14yr old slamming down a 16:48 and a 15yr a 15:58

I rowed the 5k at 20:10 last year when I was 65. No hope of running it that fast. I also rowed my best 2k back to back (7:50). I felt good that day!

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

are you putting on level 10?

6k is a much more common rowing test than 5k and I think you'll see the most impressive times at that distance. I was not great at longer distances like 6k but my best was 21:07, as a lightweight. That means I went through 5k at 17:35 or so. So maybe I could have done 17:25? That was about 19 years ago ... My best 5k was last November at 17:58. So pretty close, if it counts being so far apart. A big difference though is that being heavier is a huge advantage on the erg and generally a disadvantage for running.

Edit: also rowing takes waaayyyyy more explosive leg strength than running (or cycling). Even at these longer distances.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Also, thinking about elite vs elite, for runners you'll be in the lightweight category. For lightweight rowers I think anything under 17 is solidly elite while for running more like under 15 (maybe under 14??). So that's a pretty big difference.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

It makes almost no difference if you are on "level 1" or "level 10". Your pace per 500m should be almost the same. Strokes per minute will change (more force over less strokes or less force over more strokes).

I've been using the erg for just over a year. My pace per km on the erg is similar for the same perceived exertion as what it used to be when I was running at similar perceived exertion. But I am not running as much or as well as 4 years ago when I was running properly. I think in general the larger you are, pace per km running will be slower than rowing. I'd take a wild guess and say someone like Alberto Contador would run way faster than he could row. Someone like Michael Phelps would row way faster than he could run. I purposely picked two athletes who are neither rowers or runners to make the comparison.

I am guessing that if I rowed hard when I was doing my running and tri PB's in the early 90's, my rowing times would be identical to running because I'm kind of in the middle in terms of watts I can put out for my size and I've always done upper body stuff (XC skis, weights, swim)

Fuck that, my machine goes to 11!

Actually I'm generally on 4-5, as a 155lb lightweight I get better results with a damper resistance setting around 110.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

Ummm, no, it makes a big difference. That would be like saying there is no difference between the gearing in 36/28 and 52/12

It's true that it certainly feels different but really the design of the erg is that it measures the work you put into it, regardless of friction and venting differences from machine to machine. If I put X KJ into a workout at a setting of 10 it's the same work as a setting of 1 and the pace times on the readout would be the same if both efforts were done in the same time. So you can be a grinder or a spinner but if you're doing the same work the pace will be the same. The erg does not measure "distance" in the same way we think of it when on a bike.

If you can't get a good workout when the damper is on 4 it's not because you're so awesomely strong, it's because your form sucks. That's why every erg you walk up to in a gym is set to 10.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

Well, yes you can ultimately end up at the same pace but your spm will have to higher if you are on a lighter setting just like if you were in a lighter bike gear.

Having said that, even as a (long ago) former rower, if I were to hop on that torture machine again, personally i would set you it somewhere between 3 and 5.

I did say "almost no difference". I was just pointing out that you'll end up in the same range of time/500m or wattage. As you guys have suggested, I find that 3-5 works. If I go 6-8 I end up with a higher pace inititally before it settles back down lower....if I go lower than 3, I have a lower pace initially before it comes back up. At 5 I tend to average the highest pace over 4-8 minutes (1000-2000m range depending on how hard I am working that day). Does that provide more colour?

Sometimes I do play around at 10 and at zero just for the fun of it to see what happens.

Makes sense. I think it’s a lot like bike gearing in that each rower sort of ends of self-selecting the most effective level/spms for them individually after lots of tinkering. Each boat ultimately self selects the best spm to maximize its speed—that is not be the same for each boat.

Since this is just a fun workout, there’s certainly nothing wrong with tinkering with higher/lower levels in different sessions (or within a session) provided your technique is lookin good with one caveat-especially for you since you have back issues (I think?)....this may be obvious to say, but a higher setting will put more strain on your back and if your technique isn’t where it should be that could lead to bigger issues.

I used to have a 19:14 6k at c. 205 and I’m pretty certain I’m not getting close to that running.

Hell, I’d be ecstatic with that as a 5k. Answers on a postcard as to why I’m so slow as a runner.

There would be a few elite lightweights who could run a 5k quicker than their erg, but very few (15:20 run vs. 16:10 erg). Heavyweights? I can think of one at 6,5”/200 who could run a 10k quicker than his 10k erg (32:30 for the run) but he was one of the strangest physiological fish I’ve ever seen.

Thanks. When I try setting 8-10 its for a very short period. Typically < 500m and I am not pushing hard. I am trying to hold good form at a low cadence/high force. I am treating that as part of rehab for lumbar spine gradually putting more load on it, but doing it at an aerobic effort (at least staying way below V02). If I push below 1:50 down to 1:45 per 500m then I can only do that for a short duration. I believe 1:45 equates to 300W. When I was racing tris well my FTP was around 260W so that gives you an idea of how hard 1:45 is.

2:00 = 202W
1:55 = 230W
1:50 = 262W

So if I go at 8-10 its for 500m or so at 2:00 to 2:05 range. I feel this is a good range where my muscles are far from aerobic distress and I can maintain form. Like most sports you get injured when you go near your redline and your muscles are all tight and on the verge of misfiring because you can't get enough oxygen to them.

I treat the level 10 setting like "hills-speed" running. Run uphill at an aerobic pace. Then you run downhill fast with high turnover and high stride length, but since you're going downhill you are not in aerobic distress and your legs can do the motion well.

You guys got me curious about how fast I can row one mile on the erg versus running 1 mile on the track. On another thread there was a discussion about how far you can run in the time you swim 1 mile. A proxy for this is what is your time for 1600m running versus 400m swimming. I could add the 1600m on the erg (realizing that this is not a rowing competition distance). My 400m swim time recently was 6:02 during the back half of my 800m at masters nationals. I don't think with my running's current state (I roughly had a 4 year no running hiatus) I could break 7 minutes. I THINK I can get close to 6:10 for the mile distance on the erg without doing anything stupid to hurt myself. But it might be a wash between 400m swim and 1600m on the erg if I train on the erg equally as much as swimming (I am currently doing 8-10 hrs per week in the pool....my brain would explode doing that much on the erg). Running is way behind both sports, but I'm also 54 in a few weeks.

I never looked at watts in high school and college—everything was paced /500. But, if I were ever to use the erg again, I would definitely pay closer attention to watts.

I can see why a rower would not care about watts. For my coming from a tri background it immediately provided some physiological context of my efforts relative to activities I can relate to. Now I can switch between the two and pretty well close my eyes and based on perceived exertion tell you the number whether in watts or seconds/500m

Yeah but what is interesting to me now that I’m so dialed into biking watts is asking my friends who are rowing coaches if they utilize watts...they don’t seem to all that much. obviously it’s just another way to measure effort but I can see it being a bit easier to measure watts since there are more numeric variables (ie watts provides a wider variety of numbers whereas 99% of pacing in college for me was somewhere between 1:30/500 and 1:55/500) if that makes sense.

These exponential power curves are a bitch, why do I always have to get 15% stronger to get 4.3% faster all the time getting 1.17% older and 1.5% weaker every year.

---

"They know f_ck-all over at Slowtwitch"
- Lionel Sanders

They are worth using as they give a better perspective on physiological change, but as you’re measured on /500 on water, coaches tend to be not worried about what they are when we have an on water equivalent. For a coxless four, on good water, with 190lb athletes. Or something like that.

I prefer them and used to erg on Watts a lot, but that was a YMMV.

I think that you rowing guys know the incremental effort each 2 seconds of speed is not linear. For the rest of us its so baffling until you look at it in watts then its just linear between effort and wattage which is roughly what happens when we're running (certainly uphill, less so running fast on flats) or biking up a steep hill. Biking on flats (for a static aero position), swimming, rowing physiological effort goes through the roof for each incremental gain in pace. So I "tend" to like wattage on the erg unless I want to do an interval for time.

As a previous active rower I’d have to say that your compaison is slightly incorrect.. The movement of a rowing-stroke is more of a “bang-bang-bang” than the steady churn of pedaling.. (rowers can jump, biker can not - kinda)

I’m competition everyone uses “level 10” - including small 14 year olds like myself back in the day...

I definitely don’t agree that rowing is any sort of bang bang bang...but I’m not not here to argue about proper rowing technique. This is a discussion about indoor rowing on the erg.

No, actually, back in the day national team testing was set at level 7 as
we did for our college team too. I’m fairly sure Crash Bs used the same setting. I don’t know if that has changed (to be clear we are taking about the setting on an erg)

Exactly

---

Andrew Garwood
http://www.2xu.com
http://www.newtonrunning.com
http://www.ascendsport.com.au