The Two Types of Training

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.
Locked
Nosmo
10k Poster
Posts: 1595
Joined: November 21st, 2006, 3:39 pm

Post by Nosmo » February 12th, 2010, 9:11 pm

John Rupp wrote:Repeat for those who missed it.
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=127408#127408
ranger wrote:For lightweights who row effectively, pulling 12 SPI when they race, those who rate 30 spm in a 2K pull 1:39; those who rate 32 spm pull 1:37, those who rate 34 spm pull 1:35; those who rate 36 spm pull 1:33; those who rate 38 spm pull 1:31.5; those who rate 40 spm pull 1:30.

If their aerobic capacity is good, efficiency determines how high they can get the rate.

ranger
This effective vs efficient discussion goes back a long time.

If I understand correctly what you're saying:
effectiveness = the energy expended in each stroke;
efficiency = combining effectiveness with high ratings.
Those are very strange definitions of both words. You know how Ranger butchers commonly accepted concepts--do you really want to use ranger's definitions here.

My definition of combining high force per stroke with high ratings is going fast! Hopefully we can all agree on that. The rest of this discussion is mostly fuzzy concepts and sloppy language.

Nosmo
10k Poster
Posts: 1595
Joined: November 21st, 2006, 3:39 pm

Post by Nosmo » February 12th, 2010, 9:12 pm

John Rupp wrote:
NavigationHazard wrote:If you want to define efficiency in terms of power to weight, then doh, LWs score better than HWs. But if you define it in terms of ability to translate a given unit of metabolic energy into moving a handle, I don't see how weight in itself is a factor.
That's because weight gets a free ride with the handle.

If the handle represented a percentage of the rower's weight, then the power to weight ratio would apply.
not it doesn't and that is a big if.

User avatar
johnlvs2run
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 4012
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:13 pm
Location: California Central Coast
Contact:

Post by johnlvs2run » February 12th, 2010, 9:16 pm

Nosmo wrote:Those are very strange definitions of both words. You know how Ranger butchers commonly accepted concepts--do you really want to use ranger's definitions here.
Sure, because my response to him was directed to him.
My definition of combining high force per stroke with high ratings is going fast!
Again, this is exactly the point. Maximal force cannot be used at high ratings, as effectiveness (spi) and efficiency are opposites.

High force, yes. Maximum force, no. If/when a lightweight is not able to race at 36+ spm, then there is too much force being used with each stroke - meaning there is too much effectiveness (spi) at the high expense to efficiency and getting the best possible time.

This is very clear to me, though it might be fuzzy to some others.
bikeerg 75 5'8" 155# - 18.5 - 51.9 - 568 - 1:52.7 - 8:03.8 - 20:13.1 - 14620 - 40:58.7 - 28855 - 1:23:48.0
rowerg 56-58 5'8.5" 143# - 1:39.6 - 3:35.6 - 7:24.0 - 18:57.4 - 22:49.9 - 7793 - 38:44.7 - 1:22:48.9 - 2:58:46.2

User avatar
johnlvs2run
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 4012
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:13 pm
Location: California Central Coast
Contact:

Post by johnlvs2run » February 12th, 2010, 9:22 pm

Nosmo wrote:not it doesn't
yeah, it does.
and that is a big if.
it's reality

whether the rower is 95 pounds or 260, the weight on the handle for a given speed is the same.

very simply, there is no power to weight ratio on the erg.
bikeerg 75 5'8" 155# - 18.5 - 51.9 - 568 - 1:52.7 - 8:03.8 - 20:13.1 - 14620 - 40:58.7 - 28855 - 1:23:48.0
rowerg 56-58 5'8.5" 143# - 1:39.6 - 3:35.6 - 7:24.0 - 18:57.4 - 22:49.9 - 7793 - 38:44.7 - 1:22:48.9 - 2:58:46.2

User avatar
mikvan52
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 2648
Joined: March 9th, 2007, 3:49 pm
Location: Vermont

Post by mikvan52 » February 12th, 2010, 9:30 pm

boyz!

All this efficio-babble is a gittin a lil dreary...

Howsa'bouta lil comic relief ~ recent ranger hits...an' da like?

http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... 90#p511090

Nosmo
10k Poster
Posts: 1595
Joined: November 21st, 2006, 3:39 pm

Post by Nosmo » February 12th, 2010, 9:41 pm

John Rupp wrote:
Nosmo wrote:not it doesn't
yeah, it does.
and that is a big if.
it's reality

whether the rower is 95 pounds or 260, the weight on the handle for a given speed is the same.

very simply, there is no power to weight ratio on the erg.
My bad, I completely misinterpreted what you meant. I should be a more careful reader.

Nosmo
10k Poster
Posts: 1595
Joined: November 21st, 2006, 3:39 pm

Post by Nosmo » February 12th, 2010, 9:43 pm

mikvan52 wrote:boyz!

All this efficio-babble is a gittin a lil dreary...

Howsa'bouta lil comic relief ~ recent ranger hits...an' da like?

http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... 90#p511090
Mike you got a race to worry about, what the hell are you doing reading this thread!

Kick butt Sunday!

aharmer
6k Poster
Posts: 627
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 11:23 am

Post by aharmer » February 12th, 2010, 10:01 pm

With all respect, this conversation is ridiculous. We can split hairs over the definitions of terminology forever...who cares??? Before dictionary.com took over the thread I was wondering if we could talk about real training. As in real workouts that real athletes do, or plan to do, to improve their real erg times.

If we want to go round and round and learn absolutely nothing we can continue to rip on Rich's fictional training. Let's move on and teach each other something worth while.

User avatar
jliddil
6k Poster
Posts: 717
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 11:44 am
Location: North Haven, CT

Post by jliddil » February 12th, 2010, 10:39 pm

aharmer wrote:With all respect, this conversation is ridiculous. We can split hairs over the definitions of terminology forever...who cares??? Before dictionary.com took over the thread I was wondering if we could talk about real training. As in real workouts that real athletes do, or plan to do, to improve their real erg times.

If we want to go round and round and learn absolutely nothing we can continue to rip on Rich's fictional training. Let's move on and teach each other something worth while.
My point exactly. It's why I asked him to be banned. A huge waste of resources. Flame wars, trolls, spam are things of the old internet, VT100 stuff.

User avatar
bloomp
10k Poster
Posts: 1126
Joined: November 28th, 2007, 5:37 pm
Location: Storrs, CT

Post by bloomp » February 12th, 2010, 11:18 pm

aharmer wrote:With all respect, this conversation is ridiculous. We can split hairs over the definitions of terminology forever...who cares??? Before dictionary.com took over the thread I was wondering if we could talk about real training. As in real workouts that real athletes do, or plan to do, to improve their real erg times.

If we want to go round and round and learn absolutely nothing we can continue to rip on Rich's fictional training. Let's move on and teach each other something worth while.
If you read my posts I actually brought up some intriguing ideas with respect to the science behind this.

But yes, please lock this. Or ban him. It'll be impossible to get everyone to stop replying to him.
24, 166lbs, 5'9
Image

User avatar
johnlvs2run
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 4012
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:13 pm
Location: California Central Coast
Contact:

Post by johnlvs2run » February 13th, 2010, 12:00 am

I'm interested to see Rich's messages, and he's the one who started the thread.

Anyone who does not like the thread should refrain from reading it.
bikeerg 75 5'8" 155# - 18.5 - 51.9 - 568 - 1:52.7 - 8:03.8 - 20:13.1 - 14620 - 40:58.7 - 28855 - 1:23:48.0
rowerg 56-58 5'8.5" 143# - 1:39.6 - 3:35.6 - 7:24.0 - 18:57.4 - 22:49.9 - 7793 - 38:44.7 - 1:22:48.9 - 2:58:46.2

TomR
6k Poster
Posts: 780
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 10:48 am

Post by TomR » February 13th, 2010, 1:03 am

jliddil wrote: It's why I asked him to be banned. A huge waste of resources. Flame wars, trolls, spam are things of the old internet, VT100 stuff.
The totalitarian response, for those who don't have the discipline to avoid the sideshow and resent others' engaging in such low entertainment.

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Post by ranger » February 13th, 2010, 2:44 am

John Rupp wrote: If/when a lightweight is not able to race at 36+ spm, then there is too much force being used with each stroke - meaning there is too much effectiveness (spi) at the high expense to efficiency and getting the best possible time.
I agree with this entirely, John.

Heavyweights can trudge their training and get away with pretty good 2Ks because of their length, strength, and aerobic capacity, but lightweights, if they want to do their best, should never trudge their training at low rates, once they know how to row.

Actually, I think that Rocket Roy got his ratings just right over the last few years when he as held the 55s lwt WR.

These ratings were just about what I did when I held the 50s lwt WR back in 2002-2003.

36 spm for 2K is exactly right for an older lightweight.

If you are younger, you might be able to push that into the 40s, if you are _very_ good.

The rate for a FM, I think, should be 27 spm, or even 28 spm.

Rocket Roy did a FM 1:56 @ 27 spm.

His rating for this, I think, is exactly right.

I think that I am now up to this challenge.

If I am right about this, I think I can now row 27-28 spm with a HR below 160 bpm.

I also think my cross-training has gotten me tough enough to row a FM, steady state, with a HR of 160 bpm.

So, clearly, my ultimate challenge in terms of long distance rowing is to row FMs, 27-28 spm @ 160 bpm, perhaps as regular training rows.

If I can do that, there certainly is no need to cross-train.

If I can keep the rate at 27-28 spm for a FM, like Rocket can, and like I used to, too, the force (SPI) that I am able to maintain on the handle, whatever that might be, will then determine my pace/time.

This force will be determined by my effectiveness, my technique.

As Rocket illustrates, if you can row a FM at 27 spm, fully trained, you can row a 2K at 36 spm.

27 spm is not trudging.

Caviston's Level 4 rowing phases out at 26 spm.

27 spm is something else.

It is no longer low rate rowing ("learning to row").

It is distance rowing.

Level 3

In terms of the ratings that are cited in the Interactive Plan, 27 spm is an AT rating.

:shock: :shock:

So the task is set.

If you can row 27-28 spm for a FM, I would think you could row 30 spm for 60min.

That's perfect.

There's that Head of the Charles stroke again!

1:56 is 224 watts.

At 27 spm, that's 8.3 SPI

If I can row a FM @ 27-28 spm, once I am warmed up, I will never have to row at ratings lower than that in training.

Your FM pace is pretty much a resting pace that you should be able to do in the background as you are doing faster rowing in training.

ranger
Last edited by ranger on February 13th, 2010, 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Post by ranger » February 13th, 2010, 3:42 am

Yep.

I just tried to out.

I now do 28 spm right at 160 bpm, steady state.

I won't tell you the pace, but I will hint at it:

It's not 8.4 SPI.

It's 11.78 SPI.

I can do 160 bpm for a FM.

Every day, just rowing easily.

Middlin' UT1

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

172 bpm is a hard, "threshold" distance row, e.g., a 60min trial.

160 bpm is an everyday distance row, just relaxing and enjoying the motion and work.

I now row _very_ well.

_Both_ effectiveness and efficiency are sky high.

The 2K prediction is 6:00.

Clearly:

No more cross-training necessary.

My distance rowing has returned--in spades.

vent Record Age Name Wt. Gender Country Season Verification*
42195 2:25:47.6 32 Thorsten Jonischkeit H M GER 2006 Historical record*
42195 2:26:40.1 45 Antti Varis H M FIN 2006 2006 Kunto Championships
42195 2:28:13.7 21 Alan Geweke H M USA 2001 Historical record*
42195 2:29:56.7 38 Matthias Auer L M GER 2010 2010 Scottish IRC
42195 2:30:29.8 27 Jesper Jensen L M DEN 2010 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 2:31:55.9 50 Rob Slocum H M USA 2000 Historical record*
42195 2:34:40.6 18 Anthony Webb H M GBR 2009 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 2:35:30.0 46 Bob Eldridge L M USA 2004 Historical record*
42195 2:37:04.8 52 Greg Trahar L M GBR 2010 2010 Dutch ErgoMarathon Championships
42195 2:40:12.4 61 TJ Oesterling H M USA 2010 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 2:44:06.3 18 Ben Perry L M USA 2009 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 2:47:45.7 64 Malcolm Fawcett L M GBR 2005 Historical record*
42195 3:01:41.6 70 Peter Daniels H M GBR 2010 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 3:15:52.2 82 Robert Spenger H M USA 2008 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 3:17:53.3 70 Byron Drachman L M USA 2009 PM3/PM4 verification code
42195 3:18:52.3 81 Robert Spenger L M USA 2006 Historical record*
42195 3:32:22.2 12 Joshua Burton-Prateley L M USA 2009 PM3/PM4 verification code

If I can rate 28 spm for a FM, as I think I can, I'll row 2:23:30.

Odd coincidence, but it appears that my FM pace is now Mike VB's 2K race pace.

That makes sense.

We both do 1:42 @ 160 bpm.

A FM is done at 2K + 14.

As I mentioned yesterday, if Mike VB rowed well (12 SPI) when he raced, he'd rate 28 spm.

John's right.

That rating is much too low.

For a quality lightweight, a 2K rating of 36 spm is a minimum.

Because of his limited aerobic capacity, though, if Mike rates 36 spm, he has to throw out everything he knows about how to row well and row like shit:

9 SPI

He would be better served for his OTW rowing if he just rated 28 spm when he raced on the erg, as he does OTW, and rowed well.

IF he trained rowing well, there would be no change in his 2K time.

There is no excuse for rowing like shit, especially for the OTW lightweight and heavyweight US National sprint champion, and so, for his age, one of the best OTW rowers in the US.

ranger
Last edited by ranger on February 13th, 2010, 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Post by ranger » February 13th, 2010, 4:17 am

Undoubtedly, like the great older Finnish marathoners (e.g., Antti Varis), the elevated pace I am able to hold in my distance rowing is due to the high drag I am using.

185

It is more than a bit unusual to have a 60-year-old lightweight rowing well on the erg at 185 drag.

No?

I am rowing like a 40s heavyweight.

Watch out, BB!

:lol: :lol:

As everyone mentions, rowing well OTW in a 1x feels something like 185 drag, not max drag, perhaps, but pretty high.

The machines at Cincinnati were 210 drag at max.

That's what I rowed at, so that might have been one of the problems.

My drag was too high, given my training.

My older D is now 185 drag at max (setting 10).

It probably needs a cleaning.

On a new machine, I suppose that 185 drag might be, what, setting 7?

As I remember, that's what Graham Watt used when he raced.

Rod Freed also rowed on setting 7.

In 2003, when I set the 50s lwt WR three times, I used setting 7, too.

ranger
Last edited by ranger on February 13th, 2010, 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

Locked