Techie and Nerdie bits

[Bangers]

As I'm sure there are a members of the team who just want to row, have fun/keep fit, and don't want to get involved too deeply with all the nuts and bolts, I thought a new thread might be useful, 'cause I'm sure I keep hearing anguished moans and cries of 'For heavens sake, get a life'.

As a starter for 10 can I bring to your attention the DIY VO2 MAX CALCULATOR.... DA DA. This is courtesy of one Dr Fritz Hagerman, and is available at http://www.concept2.com/05/training/competition/vo2.asp
What makes this really interesting is that I have used on a guy who had undertaken the full medical tests, and when I used the Hagerman calculator there was a very close correlation, ie within 1.5%, to his measured figure.
I know one example is not proof, but it is interesting.

Janet if this works tell hubby it's now only £35 if you only want Lactic threshol checked

[JanetS]

Bangers - great idea for thread! I tend to get too 'techie' so probably best to isolate me with like minded individuals in a 'safe' thread

Tried the link you posted (yes I'm that keen) but no joy - 'file not found' Sounds very interesting though.

Looked up the interactive training guide on C2 to check out the 'row 'til blow' idea. If you were doing that method of assessment anyway it might be interesting to plot HR vs power - there is some research to indicate that the point at which the relationship goes non-linear (the 'Heart Rate Deflection Point) is at, or very near, the heart rate corresponding to lactate threashold, i.e. the point beyond which lactate levels will start to build. (Search for 'Conconi Test') It's a bit controversial - and from what I can gather tends to slightly overestimate the HR at threshold - but might be useful if trying to determine training levels. On the C2 training band you'd expect that deflection point to come at about 80-85% of the MHR measured during the same test which I guess would be a useful cross check.

Does it show that I'm using the science to avoid the ergo?

PS re hubby idea...... You're subversive! I like that

[Gregor Andrews]

Here's the correct link.

[JanetS]

Here's the correct link.

Thank you!

I have to weigh myself!!??!!

Ooo errr.....

[Bangers]

Here's the correct link.

Oops who can't spell competition then
Shall I start a spelling thread

[PSims]

I've been playing with the web site - so I'll add a Utilities section with useful links - back in a min!

Done...

[Bangers]

[quote="JanetS"]
Does it show that I'm using the science to avoid the ergo?

What a brilliant idea..............avoiding the ergo! I think my deflection point should be into the pub.

Serious face now, I find that I have to control the throttle to 164/5 for completing longish pieces eg. 5/6 k. This equates to 86/7% of my MHR, so seems to tie in with the 80/85% point where anything much above becomes unsustainable.

[plummy]

When using my Model C PM2 monitor, I usually have both 500m split screens on (per stroke and per session etc). Occasionally, like tonight when trying a "failed" 60min row I flipped the screen to "projected metres". My question is this: does the PM2 take into account the distance I have already covered when estimating the projected metres, or simply take the instant split e.g. 2:02 and use that time for it's calculation

[JanetS]

Oh good question!
Time for an experiment I feel.........

[PSims]

It does both - takes what you have done and works out the rest based on instantaneous split. Well, it does on the PM3 anyway!

[Bangers]

I'm sure the PM2 does the same math as PM3

[johnglynn]

When using my Model C PM2 monitor, I usually have both 500m split screens on (per stroke and per session etc). Occasionally, like tonight when trying a "failed" 60min row I flipped the screen to "projected metres". My question is this: does the PM2 take into account the distance I have already covered when estimating the projected metres, or simply take the instant split e.g. 2:02 and use that time for it's calculation

(edit)
Answered already

I'm not sure for the PM2, but the PM3 certainly takes into account my currently rowed meters. I would be extrememly surprised if the PM2 was not the same

I use projected meters almost the whole time. I don't know if its a good or a bad thing as a huge number of my row's tend to end up just below my target , but if I'm not hitting my target on a row I make a new target which is 30 secs slower (for a 10K) which is probably too much of a jump.

[steve the slug]

Guess what
what?

i have just picked up a C2 model (broken), is it easier just to order the new bolts etc from concept or are they compatible with B&Q bolts, screws etc, as i am thinking of having a fix / play this weekend.

slug

[Fatt Matt]

Hey, guys, being (relatively) new to this forum lark I've only just found this thread...

I am very keen on HR monitoring to get the most out of my rowing - done at the gym (new C2s this last Sunday, at last have a PM3 to play with!) and usually a bit time-pressured - and am following a Concept 4-days/week training plan for an imaginary 2k race (against myself) in, er, November.

Anyway, the whole plan is based around different bands (sorry if talking to those in the know)... UT1, UT2 etc. However, I'm not sure if I'm calculating these bands right:
I take my Rest HR from Max HR to get the range.
Then, to calculate, say, 80% I take 80% of the range, add that to the Rest HR and there you go.

Clearly this is a higher figure than just 80% of Max HR. For me it's 0.8*(190-60) + 60 = 164, rather than 152... Which is a pretty significant difference? I am sure I've seen 'my' method out there, but not sure where.

Am I imagining this method? Is this nonsense/overly complicated? Any thoughts?

[Thomas W-P]

As I understand this (from local county fitness advisor lecturing to the kids the other week) you are 100% correct. I was surprised too.

I did a long post about this a little while ago.

[Fatt Matt]

Cool, cheers for that T.

I reckoned it works for me as it seems like the simpler calculation just didn't cut it for the easier training bands. That said I tried 2x20mins at UT2 (<153bpm) and I just got bored! You guys/gals that do these mega-meters - I take my hat off to you, you've got some mental as well as physical stamina!

[Paul Victory]

Can someone remind me how you load your PBs as part of your signature. I tried unsuccessfully to find the instructions that were given on the Concept2 site.

Thanks

Paul

[Gregor Andrews]

Can someone remind me how you load your PBs as part of your signature. I tried unsuccessfully to find the instructions that were given on the Concept2 site.

Thanks

Paul

You can find the instructions on how to do it in the FAQ section (seen at the top of the page)

[Fatt Matt]

Very excited, just got home to find my C2 LogCard and reader have arrived! No more scribbling stats with sweaty shaky hands in the gym for me, oh no ho ho! Does seem very slightly Heath Robinson - anyone had any good times/bad times with this technology?

W00t! I'm going rowing with some new techy kit - how happy am I?

[Paul Victory]

Thanks for the link Gregor.

Hopefully this will work.

Paul

[plummy]

I've just been reading up on the BIRC results from last year and found that there appears to be an age handicap (for a 43 yr old this was subtract 12 seconds ish) and also being a LWT there was a "multiply your time by 0.994" factor. Should I be doing this to my Free Spirits scores, or is this simply a BIRC thing?

[johnglynn]

I've just been reading up on the BIRC results from last year and found that there appears to be an age handicap (for a 43 yr old this was subtract 12 seconds ish) and also being a LWT there was a "multiply your time by 0.994" factor. Should I be doing this to my Free Spirits scores, or is this simply a BIRC thing?

I thought there was different races for each age group, weight and sex

Thats how they do it at the IIRC anyways, e.g. I'm in the Male Open HWT's, but in 4 years time I'll be in the Male 30 HWT's, 14 yrs Male 40 HWT (maybe LWT ) etc.

[plummy]

I noticed all the different races for ages and weights etc at the BIRC but my question was more aimed at the times I log for concept2/ELM/CTC ranking etc. I realise the Nonathlon takes care of age etc. I suspect that whatever the PM2 says is what I should be logging but just wondering if I was "doing myself down"

[johnglynn]

On the C2 online ranking it says

Reminder: All scores submitted to the Online Ranking must be raw scores, without any adjustments for age handicap, weight adjustment, etc.

I'm guessing it's the same situation on ELM and CTC (of which 3 out of 5 seats are open, giving Females and LWTs a better chance of getting into boat 1, then having all 5 seats open)

[webberg]

Plummy I think that you just log the metres and times you ahve done.

The handicap tables (weight and age) allow you to compare yuor times against others. It really means that older you have to pull harder against older people.

The Nonathlon works on a slightly different principle. This takes the best time/distance recorded for a particular age/weight and calculates what your time/distance is as a percentage of that. This is then turned into a score.

There are some aspects that are unclear to me int his however. You'll see that some fo the older rowers in particular score over 1000 in some events. If my explanation was completely valid this cannot happen. I suspect therefore that the "best" times might be those recorded at monitored events.

there is a detailed explanation on the Nonathlon site.

The advantage of the Nonathlon calculation is that is does not have the step breaks at the age limits so that a 40 year old and a 49 year old have their own performane curve rather than being in one category.

The disadvantage is that it does not distinguish between a 80kg HWT and a 120kg HWT.

Still if we rowed at consistent improvement levels and felt good eery time we sat on the erg, the Nonathlon would no doubt be perfect. Unfortunately I have days when I'm (nearly) ashamed to post a time and others when I drip sweat over the keyboard in my rush to get my (for me) fantastic time on the record.

Happy erging.