So the summer’s here for all of us in the Northeast (US), so I’d thought I would share some of the types of workouts I’ve been experimenting with to prepare myself for the next rowing season (fall/spring).
Note: I do not have access to water rowing or the ergometer so my summer workouts will not consist of those but I try to incorporate the necessary movements and muscles.
Option 1 - Weekly Schedule
Day 1: Mileage run + calisthenics
Day 2: Weights
Day 3: Interval run + lesser calisthenics
Day 4: Weights
Day 5: Mileage run
Day 6: Rest
Day 7: Light weights or run
Option 2 - Weekly Schedule
Day 1: Weights
Day 2: Water Paddle workouts
Day 3: Mileage run
Day 4: Water Paddle workouts
Day 5: Interval run
Day 6: Weights
Day 7: Rest
These are two of the overall weekly workout schedules I have tried and they’ve seemed to work fairly well at keeping my overall rowing fitness at a good level.
There is a way to measure the power of a moving boat per stroke and it is the Nielson Kellerman Speed Coach.
This little monitor works with an impeller to give a time split (just like on the erg) and stroke rate. And impeller is situated near the bow end of the shell on the underside and has a small wheel. The faster a shell moves through the water, the faster the wheel will spin. There is a magnet and wiring situated near the spinning wheel to register its rotation. The magnet and wiring will translate to numbers on the Speed Coach monitor. With better and more expensive models, you could get more readings but I'll keep to the basic functions. So technically, this is a cox box monitor and erg monitor-in-one. Awesome right?
A problem with this, especially for not-so-wealthy crews is price and value. These little tools cost $170+ depending on the model. The question is: Is this actually worth it?
As of now, I can only think of two arguments for investing in a Speed Coach. First, you can quantify more precisely how far a shell has travelled in the water and the power of the crew. Due to water current, the distance a crew actually rows is not the same as the distance marked from the land. The impeller measures time split and distance without being biased by water current. And about the power, imagine ergging without a monitor. How hard would you now pull?
The second argument is that it can actually help with determining where the crew's strengths and weaknesses are. When the cox can see exactly where the power is dying, the crew and coach can correlate what was done wrong at that moment in the row. Yet another powerful advantage of quantifying things.
But in terms of crew lineup selections, I still do not see good arguments for it (correct me if I'm wrong). The Speed Coach does not override the common method of switching lineups and having head-to-head races. It can make a given crew faster, but I still do not see how it can show you the best crew in a unique fashion (again correct me if I'm wrong).
So, I suggest the NK Speed Coach is a great investment if you are a small crew with, say, one boat or you are a crew that is confident with the lineups and want to find a way to improve your shell lineups. But, for purposes of lineup selection, I can see little value in this investment and so it would not be worth it for this purpose.
This little monitor works with an impeller to give a time split (just like on the erg) and stroke rate. And impeller is situated near the bow end of the shell on the underside and has a small wheel. The faster a shell moves through the water, the faster the wheel will spin. There is a magnet and wiring situated near the spinning wheel to register its rotation. The magnet and wiring will translate to numbers on the Speed Coach monitor. With better and more expensive models, you could get more readings but I'll keep to the basic functions. So technically, this is a cox box monitor and erg monitor-in-one. Awesome right?
A problem with this, especially for not-so-wealthy crews is price and value. These little tools cost $170+ depending on the model. The question is: Is this actually worth it?
As of now, I can only think of two arguments for investing in a Speed Coach. First, you can quantify more precisely how far a shell has travelled in the water and the power of the crew. Due to water current, the distance a crew actually rows is not the same as the distance marked from the land. The impeller measures time split and distance without being biased by water current. And about the power, imagine ergging without a monitor. How hard would you now pull?
The second argument is that it can actually help with determining where the crew's strengths and weaknesses are. When the cox can see exactly where the power is dying, the crew and coach can correlate what was done wrong at that moment in the row. Yet another powerful advantage of quantifying things.
But in terms of crew lineup selections, I still do not see good arguments for it (correct me if I'm wrong). The Speed Coach does not override the common method of switching lineups and having head-to-head races. It can make a given crew faster, but I still do not see how it can show you the best crew in a unique fashion (again correct me if I'm wrong).
So, I suggest the NK Speed Coach is a great investment if you are a small crew with, say, one boat or you are a crew that is confident with the lineups and want to find a way to improve your shell lineups. But, for purposes of lineup selection, I can see little value in this investment and so it would not be worth it for this purpose.
Recently, I've turned to dragon boating as a potential cross-training regiment, in-addition to running and weight training, for rowing.
Dragon boating is a paddling/canoe-style sport that originated in China thousands of years ago. Just like rowing, the basic jest of it is to have, in this case paddlers, power the boat from start to finish. Unlike rowing though, the boat used is larger and set up into lines of rows, with each row seating two people. In the case of dragon boating, it is an equal number of left and right-side paddlers all sitting right next to each other. And this number can reach up to 20 paddlers per boat!
I have found that this sport is great for upper torso training. The major muscles worked are lower/upper back and shoulders, followed by arms and pectorals, and finally the legs. The power generated from paddling isn't from the legs as in rowing, but from the twisting motion of your upper body. Hence this is a great builder of shoulders and back muscles. The finishing touch to the drive will definitely build triceps and lats, I guarantee it!
Some of the other great features is that the race distances are usually "only" 250m or 500m and NO HAND CALLUSES! Going from having to row a 2k or 5k for races, 250/500m just sounds real sweet. But, don't be fooled. As you won't be using your legs much anymore, the giant dragon boat won't be going anywhere as fast as a rowing shell, so your still going to feel that burn while powering your way through.
And about no hand calluses, need I explain anymore? (Although be warned, dragon boating is much more likely to give you "rasberries", ouch!). So if you're still looking for interesting ways this summer to stay in rowing-shape, find a dragon boat or paddling club near you and try it out. It's a nice alternative (or addition) to running, cycling, swimming, weight-training, etc.
Dragon boating is a paddling/canoe-style sport that originated in China thousands of years ago. Just like rowing, the basic jest of it is to have, in this case paddlers, power the boat from start to finish. Unlike rowing though, the boat used is larger and set up into lines of rows, with each row seating two people. In the case of dragon boating, it is an equal number of left and right-side paddlers all sitting right next to each other. And this number can reach up to 20 paddlers per boat!
I have found that this sport is great for upper torso training. The major muscles worked are lower/upper back and shoulders, followed by arms and pectorals, and finally the legs. The power generated from paddling isn't from the legs as in rowing, but from the twisting motion of your upper body. Hence this is a great builder of shoulders and back muscles. The finishing touch to the drive will definitely build triceps and lats, I guarantee it!
Some of the other great features is that the race distances are usually "only" 250m or 500m and NO HAND CALLUSES! Going from having to row a 2k or 5k for races, 250/500m just sounds real sweet. But, don't be fooled. As you won't be using your legs much anymore, the giant dragon boat won't be going anywhere as fast as a rowing shell, so your still going to feel that burn while powering your way through.
And about no hand calluses, need I explain anymore? (Although be warned, dragon boating is much more likely to give you "rasberries", ouch!). So if you're still looking for interesting ways this summer to stay in rowing-shape, find a dragon boat or paddling club near you and try it out. It's a nice alternative (or addition) to running, cycling, swimming, weight-training, etc.
In the United States, the sport of rowing is not a collegiate Men's division but it is for the Women's division (possibly because there is only a Men's division for football). But, let's assume that we are all rowing-centric right now. Is this good for spreading the popularity of the sport? Afterall, unlike in Europe where rowing is a fairly big thing, the sport is relatively quiet in the US.
It is important to be able to inspire and teach new rowers. As rowers ourselves, we should want the sport to flourish so that many others may come to enjoy the sport we love so much. The main problem that comes without a division label is university funding. Many collegiate clubs can only receive funding through club sports, alumi, donations, and fundraisers. These methods yield no-where near the funding that NCAA sports yield. And yet, rowing is a sport that unfortunately requires much funding. A racing 8-shell can cost $30k!
So to make NCAA or not? For the purpose of encouraging new rowers, rowing needs to remain a club sport (this includes the women). In the US, there is just not enough popularity for the sport. By keeping rowing a club sport, it makes it easier to walk-ons to learn how to row. Of course, there are many competitive clubs that recruit and are highly selective in who they seat (Harvard, Brown, Yale, etc.) But I would assume this selectivity would just increase with NCAA labeling.
The other end of the problem is sufficient funding. Clubs can take on new rowers but if they can not fund those rowers in the form of equipment and staffing, then rowing might as well be a division sport. On the financial end, there has to be more incentive for universities/colleges to fund rowing clubs more sufficiently. Perhaps with more adequately equipped clubs with lower exclusivity, rowing can become the rapidly emerging sport in the US.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="532" caption="Distribution of revenue of collegiate men and women's rowing clubs (2007)"]
[/caption]
Of course there are many other angles to the problem of how to increasing rowing popularity, but I've only mentioned the two I saw as overall major.
It is important to be able to inspire and teach new rowers. As rowers ourselves, we should want the sport to flourish so that many others may come to enjoy the sport we love so much. The main problem that comes without a division label is university funding. Many collegiate clubs can only receive funding through club sports, alumi, donations, and fundraisers. These methods yield no-where near the funding that NCAA sports yield. And yet, rowing is a sport that unfortunately requires much funding. A racing 8-shell can cost $30k!
So to make NCAA or not? For the purpose of encouraging new rowers, rowing needs to remain a club sport (this includes the women). In the US, there is just not enough popularity for the sport. By keeping rowing a club sport, it makes it easier to walk-ons to learn how to row. Of course, there are many competitive clubs that recruit and are highly selective in who they seat (Harvard, Brown, Yale, etc.) But I would assume this selectivity would just increase with NCAA labeling.
The other end of the problem is sufficient funding. Clubs can take on new rowers but if they can not fund those rowers in the form of equipment and staffing, then rowing might as well be a division sport. On the financial end, there has to be more incentive for universities/colleges to fund rowing clubs more sufficiently. Perhaps with more adequately equipped clubs with lower exclusivity, rowing can become the rapidly emerging sport in the US.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="532" caption="Distribution of revenue of collegiate men and women's rowing clubs (2007)"]
[/caption]Of course there are many other angles to the problem of how to increasing rowing popularity, but I've only mentioned the two I saw as overall major.
Were you a small, light person when you stepped onto your crew for the first time wanting to row? Well then, your coach probably asked you (or maybe just thought about it) if you'd like to be a coxswain or row bow seat. Or, if you had a more hardcore coach, then you're stuck as bow. No questions asked.
As a novice rower, I was the bow of my crew. I'll tell you exactly what most novice bow rowers feel: frustrated, angry, just about hopeless for a while. That's right, I'm almost certain that novice bow rowers might be the angriest rower of the entire crew.
Let's look at the physics of the bow seat. It is literally the most narrow seat of shell. It is commonly said that the major "responsibility" of the bow (and 2-seat) is boat balance. Of course this isn't just their responsibility but any movement by these two seats will have a more drastic effect on balance than any other seat. So what are the stereotypical characteristics of a good bow? Balance, ability to mimic 7-seat (or 3-seat in a four), and smaller body size. Note that this does not in anyway mean that bow is the weakest. Remember, excluding technique, the shell is only as fast as the slowest rower.
Back to the question: why's the novice bow the most difficult rower's seat mentally? The novice boat will most commonly experience enormous amounts of problems. One of the major problems that affect bow the most is balance. As bow is in the most narrow seat, bow should be the first to contact the water on any starboard (or port if bow is port) lean. Since novice crews will generally experience a lot of heavy lean rows, bow will usually find him/herself "holding" up the boat. Holding up the boat means feathering the oar on the water during the recovery and pushing up on it so avoid further boat lean. This forces primarily bow to use energy to try to restore balance to the boat instead of into the stroke. Trust me, holding up boats is NOT FUN AT ALL. It makes things worst when the other seats in front can't see that you're holding up the boat and they think nothing is wrong. So they keep the way things are, and bow is just holding the boat all row long.
My advice: LET IT GO. Just that, if the boat leans, let it lean. Make sure to avoid feathering on the water even if you have to gunnell the oar (meaning push the oar handle as low as you can). That way, everyone will starkly feel the lean and will try to fix their personal technique. It probably won't fix the set because bow would also be having bad technique doing this, but this way everyone shares on the bad lean. Afterall, the first step in fixing a problem is identifying it. If the other rowers do not know, nothing will be fixed.
As a novice rower, I was the bow of my crew. I'll tell you exactly what most novice bow rowers feel: frustrated, angry, just about hopeless for a while. That's right, I'm almost certain that novice bow rowers might be the angriest rower of the entire crew.
Let's look at the physics of the bow seat. It is literally the most narrow seat of shell. It is commonly said that the major "responsibility" of the bow (and 2-seat) is boat balance. Of course this isn't just their responsibility but any movement by these two seats will have a more drastic effect on balance than any other seat. So what are the stereotypical characteristics of a good bow? Balance, ability to mimic 7-seat (or 3-seat in a four), and smaller body size. Note that this does not in anyway mean that bow is the weakest. Remember, excluding technique, the shell is only as fast as the slowest rower.
Back to the question: why's the novice bow the most difficult rower's seat mentally? The novice boat will most commonly experience enormous amounts of problems. One of the major problems that affect bow the most is balance. As bow is in the most narrow seat, bow should be the first to contact the water on any starboard (or port if bow is port) lean. Since novice crews will generally experience a lot of heavy lean rows, bow will usually find him/herself "holding" up the boat. Holding up the boat means feathering the oar on the water during the recovery and pushing up on it so avoid further boat lean. This forces primarily bow to use energy to try to restore balance to the boat instead of into the stroke. Trust me, holding up boats is NOT FUN AT ALL. It makes things worst when the other seats in front can't see that you're holding up the boat and they think nothing is wrong. So they keep the way things are, and bow is just holding the boat all row long.
My advice: LET IT GO. Just that, if the boat leans, let it lean. Make sure to avoid feathering on the water even if you have to gunnell the oar (meaning push the oar handle as low as you can). That way, everyone will starkly feel the lean and will try to fix their personal technique. It probably won't fix the set because bow would also be having bad technique doing this, but this way everyone shares on the bad lean. Afterall, the first step in fixing a problem is identifying it. If the other rowers do not know, nothing will be fixed.
One of the debates in rowing that's been around since perhaps the invention of rowing is to have a starboarded stroke or a port stroke.
In the US at least, the current general trend is to have port rigged strokes. My current crew does the same.
But I beg the question: why? What made port the preferred side for boat rigging the stroke seat? Of course rationally, there's no hard evidence for overall preference of this nature. For every great port stroke, there's definitely a good starboard that's stroke-seat material.
The necessary requirements of being a good stroke is great technique, great rhythm. So there shouldn't be a real reason for ports to be "better" than starboards.
Why's this question important? Well, if you've checked out my ROWING HUMOR section, from my experience, stroke seats normally see themselves as the leader (second-in-command after the coxswain). So logically, I'm pretty sure many starboards out there wish you could transfer your skills over to port for that stroke seat. Well, I say stick with whichever side you like and perfect it (being able to master both sides is even better!). Convince your chain-of-command that there's no logical reason to reserve stroke for ports.
Starboards can deserve it too!
In the US at least, the current general trend is to have port rigged strokes. My current crew does the same.
But I beg the question: why? What made port the preferred side for boat rigging the stroke seat? Of course rationally, there's no hard evidence for overall preference of this nature. For every great port stroke, there's definitely a good starboard that's stroke-seat material.
The necessary requirements of being a good stroke is great technique, great rhythm. So there shouldn't be a real reason for ports to be "better" than starboards.
Why's this question important? Well, if you've checked out my ROWING HUMOR section, from my experience, stroke seats normally see themselves as the leader (second-in-command after the coxswain). So logically, I'm pretty sure many starboards out there wish you could transfer your skills over to port for that stroke seat. Well, I say stick with whichever side you like and perfect it (being able to master both sides is even better!). Convince your chain-of-command that there's no logical reason to reserve stroke for ports.
Starboards can deserve it too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)