Training Heart Rates

General discussion on Training. How to get better on your erg, how to use your erg to get better at another sport, or anything else about improving your abilities.
JerekKruger
6k Poster
Posts: 916
Joined: January 12th, 2017, 6:50 am

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by JerekKruger » December 4th, 2017, 1:38 pm

Dangerscouse wrote:Blimey Tom, that's a very erudite response. Do you work in the fitness industry or study a sports degree?
Heh no, I'm just a maths PhD student with a decent knowledge of basic physics and biology, and trying to understand the mechanics of sport has interested me for a while*. It probably looks more erudite than it actually is because I've used language similar to the article. All I'm really saying is (a) if you push or pull something that doesn't move you're still using energy and (b) muscles have different strengths depending on the angle of the joint they work on.

*Funnily enough, it all started with me trying to work out why my college boat club was so keen to recruit me and other tall people. I've still never found an answer to that that completely satisfies me, and I suspect it's a combination of several of the commonly given answers.
Tom | 33 | 6'6" | 93kg

Image

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 4th, 2017, 2:29 pm

On the erg, [Christian’s] advice to me was to concentrate on
long sessions at low spm and high drag
- e.g., 18 spm at drag > 180.
Hi Steve,

I think anyone reading this should know that Steve and I row out of the same Club in Sausalito. Not only are both Steve and I friends with Christian Dahlke, but Steve arranged for my first lessons with Christian, and Steve himself has given me sculling lessons and much invaluable advice over the years. Indeed, on Steve’s advice I gave up a Model C on slides for a Dynamic Erg. I have to add that Steve is an excellent on-water sculler. Steve sculls at levels very much above me. And lastly I believe that several years ago Steve earned a hammer at the C.R.A.S.H.-B Sprints.

So Steve, am ever glad to hear from you!

I had no idea that Christian had worked out at a “18 spm at drag > 180.” The only thing Christian ever said to me is that 92 % of his training time was aerobic.

Am I right to think that 180 drag factor suggests that the primary purpose of such a workout is to build strength, particularly in the legs and back? If I could talk to Christian this morning I would ask him if the workouts were light aerobic or heavy aerobic or a mixture of two.

But in any event, you have made me rethink stroke rating. Yesterday afternoon my workout was 2 x 6000m, the first piece at 18/24 spm, the second at 24/30 spm. In my heart rate range the first piece was light aerobic, the second heavy aerobic. No surprise there. I suppose had I been willing to work at “18 spm at drag > 180” I could have made the first piece heavy aerobic. But I am not sure that I could have managed that without severe back pain.

Thanks, Steve.

Warmest regards,

Charles

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 4th, 2017, 3:01 pm

Charles Carroll wrote: The point is, as I understand it, the East Germans
used heart rate — not stroke rate
Steve Schaffran wrote: On the erg, [Christian’s] advice to me was to concentrate on
long sessions at low spm and high drag
- e.g., 18 spm at drag > 180.

So I have been quite wrong. The East German did train at low cadence — i.e. 18/24 spm.

Yesterday I looked over my notes from my lessons with Christian Dahlke. I haven’t reread these notes since I wrote them. In hindsight I wish I had. In case anyone is interested I am going to paste a copy of them. One thing I want to add is that Chris Dadd is mentioned in the notes. He is an accomplished rower and sculler, currently coaches the Berkeley High School crew, and coaches at Open Water Rowing in Sausalito.

Three Comments on Sculling

Christian Dahlke

The first lesson in the double as we were moving away Christian offered a small speech:

“The thing you need to know about me is that I am honest. I do not say anything that is not true. This can be both good and bad. If I hurt your feelings, I am sorry. That’s the bad part. But the good part is that I will tell you honestly things you need to know. I have been rowing on an international level for twenty-two years.”

In all three of my lessons with Christian he exhorted me to make rowing my own.

“You have the rhythm, a good, regular stroke. Together we are in harmony. Now add melody.”

Just last week in an email Christian wrote: “I wish you many good and exciting timeouts on the water, little islands of rowing in the middle of hard working days, pure fun - to find more and more the Carroll melody.”

So what does Christian mean by melody?

Is Christian suggesting that a sculler can reach a level where his technique becomes so distinctive it might be said to be his own?

I have taken as a given the existence of an ideal rowing stroke, say an eidos of the rowing stroke, a kind of categorical imperative, impersonal, universal, absolute, that is the same for all scullers and for which all scullers strive. Working on technique meant trying to overcome flaws in one’s personal technique in an attempt to achieve a universal ideal. The nearer to ideal a sculler’s technique becomes, the less distinctive it is from the techniques of fellow scullers who are also closing in on the ideal. In other words, the techniques of all good scullers look alike.

But if I understand Christian, this isn’t what he thinks. Instead Christian seems to be suggesting that there is something individual and distinctive in the techniques of good scullers—that they are good precisely because each in his own way has found his own melody. In other words an exceptional sculler is someone who has made sculling his own. He has a distinctive, recognizable technique.

In this sense aren’t good scullers like good dancers or good musicians? The music is the same for everyone, but the exceptional make it their own. Take Mozart's Piano Sonatas, the subtle variations in the way Mitsuko Uchida plays these as opposed to the way Andras Schiff plays them.

Chris Dadd

Lesson with Chris Dadd. Unusual lesson. We spent more time discussing rowing and what I was working on than we spent actually rowing.

First thing Chris did was answer my question about scullers developing distinctive and recognizable styles.

“Yes,” said Chris. “Good scullers eventually scull in their own styles. No question.”

“So you can tell who’s out there just by looking?”

“Sure,” said Chris. “All the guys I row with have their own style. It’s nothing to tell them apart. Christian is right on about that. I’m sorry I didn’t have more opportunity to talk with him.”

Next we discussed my trying to involve my arms more at the Catch.

“Ever since I started sculling I’ve worked at not using my arms at the Catch. I’ve tried to keep them straight as long as possible during the drive. I’ve only permitted myself to use the arms after my back has opened. But Steve Fairbairn says this is wrong. He says that you should couple the drive with the draw—meaning that the legs and arms should work together at the Catch. Specifically, as you push off with the legs the arms should simultaneously draw at the oar handles. I have trying to row with bent elbows at the Catch because this is a drill Fairbairn recommends.”

“I know guys who row with bent elbows at the Catch. And they’re fast,” said Chris.

“The other thing—and this is a very important point—is that my back has never felt better since I started taking the Catch with bent elbows.”

“Then that’s what you should do,” said Chris.

“But Fairbairn also says that trying to push off the stretcher while pulling your weight on to the rowing pins—that is, coupling the drive and the draw—is about the most difficult thing you can do in rowing.”

“Yeah, some people—very few people—do it naturally, right from the start. But for most of us it takes years. You’ve been rowing a very short time. You’ve made enormous progress.”

“You think 16 months is a short time?”

“Yes I do,” said Chris. “And you really have made enormous progress. The basics can be picked up quickly. But to really learn sculling takes a huge amount of effort. By the way, I don’t teach the Fairbairn style—I don’t teach bent elbows at the Catch. But that doesn’t matter. It’s working for you. I know it works for other guys. What you have to say about your back is the important thing. So don’t worry. Keep rowing with bent elbows at the Catch."

Chris Dadd

“Last year after one of our lessons you said that “to really learn sculling takes a huge amount of time.” What did you mean by to really learn sculling?”

“I meant that it think it takes 3 to 5 years to become completely relaxed, completely confident in a boat. We’ve talked about those rare people who climb into a boat and seem to be competent right from the start. They have no trouble keeping a boat level. Their timing seems right on. They just seem to be naturals at sculling. But even for these people it still takes 3 to 5 years to acquire the skill to make sculling look effortless.”

Next I asked Chris about staying on the pins for a few milliseconds at the Finish.

“The Caius boat has been the First Boat in the Upper Division at the Bumps for the last five years, and when we were in Cambridge earlier in the summer I saw it doing exactly this. The crew took a hard Finish. The blades came out of the water and you could hear a loud crack as the collars snapped into place in the oarlocks. Then all eight rowers paused. It was only for milliseconds, but it was a definite, discernible pause. Their blades were level. The boat was level. Only after the boat was set up did the Caius crew begin their Recovery. They were absolutely relaxed and unhurried as they came up the Slide. And they took the Catch the same way—unhurried and relaxed. They just made everything look effortless. The rowers in the boat behind the Caius boat looked frantic. They were red in the face and breathing hard and rowing at a higher rate. They seemed desperate. Meanwhile the rowers in the Caius boat looked as if they weren’t trying at all. From their appearance they could have been out for a leisurely Sunday row. Their rate was lower, yet they were faster. They went long and held on to the water beautifully. With every stroke they seemed to get a little faster and pull ahead just a little bit more.”

Chris smiled.

“I have seen many crews and even good scullers pause at the Finish. There’s nothing wrong with that. I myself don’t teach it, but I have seen many people doing it. And they’ve been fast. I always tell my kids—and anyone else who will listen—there are many ways to move a boat.”

It was my turn to smile.

“The other thing I tell them—it’s become almost a cliché you hear it so many times—is go slow to go fast. But it’s still true no matter how many times you hear it. Only no one ever quite seems to get this, do they?”

Dangerscouse
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10545
Joined: April 27th, 2014, 11:11 am
Location: Liverpool, England

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by Dangerscouse » December 4th, 2017, 4:26 pm

@ Tom "just" a maths Phd student....i know what you mean I see millions of maths Phd students around these days :wink:
51 HWT; 6' 4"; 1k= 3:09; 2k= 6:36; 5k= 17:19; 6k= 20:47; 10k= 35:46 30mins= 8,488m 60mins= 16,618m HM= 1:16.47; FM= 2:40:41; 50k= 3:16:09; 100k= 7:52:44; 12hrs = 153km

"You reap what you row"

Instagram: stuwenman

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 4th, 2017, 4:52 pm

CharleCarroll wrote:
...For my high cadence pieces the force curve shows peak force early in the drive with very small fluctuations between negative and positive peak velocities during the drive. Drive time is about .55 secs.

For low cadence pieces peak force comes later in the drive; however, while the force curve remains smooth, the fluctuation between positive and negative peak velocity is steeper and drive time climbs to .70 secs....
It's not clear what you mean here. The force curve on a PM is exactly that: a graphic display of handle force. It has nothing directly to do with velocity. I'm guessing that what you're trying to say is that you get a more symmetrical curve at the higher rating? If so, as Henry says, the comparatively late peak is going to be because it's taking you longer to accelerate the flywheel at the catch. The longer the recovery, other things equal, the more its rotation will slow due to air resistance that's the erg equivalent of drag during the 'run' of a boat OTW. The late peak is bad OTW for a variety of reasons. It's less bad from a mechanical standpoint on an erg, but still less than optimum. In an ideal world you want to aim for much the same force profile regardless of rating.

Here's Kleshnev on late force peaks and why front-loading is good: http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2006_files ... News06.pdf

As I've pointed out in the past, this article was originally written in Russian and the translation is less than ideal. The thrust of the last sentence really should read something like "Athletes with a late force peak are more likely to [perform better] on [an] ergometer [than in a boat]." And it should be read as a condemnation of a late force peak in either case, not an endorsement,..,,.,
This topic was very recently discussed in a lengthy thread on rec.sport.rowing:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... EKRbspoiK8

I don’t disagree with anything you have said. On the other hand it is entirely possible that I have misunderstood the relationship between handle force and velocity.

On the PM5 I look at the force curve and then at the Pace. Am I wrong to think I see a correlation between the two? For months now it has seemed to me that my best pace correlates to a specific force curve, which shows that peak force is produced early in the drive and that the fluctuations between negative and positive peak forces during the drive were kept as small as possible.

You write that we should “...aim for much the same force profile regardless of rating.” And I couldn’t agree more. But to me this seems to be only another way of saying that we should strive to reproduce the same pace — i.e. velocity — in the next stroke. And I will add what my old friend Carl Douglas says, that we should only accelerate the shell enough to compensate for the amount of shell has decelerated in the previous stroke — i.e. to keep fluctuations between negative and positive peak forces during the drive were kept as small as possible.

I have put together a small paper that I think illustrates this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Esb ... sp=sharing

Warmest regards,

Charles

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 4th, 2017, 5:45 pm

NavigationHazard wrote:
Here's Kleshnev on late force peaks and why front-loading is good: http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2006_files ... News06.pdf
It seems to me that Valery Kleshnev’s Rowing Biomechanics June 2006 newsletter is best read as a companion piece to his Feb 2004 newsletter, which shows a crew increasing force application faster at the catch, and by this means rows faster than another crew even though the former crew has relatively lower maximal and average force applications.

In rbn June 2006 Valery presents three cases: a front-loaded with a Peak Force of 5N, a back-loaded with a Peak Force of 5N, and a constant at average 3N.

So the constant at average 3N case requires only three-fifths the effort.

Now suppose the constant at average 3N case were to put just a little more effort against the oar handle — say 3.2N — wouldn’t this case produce more total force and power than was produced in the other two cases? Yet wouldn’t it also require considerably less effort against the oar handle?

This leads me to wonder if this case — rowing at a constant average of 3.2N — wouldn’t be the more efficient.

JerekKruger
6k Poster
Posts: 916
Joined: January 12th, 2017, 6:50 am

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by JerekKruger » December 4th, 2017, 5:57 pm

Dangerscouse wrote:Tom "just" a maths Phd student....i know what you mean I see millions of maths Phd students around these days ;)
Sorry that wasn't meant to sound like false modesty or anything, I just meant that I have no real expertise in sports science beyond what I can figure out from my maths and science background :oops:
CharleCarroll wrote:On the PM5 I look at the force curve and then at the Pace. Am I wrong to think I see a correlation between the two?
The area under the force curve is closely related to the amount of additional (kinetic) energy the stroke imparts on the (virtual) boat. The thing which determines the speed the boat is the power i.e. the amount of energy imparted on the boat per second. This is where stroke rate is important: if you row with exactly the same force curve but at a higher rate you'll be rowing with a higher power and, hence, a higher speed.
Indeed, what you're describing there is the curve with the largest area underneath it for a given peak force, hence the largest energy and hence (for a given stroke rate) the highest power.

Note however that the peak force for both of your examples is actually near the middle of the curve*. The curves climb steeply at first, getting near to peak force fairly quickly, but they carry on growing until about the half way mark (admittedly at a much slower rate).

*Well, not so much with the second curve, but I think that one shows a tiny bit of lost connection during the middle of the stroke.
Tom | 33 | 6'6" | 93kg

Image

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 4th, 2017, 6:14 pm

if you row with exactly the same force curve but at a higher rate you'll be rowing with a higher power and, hence, a higher speed.
That's what I thought ...

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 5th, 2017, 12:02 am

JerekKruger wrote:
The legs aren't uniformly strong. Again anyone who has done both ass-to-grass squats and high partial squats (or indeed the equivalent with the leg press) will know that the legs are significantly stronger nearer to full extension than they are when the knee is more flexed. As such I'd imagine that the point in the drive where a person is able to generate the most force is somewhere between half and quarter slide, and not at the catch.
Using the legs to begin the drive off the stretcher has to do with catch angle. Too much forward lean forces you to start the drive with the back, which is the weaker body part. Now, as has been pointed out to me, there are plenty of fast rowers who start the drive with their backs. But does this mean that starting the drive with the back is desirable?

Here is an experiment. Think of an analog clock face with the catch at eleven and the finish at one. Now trying rowing short, that is, taking the catch at a little past 12 closer to 1. Row hard -- really driving hard using your buttocks, hamstrings and legs to drive off the stretcher. You are rowing short so you can really push the rate. See what this does to your pace. On the Dynamic I can go as fast as I do when I take a full stroke.

User avatar
NavigationHazard
10k Poster
Posts: 1789
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:11 pm
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by NavigationHazard » December 5th, 2017, 2:18 am

For purposes of illustration, here are graphical representations of what happens to calculated power with virtually identical force curves at different rates.
The screen shots are from ErgMonitor, which I'd set up to emulate a PM display screen (same force scale/vertical axis, same time scale on the horizontal axis).
The force curves are as close to identical as was humanly possible for me to produce at the two rather different ratings....

1] Image

This is a stroke at 1:33.2 pace and 29.0 strokes/minute. Drive length is 136.3 cm. Drive duration is .64 seconds. Peak force is maybe 118 kgF and comes at around 0.25 seconds of the drive. Drag factor for the stroke is 139.9.

1] Image

This is a stroke at 1:22.2 pace and 42.8 strokes/minute (the PM would display it at 43 spm). Drive length is identical to stroke 1 at 136.3 cm. Drive duration is slightly less, at about 0.56 seconds. Peak force here is slightly higher at maybe 124 kgF and comes at around virtually the same point in the drive. Drag factor for the stroke is 138.5.

Keep in mind that a PM display screen has significantly coarser resolution, and that the two curves would look like carbon copies of each other on one. You are looking at equivalent force curves, closely similar drag factor, virtually identical drag factors, and absolutely identical drive lengths. Mainly what''s different about the two is the stroke rating: 29.0 in the first, 42.8 in the second. In the first stroke, inputted power is averaged over ~2.7 seconds of drive + recovery. In the second, what for all practical purposes is the same rower input gets averaged over ~1.4 seconds of drive + recovery. The net result is a much faster pace at the higher rating.

Of possible interest are some of the secondary curves that are graphed on the ErgMonitor screens. The green saddle curve is handle speed. The dark red curve is instantaneous watts -- note that it peaks right before the finish. And the purple curve towards the top of the screens is flywheel rpms.

Re flywheel rpms, the flywheel on stroke 1 was spinning at 1200 rpms at the catch. I accelerated it to 1600 rpms during the drive. It had slowed down to 1400 rpms by the end of that part of the recovery being graphed. On stroke 2 the flywheel was spinning at 1400 rpms at the catch. I accelerated it to maybe 1750 rpms during the drive. And it had slowed down to maybe 1525 rpms by the end of that part of the recovery being graphed. The point is that other things equal, the shorter recoveries at higher ratings mean that the flywheel slows down less during them. Since the monitor continues to calculate instantaneous watts/power during the recovery, the higher flywheel speed translates into higher wattages. And because these get averaged over time/stroke duration to calculate pace, the shorter stroke durations at higher ratings translate into higher average power/faster pace. This is apparent if you compare the two red instantaneous-watt curves.

Overall, average wattage for stroke 1 (rating 29.0) was 431.7w. For stroke 2 (rating 42.8) it was a whopping 629.8, from what for all practical purposes was the same rower input.
67 MH 6' 6"

Dangerscouse
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10545
Joined: April 27th, 2014, 11:11 am
Location: Liverpool, England

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by Dangerscouse » December 5th, 2017, 3:16 am

Cheers Nav and Charle very interesting reading
51 HWT; 6' 4"; 1k= 3:09; 2k= 6:36; 5k= 17:19; 6k= 20:47; 10k= 35:46 30mins= 8,488m 60mins= 16,618m HM= 1:16.47; FM= 2:40:41; 50k= 3:16:09; 100k= 7:52:44; 12hrs = 153km

"You reap what you row"

Instagram: stuwenman

JerekKruger
6k Poster
Posts: 916
Joined: January 12th, 2017, 6:50 am

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by JerekKruger » December 5th, 2017, 4:46 am

CharleCarroll wrote:That's what I thought ...
Apologies. From what you'd written it sounded like you thought that the force curve completely determined the speed regardless of stroke rate.
CharleCarroll wrote:Using the legs to begin the drive off the stretcher has to do with catch angle. Too much forward lean forces you to start the drive with the back, which is the weaker body part.
I wasn't suggesting not initiating the drive with the legs. My point was simply that when the knees and hips are in deep flexion (as they are in the catch) the legs are weaker than they are when the knees and hips are less flexed (as they are later in the drive) and hence I'd expect the point at which peak force can be achieved to be later in the stroke (probably somewhere between half and quarter slide).
Now, as has been pointed out to me, there are plenty of fast rowers who start the drive with their backs. But does this mean that starting the drive with the back is desirable?
If we're talking elite rowers rowing like that I'd imagine it's a case of their own peculiar biomechanics. I don't believe one size fits all when it comes to movement patterns as everyone's different.
Here is an experiment. Think of an analog clock face with the catch at eleven and the finish at one. Now trying rowing short, that is, taking the catch at a little past 12 closer to 1. Row hard -- really driving hard using your buttocks, hamstrings and legs to drive off the stretcher. You are rowing short so you can really push the rate. See what this does to your pace. On the Dynamic I can go as fast as I do when I take a full stroke.
I row the fastest pulling half strokes at a very high rate (around 50) as I can really generate a lot of force and, more importantly, the drive and recovery are shorter so I can up the stroke rate. This is on a static erg however: I can't comment on a dynamic and I've no doubt this would be a terrible way to row on the water.

Remember, my point was not that Kleshnev's conclusions were wrong, I was merely pointing out that the arguments he used to support them were flawed.
Tom | 33 | 6'6" | 93kg

Image

User avatar
NavigationHazard
10k Poster
Posts: 1789
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:11 pm
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by NavigationHazard » December 5th, 2017, 5:43 am

To further illustrate how drag factor affects the calculation of power/pace:

1] Image

Here's an ErgMonitor representation of a stroke at 1:41.3 pace and a rating of 16.1 spm. This time I've extended the horizontal/time axis to show what happens to the instantaneous watts curve (in red) during the recovery. The rower stops inputting power to the flywheel at the finish. But the wheel continues to spin during the recovery, the rate of deceleration depending on the drag factor. The monitor continues to calculate instantaneous watts during the entire recovery, which are then averaged over the duration of the stroke to yield displayed power/pace. Drag for this stroke was 144.1.

2] Image

And here's pretty much the same force curve profile at the same rating but a much higher drag factor: 191.9. Compare the instantaneous watts curves. You get a much higher peak, thanks to the higher DF, but that's balanced by a much faster downslope as the flywheel decelerates faster. The net result is the same displayed power/pace, mechanically. Biomechanically, the problem is that at higher DFs the flywheel is spinning more slowly at the catch and is harder to accelerate rapidly. Here I'm coping with the demands. But it's very hard to sustain rapid catch acceleration at high DFs for any length of time. What tends to happen is that catches get sluggish as you tire and peak force starts to shift to later and later in the stroke. Sequencing also tends to break down more rapidly at higher DFs, again for reasons of overload....
67 MH 6' 6"

JerekKruger
6k Poster
Posts: 916
Joined: January 12th, 2017, 6:50 am

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by JerekKruger » December 5th, 2017, 6:53 am

Thanks for posting all this information Nav, very interesting.
Tom | 33 | 6'6" | 93kg

Image

User avatar
CharleCarroll
500m Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 4:01 pm
Location: San Franciso, CA USA

Re: Training Heart Rates

Post by CharleCarroll » December 6th, 2017, 4:02 pm

JerekKruger wrote:Apologies. From what you'd written it sounded like you thought that the force curve completely determined the speed regardless of stroke rate.
Hi Jerek,

My apologies for not being clearer. The force curve is not the cause, it is the effect, as I am sure you well know. But as “the effect” the force curve describes what happened, that is, it describes the previous stroke. So the force curve is instructive about what you need to do the next stroke. For example a force curve with a high peak at the end shows that you are using a weak part of your body, i.e. your arms, to apply Peak force. So the next stroke you need use a stronger part of your body, i.e. your legs, to apply more pressure earlier in the drive. But again I am sure that you are well aware of this. I should have been clearer.
JerekKruger wrote:I row the fastest pulling half strokes at a very high rate (around 50) as I can really generate a lot of force and, more importantly, the drive and recovery are shorter so I can up the stroke rate. This is on a static erg however: I can't comment on a dynamic and I've no doubt this would be a terrible way to row on the water.

Remember, my point was not that Kleshnev's conclusions were wrong, I was merely pointing out that the arguments he used to support them were flawed.
Your pulling half strokes at a very high rate and generating a lot of force makes me think that you are really using your legs in the drive.

What do your force curves show? When I do this — of course with less force application than you — my force curves show peak force moving closer to the Y-axis.

My goal is to bring as much force as I can as close I can to the Y-axis and then hold on to this force as long as I can. When I succeed the force curve looks almost flat with almost no visible fluctuation between positive and negative peak forces.

Once you have peak force as close to the Y-axis as you can get it, then it seems to me that the next step is to make it climb higher up the Y-axis. But of course this is only another way of saying that once you have mastered technique, then it becomes time to work on building power.

Gordon Hamilton uses the analogy of a spinning wheel. Get that wheel rotating at a given speed and then just keep tapping it along.

Warmest regards,

Charles

Ps “A smooth rowing stroke and moving a shell through the water efficiently can be like spinning a bicycle wheel and keeping it moving with light taps on the hand. The trick is to judge the exact point at which a wheel is about to slow down and then move it forward again without stopping it.” — Sara Lombardi (Rowing Magazine, May 2016, Vol 23 No 4, p. 32)

Post Reply