Rod Freed

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 4:34 am

So...<br /><br />The great unspoken truth in rowing is that it is easy stroking power, your achieved UT2 pace, that separates the good rowers from the bad and a rower, no matter how talented, that has achieved their full potential as a rower vs. one that has not.<br /><br />Sprint here and there. Gasp for air. Fall off your erg after that 8th interval of your 8 x 500m workout, keep cutting that rest time between intervals until you turn blue in the face, try to go faster and faster for a 10K rowing at 32 spm and 10 SPI, revving your HR into the heavens, but in the end, if you don't work (most of the time) on your stroking power, you doom yourself to mediocrity as a rower. <br /><br />Rowing is not just an exercise in aerobics. <br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 4:38 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>IMHO, the complexity and power of erging has little to do with it. First it is utterly simple compared to many other sports, and its power requirements are not unique either. I doubt that the physiological and training principles that apply to other endurance sports become suddenly invalid for ergers </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I wish!<br /><br />But not the case, I think. <br /><br />The complexity and power of the rowing stroke has _everything_ to do with it.<br /><br />Here's the scenario.<br /><br />When I run on the stepper, when I am working at about 300 watts, I am going along at about 88 spm, where "strokes" are drives with my legs. What is distinctive about this work is that (1) each stroke is a simple, mild, low energy effort (2) with only the legs (3) done continuously. As soon as one leg is done driving the other takes over. There is little or no "recovery" period when no levers are applying power.<br /><br />At about the same wattage when I am rowing, I go along at about one fourth of the stroke rate, 22 spm. What is distinctive about this work is that (1) each stroke is a complex, intense, high energy effort (2) done with the full body (3) discontinuously. At 22 spm, I am in a 4-beat measure, where the drive is one beat and the recovery is three beats. That is, I am working for only one quarter of the time and then resting three quarters of the time. To do this, then, the drive of the stroke has four times the power that a thrust with the legs has while running, and to create that power efficiently, the whole body has to be coordinated into a series of complex and precisely timed movements, as I conceive of these things now, a 5-stage effort that goes something like legs-back-legs and back-legs-arms, a smooth curve of energy with a "fat middle" where, at the central peak of energy, the back opens up and both the back and the legs, the two major levers, are at maximum velocity. <br /><br />These things are still pretty much the same in many ways even at maximum power/pace. Unlike the legs in running, the oars have to "recover" and get from the stern back up to the bow, even when going very fast. At 44 spm, this ratio of recovery to drive is no longer 3-to-1 but pretty much 1-1; but even so, one beat of the stroke is spent in recovery while the boat runs (or the wheel spins).<br /><br />This means that at moderate paces, running is something like rowing at 88 spm and 3 SPI rather than 22 spm and 12 SPI. At high paces, I am not sure what happens, but even if the running stride lengthens a bit, which I doubt is very significant (a 10K runner will take a pretty long stride), at top speed, running is probably something like rowing at 178 spm and 3 SPI instead of 44 spm and 12 SPI. <br /><br />In all of this, the great difference is the 3 SPI vs. 12 SPI. In both cases, the rate rises as the pace rising, but in rowing, each stroke takes four times the power of a thrusts with the legs and involves a complex sequencing and timing of several levers (legs, back, arms) and then a rest. <br /><br />This power requirement in rowing collapses the difference between marathoning and sprinting. In running, a marathoner can be a slight litttle fellow. During each effort, only 3 SPI is needsed. What is crucial is aerobic and mechanical efficiency. Power is not a problem. But in rowing, such a slight little guy get blown away, even in a marathon. You just can't row at 88 spm and 3 SPI for a marathon. At best, perhaps, you can go 30 spm or so, even if you are small. To row with the best stronger guys for the marathon, then, the litttle slight guy with the high aerobic capacity would have to row close to 10 SPI, or what amounts to a 2K SPI (or above) at 30 spm for 2.5 hours. I supppose this might be possible, but it is pretty difficult to pull off. In the 50s lwts, Freed, it appears, pulls off something like this for a HM, but it is interesting that he never seems to have ranked a marathon.<br /><br />There might be good reason why.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 5:31 am

BTW, I heard somewhere that Freed rowed at drag setting 7 on the model B. This is usually a df. of what, 160-170?<br /><br />This is predictable, I think.<br /><br />I would guess that, technically, he generated wattage with short, slow cumulative leverage and high drag--by using a weak, quick stroke. Therefore, it is no wonder that he was unexceptional (or unable) OTW. <br /><br />Rowing well demands quickness and coordination, a complex and explosive timing and sequencing of leverage.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 6:03 am

Another important complication that distinguishes rowing from things like running and again promotes stroking power to first importance, especially for the 2K and any faster rowing, is that, given the length of the drive of the rowing stroke and its dependence on boat/wheel speed, the speed and length of cumulative leverage must steadily increase as overall pace increases in order to reach the same effective stroking power (watts/pace per stroke). Therefore, those who do a lot of fast distance rowing at a low stroking power, such as Freed, not only undermine their ability to habituate to the speed and length of cumulative leverage needed to achieve 2K stroking power but actually capitalize on the fact that, in the distance rowing, since the boat/wheel is not moving as fast, stroking power, given the same speed and length of cumulative leverage is about 2 SPI above what can be achieved when the boat/wheel is moving faster, as in a 2K. That is, if you row a HM at 10 SPI, the speed and length of cumulative leverage, given the same stroke rate, would only be about 8 SPI in a 2K. <br /><br />I would guess that this is another reason why training that concentrates exclusively on racing workouts, rowing distances for time, as Freed's workouts do, destroys almost entirely the ability to row a quality 2K, one that uses the full potential of the rower, no matter how talented or suited for the sport that rower might be.<br /><br />ranger

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » December 16th, 2005, 6:19 am

"As opposed to facts?" I'm interested in facts. Show me some facts. People simply believing that he did those scores are not facts. People believing that someone "could have done" those scores based on statistical analysis is also not fact.<br /><br />The opening post of this thread posed the question<br />

I must confess I always believed it must be true.because it was written in our newsletter.........does anyone actually know this man and even better confirm or deny these wonder performances........I'm beginning to wonder.<br />

. So far the answer is "No."<br /><br />Rick <br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />I totale agree. There has to be proof. If not ..........................

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » December 16th, 2005, 9:46 am

<br />Ranger<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This means that at moderate paces, running is something like rowing at 88 spm and 3 SPI rather than 22 spm and 12 SPI. At high paces, I am not sure what happens, but even if the running stride lengthens a bit, which I doubt is very significant (a 10K runner will take a pretty long stride), at top speed, running is probably something like rowing at 178 spm and 3 SPI instead of 44 spm and 12 SPI. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Ranger<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>BTW, IMHO, there is no parallel, really, between the running stride and the power and complexity of a rowing stroke. The physics and dynamics of the two are entirely different </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I agree with your other postition on drawing parallels between running and rowing. <br /><br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 10:45 am

Easy day on the stepper today, after erging, only 45' at 300 watts.<br /><br />Got me thinking, though.<br /><br />I think that I find long bouts of supplementary stepping so useful during race preparation because it rests my small levers (back and arms), continues to exercise my legs (even more than on the erg, but without undermining stroking power), and gives me some more challenging aerobic work. <br /><br />Stepping at 305watts and 88 steps per minute, I am generating about 3.5 watts with each step, 7 watts with each cycle of two legs. This might be about exactly what I generate with my legs in my rowing stroke, if my 13 SPI rowing stroke has something like a 7-4-2 ratio of watts generated by legs, back, and arms. In the stepping, the increased cadence with the legs generates the remaining wattage, too, that in the rowing stroke would be generated by the back and arms. The 305 watts is also a nice figure to hit for two hours just in terms of aerobic exercise. In fact, at the moment, it is quite a bit higher than I could do on the erg rowing for two hours. <br /><br />The alternative that some might choose to get this aerobic exercise might be a second erg session with a long, free rate, level 3 row, say 15K at 1:50 @ 26 spm (10 SPI, 250 watts). But given the speed of the wheel, this 10 SPI, in terms of quickness of levers, etc., might be only equivalent to 8 SPI, and within the proportional contributions of the levers to the stroke, this 8 SPI might be distributed something like 5-2-1, which only uses the legs to contribute 2.5 watts each per stroke, does not rest the minor levers (back and arms), which might be tired from the major bout of fast rowing that has to be done each day to get ready to race, and does not get to the same wattage or duration. Therefore, this level 3 rowing, at least during race preparation, might not be as useful for training for the 2K. <br /><br />Using the stepper as a supplement, but doing only one erg session, I can do four hours of productive work a day, even in racing season and during race preparation--and feel great from it.<br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 12:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 16 2005, 06:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The 305 watts is also a nice figure to hit for two hours just in terms of aerobic exercise. In fact, at the moment, it is quite a bit higher than I could do on the erg rowing for two hours. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />No Kidding? So all your equating of the work has been abandoned?<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The alternative that some might choose to get this aerobic exercise might be a second erg session with a long, free rate, level 3 row, say 15K at 1:50 @ 26 spm (10 SPI, 250 watts). <br /> </td></tr></table><br />So now a 15k at 1:50, SR=26 is the equivalent of stepping at 305 watts? That's laughable.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Using the stepper as a supplement, but doing only one erg session, I can do four hours of productive work a day, even in racing season and during race preparation--and feel great from it.<br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ever thought that the stepper is not particularly "productive". I'm all for feeling great, but "productive" (I.e. adaptation facilitating) work generally leaves one feeling a bit spent (Albeit we can recover quite quickly to a much better feeling). Perhaps we need to define "feeling great" more narrowly, but you have called the same workout "effortless" and "easy" previoulsy so I'm drawing the relationship from that.<br /><br />Anyway, back to an earlier request: Let's see that new stroke put to use for a good solid 500m time trial. This is not that tough, even with my rather minimal 8k/day during the holiday challenge I could do that (only 176k Erg training since coming off the water season. Well maybe a touch more, but nothing consistent until the HC started)

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 1:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 15 2005, 10:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Freed has now stopped ranking his times altogether, and if he still rows at all, continues to avoid racing in public and therefore continues to avoid doing any entirely verifiable performances.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yet he "still" has the fastest times for 50+ lightweights for the:<br /><br />5k<br />6k<br />30 minutes<br />10k<br />60 minutes<br />half marathon <br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 2:01 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 16 2005, 01:31 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I would guess that, technically, he generated wattage with short, slow cumulative leverage and high drag--by using a weak, quick stroke.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />No one ever said that Freed has a short stroke except you.<br /><br />That's why Freed has all the records and you don't.<br /><br />If he had a short stroke, he wouldn't be rowing a 1:45 pace for the half marathon.<br /><br />Have you done this?<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 2:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>No Kidding? So all your equating of the work has been abandoned? </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, I said that, at the moment, I am clearly more _efficient_ running/stepping. As I get more efficient rowing, I think that this disparity might get narrower and narrower, though. For instance, I have never stepped for an hour over 305 watts. With my new stroke, if I get so that I can row an hour at 1:45, that would be 302 watts. <br /><br />I have rowed an hour at 1:48 with my old stroke. <br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 2:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ever thought that the stepper is not particularly "productive". I'm all for feeling great, but "productive" (I.e. adaptation facilitating) work generally leaves one feeling a bit spent (Albeit we can recover quite quickly to a much better feeling). Perhaps we need to define "feeling great" more narrowly, but you have called the same workout "effortless" and "easy" previoulsy so I'm drawing the relationship from that. </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, it's not effortless. Yes, after two hours on the stepper, I am _completely_ spent, just as I am after two hours on the erg. The good feeling is exactly the quick recovery (and therefore no problems with erging and stepping again the next day). <br /><br />In my experience, the same cannot be said about any physical activity in my experience, directly relevant to erging (you drive on a stepper with your legs off your heels) where you spend two hours with your heart rate as high as 160 bpm (or even above), with the routine done immediately _after_ a couple of hours of erging, and then with the whole four-hour routine repeated every day.<br /><br />Productive?<br /><br />No question.<br /><br />_Amazingly_ productive. <br /><br />In effect, in racing season, it is an failproof insurance policy against staleness, injury, sickness, muscular deadness and weakness, limited aerobic capacity, limited endurance, excess weight, impatience and psychological wavering, boredom with too much erging, muscular imbalance and overspecialization, and so on and so forth. <br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 2:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Let's see that new stroke put to use for a good solid 500m time trial </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'll start playing around with this. I am now getting the rate up. In sharpening up this stroke, I need to be careful not to jump to the most difficult task first, though. I don't think I am not going to complete a 500m test any time soon. But I will indeed do some rowing every day at 44 spm and 1:26 with my new stroke, as I train it at milder rates (26-34 spm). The challenge rowing well at 44 spm will pose for quickness, coordination, timing, relaxation, ratio, leverage, and other matters, wiil be great for my other rowing. If things go well with this brief 44 spm rowing, I will do more and more of it as the weeks tick by toward February, and then if and when I think I am ready for 500m trials, I will do some. I am taking this slowly. No reason to get greedy about progress.<br /><br />Things are progressing just fine.<br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 2:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 16 2005, 10:19 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For instance, I have never stepped for an hour over 305 watts. <br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Now you are really kidding, right?! I'm not even going to go look, but I'm pretty sure you have claimed to do that "easily".<br /><br />Do you actually DO any of the things you seem to say that you do?<br /><br />For instance, If I say "I did 4 x 500m x 2 min rest @ 1:30 pace" it means I did 6 minutes of work that averaged a 1:30 pace and the entire session took 12 minutes on the clock from the first pull to the last. I think that is pretty commonly understood by most here.<br /><br />What would it mean if you said the same?<br />That "you would like to do such a thing"?<br />That "you think you can do such a thing"?<br />That "you intend to do such a thing"?<br /><br />Seriously, please just be clear.<br /><br />PS - I got an email that said "326 watts on a LifeStepper is not much effort at all", so you may just be kidding yourself that LifeStepper Watts and Erg Watts are even remotely tied together in a prognostic way.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 2:51 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So now a 15k at 1:50, SR=26 is the equivalent of stepping at 305 watts? That's laughable. </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, not at all. By saying that a 15K free rate level 3 row as a second erging session might be an alternative to my stepping routines, I mean that this is what _others_ who follow other kinds of training plans for rowing might do to try to get a similar effect (i.e., sustained aerobic conditioning of an hour or more at a heart rate of 160 bpm, etc.). <br /><br />During racing season, I don't choose to do this. I step instead.<br /><br />For the reasons I have cited.<br /><br />So far, the effect of this choice on my racing has been pretty clear, I think.<br /><br />ranger

Concept2 Forum

Rod Freed

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training