality work is maintained (4 x 10 minutes, 3 minutes paddling), and for the real fat burning workout -- fast pace intervals....500m repeats, or the ol' standby, 1 minute on, 1 minute off...repeat until you get really dizzy or the cows come home. This will ensure that things are kept interesting, and a negative calorie balance is maintained.<br>(I know, I know, the shorter stuff burns carbs, not fats, but the total calories burned in a shorter amount of time make them really worth while -- in addition, they raise base metabolic rate higher and longer, so you continue burning fat long after the workout).<br>Weight lifting also helps -- keep in mind, that muscle burns more calories than fat does...a mere 1lb muscle increase, keeping diet and exercise the same, will burn an additional 5 lbs of fat within a year.

[[old] DIESEL]

heavens, starboardrigged! <br><br>Can John rebut such sterling logic? We'll wait and see...... <br><br>BTW John, you are right I have 25 lbs. - of which I can maybe spare 10-15max ... and your point is...? Also given your splits - it bespeaks of a lack of power - something that could very well be remedied by low stroke rate training - if you can ever wrap your head around the idea. <br><br>peace, <br>D

[[old] John Rupp]

Diesel,<br><br>Are youse talking about trading weight for pace here, or actually power production per weight.<br><br>In which case, what are your splits?<br><br>Are you saying that if I gained 25 pounds of fat that I'd be faster at my current weight?<br><br> <br><br>You really have me curious about the proclivity of your methods.

[[old] chickenlegs]

John,<br><br>the world fastest lightweight is not Eskild Ebbesen.<br>it's Elia Luini.<br><br>also:<br>adding extra fat to your weight will probably not make you faster, as it is the muscle and not the fat generating the force on the wheel.<br><br>adding more mucle might not make you faster either.<br>if you had pectoral muscle it will have no effect on the force needed to accelerate the wheel since pectorals are not involved.<br><br>adding relevant mucle mass, such as quadriceps in the upper leg, may or may not make you faster over a 2000 m race.<br><br>2000 m is much more aerobic than anaerobic, so large muscle masses built by anaerobic exercise (squats, cleans) may loose much or most of their effectivness after the first 200 m or so.<br><br>if the relevant muscles can be increased in size so that they can generate more force, without loosing their blood vessel density, they will probably be able to generate more force for the whole race and become useful.<br><br>for a quick reference check the qudriceps of Xeno Muller and Rob Waddell.

[[old] Kudos]

eskild has some nasty quads as well.<br><br>he holds the hour record for lightweights I believe as well at 18,000 meters with a 1:40 split. But as far as national teamers go, records on the machine are not that important to them so who knows if that has been broken before. <br><br>Eskild is just as good if not more of a training role model than Luini, but only because he has been doing it longer and has a bit more hardware Luini.<br><br>I think physicist had it right when he said John trains like a muppet. I laughed so hard at that. Even though it was quite childish and not a very effective argument in the situation, it was still funny.<br><br>Anyway, I find low stroke ratings very effective but it important to use them in the proper manner. The purpose is to teach explosiveness off the catch and proper connection of the oar/erg handle to the body. There is nothing wrong with spending a good amount of time doing so, as long as you are aware of what the purpose of the training is and carry it over to the test peices and the higher stroke rrating peices. If you are simply doing low ratings to rest or get more air you could land yourself in stagnant performances at the higher rates, just as someone who uses high ratings will. <br><br>Ultimately, the rate at which you do peices is a signal of what you are comfortable at. I'm sure John totes a picture around of eskild in his wallet because he fires off at a 42+ for his 2k and settles into a 38. However, those higher ratings must be effective or you are just spinning your wheels (car reference, not erg). If you can only handle low ratings for your test peices, it is a sign that you need to work on your techinique and connection at the higher ones and more thought and concentration on the lower ones. But I would be more comfortable with that, than someone who goes off on a rate scorcher with no correalation to a fast score. Reason being you have something to teach to the plodder, but you have so much more to unteach a scorcher. You will never be as effective at a lower rating as you could be at a higher one, thats pretty much a fact. Even the 220 plus pounder heavies get their SPMs up to a 36 for 2k's. So its not a question of weight or physiology, it is question of technique and connection. <br><br>Mix it up is the best advice. Half and Half for both your SS and your AT peices. I like to do a pyramid peice every week or so, those are good for keeping mentally active in your technique and to get comfortable in a range of ratings.

[[old] John Rupp]

Chickenlegs and Kudos,<br><br>Nice comments. Thanks.<br><br>Yes Elia Luini is the current record holder, though there's not so much available about him and his training, as there is about long time record holder Ebbesen.<br><br>I would disagree, however, with "Reason being you have something to teach to the plodder, but you have so much more to unteach a scorcher."<br><br>Having done quite a bit of practice at low rates, I found them comparatively VERY EASY to learn and accomplish.<br><br>However I have come nowhere close to being able to maintain a 40-42 spm for a 2k, though I'm at least 5 inches shorter than Ebbesen. Based on his height and stroke length etc, his 41.3 average would give me around a 44.5 spm to maintain the same stroke distance that he does. I'm nowhere close to that!!!!! If anything my rates are somewhere in the middle of what most rowers do, at least the ones who row like a wheel vs a box.<br><br>Thus I agree that yes indeed it takes far more technique, coordination and practice to accomplish competitive rates, then it does to slug along at the low ones.

[[old] Mel Harbour]

The thing that ammuses me greatly is that John latches onto Eskild's name so much to justify almost everything he does.<br><br>Do you actually have any real concept of how Eskild trains John? What do you think he actually does?<br><br>Mel

[[old] honorcaddy]

gyrfalcon:<br><br>If you check the calorie counter on your monitor, and then you calculate whatever multiplier your personal weight calls for based on the Concept2 website info in this regard, you will find that you are burning about 65 calories, plus your multiplier, for every 1000 meters rowed. For example, I weigh about 280 and according to the C2 website my "multiplier is about 1.6 or so (I'm 6'4", and have weight lifted most of my life, but I don't even want to think about % body fat). <br><br>At the risk of creating another controversy, I doubt that it will make much difference in terms of calories burned whether you use a high rate or a low rate of strokes. I think the bottom line is the old tried and true "long, slow distance." <br><br>So if you are comfortable racking up your long distance rows at a 2:05 or so pace, just keep at it, eat intelligently, and let the rest of us know if you find a low carb beer that actually tastes like beer. <br><br>Good Luck.<br><br>Kelly McDonald<br>Lost 33 pounds since 9/29/04.

[[old] starboardrigged1seat]

You'd burn most calories with an interval workout. Although the Concept2 monitor will give you the same amount of calories burned for doing 1' on, 1' off at 1:35 and 2:15 rates as it would for an average row of the same time -- studies abound with information which says for weight loss, intensity is almost as important as duration. With shorter pieces, you're attacking your body's main source of energy -- and the number one enemy, according to many diets today -- carbs. To keep slogging through the workout, and doing long steady rows on the side keep your body burning fat.

[[old] Jim Barry]

<br><br>John, <br><br>I think Ebbesen is just 184cm or 6' even (if you are going to churn him into your formulas). This is how FISA lists him on their website of rowing biographies.<br><br>--Jim <br><br>

[[old] tomhz]

Just to add some facts to this discussion about Stroke rates. Here are two graphs showing data <b>for ALL EIRC participants </b>(2K times between 5:49 and 8:00)<br><br>1) relation between Stroke rate and 2K time. This shows that SR varies a lot for people of the same pace and that SR is a little higher for faster people:<br><img src='http://home.planet.nl/~zalms004/c2/Graf ... 04.xls.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' /><br><br>2) relation between SPI (=stroke performance index = power divided by stroke rate = force x stroke length) and 2K time. This shows that 2K time is strongly related to SPI. BTW: 4th dot from the left is Nik Fleming.<br><img src='http://home.planet.nl/~zalms004/c2/Graf ... 04.xls.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' /><br>

[[old] John Rupp]

Tom,<br><br>Your graph shows there is no relation between stroke rates and speed, compared to the obvious very HIGH correlation between stroke rates and INTENSITY.<br><br>Jim,<br><br>Yes I noticed that too. Elia Luini is also shown as 184cm but 6'1. I got the 6'2 for Ebbesen from his own web site. So it appears their heights, at least for now, are a bit up in the air.