Altitude And Air Resistance

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 23 2005, 03:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 23 2005, 03:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Remember that, according to Aristotle, the greatest good is the mean between two extremes.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Remember that Aristotle was discussing ethics, not physics.

[[old] rjw]

Altitude and air resistance, how much does it help performance?<br /><br />Altitude, after a certain elevation, hinders performance in all athletes. Even in trained, acclimatized athletes. The fact that Merckx or Keino set records at Mexico City is a testimant to their fitness. They were aerobic animals. Especially for Keino, just think of what he could have done on that day (1968 Olympics) if it was raced at sea level - he may have got the WR. <br /><br />There have been various studies as to the reduction of athletic performance at elevation and how to reduce that reduction. Fact is that even in fit indiviuals, there will be a drop in performance (maybe not as much as us mere mortals but still a reduction). You could argue that the corrections for times from Denver to Sea Level that Concept uses are too high but not that they are not deserved. (Dwayne - where did you set your 2k record?)<br /><br />As for air resistance - it is reduced with altitude. Does it effect the performance of the erg. The experts say no and I tend to beleive them based on the supporting evidence. Cycling is an exception to this due to the high speeds and the reduction of drag at elevation. But I would suggest that this mainly makes a difference under controlled situations like velodrome or flat time trials in an acclimatized and fit athlete.<br /><br />Bottom line - I think there needs to be an adjustment for erg qualifying times based on elevation but I don't think you will see a WR at elevation for the erg. If you do, just imagine how much faster the time would have been at sea level.<br /><br />Raoul

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Feb 23 2005, 12:04 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Feb 23 2005, 12:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 07:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 07:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, provided the athlete/s were well trained aerobically, meaning 10k no slower than 2k pace + 5 or so.  There is a huge variation of aerobic fitness among rowers.  Those who are less fit will of course have less capability to use oxygen at altitude and thus this will be a major factor for them to overcome.  For example for those who have a tough time with a 10k at 2k +10 at sea level are going to have a hard time with a 2k at altitude. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />If your 2k pace is only 5 seconds faster than your 10k pace (both being PB attempts that is), you have a very large imbalance in your overall fitness for rowing. Read, "you really need to do some strength training". Unless of course you simply do not wish to improve, which is fine also.<br /><br />But we've been over all this before. <br /><br />Come on John, just admit you are wrong, it would show that you actually have the capacity to learn, and would start the healing process. Otherwise you will remain in this freefall from reality, and the sudden stop at the end only gets more painful. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Because John has made so many foolish arguments in this thread, culminating in his Aristotle argument, I'm fairly sure that he does not believe what he says. What then is his impetus for continuing this thread? I'm fairly certain that it is self-indulgent--his frequent references to to "fit" rowers being able to retain their times at altitude are thinly disguised allusions to his own perceived "fitness." This is compounded by his contempt for Matthew Pinsent's fitness in one of the strings, and his obsession with PATT times, conspicuously present at the bottom of every post. The problem for John though, is that he is making a fundamental error: fit for a 50 something man does not mean fit. In fact, in absolute standards, John's times do not indicate any kind of impressive fitness--they mostly indicate strikingly poor strength. I guess it's good that an old fellow can manage a sub 23 6k, but that's it: mildy impresive for an old guy, not a demonstration of fitness in an absolute sense, and certainly lightyears away from world class fitness.

[[old] Galt]

Where is this conversion factor that concept uses?<br /><br />Thanks

[[old] rjw]

<!--QuoteBegin-Galt+Feb 23 2005, 03:36 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Galt @ Feb 23 2005, 03:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where is this conversion factor that concept uses?<br /><br />Thanks <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />They are qualifying times C2 uses for WIRC and can be found at <br /><a href='http://www.concept2.com/rowing/racing/q ... gtimes.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/rowing/racing/q ... asp</a><br /><br />R

[[old] Bayko]

Amazing. John posts up something stupid and we're into our 10th page of replies. Even with the Ignore function activated the most ridiculous parts of his delusions come through by way of the quoting in the posts of others. Now here I am beating another dead horse .<br /><br />With faint hope of getting through (John may have ME in HIS Ignore box), I'd like to throw this out at him:<br /><br />John, you're as old as me and surely remember Ron Clarke. Rather than rely on just my opinion, let me quote a generally accepted version of the Mexico Olympics, held at 7347 feet of altitude. This is from American Track & Field's Olympic Track & Field History by Mel Watman.<br /><br />"Mexico City 1968, The height of folly.<br /><br />.....Take the case of the Australian Ron Clarke. He was far and away the greatest distance runner of that era, his numerous world records including 13:16.6 for 5000m, and 27:39.4 for 10,000m....." (Is that fit enough for you John?) ....."Clarke...ran himself into oblivion in Mexico City...for a time of 29:44.8".....(Quite a bit bigger margin than the 20-30seconds you are claiming John).....The first lowlander to finish, in sixth.....Clarke was in a very bad way as he crossed the line."<br /> "As I reported at the time for Athletics Weekly (Watman reporting) ' The arena afterwards resembled a battlefield, with bodies sprawled all over the place. One in particular attracted the profound sympathies of all who care about athletics. The man on the stretcher gasping for air until oxygen was administered was Ron Clarke--his hope shattered not so much by the opposition as by the folly of the men who, five years ago glibly agreed to award these Games to an oxygen-starved city. He deserved a better fate.' Clarke himself has said that his greatest frustration was not his failure to win an Olympic title "'but the fact it was in Mexico City and I didn't have a chance to show if I could have won or not.'"<br /><br />John, if Ron Clarke wasn't fit enough for you, who was/is? You, perhaps?<br />Rick

[[old] John Rupp]

Alot,<br /><br />PATT times are "the" most accurate measure ouf absolute performance, being based solely on percentage of World Record level performances.<br /><br />The best way to gauge aerobic fitness is percentage of 2k time maintained over distance, and one's PATT percentage of all standard rowing events, from 500 meters through the marathon.<br /><br />If you think I'm obsessed with fitness -- and perhaps I am -- then can it be said that you are obsessed with lack of fitness?

[[old] Galt]

Thanks

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-rjw+Feb 23 2005, 06:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rjw @ Feb 23 2005, 06:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Altitude, after a certain elevation, hinders performance in all athletes.  Even in trained, acclimatized athletes.  The fact that Merckx or Keino set records at Mexico City is a testimant to their fitness.  They were aerobic animals.  Especially for Keino, just think of what he could have done on that day (1968 Olympics) if it was raced at sea level - he may have got the WR. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Indeed, yes <b>after a certain elevation</b>, altitude hinders performance in all athletes. The fitter the athlete, the higher that certain altitude will be. Absolutely Eddy Merckc and Kip Keino's performances were testament to their fitness. Aerobic performance at altitude is highly fitness dependent. <br /><br />In line with this, note that neither Merckx nor Keino had cycled or run as fast at sea level as they did with their altitude performances. Merckx' hour record was the fastest time he ever did, as was Keino's 1500, coming as it did after he had already competed in the 10000 and 5000m. Keino in particular competed many many times at sea level, and never once ran the 1500 meters as fast as he did at Mexico City, beating World Record holder Jim Ryun in the process.<br /><br />As to the various studies for rowing on an erg, those studies were also done for cycling and (much more so) for running. However, Merckx and Keino didn't listen to those studies, and they hammered from the outset. Merckx in particular started with his 1st 1000 meters in a time fast enough to place in the Olympic finals for a 1 minute event!<br /><br />Oh yes the C2 "corrections" for altitude are far too high. If you think some corrected is deserved, for less than fit rowers, then perhaps but certainly no more than 3-4 seconds for a 2k.<br /><br />However that is based only on o2 consumption and fitness. Due to the additional advantages and benefits of the low air pressure on the fan, I think that 3-4 seconds is well overcome and there should be no gift of time given to rowers at altitude. In face if I lived at altitude I would consider it an advantage to do my times there, rather than at sea level.<br /><br />To think otherwise is just fear, and not looking at the reality of what has already been done in other athletic endeavors at altitude.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sirrowsalot+Feb 23 2005, 07:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sirrowsalot @ Feb 23 2005, 07:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because John has made so many foolish arguments in this thread, culminating in his Aristotle argument, I'm fairly sure that he does not believe what he says.  What then is his impetus for continuing this thread?  I'm fairly certain that it is self-indulgent--his frequent references to to "fit" rowers being able to retain their times at altitude are thinly disguised allusions to his own perceived "fitness."  This is compounded by his contempt for Matthew Pinsent's fitness in one of the strings, and his obsession with PATT times, conspicuously present at the bottom of every post.  The problem for John though, is that he is making a fundamental error:  fit for a 50 something man does not mean fit.  In fact, in absolute standards, John's times do not indicate any kind of impressive fitness--they mostly indicate strikingly poor strength.  I guess it's good that an old fellow can manage a sub 23 6k, but that's it: mildy impresive for an old guy, not a demonstration of fitness in an absolute sense, and certainly lightyears away from world class fitness. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You have nailed it to a tee, except for 2 things.<br />1) He does believe what he is saying and will defend it no matter what the evidence.<br />2) He also believes we refute his silliness on some personal basis rather than on the facts presented, so reacts poorly.<br /><br />It's fun to watch though, isn't it? <br /><br />Pinsent was just the most famous hwt he could think of, he considers all hwts unfit and deserving contempt, and was merely exaggerating to make that clear, it was nothing specific to Sir Mathew.<br /><br />

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 23 2005, 11:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 23 2005, 11:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alot,<br /><br />PATT times are "the" most accurate measure ouf absolute performance, being based solely on percentage of World Record level performances.<br /><br />The best way to gauge aerobic fitness is percentage of 2k time maintained over distance, and one's PATT percentage of all standard rowing events, from 500 meters through the marathon.<br /><br />If you think I'm obsessed with fitness -- and perhaps I am -- then it can be said that you are obsessed with lack of fitness. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I didn't say you were obsessed with fitness. I think you like to think of yourself as supremely fit when you are no such thing. First of all, PATT times only compare you to other fifty-something year old men, who as a group aren't very fit. There are no world records for these other distances, it's just a matter of what old fellow happened to submit the best time (and there are very few times submitted for fifties lightweights compared to other divisions.) Compare yourself to those who are actually the fittest in an absolute sense (open men and open lightweight men) and I think you'll find that your times are pretty bad.<br /><br />Second of all, I strongly disagree that "the best way to gauge aerobic fitness is percentage of 2k time maintained over distance." If you have a weak 2k time, like you do, you'll appear to be quite fit, even though this illusion of fitness is only a function of your remarkable lack of strength--oir maybe it's not a lack of strength but a crippling "fear" to row hard!<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Bayko,<br /><br />Yes I well remember Ron Clarke and knew he would not do well long before the events of Mexico City!!!!.<br /><br />Likewise I knew Jim Ryun would not run well either, and deservedly not, though he didn't do badly based on his lack of endurance fitness and poor mental attitude.<br /><br />In Ryun's case it was expected and obvious. He was a poor 5000 runner, and got knocked out of the 800 meters in the trials because of his fear of thin air. In retrospect it was no surprise that Keino wiped up the track with him, though it WAS a surprise and quite exciting at the time -- without a question one of the all time top races in history.<br /><br />In the case of Clarke there were a number of factors:<br /><br />#1- His poor attitude. First of all let me say that I like Ron Clarke. He is a very fine fellow and much more outspoken, aggressive and determined than his attitude would lead most people to believe. He is also very helpful, kind, and generous.<br /><br />This being said, he was afraid of competing at Mexico City from at least 4 years before, and you could see the tension when he competed there, in every fiber of his body. Thus I think his failure was primarily a mental obsession, and one one that was physical.<br /><br />#2- This being said, Clarke did not have the fitness in 1968 that he did in 1966-7. From his own writings in retrospect, he states that he did not train as well, did not compete in the pre Olympics (as did 5000m gold medalist Gamoudi, also a sea level runner), and did not even compete -- at all!!! -- prior to the Olympic Games. As he later stated in his own worlds, these were all major mistakes that he made, which were also physical and not just mental ones.<br /><br />#3- Clarke did not run well after the Olympics, hardly approached his Mexico City times in 1969, then retired.<br /><br />#4- Quite relatedly, I think, a few years later Clarke had major open heart surgery, a testiment to the fact that, though he was very fit in 1966-7, he did not have a healthy cardiovascular system.<br /><br />It is also very important to note, again, that Mohammed Gamoudi who was born, lived and trained at sea level, outran Kip Keino over the last lap and took the gold medal in the 5000 meters even. Yes, at the same Mexico City Olympics.<br /><br />So, yes, Ron Clarke did not run well at the altitude, but there were many reasons for that besides fitness, the most important of those being attitude.

[[old] John Rupp]

S-lot,<br /><br />Rod Freed's 10000 meter time for the 50's is at the 50+ lwt 2k World Record plus 6.4, not even factoring in the difference of age, which would bring this to 5 seconds.<br /><br />Can you do the 10k at your 2k + 5?<br /><br />If not, how close can you get?<br /><br />Getting out there and rowing and improving your fitness would help.

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 23 2005, 12:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 23 2005, 12:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Sirrowsalot+Feb 23 2005, 08:47 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sirrowsalot @ Feb 23 2005, 08:47 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PATT times only compare you to other fifty-something year old men, who as a group aren't very fit.  There are no world records for these other distances, it's just a matter of what old fellow happened to submit the best time (and there are very few times submitted for fifties lightweights compared to other divisions.) <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Your prejudice and ignorance is sad and amazing. <br /><br />Rod Freed's 10000 meter time for the 50's is at the 50+ lwt 2k World Record plus 6.4, not even factoring in the difference of age, which would bring this to 5 seconds.<br /><br />Can you do the 10k at your 2k + 5?<br /><br />If not, how close can you get?<br /><br />I find it humorous that you with nothing to say have to act like a crybaby instead of just getting out there and rowing and improving your fitness. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Which claim of mine are you disputing? So far as I can tell, none of them. So I'll make my point again. PATT compare you to other fifties lightweights, and "elite" fifty year old men are on the average much less fit (and much less strong) than elite open rowers. The reason you can achieve your 10k at a rate close to your 2k is because your 2k is terrible. Rod Freed serves as a good conterexample actually. Your 10k might be as close or closer to your 2k split as his, but he is much, much fitter (he pulls much better times), even though he probably lacks strength (as most fifty year old athletes do--you're simply an extreme example). <br /><br />If I were extraordinarily weak, and possessed a feeble 2k time, I could no doubt pull a 10k at 2k+5. That's how you did it!

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 23 2005, 12:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 23 2005, 12:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Can you do the 10k at your 2k + 5?<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, But I can do a 10k at well below your 2k pace. I am therefore much, much fitter than you, though you may be "fitter for an old man." Congratulations.