Low stroke rate - how to?

[Ombrax]

Rest intervals are for rest. The intention is to keep your muscles moving, not concentrate on optimal stroke rate and power

+1

Rest is rest (sort of):

Gentle motion on the slide.
Stop a bit for a sip of water.
Wipe your brow.
Relax.
Get ready mentally for the next piece.

[frankencrank]

"Indoor rowers stil have to use much of their energy to move the body and this becomes more obvious as stroke rate increase. Approximately 35 per cent of the energy cost of rowing at 32 strokes per minute is due to body movement... The energy cost of body movement increases in porpotion to stroke rate and the body weight of the rower"

There have been several scientific investigations about the mechanical energy efficiency of the body in cycling and rowing on an ergometer. They have settled on values of about 19% for rowing... If 35% of the mechanical energy in rowing would be unaccounted in the power data on the PM, the mechanical efficiency of rowing would amount to about 27%. Most textbooks on physiology in sports agree that the maximum mechanical efficiency in an aerobic exercise is lower than 25%.

Is the study you were referring to on a static erg? OTW, slides or dynamic then the recovery isn't wasted. The other possible explanation is to see what ratings the estimate was made at. AIUI the energy required to go up and down the slide is proportional to the cube of the rating(NOT Proportional as it says). As such 35% at R32 would be 23% at R28 and the efficiency of the rest of the stroke would then be under 25%.

I think you will find that the energy loss varies with the square of the cadence (everything else being the same). Power loss varies with the cube of the stroke rate. The issue isn't so much what the actual losses are but what one can do to minimize them in order to maximize power to the water or ergometer. I am in the process of writing a slide show now to explain how to do this amongst other things.

[frankencrank]

To make things more difficult, drag has to be low, since power is the product of speed and force. High drag makes the flywheel slow down, which slows your pull so reduces power for any given force, and also leaves less time for recovery: so you are forced into high ratings and short strokes to try to get some work done, as you have seen.

Actually, you have it backwards. What you say is intuitive but wrong. For any given energy expenditure the muscle is putting out a certain amount of power. That energy is divided up into power to the shell (ergometer) and overcoming kinetic and muscle losses. Increasing drag slows the slide speed so reduces both kinetic and muscle losses which allows more of the muscle energy expenditure to go to the shell (ergometer) even though the force felt is greater. Only when the speed gets so slow that the force increases to the point that substantial number of fast twitch fibers must be invoked that efficiency will fall. Kane showed that increasing drag factor from 100 to 150 resulted in a 10% efficiency improvement. Now you know why. Improved efficiency should result in improved power.

[frankencrank]

This text is from page 38 of the book " The complete guide to indoor rowing" by Jim Flood and Charles Simpson;

"Indoor rowers stil have to use much of their energy to move the body and this becomes more obvious as stroke rate increase. Approximately 35 per cent of the energy cost of rowing at 32 strokes per minute is due to body movement. In other worlds, a large amount of the energy produced by the body during rowing does not contribute to the power output recorded on the computer display. The energy cost of body movement increases in porpotion to stroke rate and the body weight of the rower"

There have been several scientific investigations about the mechanical energy efficiency of the body in cycling and rowing on an ergometer. They have settled on values of about 19% for rowing and 23% for cycling (see e.g. Steinacker (1986) and more recently Lindenthaler (2018) . If 35% of the mechanical energy in rowing would be unaccounted in the power data on the PM, the mechanical efficiency of rowing would amount to about 27%. Most textbooks on physiology in sports agree that the maximum mechanical efficiency in an aerobic exercise is lower than 25%.

I am surprised that your sources have settled on an overall gross efficiency in cycling of 23%, unless that is delta efficiency (efficiency of the muscles alone). I think most cyclists use a 20% figure as typical. Optimum muscle contraction efficiency is about 40% so it is clear there are a lot of losses. Cycling efficiency can vary from 18-26% so these losses can be manipulated. Learning how to manipulate these losses to your benefit is one way of increasing power beyond training effect. Similar manipulation should be available to the rower although, I suspect, the potential benefits are a bit smaller.

So how is the kinetic energy of the body in a stroke used to move the flywheel? The simple answer is in a topic Rower issue sends me flying posted a few days ago. At the catch the rower pushed off but the clutch failed. There was no resistance of the handle and the rower was flying backwards to the end stop. Hopefully the foot straps caught him. This happens when the kinetic energy of the body cannot be used. Most of us get to a complete standstill at the end of the drive without pulling on the foot straps. Most of our upper body and the legs have already come to a standstill before the final pull with the arms. This is proof that the kinetic energy of the moving body is used to pull the handle in a smart way! So at least most of the moving body energy in the drive is used for pulling the flywheel.

Just going back and forth involve a lot of losses. One way to show this for yourself is to move the slide back and forth at different rates and see what happens to your HR. This is similar to taking the chain off the bike and pedaling at no power. At a cadence of about 200 most peoples HR is at a maximum even though they are putting out zero power. A similar relationship should. be seen in rowing. The energy cost should increase with the cube of the "stroke" rate. Most of the kinetic losses from body movement occur during the recovery because if one increases stroke rate most of that speed must be made up during recovery if the stroke isn't shortened.

What about the energy for moving the body in the recovery. This is more speculative. There is evidence that some part of kinetic energy of the body can be stored in the leg muscles, which act like a kind of springs. This energy is released after the catch. You can understand it better if you read my introduction to a topic 10% Higher Rowing Power and the discussions in that topic.

Muscles cannot store energy as you suggest. Such storage, if it occurs, happens in the tendons and ligaments. My guess is this is insignificant in rowers as the speeds are so slow compared to runners and jumpers.

You have suggested a rowing efficiency of 19% on average in rowers. Assume a 40% muscle contraction efficiency and tell us where the losses are and you will then understand rowing efficiency and where potential improvements can be made. Of course, one possible issue, is rowers may not be rowing in a manner where maximum muscle efficiency is obtained. This can happen if fast twitch fibers are invoked (contraction speed too slow) or contraction speed is too fast (increased internal muscle losses and possible fast twitch fiber use). I am working on a slide show to address these issues that I hope to put out soon.

[OregonERG]

I am in a similar situation. I think the reason it is so hard for me to row R20 (like the OP, I am also a 30 SPM person) is that I can't row much harder. People always say for me to slow down my rate and increase the power I put into each stroke. "Explode, use the legs, and then engage the arms and back for much more power." Then, as I slowly return to the catch, I am supposed to be recovering. But for weak people like me (with skinny little arms), I can't do that. My muscles won't recover that fast.

I just did a comfortable 7707m in 30 minutes (1:56.9 pace, 150 HR, 30 SPM) and it feels like a "normal" cardio workout. Rowing a slower rate with more "power" would be neither fish nor fowl since the cardio goes to pieces when I slow the rate (HR drops) and the pace goes out the window (over 2:00/500). I guess what I am saying is that different athlete types might have different rates that they should/can train at. We see this in other sports, so it is likely true in rowing.

[mict450]

If you're feeling it in your arms, you're doing something wrong. Erging is lower body dominant. Perhaps your drag factor is too high. Evaluate your technique. You maybe engaging your arms & hips early, thereby negating a major part of your leg drive & placing increased load on your upper body. It's difficult to say without a video.

[Dangerscouse]

I just did a comfortable 7707m in 30 minutes (1:56.9 pace, 150 HR, 30 SPM) and it feels like a "normal" cardio workout. Rowing a slower rate with more "power" would be neither fish nor fowl since the cardio goes to pieces when I slow the rate (HR drops) and the pace goes out the window (over 2:00/500). I guess what I am saying is that different athlete types might have different rates that they should/can train at. We see this in other sports, so it is likely true in rowing.

I'm in two minds on this. There is a natural zone for everyone, and this is where you will make the easiest progress, but you should train your weaknesses

Inevitably you will always feel inclined to stick to this zone, but in reality this is just proving that you need to fight the instinct for your relative comfort zone. It can be a tough thing to accept that you will be slower and it will be difficult, but eventually you will make progress and it's worth delaying the gratification

[ampire]

I am in a similar situation. I think the reason it is so hard for me to row R20 (like the OP, I am also a 30 SPM person) is that I can't row much harder. People always say for me to slow down my rate and increase the power I put into each stroke. "Explode, use the legs, and then engage the arms and back for much more power." Then, as I slowly return to the catch, I am supposed to be recovering. But for weak people like me (with skinny little arms), I can't do that. My muscles won't recover that fast.

I just did a comfortable 7707m in 30 minutes (1:56.9 pace, 150 HR, 30 SPM) and it feels like a "normal" cardio workout. Rowing a slower rate with more "power" would be neither fish nor fowl since the cardio goes to pieces when I slow the rate (HR drops) and the pace goes out the window (over 2:00/500). I guess what I am saying is that different athlete types might have different rates that they should/can train at. We see this in other sports, so it is likely true in rowing.

When I started indoor rowing more seriously in the summer of 2019, I enjoyed rating at 30SPM, considered that my natural pace, I could maintain it for long distances and had no issues doing so. However, as a short and lightweight guy, I figure my biggest weakness was height, and just aerobic fitness alone would not offset my inherent lack of leverage. I have a low resting heart rate and a high max heart rate, so wasn't sure that I could improve on that. Building up my muscle strength and force production as well as stroke efficiency (less wasteful form) could offset it. While I once deadlifted 450lb and squatted 400 lbs in the past, I can't do that type of weight training anymore and gaining large amounts of muscle mass to increase fiber cross section and therefore absolute strength isn't possible due to the spinal cord damage I have. I had the idea that specializing in low rating on the rower might offset the lack of leverage with more force production, so now a year and a half later, I am comfortable at R20-22, but rating at 30+ is quite difficult and feels unnatural.

So long story short, my natural pace preference totally inverted due to the training I did.

[Carl Watts]

I think it needs to be pointed out anyone can still rate at 20spm, so its pointless just discussing rating because what matters is the pace at 20spm which becomes the big problem.

Basically 20spm becomes a problem for lightweights. I'm now getting smashed by lighter and younger rowers who can sustain higher ratings and faster paces but they simply cannot row at sub 20spm and maintain anything like their free rate pace for the same period.

The 30R20 is quite telling, you can suddenly lose hundreds of meters off your free rate distance.

[OregonERG]

I think it needs to be pointed out anyone can still rate at 20spm, so its pointless just discussing rating because what matters is the pace at 20spm which becomes the big problem.

Basically 20spm becomes a problem for lightweights. I'm now getting smashed by lighter and younger rowers who can sustain higher ratings and faster paces but they simply cannot row at sub 20spm and maintain anything like their free rate pace for the same period.

The 30R20 is quite telling, you can suddenly lose hundreds of meters off your free rate distance.

But the question is why anyone would row that way? It would be like saying to a swimmer to take fewer strokes per length of the pool. Yes, gliding along gives you more time to rest & recover and you could, in theory, "push the water" harder on each stroke. But if your overall time is getting worse, I don't see why I would do that. I want to increase my speed and if I can't do it with power, I will do it with the stroke rate.

I do agree that getting stronger would be helpful (and slowing my rating might help me to bulk up) but I am also a runner, so I don't really want to gain muscle mass...

[OregonERG]

Building up my muscle strength and force production as well as stroke efficiency (less wasteful form) could offset it. While I once deadlifted 450lb and squatted 400 lbs in the past, I can't do that type of weight training anymore and gaining large amounts of muscle mass...

I agree with you guys that if I was a stronger athlete, I could pull harder. That is just a fact. But I simply don't want to gain any more muscle because I am also still running a lot and want to actually be lighter... It is a bit of a catch-22, as they say.

[OregonERG]

Kane showed that increasing drag factor from 100 to 150 resulted in a 10% efficiency improvement. Now you know why. Improved efficiency should result in improved power.

I would like to try that. I am rowing at 107 DF and haven't adjusted it in months. I might do a session at like 120 and see how that feels... I'll report back.

[Tsnor]

Kane showed that increasing drag factor from 100 to 150 resulted in a 10% efficiency improvement. Now you know why. Improved efficiency should result in improved power.

I would like to try that. I am rowing at 107 DF and haven't adjusted it in months. I might do a session at like 120 and see how that feels... I'll report back.

ummm, I read the Kane study here --> https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _of_Rowing

Output Wattage moved about 1-3%. (231.6W at max vs 237.7W). This seems related to rowers not increasing SPM enough at the lower drag factor.

The authors concluded: "It is therefore difficult to infer with certainty that varying the drag factor within the ARA’s100 – 140 guidelines has the potential to significantly affect any of the physiological variables measured in this study in clubstandard rowers" and "It appears that drag factor has little, if any, effect on V˙O2, HR, BLC, R, and W/V˙O2at D100 versus D150 at the club level preseason. It is unlikely that rowing at drag factors as low as 100 would compromise the aerobic intensity of the exercise when performed either at steady state or maximal work-loads. Training should therefore be performed at lower drag factors if doing so prevents injuries of the low back [20]. "

[Carl Watts]

I think it needs to be pointed out anyone can still rate at 20spm, so its pointless just discussing rating because what matters is the pace at 20spm which becomes the big problem.

Basically 20spm becomes a problem for lightweights. I'm now getting smashed by lighter and younger rowers who can sustain higher ratings and faster paces but they simply cannot row at sub 20spm and maintain anything like their free rate pace for the same period.

The 30R20 is quite telling, you can suddenly lose hundreds of meters off your free rate distance.

But the question is why anyone would row that way? It would be like saying to a swimmer to take fewer strokes per length of the pool. Yes, gliding along gives you more time to rest & recover and you could, in theory, "push the water" harder on each stroke. But if your overall time is getting worse, I don't see why I would do that. I want to increase my speed and if I can't do it with power, I will do it with the stroke rate.

I do agree that getting stronger would be helpful (and slowing my rating might help me to bulk up) but I am also a runner, so I don't really want to gain muscle mass...

Totally depends on what your trying to achieve. I worked for years trying to improve my distance work but sub 5000m performance was always better for me at my weight. Low rate rowing builds strength while still maintaining cardio. Building and maintaining muscle mass is really important and you get older.

Now dropping as low at 15spm on some training rows and targeting exactly 600 strokes for the 30 minute. The distance you cover doesn't really matter at the end of the day as long as your happy with your heartrate and training schedule. Have even dropped the pace but increased the total meters of late. You need to add some changes and variety or you just get bored.

[Carl Watts]

If your going to compare low rowing rating with swimming its like the difference between using fins and not using fins. I'm talking the same fins used for diving like Cressi.

I hate not using fins, my feet are flapping all over the place and I'm not going anywhere fast and there is the feeling of no loading in the legs. Fins dramatically slow down the legs and the feeling of loading increases significantly. Sure I'm not an elite swimmer, in fact I cannot really swim at all but the fins allow a decent 1 hour plus continuous workout in the pool and that's all I'm interested in.