Does racing at a lower drag than when training make a difference?

[jamesg]

Does anyone know if racing at a drag of 90 after training on 117 would affect the time of the 2k?

Your sustainable Power and hence Pace is the product of rating, stroke length and handle force. If you are forced by DF to change their product substantially, then pace will change. All can be seen in ergdata.

After 15 years rest you may need to ease yourelf back in with some care and even update your technique. Low drag can help here, by allowing a quick stroke without overload.

[JaapvanE]

I didn't say anything about bicycle gearing.

True, but you described it in a very complex way.

With bicycle gearing, it is axiomatic that you apply less force over more distance to do the same work. Here, you apply nearly the same force over nearly the same distance on each stroke.

On a bike, the rotation distance of the pedal also stays constant regardless of the gear chosen. But by increasing the cadance on a bike (i.e. RPM), you increase the distance per minute.

On a rower, the same happens: with a lower drag your drive length hopefully will stay the same, but the SPM increases. So on a lower drag, as your SPM will increase to compensate, your total distance travelled up and down the rail per minute will indeed increase as a result.

Also, I did say "if your muscles can do it" at that speed, which would include being able to execute the catch.

Fair point.

[gvcormac]

On a rower, the same happens: with a lower drag your drive length hopefully will stay the same, but the SPM increases. So on a lower drag, as your SPM will increase to compensate, your total distance travelled up and down the rail per minute will indeed increase as a result.

The link between drag factor and spm is entirely discretionary. I mentioned that in my post as well. If you maintain the same force and the same spm, you get the same power, regardless of drag factor. I would say my explanation is more accurate, not "more complex."

[JaapvanE]

The link between drag factor and spm is entirely discretionary.

In theory maybe, although there a physical limits soon there as well. Generating 200W at DF 70 @ 20 SPM requires a totally different approach than a 200 W stroke at DF 235 @ 20 SPM, where for most above a certain age pulling so hard so fast is practically impossible.

If you maintain the same force and the same spm, you get the same power, regardless of drag factor. I would say my explanation is more accurate, not "more complex."

Again, I seriously doubt it would even work in theory. For a small chage, yes. But from DF 117 to DF 90, a lot less likely. In general, no way.

Why? Because drag is part of the whole equation. The flywheel will become too light to really push against so you can't deliver your force effectively, the flywheel also is too fast making the catch horrible unless you really slow down, and it will feel like riding downhill on a bike in 1st gear.

[Tsnor]

On a rower, the same happens: with a lower drag your drive length hopefully will stay the same, but the SPM increases. So on a lower drag, as your SPM will increase to compensate, your total distance travelled up and down the rail per minute will indeed increase as a result.

FWIW I accidently rowed a 2K at 90-ish drag factor earlier this year (bad water turned OTW into a boat house erg session. I forgot to set the DF).

I did exactly the same SPM as expected, no increased SPM. My drive must have been faster and recovery longer to keep SPM and split equal. Equal SPM would also make the "total distance travelled up and down the rail per minute" the same at the different drag factor rather than increased.

OP: I don't know either if my 2K time at the very low drag factor was better/worse/same as it would have been if I'd set the DF where I like it (roughly 120). The 2K time I rowed was roughly what I expected from my 20 x 40/20 intervals pace. I don't normally do 2K except as 4 x 2K intervals, so don't have much to compare it to.

[JaapvanE]

I did exactly the same SPM as expected, no increased SPM. My drive must have been faster and recovery longer to keep SPM and split equal. Equal SPM would also make the "total distance travelled up and down the rail per minute" the same at the different drag factor rather than increased.

Than you have reached a Zen level I once hope to achieve. As I am still struggling with injury I sometimes have to reduce drag to reduce the load on my arms. At a lower pace (around 2:25 for me), I can keep it at 20SPM. When I need to produce considerable more power (going for the 2:00 to 1:50), I can easily do that at DF 135, but the flywheel stays too fast to be able to catch it effectively. I can inmagine that at higher speeds, this becomes even more problematic.

OP: I don't know either if my 2K time at the very low drag factor was better/worse/same as it would have been if I'd set the DF where I like it (roughly 120).

There is only one way to find out

[gvcormac]

OK, I did an experiment on myself. I rowed 200m at the minimum and maximum damper settings. I tried to hit 200w. Here are the results.

=== low drag factor 74 ===

200m row
200m
METERS

0:47.2
TIME

1:58.0
PACE

12
CALORIES

Average Watts 213
Calories Per Hour 1033
Stroke Rate 30
Stroke Count 24
Drag Factor 74

=== high drag factor 181 (the highest my OG Model D will do, and yes it is clean)

200m
METERS

0:47.4
TIME

1:58.5
PACE

12
CALORIES

Average Watts 210
Calories Per Hour 1023
Stroke Rate 30
Stroke Count 24
Drag Factor 181

[Ombrax]

OK, I did an experiment on myself. I rowed 200m at the minimum and maximum damper settings. I tried to hit 200w. Here are the results.

So let's say you needed to do a 5k at the best pace possible and you could only choose between those two DF, which would you choose, and why?

[putridp]

My perception is that DF alters the balance of stress on the musculature vs cardiovascular. A high DF is harder on the musculature, a lower DF stress the CV more. This is comparable to the dogma in cycling, in which a high gearing/lower cadence is more muscularly stressful, whereas a lower gearing/higher cadence stresses the CV more (and yes, I totally understand there is no direct analogy between DF and gearing, or stroke rate and cadence!).

A high DF means the wheel speed at the catch is slower and although, of course, the power phase of the stroke is entirely concentric, a higher DF makes for a power phase that is slightly more isometric.

As a person who is relatively weak, I prefer a DF of around 110-115. Sometimes for training I bump this up to 125-130.

[Nomath]

OK, I did an experiment on myself. I rowed 200m at the minimum and maximum damper settings. I tried to hit 200w. Here are the results.
.....

Interesting experiment! You got the same stroke at the low drag factor as for the high drag factor.
This seems different from what was shown in the earlier graph mapping the results of the study by D.A. Kane. These results are the average of 12 college rowers aged 20 ± 1 yrs ; male and female. However, Kane asked his participants to row for 3-min periods at each target wattage. At a pace of roughly 2:00 this corresponds to a distance of about 750 meters. This is substantially more in the aerobic range than the 200 meter distance in your experiment.

It would be interesting if you repeated your experiment for a 750 meter distance or a 3 minute row at each setting.

[gvcormac]

OK, I did an experiment on myself. I rowed 200m at the minimum and maximum damper settings. I tried to hit 200w. Here are the results.

So let's say you needed to do a 5k at the best pace possible and you could only choose between those two DF, which would you choose, and why?

I generally do 110 - 125, but it doesn't really make much difference.

[gvcormac]

OK, I did an experiment on myself. I rowed 200m at the minimum and maximum damper settings. I tried to hit 200w. Here are the results.

So let's say you needed to do a 5k at the best pace possible and you could only choose between those two DF, which would you choose, and why?

I generally do 110 - 125, but it doesn't really make much difference.

Similarly, I generally row at about 30spm, but have been known to do as low as 15 and as high as 35 without much difference. I just find 30 comfortable. On sprints I've experimented with up to 60. Other than rattling the chain, I didn't see any huge difference.

[Tsnor]

Interesting experiment! You got the same stroke at the low drag factor as for the high drag factor. This seems different from....

The difference may be that both me and gvcormac were able to see the PM5 display showing stroke rates, and were attempting to manage our rowing to hit the stroke rates we wanted. If we'd been blind to pace/SPM etc not sure what the results would have been.

This study (which you also ref'd) found no substantial exercise difference between 100 DF and 150 DF https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _of_Rowing

My perception is that DF alters the balance of stress on the musculature vs cardiovascular. A high DF is harder on the musculature, a lower DF stress the CV more.

Same wattage for same split regardless of drag factor so cardio should be similar baring an efficiency change, and there doesn't seem to be one. For muscles, at the same stroke rate and split, the DF determines how fast you have to accelerate (quickness of drive) --> lower DF you have to be quicker. You could argue that the need to be quicker vs need to pull a heavier load is a wash for musculature.

OK, I did an experiment on myself.

Really neat experiment. Glad you did it. I've been wondering since I noticed the DF on my row if it made a difference. Guess not.

During the 2004/05 season there was a lot of races. I got stuck at around 6.20 for the 2k. I used DF123 for all training but at races machines seemed to feel totally different so used to set DF to how the machine felt. One of the last races was in Manchester and the machine felt heavy at 123 and ended up setting it at 111. Time for the 2k races was 6.20. Think I ended up with five 2k times around 6.20 that period.

I found this ^^^ the most compelling evidence that DF does not substantially change the result.

There is only one way to find out

LOL. I literally have ZERO stand alone 2K rows in my log. (Just of photo of the boathouse row). I can feel the siren call appeal of repetitive PB attempts even now... I KNOW I can take 5 to 10 seconds off my time if I just....

[Nomath]

Interesting experiment! You got the same stroke at the low drag factor as for the high drag factor. This seems different from....

The difference may be that both me and gvcormac were able to see the PM5 display showing stroke rates, and were attempting to manage our rowing to hit the stroke rates we wanted. If we'd been blind to pace/SPM etc not sure what the results would have been.

This study (which you also ref'd) found no substantial exercise difference between 100 DF and 150 DF https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _of_Rowing
......

Tsnor, I am pleased to have such an attentive and critical reader!
Yes, I took the data from Kane's paper of 2012 to make my previous graph. So I hastened to plot the data of his 2008 study.
Here are the results for average stroke rate depending on power output at 100 DF and 150 DF :



So the 2008 data clearly show the same difference in stroke rate as the 2012 data !

You wrote "no substantial difference between 100 DF and 150 DF". Is the difference statistically significant? Looking at the spread in the data points in his table 2 (page 392), you can have reservations. The results are averages of a group of more than 10 participants. The 2008 group was clearly more heterogeneous (Max Power about 235 W ± 65 W ; in 2012 Max Power about 255 W ± 20 W). Probably also Kane refined his experimental approach.
If the difference between 100 DF and 150 DF were not substantial, you would not see two curves that are clearly and consistently separated at nearly all data points.

[Tsnor]

You wrote "no substantial difference between 100 DF and 150 DF". Is the difference statistically significant? Looking at the spread in the data points in his table 2 (page 392)...

A word is missing there...

This study (which you also ref'd) found no substantial exercise difference between 100 DF and 150 DF

And I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the study and the result.

That said, I do find the graphs compelling that SPM will naturally go higher at lower DF. I'm not sure why my SPM did not rise in my accidental low DF 2K. I think I locked on the split I wanted, then tried to row at a low SPM that delivered that split, and then held the split. My SPM for a 2K were pretty low, 25-26, which happens to be the base rate SPM we had been using OTW, so there may be some muscle memory, etc coming into play. I was going hard, but HR never rose to race level, so I may have had some room to play in the SPM keeping it low.