DYNO Leg Press

Injured Reserve
A friend and erstwhile rowing companion recently launched himself down a ski slope a la Superman into some rock--kryptonite, I think. The contact substantially weakened his left shoulder and the subsequent metallic replacements should have him entertaining TSA folks for the rest of his life (no junk jokes, sorry). In the short term he can't row, or do much else for that matter. Lex Luthor, himself, could not have devised more heinous chingadera for my anonymous friend Robert, aka, Biff. This post is dedicated to his sanity.

"Anonymous" in better days: the only time we both occupied the bow together.

Hypocrite?
After recently posting on strength training; I was espied on a "strength training" device called a DYNO. One of my training buddies jestingly accused me of surreptitious strength training. What gives?

First, lest I give the wrong impression, I am not against strength training; I just haven't found any compelling reason to do it for rowing. I expect some day someone will emerge with some studies that suggest strength training actually improves rowing performance; until then I'll save my time and energy.

Secondly, I don't consider my use of the DYNO to be strength training; I generally perform a steady-state "leg press" workout for 45 to 75 minutes and use roughly the same stroke rate and force as I would in rowing. The leg press option on this machine feels very similar to the leg component in sculling. For that matter, it seems as close to actual rowing as you can get without using your arms (and shoulders!).  If this is strength training, then so is rowing on the ergometer or rowing itself. Me thinks I doth protest too much.

What is the DYNO?
Devised by the Marquis de Sade, this torture instrument has elicited confessions for all kinds of uncommitted sins. Produced for just a handful of years and sold by Concept II until 2007, the DYNO is a unique combination of variable resistance leg press, seated bench press, and seated bench pull. Short for dynamometer--a device that measures force--the DYNO is a push-me, pull-you looking device with two seats, various handles, and a monitor that flips to face either direction.

When you push or pull on the DYNO, the force you apply pulls a chain which accelerates a fan. Your force accelerates the mass of the fan and opposes the air drag of the spinning fan. The more force you apply, the more you accelerate the fan and the faster the fan spins. Simple, eh?

Not like free weights or traditional strength training equipment
While the DYNO exercises (bench press, leg press and bench pull) sound very much like the weight-lifting namesakes, there are some notable differences. On the DYNO, you can push or pull as forcefully as you want, as slowly as you want and as often as you want. Unlike traditional weight lifting, it is extremely difficult to "lift to failure"; you can apply minimal force and still perform a DYNO leg press, for example. Unlike most traditional free-weight lifting, there is virtually no resistance on the recovery (there is friction similar to that on a rowing ergometer). Unlike many weight machines, there is no "deadspot" where the resistance gets easier or more difficult; the resistance is a function of the force you apply. If you have a deadspot, so be it.

DYNO is similar to rowing in several regards
As in rowing, the resistance is directly proportional to the force you apply.
As in rowing, there is very little resistance during the "recovery."
As in rowing, you can change the "default load" by opening/closing the dampers, roughly analogous to changing the outboard on your oars (or inboard or ratio, etc)

DYNO Gearing
Like the rowing ergometer, the DYNO features dampers that control the air drag coefficient and what I call the "default load." For the same speed of movement, the more the dampers are open, the more difficult an effort will feel. Think of this as being analogous to a longer outboard (all else being equal). Similarly, if you close the dampers, for the same speed of movement, the easier an effort will feel. Think of this as being analogous to shortening the outboard on your oars. Clearly, the load is a function of the force the user applies, but just as the outboard on an oar affects the load in a boat so do the dampers affect the load on the DYNO.

When I use the DYNO, I close the dampers all the way; I want to be able to use this device for an extended period of time to simulate actual rowing.

DYNO Leg Press
I purchased a DYNO for our rowing club several years ago, specifically for people with shoulder, arm, and wrist injuries. You can see below that the leg press requires only the smallest effort by the hands and arms.

She has been sentenced to do this forever...

DYNO Research
"OK," your skeptic self says, "show me the research." Dr. Fritz Hagerman, Professor of Biomedical Science at Ohio University, conducted a couple of 10-week studies comparing the DYNO with some traditional strength training and the rowing ergometer.

In the first study, college-aged men and women were divided into three groups:

1. DYNO-trained group
2. Free-weight, sitting leg press group
3. Non-training or control group 

The results showed that the DYNO group increased power-endurance more significantly than the free-weight and control groups. Additionally, the DYNO group showed a significantly higher increase in conversion of IIB(X) to IIA muscle fibers than the other two groups, suggesting "greater aerobic power."

In the second study, Ohio University Men's Rowing Club members all performed the same rowing ergometer workouts, but additionally:

1. One-third of the participants performed DYNO Leg Press and Bench Pull training.
2. Another third of the participants performed free-weight sitting Leg Press and free-weight prone Bench Pulls.
3. The final third of the participants performed no additional training.

The results showed, most notably, that (quoting from the Concept2 site):

• The rowing plus DYNO group improved power-endurance (aerobic muscular power based on repeated reps using free weights and DYNO).
• The rowing plus DYNO group was the only group to significantly improve rowing efficiency and also the only group to show a significant correlation between isolated muscle testing results (DYNO and free-weight leg extension and arm pulls) and maximal and average ergometer score.
• The rowing plus DYNO group was the only group to show significant improvement in anaerobic threshold. This is very important because the rowing plus DYNO subjects were able to perform an ever-increasing amount of work on the ergometer using the more efficient aerobic energy system to fuel muscle and thus reduce lactate production and the possibility of local muscle fatigue.

These studies were apparently not published in a peer-reviewed journal and many details are missing (I have asked) and the only place apparently one can find these results is on the Concept2 site.

Conclusions
The Hagerman studies suggest that the DYNO has some merit. Since we don't know the details of the studies, however, it is hard to know what merit badge to attach to this device. Did Hagerman have his rowers use short intense efforts or long sustained efforts. If I had to guess, I would say short efforts, thus contradicting my own DYNO use. Oh well.

Still, if you are slightly shoulder-impaired, and desperate for some rowing analog workout, you could do a lot worse than look to the DYNO leg press.

All DYNO photos used by permission of Concept 2.

Research: Strength Training

This morning's inbox item: Strength and Conditioning Practices in Rowing. Researchers presented coaches in Great Britain with a questionnaire to help characterize and quantify the type of strength and conditioning used by their charges. Some of the more notable findings include:

• Almost all coaches (94%) reported their rowers performed strength training, with 81% using Olympic lifting
• The clean (63%) and squat (27%) were rated the most important prescribed exercises.
• Ninety-four percent indicated they conducted physical testing on their rowers, typically assessing cardiovascular endurance (80%), muscular power (70%), muscular strength (70%), and anaerobic capacity (57%).

It's What Everyone Does
Clearly strength training is important to high-level British rowing coaches. This seems consistent with many national team publications (e.g., Australia) and the governing body of international rowing (source) as well as articles in various rowing books (example) and magazines (example).

But why is strength training important?
The above study did not appear to ask why the coaches employed strength training, but maybe that question should be asked. A logical answer might be that strength training confers performance benefits as demonstrated in various studies. In fact, researchers have attempted to ascertain the benefits of strength training in rowing and these studies have generally shown few, if any, performance benefits. In one study (#4 below), strength training seemed to set back members of the US National Team.

What?! Blasphemy! This can't be right. Show me.

No Performance Benefits: Study 1
In The effect of velocity-specific strength training on peak torque and anaerobic rowing power. , Bell, G. J., Petersen, S. R., Quinney, A. H., & Wenger, H. A. divided 18 varsity oarsmen from the University of Victoria into three training groups, two of which performed circuit training (three circuits of 12 stations) four times a week for 5 weeks. One group performed the strength training at high velocity, while the other group performed them at slower velocity. A third group was a no-training control.

The results of this study are a bit surprising. Both training groups significantly increased their peak torque in knee extension--a primary rowing motion, with the high velocity group excelling at higher velocity and the lower velocity group excelling at lower velocity motions. Furthermore, researchers found high positive correlations between peak torque and anaerobic power outputs. So far, it sounds good for the effectiveness of this training regimen. However,  the improved peak torque did not translate into any performance benefits as tested on the rowing ergometer, leading the researchers to conclude:

These results indicate that velocity-specific strength training does not necessarily improve anaerobic power output in a different exercise mode despite the high positive correlation between isokinetic strength and anaerobic power output.

If your eyes started to glaze over with the terminology above, read this brief synopsis of the above study, a quote from which below (bold highlights are mine):

This finding was surprising because the strength program was specifically designed to enhance the strength of the muscle groups involved in rowing. Since power is dependent on both force and velocity, the observed improvements in torque with resistance training should, theoretically, have contributed to an increase in rowing power. That theoretical position was not supported by the results of this study in these high-caliber athletes. The lack of improvement contradicts the recommendations of many coaches and the content emphases of many rowing training programs.

Another reviewer concluded:

training effects were specific to the resistance training mode and did not transfer to the more complex action of rowing. Resistance training programs may actually restrict the volume of beneficial, sports specific training that can be achieved because of increased levels of fatigue.

Many reviewers have focused on this study because it is one of the few that existed up until recently.

No Performance Benefits: Study 2
More recently, in The effects of concurrent endurance and resistance training on 2,000-m rowing ergometer times in collegiate male rowers., Gallagher D, DiPietro L, Visek AJ, Bancheri JM, Miller TA "evaluated if high rep, low rep, or no weight training at all would be best suited for decreasing 2,000-m rowing ergometer times in male varsity rowers." 18 rowers were randomly assigned to the corresponding groups of control (CON), high-load low repetitions (HLLR), and low-load high repetitions (LLHR). Each group performed their regular varsity workouts and the two study groups performed their additional workouts. All groups were tested on the rowing ergometer before and after and all groups (including the control) improved their times. However, there was no statistical difference between the three groups. Oddly, the researchers concluded:

Overall, the current study demonstrates that although weight training does not create a statistically significant short-term training effect on rowing performance, the profound decreases in 2,000-m times seen in this study may be of practical significance for the oarsman.

Huh!? This seems like a rather odd conclusion given the data and statistical analysis. It would be comparable to saying that even though a pill did not exceed random chance in curing some disease, you should take it anyway.

One wonders if there had been a fourth group, one that performed the equivalent amount of work of the two study groups, but only rowing, what might have been the outcome.


Some Performance Benefits: Study 3
The research below is intriguing because it is the first study in my experience to show strength training may have some actual benefit to rowing performance. Unfortunately, the data don't seem to match the conclusions.

In Concurrent endurance and strength training not to failure optimizes performance gains., Izquierdo-Gabarren et al, took 43-trained male rowers and divided them into 4 groups, all of which continued with their normal endurance training, but one group performed four exercises to repetition failure(4RF), one group performed four exercises not to failure(4NRF), one group performed two exercises not to failure (2NRF) and one control group performed no additional training.

Various strength and rowing performance measurements were taken before and after 8 weeks of  training, including: "20-min all-out row test (W20min), average row power output eliciting a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol.L (W4mmol.l), and power output in 10 maximal strokes (W10strokes)."

When the group participants hopped on the rowing ergometer, the researchers found no significant difference between all groups (including the control group) regarding performance at power eliciting a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol.L. (this is a metric associated with anaerobic threshold or AT). This is somewhat surprising given that this is a fairly high intensity effort; one might have thought that the strength training groups might outperform the control group by some significant amount.

Interestingly, both the not-to-failure groups improved performance in the W20min test and the W10strokes tests, However, the group that only performed two exercises improved more than the group that performed four. "4NRF and 2NRF groups experienced larger gains in W10strokes (3.6% and 5%), and in W20min (7.6% and 9%)" compared with those found after 4RF (5.2% and 5.1 %)."

Notice the group that trained to failure (4RF) actually improved more than the other groups in power output in 10 maximal strokes.

One might reasonably conclude based on this limited information that the optimum training is two exercises not to failure (2NRF) because:

• this group improved 20-min all-out row test by 9% (more than any other group), and 
• this group was better than the 4NRF group in power output in 10 maximal strokes. 

However, the researchers arrived mysteriously at a different conclusion:

"An 8-wk linear periodized concurrent strength and endurance training program using a moderate number of repetitions not to failure (4NRF group) provides a favourable environment for achieving greater enhancements in strength, muscle power and rowing performance when compared with higher training volumes of repetitions to failure in experienced highly- trained rowers."

This is a baffling conclusion based on the data.

Finally, one might again have wanted an additional control group that performs the equivalent amount of work of the other non-control groups. It is possible, after all, that any performance differences (such as they are) were actually due to more training, not the particular type of training.

By the way, the full paper is available for your perusal.

No Performance Benefits: Study 4
In A Comparison of Traditional and Non-Traditional Off-Season Training Programs of Elite Rowers. Murray, T.; Grant, S.; Hagerman, F. FACSM; Staron, R.; Verdun, M.; Weinik, M., divided 30 elite (US Team members) rowers (men and women) into two groups, one that performed traditional off-season weight training (the lifting group) and one that did not (the no lifting group). Unlike the studies above, this study had the no-lifting group replace weight training with rowing ergometer work, tank or actual water rowing. The approximate duration of the different study conditions was 16 weeks.

The initial physiological evaluation was performed in December and repeated in April. Tests included a variety of heinous invasive measurements, including capillary lactate measurements and muscle biopsies. Other indignities included maximal squat and bench pulls, periodic 2500 meter and 10,000 meter ergometer tests. These athletes were poked, prodded and pricked.

Actual rowing performances were observed multiple times, culminating with the summer competitive rowing season. This was a real test on real rowers, with--as it turns out--real consequences.

The results are surprising even if you read some of the above studies. There was no significant differences between the two groups for such measurements as:

• max power output
• heart rate
• squat and bench pull strength
• stroke rating
• mechanical efficiency

However, in the rowing ergometer performance, the  no-lift group "achieved significantly faster competitive performance times than their L[ifting] counterparts at 2500 and 10000m"

Moreover, the no-lift group also statistically improved their absolute and relative VO2 during the 2000m test, while the lifting group did not.

The research summary is a sober indictment of traditional off-season strength training:

In summary, the results of this study appear to confirm data reported by our group in 1983, when it was evident that rowers who performed off-season weight training significantly reduced their aerobic capacities and as a result it was necessary for these athletes to work extremely hard to increase oxygen consumption to competitive levels.

Our data show that not only does supplemental weight training fail to improve physiological and competitive performance, but more importantly it appears that off-season weight training at 20-40% of total training time may actually detract from these performances...

Our data support our original hypothesis that elite rowers would probably benefit more from performing some type of rowing (either ergometer, tank or actual rowing) during the off-season than sharing training time with resistance training... subsequent competitive performances significantly favored the non-lifting groups.

That's It?
Strength training is a multi-billion dollar industry. Strength training is clearly widely advocated for and widely employed by rowers. You would think there would be more published studies regarding strength training and rowing performance. You'd think there'd be some studies that clearly show a performance benefit. It's possible that I've missed these studies, and if so, I'd be glad to summarize the findings on this site.

Cross Training

Each year about this time, folks start pondering cross-training ideas for rowers. The usual suggestions include weight-training, biking, xc skiing, and rowing on the Ugh!ometer. I'm an avid cross-trainer myself. In fact, in the past 30 days I have:
xc skied, road biked, mt biked, rode on the trainer, kayaked, rowed on the Ugh!ometer, swam, ice skated, and run. You might guess that I'm a big believer in cross training to improve my rowing.

You'd be wrong. 

If I were just going to compete in rowing, I would stick to rowing and the rowing Ugh!ometer. 

The more I switch sports, the more I realize how little each sport prepares me for any other one. I can be in my best rowing fitness and I will absolutely suck at riding a bike or running or cross country skiing. It really depresses me that there doesn't seem to be more overlap physiologically. My own experience--repeated too often-- suggests strongly that fitness is highly sport-specific. 

Some sports--like rowing and biking--would seem to involve closely related use of the quadriceps. Apparently not, because when I start riding after having rowed for a long time, I feel like I am starting cycling from complete scratch: I am easily winded, I ride slowly and I am really tired afterwards. I may as well have been lying on the couch.

Each year I spend an inordinate amount of time just getting past the seemingly steep slope of initial sport-specific fitness. Imagine, if you will, Sisyphus pushing up the boulder. He gets near the top (fitness) in rowing, but switches to cycling, whereupon he has to start at the bottom with the boulder. Nearing the top again, he switches to running. Back to the bottom. You get the picture. In case you don't, here it is:

Exercise Specificity Principle

Ok, that's my own experience. What does science say?

Most exercise physiology books cite the specificity principle, e.g.,: "specific exercise elicits specific adaptations creating specific training effects" (McArdle, Katch and Katch). In other words, what you do in one sport has little bearing on what you do in another (unless they are really similar). The text cites a variety of studies to back this up (and thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you too can read some of these by clicking on that link. Of course, you could buy the book like I did.).

Rowing Research

Ok, in general, most exercise physiologists seem to accept the specificity principle. But, how about for rowing. The most common form of cross-training for rowers (outside of the rowing Ugh!ometer) seems to be weight- or resistance training. So, what does research tell us about that?

In Exercise and sport science, William E. Garrett and Donald T. Kirkendall describe a Hagerman and Staron study of off-season (OS) and in-season (IS) training for nine members of the US Rowing Team. The results suggested that: 

"during the OS, rowers should deemphasize resistance training at low velocities (i.e., train more specifically for the types and velocities of movements used in the rowing technique and at speeds necessary to mimic the competitive pace)."

The authors go on to describe subsquent research by Hagerman and Staron which compared normal off-season weight training of rowers and no weight training on the following measurements:

• muscular strength and power
• muscle fiber proportions and cross-sectional areas
• ergometric power
• metabolic response

The result is astounding for those who spend much time weight training in the off season:

The rowers who underwent OS weight training significantly reduced their aerobic capacity and did not improve ergometer performance; more important, the OS weight training may have detracted from IS rowing performance. Accordingly, it appears that the elite rowers would benefit more from performing only simulated or actual rowing training during the OS rather than including resistance training during this period. These specific training recommendations were substantiated by not only significantly better IS competitive performance by the OS non-weight-training group, but this group also showed no differences in specific fiber types and diameters or muscular strength and power when compared with the OS weight-training-only group. It appears that task-specificity training has the greatest influence on important physiological responses of elite rowers. (underline is mine)

In another interesting study of weight training, The effect of velocity-specific strength training on peak torque and anaerobic rowing power J Sports Sci. 1989 Winter;7(3):205-14., researchers tried to choose muscle training highly specific to rowing. They studied 18 varsity rowers at the University of Victoria. Two groups performed either high-velocity repetition training or low-velocity repetition training. A control group did neither. A very accessible review of this study found that:

There was no change in either training group in peak power output or lactic acid levels. This finding was surprising because the strength program was specifically designed to enhance the strength of the muscle groups involved in rowing...The lack of improvement contradicts the recommendations of many coaches and the content emphases of many rowing training programs. This negative finding might be explained by the fact that the movement patterns involved in rowing are very complex and require a high degree of skill. The training effects that were observed in this study were specific to the resistance-training mode and did not transfer to the more complex action involved in the sport. This restriction supports the training principle that training effects achieved on simple activities (such as specific resistance exercises) do not transfer to complex activities.

Neither modern training theory nor the mounting evidence of the ineffectiveness of specific resistance training programs supports the continued emphasis on this type of training as a means of generating performance improvements in high-caliber athletes.  

Implication. Traditional use of resistance training programs that are "meant" to improve performance should be questioned...

Tell us what you really think.

Now, I have done a fair amount of work in the weight room and for almost 4 decades. I find this information a bit discouraging. It's water under the bridge, I suppose...

I'm guessing that if highly specific weight training doesn't help rowing performance, then considerably less specific exercise like swimming, running and xc skiing are not going to help my rowing.

Will I stop cross-training? Well, no. I'm a masters athlete who enjoys participating in a lot of different sports and activities and my enjoyment of these different activities may exceed that of just training and racing in rowing. Again, if I were just competing in rowing and I wanted to perform at my optimum in rowing, I think I would focus fairly exclusively on rowing. The evidence--personal anecdotal and research--seems to be there for specificity.

VO2Max % Calculator

If you read much training literature, you will likely come across training prescriptions like "steady state efforts at 65-75% of VO2max lasting 45 to 120 minutes to repeated 'Anaerobic Threshold work' at 80-90% of VO2max for 15 to 30 minutes." (Source: Stephen Seiler) And exercise physiology research is replete with references to VO2max like: "the best single predictor of 2000 m rowing ergometer performance was power at VO(2max)."

Most of us have not been lab-tested to ascertain our VO2max (fyi, that's peak oxygen consumption,  how much oxygen we actually use), and therefore we probably don't know what 100% of VO2max is or 90% or 80%. These references are relatively meaningless to us.

What does 70%, 80%, 90% of VO2max intensity mean for me?
Fortunately, some researchers like Stephen Seiler, a rower, have figured out that VO2max intensity is roughly associated with the power (watts) during a 2k all out effort on the rowing ergometer. Seiler, in an email conversation, wrote: "Bottom line use 2k power as VO2max power..." Separately, Steve Ingham, an exercise physiology researcher, wrote to me: "our observations suggest that the rowers do reach VO2max when they perform 2000m ergometer tests." Finally, Fritz Hagerman, noted rowing researcher, also emailed me with a similar conclusion. These statements, which in all cases are probably the result of looking at a lot of empirical data, do not, in themselves, constitute research results showing that a 2000m ergometer test is a proxy for VO2max intensity. I'm hoping that Steve Ingham will pursue that line of inquiry, and I think he may already have the data. In the mean time, I have cooked up a calculator based on just this notion.

Here's how it works:

1. Let's say my 2000m time is 6:53.0 (it used to be...). I enter this in the calculator below and hit the "Calculate" button.
2. This calculates my watts and 500m splits for various intensities, e.g., 100% VO2max intensity for me is roughly 318 watts and a 500/m split of 1:43.3. Is this an accurate estimate of my VO2max? I don't have good evidence that it is; take it with a generous dose of salt. Like my 2K time...

Questions for the future:

1. How does this notion (2000m pace or power as proxy for VO2max intensity) compare with other proxies like heart rate reserve?
2. How individually variable is, say, 80% VO2max with physiological measurements like lactate? In other words, is one person's 80% VO2max below lactate threshold, while another's 80% VO2max is well above lactate threshold? And, what consequences follow?