What S10mps Offers Me As An Indoor Rower

read only section for reference and search purposes.

Training

Postby [old] FrancoisA » March 13th, 2006, 4:56 pm

<!--quoteo(post=59226:date=Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=59222:date=Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul, I have pretty much read all of what Mike has written on the WP, and I don't remember that he mentioned this 10 mps as part of the training.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />You would have to read Mikes forum posts, it is clearly mentioned there. Not in relation to the low rate stuff, but to the other levels.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />L4 workouts make up 65-70% of training volume in the WP and they are not done at 10mps. L3 workouts take up another 25% of training volume, and are done at 85 to 90% of 2K velocity at 24-28 spm, which for most people, is not 10 mps. L2 workouts (6-8% of training volume) are done at 90-95% of 2K speed and at 26-32 spm, which, depending on people, may or may not be at 10 mps. Finally, L1 workouts are done at 2K to 2K-3 pace and at 30-36 spm, which, except for the faster ergers will be below 10 mps. <br /><br />So in IMHO 10mps is irrelevant to the WP, but to be sure, I will ask Mike on the Wolverine thread.<br /><!--quoteo(post=59226:date=Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=59222:date=Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Yes, but then if I do 1:48 @ SR27, I will no longer be at 10 mps but at 10.3. So, who is contradicting himself? :roll: <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Come on, you know I was just giving an example, I guess I should have said if S10PS is too easy at 1:50 for you, go to 1:49 (S10PS), or 1:48 (S10PS). But you knew that already, didn't you? :roll: <br /> </td></tr></table><br />My original point was that at a given pace, and I used 1:50 as an example, I don't find it harder to maintain 10 mps at SR27 than 11.36 mps at SR24.<br /><!--quoteo(post=59226:date=Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=59222:date=Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Well, it is for me. I am not any faster at stroke rates above 34.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />That's fine, work on it. You think you will learn to get the rate up by training at low rates? Interesting.<br />Obvioulsy you can not maintain your drive power at rates above 34, it just depends on what you consider the source of this problem, the drive, the recovery, or both.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />I think it is a misinterpretation to say that the WP is training at low rates! I am not sure who should reread Mike's posts! <br />Regarding rates, there are quite a few WRs that were done at around 34spm. So that is good enough for me! Moreover, I think you also mentioned that higher SR are not as efficient.<br /><br /><!--quoteo(post=59226:date=Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 06:59 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=59222:date=Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 10:44 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The 1:38 in my signature was the last 500m of an 8x500m L1 workout, so it is somewhat "soft". Nonetheless, you are quite right that I have an imbalance towards endurance. The truth is the imbalance was a lot worse before I started using the WP. In fact, before, I could only hold 1:38 for three consecutive strokes, now, I can hold 1:35! :) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, firm it up. That's what signatures are for, aren't they? <br />Do you know how Dennis trained during the time leading up to his WR? I have a pretty good idea. 8)<br /> </td></tr></table><br />In fact all the times in my signature are soft and were done as part of training. 8) Erging takes second seat to my swimming, which currently at 10 hours/week is quite demanding. I also run and bike!<br />I am not denying that s10mps training works for some. All I am saying is that the WP, which incidentally has also good track record, works for me, and that the foundation part of that plan is not done a 10mps.<br /><br />Now, can we just agree to disagree! :roll: <br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Francois
[old] FrancoisA
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] PaulS » March 13th, 2006, 5:44 pm

<!--quoteo(post=59238:date=Mar 13 2006, 12:56 PM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 12:56 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In fact all the times in my signature are soft and were done as part of training. 8) Erging takes second seat to my swimming, which currently at 10 hours/week is quite demanding. I also run and bike!<br />I am not denying that s10mps training works for some. All I am saying is that the WP, which incidentally has also good track record, works for me, and that the foundation part of that plan is not done a 10mps.<br /><br />Now, can we just agree to disagree! :roll: <br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Francois<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Really? So a 1:52 avg for 60 minutes is "soft" for you? I would find that to be quite a bit more difficult than a 6:55 2k, and very much more difficult than a 1:38 500m. Are you sure you are becoming more powerful rather than gaining endurance? :wink: <br /><br />I'm not sure what there is to disagree about, but if you would like to, ok...<br /><br />I've only read through the WP completely 1 time, but I have read many of Mike's posts to answer peoples questions, have fun asking again, I'm sure his answer will be fine, or he will spank you for not paying attention to something that has been answered already.<br /><br />Did I ever say anything bad about the WP? Please point it out if you think I am in some way deriding it, or any other plan for that matter. Just different ways of accomplishing similar things. I've also made no secret of the fact that I think of the Erg as a tool for improving what we do in boats, not as an end to itself. If it were an end unto itself there may be some small changes I would consider but the foundations would be the same.<br />
[old] PaulS
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] george nz » March 13th, 2006, 6:05 pm

How about discussing the merits and relationships of workouts done using 2 different philosphies:<br /><br />Someone please check my maths :? <br /><br />Workout 1: 60min steady state UT1 intensity (approx)<br /><br />s10ps: - duration 60min / avg watts 202.5 / sr 25 / 8.1spi / 10mps<br /><br />other: - duration 60min / avg watts 202.5 / sr 20 / 10.12spi / 12.5mps<br /><br /><br /><br />Workout 2: 3 x 10min intervals AT (approx) (about 5k pace)<br /><br />s10ps: - duration 10min / avg watts 302.3 / sr 28.57 / 10.58spi / 10mps<br /><br />other: - duration 10min / avg watts 302.3 / sr 24 / 12.59spi / 11.9mps<br /><br /><br />Notes:<br /><br />s10ps:- rate increase 14.28%, spi increase 30.62%, dps remained the same<br />other :- rate increase 20.00%, spi increase 24.40%, dps decreased by 4.8%<br /><br />So I picked a couple of workouts at random and accept they are taken in isolation, and I am not really sure of what the numbers are telling me in detail but here are some thoughts:<br /><br />Using 's10ps' I did not have to up my rate significantly so there was not a lot of change in my 'timing' during the stroke, it still flowed but just flowed a little faster. I need to apply more power in the drive, hence the increase in spi (but it is still not huge spi numbers), of course I am still covering the same dps .... what is pleasing is that I am moving closer to my planned 2k rate of 32 so am getting a 'real' feel for higher rates.<br /><br />Using 'other' I had a good strong workout, upped the rate by 20% but again not a lot of change in timing (I dont know the numbers this may be wrong). Interestingly my spi did not increase as much as the s10ps and my dps dropped. Of some concern tho is that I am still a long way from my 2k rate<br /><br />just my thoughts :D <br /><br />George
[old] george nz
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] Alissa » March 13th, 2006, 6:08 pm

<!--quoteo(post=59243:date=Mar 13 2006, 01:44 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 01:44 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=59238:date=Mar 13 2006, 12:56 PM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 12:56 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quotec-->I am not denying that s10mps training works for some. All I am saying is that the WP, which incidentally has also good track record, works for me, and that the foundation part of that plan is not done a 10mps. </td></tr></table><br />I've only read through the WP completely 1 time, but I have read many of Mike's posts to answer peoples questions, have fun asking again, I'm sure his answer will be fine, or he will spank you for not paying attention to something that has been answered already. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I see that the question has already been asked on the WP thread, but I thought I would share these posts from a search I just ran on the current WP thread: <a href="http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2692&view=findpost&p=44676" target="_blank">Quote from a 2003 post</a> and this: <a href="http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2692&view=findpost&p=44801" target="_blank">this from WP Post #382</a> more current explication. I note that several of the posters on that same page discuss the concept...<br /><br />Very interesting thread here! Thanks all.<br /><br />Alissa <br />
[old] Alissa
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] NavigationHazard » March 13th, 2006, 6:15 pm

Paul, am I right in thinking that looking at ErgMonitor's handle force curve equalized for amplitude against the TorqueJoule curve should show whether stroking efficiency is being carried over as the rating goes up?<br /><br />Here's me chugging along [Edit: strapless, though I normally use the straps] at 1:43 r20ish: roughly 16 spi, 15 m for the stroke, drive-recovery ratio of 1:3.61<br /><br /><img src="http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1378/handlespeedimage20kd.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /><br /><br />And this one is stroke #672 from an 80 x 30" on/ 30" passive rest workout done in December averaging 1:34 pace:<br /><br /><img src="http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2539/handlespeedimage18ns.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /><br /><br />I cranked it up for this interval (#40?) -- this stroke was 15.9 spi but r38.6, so only about 9.37 meters. <br /><br />In terms of the general shape of the curves, it seems crystal clear to me that I'm losing relative quickness on the drive as I basically double the rating. OTOH, my back and legs seem more in sequence in #2 than in #1. Is this because the higher pace/rating enforces a certain biomechanical efficency (sort of a gyroscopic effect)? Is it because the relative speed of my leg drive has slowed down in #2, creating the illusion that I'm doing better at keeping the back closed? Or is it some combination thereof?
[old] NavigationHazard
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] mpukita » March 13th, 2006, 6:29 pm

<!--quoteo(post=59251:date=Mar 13 2006, 05:15 PM:name=NavigationHazard)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Mar 13 2006, 05:15 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul, am I right in thinking that looking at ErgMonitor's handle force curve equalized for amplitude against the TorqueJoule curve should show whether stroking efficiency is being carried over as the rating goes up?<br /><br />Here's me chugging along [Edit: strapless, though I normally use the straps] at 1:43 r20ish: roughly 16 spi, 15 m for the stroke, drive-recovery ratio of 1:3.61<br /><br /><img src="http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1378/handlespeedimage20kd.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /><br /><br />And this one is stroke #672 from an 80 x 30" on/ 30" passive rest workout done in December averaging 1:34 pace:<br /><br /><img src="http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2539/handlespeedimage18ns.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /><br /><br />I cranked it up for this last interval (#80) -- this stroke was 15.9 spi but r38.6, so only about 9.37 meters. <br /><br />In terms of the general shape of the curves, it seems crystal clear to me that I'm losing relative quickness on the drive as I basically double the rating. OTOH, my back and legs seem more in sequence in #2 than in #1. Is this because the higher pace/rating enforces a certain biomechanical efficency (sort of a gyroscopic effect)? Is it because my the relative speed of my leg drive has slowed down in #2, creating the illusion that I'm doing better at keeping the back closed? Or is it some combination thereof?<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /> :? ???<br /><br />Nav:<br /><br />Can you put this into some language a mere mortal can understand?<br /><br />Thanks ... Mark<br />
[old] mpukita
 

Training

Postby [old] NavigationHazard » March 13th, 2006, 6:38 pm

I could give it a try, but 1) I'm not entirely sure I understand it all myself; and 2) Paul is lurking and no doubt can do it more simply and accurately.<br /><br />The general point is that ErgMonitor (unsolicited plug; I have received no compensation) strikes me as a great way to work on carrying over power efficiently at different ratings/intensities/durations.<br /><br />If you're in to getting better, EM provides tremendous feedback on what you're doing when you row.
[old] NavigationHazard
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] george nz » March 13th, 2006, 6:45 pm

<!--quoteo(post=59247:date=Mar 14 2006, 11:08 AM:name=Alissa)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Alissa @ Mar 14 2006, 11:08 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I see that the question has already been asked on the WP thread, but I thought I would share these posts from a search I just ran on the current WP thread: <a href="http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2692&view=findpost&p=44676" target="_blank">Quote from a 2003 post</a> and this: <a href="http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2692&view=findpost&p=44801" target="_blank">this from WP Post #382</a> more current explication. I note that several of the posters on that same page discuss the concept...<br /><br />Very interesting thread here! Thanks all.<br /><br />Alissa<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Tks for the 2 links, they certainly add some interest to the discussion :D <br /><br />George
[old] george nz
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] FrancoisA » March 13th, 2006, 6:47 pm

<!--quoteo(post=59243:date=Mar 13 2006, 09:44 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 09:44 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=59238:date=Mar 13 2006, 12:56 PM:name=FrancoisA)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Mar 13 2006, 12:56 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In fact all the times in my signature are soft and were done as part of training. 8) Erging takes second seat to my swimming, which currently at 10 hours/week is quite demanding. I also run and bike!<br />I am not denying that s10mps training works for some. All I am saying is that the WP, which incidentally has also good track record, works for me, and that the foundation part of that plan is not done a 10mps.<br /><br />Now, can we just agree to disagree! :roll: <br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Francois<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Really? So a 1:52 avg for 60 minutes is "soft" for you? I would find that to be quite a bit more difficult than a 6:55 2k, and very much more difficult than a 1:38 500m. Are you sure you are becoming more powerful rather than gaining endurance? :wink: <br /> </td></tr></table><br />The hour row was supposed to be an L3 workout at 1:55. After 12 minutes, my average pace was 1:55.3, and at that point, I decided to go for it and try to break 16000m. The last 12 min were done at 1:50.5 SR25. The fact that the pacing was not great and that it was done after a hard swim workout, make me believe that it is soft! But you may be right, the L4 workouts might have helped more the hour row than the 2k.<br /><!--quoteo(post=59243:date=Mar 13 2006, 09:44 PM:name=PaulS)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Mar 13 2006, 09:44 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Did I ever say anything bad about the WP? Please point it out if you think I am in some way deriding it, or any other plan for that matter. Just different ways of accomplishing similar things. I've also made no secret of the fact that I think of the Erg as a tool for improving what we do in boats, not as an end to itself. If it were an end unto itself there may be some small changes I would consider but the foundations would be the same.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />As far as I know, you have only said good things about the WP and have been quite supportive of everyone on this forum. Sorry if my posts made you believe otherwise.<br /><br />The erg is not an end to itself for me either, but a complement to swimming. On the erg I can get elevated HR for much longer period of time without being limited by lactic acid, which is great for building endurance. Plus, it is much more enjoyable than looking at the bottom of the pool none stop for an hour! :o <br />On water rowing is something I plan to do on a regular basis this summer. I took a "learn to row" class last year on an 8+ and it was a lot of fun!<br /><br />All the best!<br /><br />Francois
[old] FrancoisA
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Training

Postby [old] PaulS » March 13th, 2006, 6:58 pm

NavHaz,<br /><br />I'd say that both are fairly well coordinated, though the one at high rate and force is a bit more coordinated than the longer lower profile.<br /><br />The stand out characteristic is the stark change in shape between the two circumstances.<br /><br />My take on what is happening in the better shaped profile (top) is that you have plently of strength in reserves to have a bit of early back opening and not have it effect the smooth profile of the force unit, an you can support that level of force even with an early openned body.<br /><br />Now when you up the rate and get closer to maximal force, all is coordinated well, mostly out of necessity and to avoid injury to your lower back. This is happening to such a great degree that not only the TorqueJoule unit is effected, but both units are.<br /><br />First thing to get right is the Force, then we coordinate it the best we can. The problem with the second profile is that in the first 20cm of drive you litterally only establish about 1/2 the handle force that you did when going "easier", and that is going to make a huge difference in what would be happening in a boat. You would have lost the opportunity to capitalize on the early accleration fo the boat/rower system, the boat would likely appear to be bounding along in a series of "jumps" rather than moving smoothly across the water.<br /><br />The remedy to get the early bit of the drive more quickly is to tidy up the recovery so that you are not feeling a great thump and your momentum is brought to a halt at the catch, it must be brought to a gradual stop so that your direction can be reversed in an instant. This is no problem when the ratio is nice an long, but becomes tougher as the ratio becomes shorter. Fixing the DPS maintinas ratio, and allows the gradual conditioning by taking equal proportions from both the drive and recovery as the pace increases. Taking the lions share of the time right from the recovery, when used to having oodles of time there, pretty much makes a mess of it.<br /><br />An exercise that you might enjoy, would be to do a set of negative split intervals, S10PS, starting at a 2:00 and taking 1 second off the pace each rep until max is reached. Your focus would be oriented toward seeing when the force profile changes nature.<br /><br />Normal Notation:<br />300m x 1min, S10PS, Descending Pace targets beginning at 2:00 to maximum. (The first step in the Stop The Madness [STM] plan)
[old] PaulS
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Previous

Return to Posts from old forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ehbqpywtca and 1 guest

cron