Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

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.
Post Reply
Xrayvizhen
Paddler
Posts: 18
Joined: December 13th, 2023, 7:25 pm

Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Xrayvizhen » January 29th, 2024, 9:46 am

Newbie question: I recently noticed I can download a CSV file of my history and see that over the 8 weeks I’ve been in this new hobby of mine my times for 500m, 1k, 2k and 5k have all improved significantly, which is nice. (No time yet for 10k!) I also realized that if I divide distance covered by stroke count, the result will be a Meters/Stroke number…which is also improving. Is this any kind of significant metric to pay attention to and is anyone else doing this? I see there is no real correlation between the Avg. Watts and the Meters/Stroke number so I’m wondering if I should even bother tracking this, yet it seems it should be something to look at. If this IS something others pay attention to, I'm wondering what's a good number to shoot for?

JaapvanE
10k Poster
Posts: 1305
Joined: January 4th, 2022, 2:49 am

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by JaapvanE » January 29th, 2024, 10:17 am

I pay attention to it, but probably not in a way you'd expect.

Meters per stroke tends to become shorter if you start accelerating (for example, look at the World Championship teams during their race). So it isn't an absolute measure. But it is an interesting nonetheless as it shows how effective each stroke is.

However, given a certain pace at a certain dragfactor, the "product" of strokerate and distance per stroke essentially is fixed. For me, recording these two metrics over time show when I get tired: my strokes tend to shorten up and I compensate by increasing the strokerate. Also, it is interestng to look at sessions with the same (steady state) pace and drag, and see if my stroke length tends to become longer.

MPx
10k Poster
Posts: 1285
Joined: October 30th, 2016, 1:38 pm
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by MPx » January 29th, 2024, 12:08 pm

Xrayvizhen wrote:
January 29th, 2024, 9:46 am
I'm wondering what's a good number to shoot for?
10

Slightly tongue in cheek as IMO it would be different for everybody and different between (eg) an SS and TT session for most individuals, but I think 10m/stroke would almost universally be thought "OK". The other problem with it is that if you're targeting the number rather than just observing what it is (eg to achieve more meters per stroke) it can lead to unhelpful adaptations - like artificially lengthening the stroke by pulling up to your neck or similar and overly slowing the rate - none of which will help you go faster.
Mike - 67 HWT 183

Image

Dangerscouse
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10541
Joined: April 27th, 2014, 11:11 am
Location: Liverpool, England

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Dangerscouse » January 29th, 2024, 1:30 pm

I also use 10 as a rough guide, but I don't pay attention to it, as it can be 13 or 14 on certain sessions, and the lower the stroke rate the more glide will be accounted for, which I don't think is always a good thing.

Happy to be proven wrong though
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
edward.jamer
500m Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: November 21st, 2021, 4:34 pm
Location: Fredericton, NB

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by edward.jamer » January 29th, 2024, 1:39 pm

Agreed with others. It's a useful metric while rowing since variation usually indicates that my form and/or pacing has shifted and might need attention... but generally seems less useful after the fact.

Number to shoot for depends on a bunch of factors... and may vary per person or workout. 10 sounds reasonable. I'm quite tall so usually aim just a bit higher per stroke, but it's more about the consistency than the raw value imo.

btlifter
2k Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: November 19th, 2020, 7:10 pm

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by btlifter » January 29th, 2024, 3:01 pm

A lot of folks who struggle to to improve what I would consider important metrics (pace) seem to find solace in "improving" other metrics, instead. So, to them, it's useful.
chop stuff and carry stuff

jamesg
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 4194
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 3:44 am
Location: Trentino Italy

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by jamesg » January 29th, 2024, 5:48 pm

Meters per stroke, as a metric, suffers from the same problem as Pace: the cube law that derives speed from Power as measured by the C2 erg, using W=kV³.

At training rates, 20 to 24, 10m/stroke implies 200 to 240m/min, which is 100 to 180W.
08-1940, 183cm, 83kg.
2024: stroke 5.5W-min@20-21. ½k 190W, 1k 145W, 2k 120W. Using Wods 4-5days/week. Fading fast.

User avatar
MudSweatAndYears
1k Poster
Posts: 118
Joined: May 24th, 2020, 6:31 am
Contact:

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by MudSweatAndYears » January 29th, 2024, 6:04 pm

The meters/stroke metric suffers from being highly dependent on stroke rate: you can reach almost any desired meters/stroke figure just by dropping the rating. A much better metric therefore is energy/stroke (Wattage divided by stroke rate).
I run in the mud, I sweat on the erg, and I happily battle the years...
M 63, 1.80m/5'11", 75kg/165lb. Erging since Sept 2019.
https://erg-all-rounders.blogspot.com/p ... 22-23.html

Xrayvizhen
Paddler
Posts: 18
Joined: December 13th, 2023, 7:25 pm

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Xrayvizhen » January 29th, 2024, 6:38 pm

Interesting responses. Thanks. When I first started, I was only around 6m/stroke. Based on advice received on this forum, I took a video of myself and saw my form needed some serious improvement, mainly at the end of the pull where my body was only at 12 o'clock. This surprised me greatly...I thought I was leaning back a great deal, but I wasn't. Therefore, I've been concentrating on trying to get to 1 o'clock, not as easy as you would think. My times are, in fact, improving and my m/strokes number is now around 9. Based on the responses here I'll shoot for 10 however, looking at times I see of others in my age group listed on the rankings page, I have a ways to go. Right now, I'm still shooting for "Average."

Dangerscouse
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10541
Joined: April 27th, 2014, 11:11 am
Location: Liverpool, England

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Dangerscouse » January 30th, 2024, 12:17 pm

Xrayvizhen wrote:
January 29th, 2024, 6:38 pm
Interesting responses. Thanks. When I first started, I was only around 6m/stroke. Based on advice received on this forum, I took a video of myself and saw my form needed some serious improvement, mainly at the end of the pull where my body was only at 12 o'clock. This surprised me greatly...I thought I was leaning back a great deal, but I wasn't. Therefore, I've been concentrating on trying to get to 1 o'clock, not as easy as you would think. My times are, in fact, improving and my m/strokes number is now around 9. Based on the responses here I'll shoot for 10 however, looking at times I see of others in my age group listed on the rankings page, I have a ways to go. Right now, I'm still shooting for "Average."
That's a great example of how a message can be lost in translation.

Edging up to 10 metres per stroke is a good target, as it sounds like it will only improve your technique, but when you get more experienced I think it will become far less important.
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

btlifter
2k Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: November 19th, 2020, 7:10 pm

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by btlifter » January 30th, 2024, 7:24 pm

Dangerscouse wrote:
January 30th, 2024, 12:17 pm
Xrayvizhen wrote:
January 29th, 2024, 6:38 pm
Interesting responses. Thanks. When I first started, I was only around 6m/stroke. Based on advice received on this forum, I took a video of myself and saw my form needed some serious improvement, mainly at the end of the pull where my body was only at 12 o'clock. This surprised me greatly...I thought I was leaning back a great deal, but I wasn't. Therefore, I've been concentrating on trying to get to 1 o'clock, not as easy as you would think. My times are, in fact, improving and my m/strokes number is now around 9. Based on the responses here I'll shoot for 10 however, looking at times I see of others in my age group listed on the rankings page, I have a ways to go. Right now, I'm still shooting for "Average."
That's a great example of how a message can be lost in translation.

Edging up to 10 metres per stroke is a good target, as it sounds like it will only improve your technique, but when you get more experienced I think it will become far less important.
Goodhart's Law seems appropriate here (and, in a lot of dimensions of erging performance):
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
chop stuff and carry stuff

User avatar
Ombrax
10k Poster
Posts: 1749
Joined: April 20th, 2013, 2:05 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Ombrax » January 31st, 2024, 12:57 am

If you're into that sort of thing, in my opinion Watts / Stroke Rate is the best measure of "stroke quality." (to coin a new phrase)

There's been lots of discussion of it over the years, so I won't bother to repeat all that, but the bottom line is that you're measuring the amount of work done per stroke (technically Watts / SPM gives you Joules / stroke x 60) which is a real-life measure of what you're doing.

Dangerscouse
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10541
Joined: April 27th, 2014, 11:11 am
Location: Liverpool, England

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Dangerscouse » January 31st, 2024, 1:08 pm

btlifter wrote:
January 30th, 2024, 7:24 pm
Goodhart's Law seems appropriate here (and, in a lot of dimensions of erging performance):
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
I think there's a subtle difference in this instance. It's a target, but a loose target predicated on improving the technique.

When it's reached it will naturally fall away as something that is considered or it will keep increasing, rather than staying static as a 'target achieved'. I believe that Goodhart's Law is more concerned with it then remaining as the target, with no room for improvement.
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

btlifter
2k Poster
Posts: 309
Joined: November 19th, 2020, 7:10 pm

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by btlifter » February 1st, 2024, 8:11 am

Dangerscouse wrote:
January 31st, 2024, 1:08 pm
btlifter wrote:
January 30th, 2024, 7:24 pm
Goodhart's Law seems appropriate here (and, in a lot of dimensions of erging performance):
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
I think there's a subtle difference in this instance. It's a target, but a loose target predicated on improving the technique.

When it's reached it will naturally fall away as something that is considered or it will keep increasing, rather than staying static as a 'target achieved'. I believe that Goodhart's Law is more concerned with it then remaining as the target, with no room for improvement.
I disagree, though I do acknowledge that I may be wise to defer interpretation on this one to a Brit.

But, economics notwithstanding, my point isn't to merely de-emphasize a particular, static, SPI. It's to totally dissuade anybody from looking at a correlational relationship, drawing inferences based on that relationship, and focusing any part of their training energy on "improving" that correlational data point.
chop stuff and carry stuff

Dangerscouse
Marathon Poster
Posts: 10541
Joined: April 27th, 2014, 11:11 am
Location: Liverpool, England

Re: Is Meters/Stroke a Useful Metric?

Post by Dangerscouse » February 1st, 2024, 10:51 am

btlifter wrote:
February 1st, 2024, 8:11 am
I disagree, though I do acknowledge that I may be wise to defer interpretation on this one to a Brit.

But, economics notwithstanding, my point isn't to merely de-emphasize a particular, static, SPI. It's to totally dissuade anybody from looking at a correlational relationship, drawing inferences based on that relationship, and focusing any part of their training energy on "improving" that correlational data point.
As usual, you win. You've convinced me :D
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

Post Reply