Have you optimised your DragFactor?

[hjs]

Naah your focusing on perfecting a modified stroke that resembles nothing like rowing.

You could argue the erg is nothing like OTW and I would agree with that, but there are people rating into the mid 50's and thats not even indoor rowing.

Each to their own, from a purists point of view its rubbish.

Indoorrowing is about who gets to zero meters to go. Nothing else.

Otw is ofcourse about how to move the boat as fast as possible

50?, shows how little you know, topsprinters use 70 with perfect form on max sprints.

You as always can only see things from your own perspective. Rowing vary from one stroke to 24 hours in a row, its al rowing, and in races its always about speed. No matter what distance.

[lindsayh]

Naah your focusing on perfecting a modified stroke that resembles nothing like rowing.
You could argue the erg is nothing like OTW and I would agree with that, but there are people rating into the mid 50's and thats not even indoor rowing.
Each to their own, from a purists point of view its rubbish.

Sorry Carl but (as usual) have to disagree with you on this. Sprinting OTE is indoor rowing no matter what stroke rate and distance just like a 2k or a 5k - just different. If you want to be successful at it (and I know you don't) then you have to learn to rate up. It is not for everyone just the same as in swimming and athletics which is why say Usain Bolt doesn't race Mo Farah but I bet they respect each other and regard each other as legitimate track athletes. As Henry says sr50+ is just the beginning for some. From your POV it is "rubbish" but maybe let others just do their stuff without bad mouthing it. We are all part of the same broad church.

[Anth_F]

if you don't have it you simply cannot hit for example a sub 1:30 pace no matter what you try and do with the drag factor.

Disagree with that! I can hit 1:28's @ df160... can't get below 1:31's @ df127.

Well my point exactly the 1:30 pace is an arbitrary number, I can hit 1:20 pace at DF168 for a couple of hundred meters but only about 1:32 at DF134 but then again 36spm is tops for me.

I'm guessing by your weight you will not hit 1:20 no matter what you set the drag too, so change the 1:30 to 1:20. Plenty of people cannot hit 1:30 even for a couple of strokes or we would all be rowing 6 minute 2K's.

At the end of the day you have to experiment with the drag, way too many variables from one person to the next and really its constantly changing but difficult to setup perfectly.

Aye but 1:20 pace is a different ballpark altogether, speshully for a litewait.

[jackarabit]

Started spring '14. 125 felt about right. Later 120. Next 2 years 110-115. This yr. 105. Maybe attributable to leg muscles firing faster which makes possible catching the wheel at higher velocity whch in turn reduces inertial resistance to re-acceleration.

Are you still rowing at the same pace as 2014 now with the lower DF ?

Beginners usually start with a DF that is too high and then is comes down over time. I suspect at some point that age creeps up on you so other parameters like your relative fitness and strength decrease so you need to start trimming the drag factor to suit. The 110-130 range must suit most people for distance and you would be pretty happy if your rowing in this range.

No need to suspect that strength and muscle mass decrease with age. Obviously, intervention to slow the advance of this common fate is a concern of most of us past the ripe old age of 25 (see turnpoints of physical growth and maturation in male humans).

The greater part of my experience of actively focusing my attention on personal fitness came after retirement from a manual trade which required 38 yrs. of doing squats and deads by other names. Wear out or rust out! I rusted very rapidly in retirement which required medical intervention and scared me into doing a lick or three to keep the old bag of guts functional for a bit longer. I got from erging daily the usual beginner bump in CV function which slows but does not stop or reverse the "aging process." I wouldn't be surprised if there is a prominent and statistically-confirmable turnpoint in rate of physical decline in males 65-70 yrs. of age.

Despite the bony finger of decline and dissolution pointed my way, my average pace this C2 season is 13" faster than in 16/17 (2:22.x against 2:35.x). Got a few minutes yet b4 I fall off the twig so best not waste them. Not embarrassed to choke up on the bat if it gets me a few more iinnings. Df100 won't make me fast but may make me last. We'll see.

[jamesg]

I've a filter over the air intake, which gets the DF down to a comfortable figure for me, 70-80.

Today tried a 500, but stopped after 350m when HR reached 169.

Watts av 252, peak 278
Spm av 36, peak 39.
Age 77, weight 81, height 188.

Tomorrow will do same at about DF 100 to see if there's any difference.

Today was the first on the erg in the last two months, but I did plenty of bike in the hills here (South Tyrol).

[jackarabit]

James, you have the kick!

[G-dub]

Drag = feel. You can go fast at low drags. Just get the legs down quick and open the hips. There is plenty of work there. In the legs.

[Carl Watts]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a prominent and statistically-confirmable turnpoint in rate of physical decline in males 65-70 yrs. of age.

I did see the curves somewhere that had a sudden drop off in performance, it was well above 65. Exercise gives you a much slower rate of decline, personally I'm surprised at what I can do at 50 when compared to even age 30, arguably rowing better now than then but obviously I just was not as fit back then as potentially I could have been. Hoping to see a gradual decline to age 60 at least.

Can still remember pulling 1:55 pace at 28spm for 15 minutes and falling off the erg, rowed a 5k last night at 20spm 1:53.9 and walked away.

[jamesg]

Adjusted the DF up to 90. Stopped at 525m, av W 240, forgot to look at HR. However rating 30 rather than 36, so an 8W stroke rather than 7 and smaller inertial losses.

There's probably a training/adaptation effect: after a year or so at drag 70, 90 is too high for comfort. It would take me a year to get used to it. Maybe I'll try somewhere in between and consider myself calibrated for now.

[Cyclingman1]

jackarabit wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a prominent and statistically-confirmable turnpoint in rate of physical decline in males 65-70 yrs. of age.

I did see the curves somewhere that had a sudden drop off in performance, it was well above 65. Exercise gives you a much slower rate of decline, personally I'm surprised at what I can do at 50 when compared to even age 30, arguably rowing better now than then but obviously I just was not as fit back then as potentially I could have been. Hoping to see a gradual decline to age 60 at least.

Time and again the question arises about drop off in performance based on aging. Any one person might beat the odds a bit, but the numbers don’t lie.
If one looks very closely at C2 world records for 2K and 5K, both HWt and LWt, one can see very consistent decline from age 30 on and a definite turn for the worse at about age 60 with further changes every decade. It helps to plot all the data to see the change points. The decline for LWt rowers for both 2K and 5K is a little less until age 60, but then tracks the decline for HWts.

A HWt, on average, will lose about 4 secs of pace per 500m per decade until 60, but then jumps to 7 secs and then again to over 10 secs of pace loss per decade at 70. LWts, on the other hand, are more like 3 sec of pace change per decade but go to 8 secs per decade from 60 to 80. Interestingly enough, 5K differentials closely track the ones for 2K, including HWt-LWt differences. After 80, the losses for both weights are about 17 sec of pace per decade. Furthermore, HWt and Lwt times start converging then.

If one looks at power numbers, for 2K, for HWts, the power decline is a very consistent 75 W across all decades. For LWts, the power loss is about 56 W across all decades, the line with a little inflection for the worse at age 60.

This data may not fit any one person, but probably is not too far off. Of course, if one starts serious training late in life, performance numbers will rise for a while, but then will follow the pattern. The bottom line is that if you were/are a good/great rower at some age, like 50 or 60, your numbers will decline quite a bit over the next decade. It’s right here in the numbers.

[bisqeet]

No need to suspect that strength and muscle mass decrease with age. Obviously, intervention to slow the advance of this common fate is a concern of most of us past the ripe old age of 25 (see turnpoints of physical growth and maturation in male humans).

The greater part of my experience of actively focusing my attention on personal fitness came after retirement from a manual trade which required 38 yrs. of doing squats and deads by other names. Wear out or rust out! I rusted very rapidly in retirement which required medical intervention and scared me into doing a lick or three to keep the old bag of guts functional for a bit longer. I got from erging daily the usual beginner bump in CV function which slows but does not stop or reverse the "aging process." I wouldn't be surprised if there is a prominent and statistically-confirmable turnpoint in rate of physical decline in males 65-70 yrs. of age.

Despite the bony finger of decline and dissolution pointed my way, my average pace this C2 season is 13" faster than in 16/17 (2:22.x against 2:35.x). Got a few minutes yet b4 I fall off the twig so best not waste them. Not embarrassed to choke up on the bat if it gets me a few more iinnings. Df100 won't make me fast but may make me last. We'll see.

where is the like button....

[MPx]

Time and again the question arises about drop off in performance based on aging. Any one person might beat the odds a bit, but the numbers don’t lie.
If one looks very closely at C2 world records for 2K and 5K, both HWt and LWt, one can see very consistent decline from age 30 on and a definite turn for the worse at about age 60 with further changes every decade. It helps to plot all the data to see the change points.

A compelling argument Jim, but based on flawed data I believe - which means that the numbers may well lie. I can accept your patterns up to the 50s when there appears to be a large-ish sample base - looking at the 2017 rankings it peeked in the 40-49s with 3229 bothering to enter the rankings. But as you move above 60 the numbers of participants drops markedly. 362 at 70+ and just 66 at 80+. There is absolutely nothing to say that it is the best ergers who keep going into later life. In such small numbers, the chances of getting a truly "world class" time are small. I totally buy into the "you can only compete with who turns up" school of thought - so these are obviously completely legitimate world records, but that is not the same thing as saying that these 66 people (against 3229 40 to 49s) represent the best possible of their generation and therefore proves that we will all lose 17 secs in a decade.

[jackarabit]

Time and again the question arises about drop off in performance based on aging. Any one person might beat the odds a bit, but the numbers don’t lie.
If one looks very closely at C2 world records for 2K and 5K, both HWt and LWt, one can see very consistent decline from age 30 on and a definite turn for the worse at about age 60 with further changes every decade. It helps to plot all the data to see the change points.

A compelling argument Jim, but based on flawed data I believe - which means that the numbers may well lie. I can accept your patterns up to the 50s when there appears to be a large-ish sample base - looking at the 2017 rankings it peeked in the 40-49s with 3229 bothering to enter the rankings. But as you move above 60 the numbers of participants drops markedly. 362 at 70+ and just 66 at 80+. There is absolutely nothing to say that it is the best ergers who keep going into later life. In such small numbers, the chances of getting a truly "world class" time are small. I totally buy into the "you can only compete with who turns up" school of thought - so these are obviously completely legitimate world records, but that is not the same thing as saying that these 66 people (against 3229 40 to 49s) represent the best possible of their generation and therefore proves that we will all lose 17 secs in a decade.

Only the good die young? Death is not choosey. It is difficult to see any trend beyond severely reduced survivorship for the n=3 sample in 90+ a couple of yrs ago.

[Cyclingman1]

I can accept your patterns up to the 50s when there appears to be a large-ish sample base - looking at the 2017 rankings it peeked in the 40-49s with 3229 bothering to enter the rankings. But as you move above 60 the numbers of participants drops markedly. 362 at 70+ and just 66 at 80+. There is absolutely nothing to say that it is the best ergers who keep going into later life. In such small numbers, the chances of getting a truly "world class" time are small.

I accept that what I posted is a very limited data approach, but WRs tend to show what people at various ages can do. And the WRs cross over many yrs, not just one year's rankings. I looked at four sets of WRs: HWt & LWt for 2K and 5K. Found a lot of consistency. Age 60 does seem to be the inflection point for curtailed performance with another one at 70 for HWts beyond the steady decline up to that point. Perhaps any one person beats that decline. But there are not a lot of people with posted times for twenty years or more. I have looked at the times of some well known good rowers from age fifty-something to seventy-something. I haven't seen one yet that has not exhibited declines almost precisely like what I plotted.

[MPx]

Hmmm. I am intrigued that you say what limited individual data there is supports your proposition. It is that that strengthens your case - and if we can continue to follow the likes of Graham Benton into his 80s and beyond then it will be more believable if he and a few of his challengers follow the pattern. I had of course considered your point about world records being advanced over many years rather than one ranking year - but that just lends weight to my argument rather than yours. With 3 or 4 thousand people per year potentially challenging the 40-49 world record it will be tested tens of thousands of time every decade by people trying to be the best they can - and it is more likely that the best of them will meet the criteria to set a record. By contrast there will be just a handful of 80-89 year olds able and prepared to meet the conditions in which a 2k world record can be set let alone have the ability to actually do it. I just cant see that a world record set by such a rarefied group will be as competitive as one set by "the masses". It seems much more likely to me that it would be much slower anyway. If you've got time on your hands (;-)) maybe the analysis should be checked using the avg of the 25th to 75th percentile times...to try to remove the effects of outliers and better reflect what most of us can actually achieve.