An examination of WR lightweight marks age 30 on up

[NavigationHazard]

I think zillions of 'gym rats' probably do 500s and never post them, mainly because they're totally unaware of the rankings. As for 40+ OTW rowers, I doubt that too many people do serious test pieces at 500m or 1k that they fail to post. But a good deal of that will be because people who erg for fitness in the off season tend to do it for baseline improvements rather than sprint training. If more masters rowers realized that the standard spring sprint-race distance OTW is 1k you might see more 1k trials getting ranked....

[mikvan52]

Once people make it out of their 'younger and highly exuberant' years, how do they get in championship mind-set and physical condition? It can be tricky with work and family concerns, leaving aside the realization that one's original 'gifts' may not be at 100% anymore.

One thing that stays intact, however, is the play-book of what works to be your best. So, I think we agree: Ranking times will help in the absence of having actual (rather than virtual) competition for a focus (toward what ever goal is own one's personal horizon).

People have hardships in the face of their image of their selves... It happens at any age: Even those at the top:

Example:

(subjects : Lange v. GDR v. father's suicide v. raising a family)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crYedwKMTeo

I've always admired this man immensely.
Don't think he ranks his erg pieces much

[El Caballo]

Once people make it out of their 'younger and highly exuberant' years, how do they get in championship mind-set and physical condition? It can be tricky with work and family concerns...

I think this is a major reason why times drop off as dramatically as they do. Life gets in the way. Family, work, injuries... Many of the top rowers do not continue with the sport. Unlike professional sports (football, baseball, hockey, basketball...) it is difficult to make a living by rowing.

With fewer participating as they age, the likelihood that the very best are rowing drops. Even if the best are rowing, do the have the time and energy to row their very best?

If you look at the Erg rankings for years and years, as I have, you notice just how few older men do the 500m and the 1k.

I can't speak for others, but I have generally avoided the short distances ever since I did my PB 500m (1:34.6) just before I turned 43, and managed to hurt my back in the process. I've never had great upperbody strength which seems to make a difference with the short distances. I much prefer the longer distances.

[leadville]

at risk of being redundant, allow me to point out that Seiler's research indicated that those individuals who were fast at 500M were not often fast at 2k, and vice versa.

-snip-
"When I determined the relationship between power output/kg for 500 meters and 2000 meters among 25 heavyweight men, the correlation was a weak 0.50. In the top 10 heavyweight women it was 0.07 or basically zero!"

This wasn't due to the subjects not doing 500s, or 2ks, or height or weight or phase of the moon or anything else - it was a statistical finding based on a careful analysis by a respected observer.

I'll admit to being personally interested in, and gladdened by, this finding, as in my 1x racing career I did well in the first 1k and hung on for dear life in the 2nd k, thus I'm hopeful (and pretty certain) that my muscle fiber composition is more suited to master's summer racing distances than those damn 2ks.

[NavigationHazard]

I have tremendous respect for Seiler. However I am seriously perplexed by his finding that 500m performance isn't particularly related to 2k performance in comparatively homogenous groups of good rowers.

Several recent studies -- by equally careful, credentialled analysts -- have found significant correlation between peak power and 2k performance. Ingham et al., Determinants of 2,000 m rowing ergometer performance in elite rowers, European Journal of Applied Physiology Dec 2002 88 (3): 243-46 found overall correlations of r = 0.95 for maximal power and also maximal force as measured over 5-stroke maximal tests. That study's based on 41 FISA worlds finalists in various categories.

In 2004, Thieme et al., Peak Power Output Predicts Rowing Ergometer Performance in Elite Male Rowers, Int J Sports Med 2004; 25(5): 368-373, found a correlation of r = 0.92 for what they call peak power.

There's also a brand-new study by Izquierdo-Gabarren et al., Physiological factors to predict on traditional rowing performance, European Journal of Applied Physiology Jan 2010 108 (1): 83-92, which I just found this morning. I haven't read more than the abstract yet (I'm off campus) but it too seems to find significant relationships between 2k performance, power over 10 strokes and also 1-rep bench pull. True, this study >may< include fixed-seat rowers, for whom you'd expect upper-body raw strength to matter more.

I want to reiterate that all these studies consistently find that rowers' ability to sustain power at VO2max (or some functional equivalent of the metric) is the single best determinant of 2k performance.* But it's hard to ignore the repeated findings that absolute power also has a much stronger relationship to 2k performance than Seiler's remarks intimate.

I suspect that testing/sampling issues and modelling choices have a lot to do with the difference between Seiler's findings and the other studies. On that score it's interesting to look at Hill et al., Modeling the Relationship between Velocity and Time to Fatigue in Rowing, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: 2003:12 35(12): 2098-2105. They used 7 erg tests ranging from 200m to 2000m to try to get to a time-to-fatigue predictor curve; there's much discussion of methodology....




* 6k performance, too, which is to be expected. See Mikulic, Anthropometric and Metabolic Determinants of 6,000-m Rowing Ergometer Performance in Internationally Competitive Rowers, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: 2009:9 23(6): 1851-57.

[mikvan52]

I like these last three posts... It gives me a lot to think about and research.

My first thought is... We are not all cut of the same cloth... you cannot just train yourself into equal percentiles at all distances on the erg... It goes so far as the following too: You cannot expect equal values for everybody from specific kinds of workouts in a quest toward improvement:
\Reading the blogs on the concept2.co.uk site has, after many months, allowed me to spot trends in athletes' regimes. Often times each individual has chosen a balance of different kinds of workouts that suit his/her muscle type make-up, time available, strength needs, goals etc....

~this is one of the things that keeps erg training fascinating to me... along with innovations and new studies.

I don't sit down and read the studies with an open mind often enough

Another name to add to the mix is the Frenchwoman, V. Billat !

I wonder if she had a major influence with the successes of
The French Sydney 2- and the Athens Lwt 2x ? (!)

http://row2k.com/video/view.cfm?vid=292

[NavigationHazard]

J. Ortega's 2:39.6 1k at age 25 yields 1017.6 Perathlon points.

I checked that and got 104.x points.

How?

Your own formula at http://johnlvs2run.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/perathlon/ is "division / age adjustment) x (event factor / time)"

Divison = MHW world record of 336.6 (seconds). Age adjustment = 1. Event factor is .4825. Time was 159.6 (seconds).

Thus (336.6/1) * (.4825/159.6) = 336.6 * .003023... = 1.0176. Multiply by 1000 and that's 1017.6 points.

[johnlvs2run]

How?

By not checking it carefully.

The Perathlon prior to Sep 08, 2008 had calculated 100 percent performances in all events, not just for the 2k.
A few people, most notably you if my memory serves well, felt those standards were too tough, especially for the 500m and 1k.

Upon revision, I kept the 100 percent standard only for the 2k.
Formulas for the other 9 events are now based on a curve from the final rankings at that time.
Getting higher scores in the other 9 events is now much easier, and scores higher than 100 percent are possible, but not for the 2k.
The highest possible score in the 2k is still 100 percent, i.e. 1000 points.
Only a new WR would be higher, but then the Perathon would adjust so the new WR would be 1000 points.

I think something was lost by adjusting the Perathlon to the rankings, instead of based on historical 100 percent performances for the other 9 events.
However, the comparison from one person or division to another remains based on the 2k 100 percent curve, regardless of event.

This was my inconspicuous post on Sep 08, 2008.
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=104153#104153

- - - - - - -

I've completely revised and updated the Perathlon tables, based on the 2k world records as usual, and this time additionally on the Concept2 2008 final rankings for the other 9 events.

The result of this is that the 9 events on either side of the 2k will get significantly higher scores than before.

If there are any questions, I'm completely open to sharing how the various formulas are completed.

http://johnlvs2run.wordpress.com/perathlon/

[NavigationHazard]

Under your present formula Ursula Grobler's 6:54.7 as a 29yo LW last week scores 1000 * ((416.7/1) * (1/414.7)) = 1004.8 points.

That is a higher score than 1000 points. FWIW she turns 30 on Saturday.

[johnlvs2run]

Under your present formula Ursula Grobler's 6:54.7 as a 29yo LW last week scores 1000 * ((416.7/1) * (1/414.7)) = 1004.8 points.

That is a higher score than 1000 points. FWIW she turns 30 on Saturday.

Very nice! Thanks for the notice.

I've updated the Perathlon for Ursula Grobler's new WR.

[leadville]

Ok, here's a hypotheses as to why the Seiler correlation is inconsistent with the others noted by Nav. Net is my take is it is indeed a sampling question.

First, Seiler's example looked specifically at 500 v 2000m results from US national team candidates, with each individual tested at each distance. The statistical correlation (such as it was) was based on the relationship between those two results, and the predictive ability thereof.

Second, I looked up the Izquierdo-Gabarren et al.; the abstract reads in part "The indices for rowing performance suggested that Watts @ 20 min, W @ 4 mmol [of lactic acid, theoretical lactate threshold]; W 10 strokes and 1RMBP were the most important predictors of traditional rowing performance in elite and amateur rowers". My statistical skills are even rustier than my OTW ones, but there appears to be a stronger correlation between W 20 minutes than the strength metrics. Nav - let me know if I got this wrong, or if it's in the article itself - I don't have access to the full article.

If my stats aren't as bad as I fear, a stronger correlation between aerobic work and 2k results than seen between the power metrics would seem to support my view that 2k success is highly dependent on 'aerobic power' capability and less influenced by 'anaerobic power' (my terms).

The Ingham study's conclusions are intriguing; perhaps this highly select group (FISA finalists) is dominated by the tiny segment of the population blessed with Type I (ST) and Type IIa fibers (FT aerobic), and thus they get to have their cake, eat it too, and not get fat. Here's a quote from Seiler - "In internationally successful rowers, the [ST] percentage has been measured as high as 85% . The remainder are almost all type IIa fibers with almost no IIb fibers present." Damn them...

I reread the original Seiler piece, http://home.hia.no/~stephens/rowphys.htm which contained this line about an analysis he performed of C2 ranking data (a notably different population than the ones described above): "This means that 500meter power output only explained about 16% of the variation in 2k performance."

btw, there's a terrific article by Seiler at http://www.sportsci.org/ click on Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training. And Mike, start with a fresh cuppa, it's a long one...

So, my thinking is that at the elitest elite level - FISA finalists - they are a highly selected group that has it all - and that's why they're elite.

The not-quite-as-elite and the wish-we-were-somewhere-within-shouting-distance-of-the-elite don't have 'it' all, and since they/we don't, what they/we do have in terms of muscle fiber composition will determine if they're/we're better at 500m or 2000m.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. For now.

[Byron Drachman]

Hi Leadville,

That's an interesting reference. A comma crept into the link. Here it is corrected:

http://www.sportsci.org/

Byron

[leadville]

thanks Byron - corrected it in the original post.

[bloomp]

I personally found this article to be most interesting, comparing LW/HW men and women based off historical data.
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/eliteerg.htm

[mikvan52]

I personally found this article to be most interesting, comparing LW/HW men and women based off historical data.
http://home.hia.no/~stephens/eliteerg.htm

I would not have guessed that lightweight would score so well in:
TABLE 10: Performance Power Scaled for Bodyweight

Damn, we're good! ... Lwts outscore hwts (for once)

~ Mike, a lwt

Also from a vanity standpoint: it was great to see too that I fit the avg. lwt profile in the reference (height/weight)