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: Sport Performance and Carbs Part 1

Writing about Carbs: Careful Now...
Writing about carbohydrates these days may be a risky enterprise, or, as Tina Fey writes (in a recent New Yorker column), a "tap-dance recital in a minefield." OK, Ms. Fey wasn't writing about carbs, just careers vs kids. That's, um, child's play compared to the aggressive food-fight going on right now between the pro-carbohydrate conservative traditionalists vs the Paleo/Primal low-carbohydrate rebels.

Don't know, actually.

This is a brouhaha which I will assiduously avoid here. But damn, I've already stepped into it by characterizing the factions the way I did. Anyway, they're focused on serious issues like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. This post will focus instead on carbohydrate consumption as it relates to the petty issue of athletic performance, and primarily on post-exercise carbohydrate consumption for recovery, with accompanying largely irrelevant graphics from public domain sources, i.e., the government.

Glycogen
One of the oft-cited limitations of training volume, intensity and frequency is the availability of muscle and liver glycogen. Glycogen--stored carbohydrate--is the body's preferred fuel source because it rapidly produces energy. Glycogen provides most of the energy when we start to exercise. At low exercise intensities, fat is the preferred fuel, but as exercise intensity increases, so too does the percentage of glycogen used (source). During high intensity exercise, glycogen provides most of the energy and an athlete can deplete their muscle glycogen in just 30-60 minutes (source). Even aerobic exercise, if sufficiently intense, can deplete glycogen; in just two hours, virtually all of the liver and exercised muscle glycogen may be used up (source). Exercise physiologists often point to inadequate glycogen replacement in concert with intensive training as a cause of overtraining and chronic fatigue.

It is generally assumed, then, that restoring glycogen through carbohydrate consumption is of importance to training and athletic performance (source), particularly higher intensity exercise (source) and recovery. However, the particulars of carbohydrate consumption--when, how much, what kind, how frequently, etc-- is far from etched in stone.

Below is some of the salient research as I think it relates to the needs of rowers.

Twice-a-Day Rowers Perform Better on a High Carb Diet
In Dietary carbohydrate, muscle glycogen, and power output during rowing training., researchers randomly assigned twelve male and 10 female collegiate rowers to study whether "a high-carbohydrate (HI) diet (10 g.kg body mass-1.day-1) would promote greater muscle glycogen content and greater mean power output during training than a moderate-carbohydrate (MOD) diet (5 g.kg body mass-1.day-1) over 4 wk of intense twice-daily rowing training." It should be pointed out that the researchers also had the rowers consuming a fair amount of protein 2 grams per kilogram of body mass, and "fat intake was adjusted to maintain body mass" (which begs for some clarification). Anyway,  muscle glycogen content increased 65% in the HI group compared to no change in the MOD group and mean power output in time trials (2500 meters) increased 10.7%  (while only 1.6% in the MOD group). This led the researchers to write:

We conclude that a diet with 10 g carbohydrate.kg body mass-1.day-1 promotes greater muscle glycogen content and greater power output during training than a diet containing 5 g carbohydrate.kg body mass-1.day-1 over 4 wk of intense twice-daily rowing training.

Masters rowers take note: these collegiate rowers were training twice a day and with lots of intensity. You could argue that they were always in a state of recovery, something that is not necessarily true for many masters athletes.

Cows Perform Better Too

Eat Carbs Soon After Exercising
Various research seems to show a period of time when glycogen restoration is much faster. In Muscle glycogen synthesis after exercise: effect of time of carbohydrate ingestion., researchers showed that cyclists consuming a carbohydrate solution immediately after exercise showed much higher rate of muscle glycogen storage versus waiting for 2 hours (45% slower rate). Their conclusion: "The results suggest that delaying the ingestion of a carbohydrate supplement post-exercise will result in a reduced rate of muscle glycogen storage."

Does The Kind of Carbs Make a Difference?
There may be nuances to the above research. Subsequent research shows that the glycemic index of the carbohydrates may have some effect on the glycogen restoration rate. Glycemic index refers to a measurement of the effect that carbohydrates have on blood sugar levels. A higher glycemic index food generally has faster absorption of carbohydrates.

In Muscle glycogen storage following prolonged exercise: effect of timing of ingestion of high glycemic index food., researchers found that timing didn't matter so much as the glycemic index of the food and the quantity of carbohydrates. Their conclusion: "These data indicate that delayed feeding of a HGI meal by 2 h has no effect on the rate of muscle glycogen resynthesis at 8 and 24 h post-exercise, providing that sufficient carbohydrate is ingested during the recovery period." In other words, the magical 2-hour window in the first piece of research was shattered, if you will, by the nature of the carbohydrates.

It is noteworthy that this study only compared high-glycemic index consuming groups; in other words, the only variable was timing of the feedings. There was no low-glycemic index group with which to compare. However, the next piece of research did focus on that vary issue.

High Glycemic Index Carbs May Restore Glycogen More Thoroughly/Faster
In Muscle glycogen storage after prolonged exercise: effect of the glycemic index of carbohydrate feedings., researchers found that high-glycemic index meals at various intervals significantly exceeded low-glycemic index meals (by almost 50%) in restoring muscle glycogen. Their conclusion: "The results suggest that the most rapid increase in muscle glycogen content during the first 24 h of recovery is achieved by consuming foods with a high GI."

Catholic Carbs? Oops, nevermind. That would be Confirmation...

Eating a Big Carb Meal vs Small Carb Snacks, Doesn't Seem to Matter
Another variable in the carbohydrate conundrum is how the amounts of carbohydrates are consumed: large meals or nibbling snacks. In Muscle glycogen storage after prolonged exercise: effect of the frequency of carbohydrate feedings., researchers found that "there is no difference in postexercise glycogen storage over 24 h when a high-carbohydrate diet is fed as small frequent snacks or as large meals...".

Your Muscles Will Only Absorb So Much
One might imagine that if you only read the above research, you might consume lots of high-glycemic index carbs "early and often" to restore your muscle glycogen. Just how many carbs would you consume? This next piece of research tried to find some limits to carb ingestion. In Muscle glycogen storage after different amounts of carbohydrate ingestion., researchers had cyclists consume either a low amount of glucose or a high amount immediately and at 2 hours following glycogen-depleting exercise. The researchers' conclusion: "The rates of muscle glycogen storage...were not different..."

So, maybe I shouldn't eat the double stack of pancakes?

Does Protein with Carbs Help?
Several studies have found that protein taken with carbohydrate seems to enhance muscle glycogen storage. In Carbohydrate-protein complex increases the rate of muscle glycogen storage after exercise., researchers found that the rate of muscle glycogen storage was significantly higher with a protein-carbohydrate (112.0 g carbohydrate and 40.7 g protein mix) than with just carbohydrates (112.0 g carbohydrate) or just protein (40.7 g protein).

However, one criticism of a study like this one is that it is not an apples-to-apples comparison because the groups are not calorically equivalent (eucaloric). In other words, maybe it's not the protein that is enhancing the glycogen storage, but the fact that the protein provides additional calories. In Effects of postexercise carbohydrate-protein feedings on muscle glycogen restoration., researchers addressed this issue and produced results that suggested that "muscle glycogen restoration does not appear to be enhanced with the addition of proteins or amino acids [compared] to an eucaloric CHO feeding after exhaustive cycle exercise." So, maybe protein doesn't help?

But then there's the study that "tested the hypothesis that a carbohydrate-protein (CHO-Pro) supplement would be more effective in the replenishment of muscle glycogen after exercise compared with a carbohydrate supplement of equal carbohydrate content (LCHO) or caloric equivalency (HCHO)." You can read the details, but the conclusion is the title: Early postexercise muscle glycogen recovery is enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. So, maybe protein does help...

Confused yet? I was, so I looked at several carb-protein review articles. They seem to come down on the side of protein with carbs post-exercise. In Short-term recovery from prolonged exercise: exploring the potential for protein ingestion to accentuate the benefits of carbohydrate supplements., the authors write:

Some studies have reported improved physical performance with ingestion of carbohydrate-protein mixtures, both during exercise and during recovery prior to a subsequent exercise test. While not all of the evidence supports these ergogenic benefits, there is clearly the potential for improved performance under certain conditions, e.g. if the additional protein increases the energy content of a supplement and/or the carbohydrate fraction is ingested at below the recommended rate.

Well, that is a luke-warm endorsement of protein with carbs, but there it is.

Caffeine Helps Restore Muscle Glycogen
Like to have coffee with your oatmeal, french toast or pancakes following a good stint of rowing? Well, skip the decaf and maybe order the quadruple espresso because researchers have found that "in trained subjects coingestion of large amounts of Caff (8 mg/kg BM) with CHO has an additive effect on rates of postexercise muscle glycogen accumulation compared with consumption of CHO alone."

Translated into vernacular, that is 8 milligrams per 1 kilogram of body mass, which, in turn, means 584mg of caffeine for a ~161-pound/73 kilogram person. That is equivalent to 28 ounces of Starbucks coffee (about one and three-quarters of a Grande). See the Caffeine Post.

I'd Prefer a Flat White with a New Zealand Fern Leaf Cappuccino Art

Back to the research, in High rates of muscle glycogen resynthesis after exhaustive exercise when carbohydrate is coingested with caffeine., researchers asked trained cyclists to ride to "volitional" fatigue. Then they immediately had some high-carb meal, but some subjects additionally had some hidden caffeine with that meal (not in the form of coffee, in other words). The researchers didn't notice much of a difference in muscle glycogen resynthesis after an hour, but after 4 hours, the caffeine group experienced a 66% higher rate. I'll drink to that (as opposed to taking No-Doze or something).

About now you might be wondering: what combines high glycemic carbs, a bit of protein and caffeine...


Chocolate Milk: The Perfect Post-Exercise Beverage?
Various studies have shown chocolate milk to be at least as good as some carbohydrate replacement drinks in restoring muscle glycogen. For instance, in Improved endurance capacity following chocolate milk consumption compared with 2 commercially available sport drinks., 9 trained cyclists engaged first in a glycogen depleting trial and then immediately after and again at 2-hours after, drank either chocolate milk,  a carbohydrate replacement drink or a fluid replacement drink. Then they enjoyed the distinct pleasure at 4 hours to cycle to exhaustion at 70% power at maximal oxygen uptake. The chocolate milk cyclists (picture them with brown milk mustaches), lasted 51% longer than the carbo drink cyclists and 43% longer than the fluid replacement drink cyclists. Researchers concluded that: "[Chocolate Milk] is an effective recovery aid after prolonged endurance exercise for subsequent exercise at low-moderate intensities."

My post-exercise drink of choice: doesn't require refridgeration

Moderate or Low-Glycemic Meals Before Racing/Workouts
Several studies suggest that eating a high-glycemic index meal leads to poorer subsequent performance. As discussed before, carbohydrates come in different forms. Some are high-glycemic and raise blood sugar and insulin quickly, while others are slow absorbing and raise blood sugar more slowly (low-glycemic). For instance, an apple and a banana have roughly equivalent amounts of carbohydrates, but an apple is significantly lower on the glycemic index scale than the banana. (source)

In one study of equivalent breakfasts of different glycemic quality, researchers found that cyclists consuming a low-glycemic index meal produced a higher sustained plasma glucose level and 59% longer "time to exhaustion" in a 100% of VO2Max effort compared with cyclists who ate a higher glycemic index meal (but same number of carbohydrates). The researchers conclusion:

These results suggest a pre-exercise LGI [meal] may positively affect maximal performance following sustained exercise. The LGI maintained higher plasma glucose levels at the end of 2 h of strenuous exercise than the HGI, which may have better supported subsequent maximal effort.

This information might be useful for rowing events of longer duration, e.g., marathon rows, but it is not clear how applicable this would be for shorter events.

Another study with runners, found that "ingestion of a LGI meal 3 h before exercise resulted in a greater endurance capacity than after the ingestion of a HGI meal." This study had runners running to exhaustion and the LGI eaters ran significantly longer and burned more fat as well.

This last finding echoes several studies that suggest that higher glycemic pre-workout/pre-race meals inhibit fat burning during subsequent exercise. In The influence of high-carbohydrate meals with different glycaemic indices on substrate utilisation during subsequent exercise., researchers compared two "isoenergetic" meals, with substantially different glycemic indices (low and high), with another study condition, fasting (i.e., glycemic index of 0). The researchers found that the fasters used (oxidized) the most fat in subsequent exercise, the low-glycemic index eaters used the next most and the high glycemic index consumers used the least amount of fat.

Another study (with a really cumbersome title) reached the conclusion that "[a]lthough the LGI meal contributed less CHO to muscle glycogen synthesis in the 3-h postprandial period compared with the HGI meal, a sparing of muscle glycogen utilization during subsequent exercise was observed in the LGI trial, most likely as a result of better maintained fat oxidation." This suggests that, for longer events where you want to burn more fat and preserve glycogen as long as possible, you may be better off with a low GI pre-race meal. For shorter efforts, e.g., 1k or 2k rowing events, you probably don't care if you're burning fat or glycogen, or rather, you'd much rather be burning glycogen; otherwise, you're really rowing too slowly! On the other hand, at head races, if you have to row 5K to get to the start of a 5K, then you may want to heed this research.

Low-GI Carb rowers burn more fat and don't need seats!
Notice the Low-GI Carb rower floating near the ceiling. Take that, Red Bull!

It Looks Good For Low-Glycemic Index Meals and Subsequent Endurance Performance, But...
Two recent reviews of glycemic index foods and endurance performance (source and source) suggest that the state of knowledge at this point is inadequate to draw too many conclusions, with one review concluding: "the results have been inconsistent, with evidence of improved exercise performance in some studies, but not in many others." Sigh.

Accelerated Carbo-Loading
Participants in longer events sometimes engage in carbo-loading--consuming large quantities of carbohydrates for 2 to 6 days before some endurance event. One study of cyclists shows that you can get much of the same effect by training very briefly, but at sufficiently high intensity, and consuming sufficient carbs--all just 24 hours before an event. When this study means brief, they really mean brief: 150 seconds of 130% of VO2max pace followed by 30 seconds of all-out cycling, in other words, just 3 minutes of some really hard cycling. By the way, if 130% of VO2max sounds impossible, it is the pace not the oxygen consumption that they're talking about. If you know the pace required to elicit VO2max, then go 30% faster. For instance, on the ergometer, if my pace on the ergometer that elicits VO2max is 318 watts, then 130% of that would be 413 watts (or a split of 1:34.6) See, for example the VO2Max Calculator post.

After training, the above researchers had the cyclists consume high-glycemic index carbohydrates equivalent to 10.3 grams per kilogram of body mass. For a 161-lb person, that works out to be 751 grams or 1.65 lbs of potatoes, bread or overripe bananas. At 24 hours, these cyclists had the same amount of muscle glycogen as measured in carbo-loading regimens lasting 2-6 days.

Is Carbo-Loading Relevant to Rowers?
A review of available research on the topic shows "there is little or no effect of elevating pre-exercise muscle glycogen contents above normal resting values on a single exhaustive bout of high-intensity exercise lasting less than 5 minutes. Nor is there any benefit of increasing starting muscle glycogen content on moderate-intensity running or cycling lasting 60 to 90 minutes." Given that most rowing events are somewhere in the 4-25 minute range, carbo-loading may not be worth it. However, if you are rowing a marathon distance event, it may be.

Conclusions:
If you have waded through all the above, you deserve some take-home messages. Despite some of the inconsistent findings: I think there are some useful pointers for athletes who train sufficiently hard:

1. Insufficient carbohydrate consumption detracts from performance
2. Consume carbs immediately after "significant" exercise efforts. Despite the inconclusive nature of post-exercise timing, there seems to be little harm in eating soon after training efforts and there may be considerable gain if the glycogen absorption window exists.
3. High glycemic carbs pack a bigger punch.
4. Protein with carbs may be good, particularly if you can't get enough calories with carbohydrates alone.
5. Chocolate milk. Why not?
6. Caffeine may help, but I'd wouldn't drink coffee for this reason alone. Only one study so far.
7. Pre-race: low-glycemic meal seems better than high-glycemic, but somewhat inconclusive.

Again, I hasten to point out, I am only addressing exercise performance issues in this post, not health issues.

Part 2?
Researchers are addressing a variety of variables in carbohydrate consumption and athletic performance. Some folks are looking at low-glycogen training as a potential way to enhance mitochondrial generation (as intriguing as this is, it strikes me as playing with fire). Other researchers (example and example) are addressing the role of fat in diet in relation to carbohyrates (may work in slower, longer events). Many researchers are refining the time recommendations of carb consumption, before and after exercise. This might answer questions like: should I take that Gu right before the race. A few rowing races are long enough to require feedings during the race; that is something for a future post.

----------------
Man lives for science as well as bread.

William James

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.

Conconi Test: Threshold Measuring or Tea Leaf Reading?

Back in 2005, a rowing colleague approached me about using the Conconi test to ascertain our anaerobic thresholds. He knew that I had paid for lactate threshold and VO2max testing with finger-pricking blood-letting and claustrophobic face mask with tubes and cables, and thought that the Conconi test represented a less invasive, less expensive, and generally more pleasant alternative for the rest of our rowing club

I agreed to conduct the testing, but expressed my skepticism about this test (more on that later).

Quick History
Francesco Conconi suggested that in endurance sports, heart rate increases fairly linearly with work or velocity (J Appl Physiol. 1982 Apr;52(4):869-73.). If you graph work or velocity on one axis and heart rate on another, the result should be a line--more or less--up to a deflection point at which point the line flattens out. That point (heart rate deflection point), according to Conconi, very closely approximates the anaerobic threshold and the work or speed associated with anaerobic threshold. Below is what that might look like for heart rate plotted against watts on a Concept II rowing ergometer:

The plotted red dots represent the coordinates of watts and heart rate. You can see that the line connecting the dots very closely matches the thicker trend line (in Excel) until heart rate reaches 180. Then, while watts are increasing linearly from 220 to 240, the heart rate flattens (remains essentially the same for three measurements). Thus, by Conconi's theory, 180 beats per minute represents anaerobic threshold (AT) intensity for this person.

The person tested above happens to be me. Interestingly, my Conconi-derived AT closely resembled my heart rate at threshold intensity (178) as ascertained in lab tests by Dr. Julie Downing. This apparent corroboration piqued my interest. My initial skepticism remained, however, as we performed the test on others.

The Protocol
We had people warm up on the ergometer fairly easily for 5 minutes or so (and practice holding a steady 90 watts or less just to have the experience of maintaining a certain power). Each rower on the ergometer had a spotter.  Each rower wore a heart rate monitor, and each spotter had a corresponding heart rate watch, notepad and pencil.

We separated rowers by at least 5 feet away so the monitors wouldn't pick up others' heart rate signals. The spotters asked the rowers to row for a minute at a very easy power level (110 or so watts) to start and told the rowers to keep the pace consistent for a minute.

Every minute, the spotters asked the rowers to increase the power by 10 watts. The spotter noted the heart rate at the end of each minute and the difference (delta) between the current heart rate and the previously noted heart rate (see example below). For most, the test lasted less than 20 minutes.

This is what a test result might look like:

Mins Watts  HR    Delta

1    100    90  

2    110    95     5

3    120    107   12

4    130    113    6

5    140    118    5

6    150    125    7

7    160    132    7

8    170    138    6

9    180    143    6

10   190    146    3

11   200    149    3

12   210    151    2
test over because the delta is flattening out.

Interpreting the Results:
Using the above data, we can guess without plotting the data, that the Conconi point is around 190 watts at a heart rate of 146.  We can guess this because the delta between heart rates is starting to conspicuously diminish. Plotting the data may make the results more tangible.

Within the group of eight men we tested, we found that any two of us might interpret the data differently. We found that some of us also projected onto the data what we thought was our anaerobic threshold, i.e., we were introducing experimenter/subject bias. The graphs varied between relatively easy-to-read and not so.

Some graphs seemed somewhat clear (e.g., this person with a deflection point and Conconi AT at heart rate of 158):

Some seemed to have multiple potential deflection points (HR of 110, 130, 145 or 160?):

Several of the graphs looked something like this with very little deflection (Conconi deflection point of HR 140 or 150?):

In the end, we did agree on some heart rate and power (watts) and Conconi-AT for each of the eight people who participated. In hindsight, I am not sure how we arrived at these values because they are not all obvious. It is hard to say if this was due to the phenomenon of "group think" or something else. At any rate, we then tried to corroborate our findings. One of us had read an Ed McNeely artcile somewhere (I think in this Rowing News article) that the average pace in an 20-minute all out effort closely resembled anaerobic threshold pace. So, we took our most recent 20-minute pace and compared it to the pace corresponding to the watts at the Conconi-derived anaerobic threshold. The result was a rather remarkable .92 correlation between the two.
 
Source of Skepticism
I'd like to be able to say that we proved the Conconi test to be a reliable indicator of anaerobic threshold, but we don't really have the data to support that. While we achieved a fairly remarkable correlation between 20-minute test pace and Conconi-calculated anaerobic threshold, it's not clear what that actually means, if anything. Below are some of the sources of skepticism about the Conconi test and our execution of it:

1. Looking for deflection points reminds me of stock market technical analysis or tea-leaf prognostication, where you may start to see things that aren't there.
2. In Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper. 1980 Dec 15;56(23):2504-10., Conconi et al studied 320 runners and found that the "deflection velocity and anaerobic threshold (established through blood lactate determination) were coincident in 10 runners". One is tempted to add "just" as in "coincident in just 10 runners." That 3% rate is a rather flimsy basis for any physiological phenomenon. In fact, it sounds like the exception rather than the rule. And yet, this early research seems to be the springboard for the Conconi AT test.
3. Various studies of runners have found the Conconi test unreliable. For instance, in Int J Sports Med. 1995 Nov;16(8):541-4., authors Jones AM, Doust JH concluded that "the Conconi test [is] unsuitable for reliable evaluation of AT." In Int J Sports Med. 1998 Nov;19(8):553-9., Bourgois J, Vrijens J. found that Conconi's heart rate threshold (ATHR) "does not reflect the anaerobic threshold and is therefore not relevant for monitoring continuous endurance training in rowing." This was a study of younger rowers.
4. Using heart rate as a source of information seems potentially flawed. If some of us had our morning coffee, would our heart rates be more elevated? If we were nervous about how we performed relative to our peers, would our heart rates more elevated? Were we dressed too warmly? It seems that many factors influence heart rate and could have altered our results.
   
5. The granularity of our data may have caused us to miss the physiological changes. We measured heart rate every minute, but might we have gotten better data if we had more continuous heart rate data (e.g. have the heart rate monitor record every 5 seconds) and, if possible, have more continuous watt data as well.
6. The whole notion of anaerobic threshold is open to definitional discussion and taking Conconi's protocol definition (more or less) and then corroborating with possibly a different definition from McNeely is not rigorous science. If we had agreed on, say, 4mmol of lactate as a definition of anaerobic threshold and had been blood-lactate tested as well, we might have had a more firm basis for some conclusions.

That mostly summarizes the sources of my skepticism. I am clearly not sold on the Conconi test. However, I am aware that others seem to have success (as do, apparently, some technical analysts and tea leaf readers). For example, in J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):871-7., Celik O, Koşar SN, et al, found that "the modified CT [Conconi Test] is a reliable and valid method for determining the AT of elite men rowers." More recently, in J Int Med Res. 2010 May-Jun;38(3):901-15. researchers Erdogan A, Cetin C, Karatosun H, Baydar ML. first measured rowers on an ergometer and took blood lactate samples and ascertained the classic anaerobic threshold effort level of 4 millimoles, then compared 3 methods of analysis of respiratory gases and the non-invasive Conconi heart rate deflection method and offered:

In conclusion, the non-invasive indices were comparable with the invasive index and could, therefore, be used in the assessment of AT during rowing ergometer use. In this population of elite rowers, Conconi threshold (Con-AT), based on the measurement of HRDP tended to be the most adequate way of estimating AT for training regulation purposes.

I'm not sure what "most adequate" means here--maybe cheapest and easiest(?)--but I think you get the drift. The appeal of a non-invasive test means you can still get a Conconi test at places like the UC Davis Sports Medicine facility. In any event, this test is very easy to perform. Why a lab would charge $100 for this test seems curious, but then they may have a better protocol or value-added services.

Research: Digit Ratio and Rowing Ergometer Performance

I just about spewed coffee out my nasolacrimal duct after reading Digit ratio (2D:4D) and rowing ergometer performance in males and females. Researchers found that the length of your index finger relative to your ring finger, is "a predictor of ability in rowing..."

Huh?!

Yep, University of Cambridge researchers tested 77 men and 70 women rowers and adjusted for both experience and height and found that size does matter, at least when it comes to the 2nd and 4th digits of your hands. A longer ring finger relative to index finger suggests you might be more predisposed to rowing faster on an ergometer, if you are a man. Before you dismiss this as digital doodoo, realize that this study isn't the first of its kind. In fact, there is mounting evidence that digit ratio is related to all kinds of conditions.

My hand: index appears to be smaller than ring finger

Digit ratio is defined as the length of the index finger (#2) divided by the length of the ring finger (#4). Men generally have a lower digit ratio than women, i.e., men tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers, while women tend to have equal length index and ring fingers or longer index fingers. This has been known for a long time (source), but only recently have scientists suggested that this might have something to do with prenatal sex hormone levels and particularly testosterone (source). It also seems to be the case that greater prenatal exposure to testosterone has some consequences in adult life.

One of my daughter's hands: very similar length index and ring fingers

Just in the last decade, researchers have gone crazy with digit ratio research, finding that, for instance, soccer players on 1st team squads had lower 2D:4D ratios than reserves or youth team players and men who represented their countries in sporting events had lower digit ratios than other men (source).

Now the researchers of the present study suggest in their summary that "the relationship between digit ratio and sports requiring high power (physical strength) output in addition to well-developed cardiovascular systems has not been defined." So, they set about fixing this omission in science with a study of rowers and conclude that "digit ratio is a predictor of ability in rowing" and that "fetal testosterone exposure has long-term effects on traits associated with physical power in males". In other words, your ability to row fast may have a lot to do with what sex hormones you were exposed to before birth. But, it only seems to matter for men (in this rowing study). However, another study found that women with a lower ratio may perform better in sports too.

I find this somewhat depressing. First genetic inheritance, now this. It seems increasingly that much of athletic potential is predetermined. I'd like to think that smart dedicated training has more to do with athletic performance than it apparently does. I'm spending time examining training intensity, duration and frequency, when maybe I should be looking at my 2nd and 4th fingers.

Digit ratio research like this has some potentially disturbing implications for state-sponsored athlete development, or for that matter anyone (parents) who wants to enhance the chances of a child becoming a star athlete. Expose the fetus to some potent androgens, et voila, a prodigy in the making. One of the leading 2D:4D digit ratio researchers, Thomas Manning, was asked if there are things parents could do to alter fetal hormone exposure. His response: "There probably is, but we shouldn't even think of trying." (source).

For those scheming in this way, there is a significant reason for caution: there may be an increased chance of prostate cancer (source), heart attack (source) and maybe predisposition to all kinds of diseases (source). On the other hand, apparently a low digit ratio correlates with lower incidence of some forms of heart disease (source).

And, before you look at your own hands--what, you did already?--note that measuring the finger length differences isn't as trivial as it may seem and you are apparently looking at very small differences. In the rowing research addressed here, the hands were measured blind (apparently you can see the hand, but nothing else) and with a special device (Mitutoyo vernier calipers). Other studies use x-rays (source).

Personally, I take all this with a grain of salt. 2D:4D ratio begins to sound a bit like phrenology, physiognomy or chiromancy.

Phrenology image from Wikipedia

And, there is some evidence that 2D:4D ratio is not so much due to the in utero hormonal environment but genetics. One research study of twins found that "heritability was estimated to be approximately 66% for 2d:4d." (source). Another study of twins found that "the best-fitting structural equation model indicated that the contributions to individual differences in 2D:4D are 81% additively genetic..."(source). If 2D:4D is mostly a genetic phenomenon that might address misguided parents doping their fetal offspring, but it doesn't address 2D:4D as a predictor of various traits. That is, whether 2D:4D is epiphenomenal of prenatal hormonal exposure or genetics, may be a moot point for those interested in the associated conditions of low or high ratios.

Research: Erg Scores Correlate to Rowing Performance

Here is a research result which may or may not be earth-shattering news to you:
2000m erg scores correlate with 2000m racing results, particularly with rowers competing in the World Championships in small boats (1x and 2x).

Researchers questioned 638 rowers at the elite World Championships about their 2000m ergometer times. Both sexes and lightweight and heavyweight rowers were included. They found that "in 17 of 23 events they [ergometer times] were positively correlated (P < or = 0.049) with the final rankings at the Championships." Lightweight men's singles had the strongest correlation (.78), followed by women's singles (.75), men's singles (.72) and lightweight men's doubles (.72). A correlation of .8 is generally considered strong, while a correlation less than .5 is considered weak.

These researchers conducted a similar survey of 398 junior rowers and found an even stronger correlation among "junior women's single sculls (r = 0.92; P < 0.001), followed by junior men's single sculls (r = 0.80; P < 0.001) and junior women's double sculls (r = 0.79; P < 0.001)." Larger boats - quads, fours, and eights managed only r = 0.31-0.70. For this study of the junior rowers, the researchers issued a caveat: "Although correlations in 10 of the 13 events were above r = 0.5, the large standard errors of the estimate impaired the prediction of rankings in all of the studied events."

I know many people who would like ergometer prowess to manifest in their rowing performance (or lack thereof). They can pound out amazing splits on the erg, but just flounder in the water. Many folks say "ergs don't float" meaning your ergometer performance has no bearing on how well you perform in a boat; however, this piece of research suggests otherwise (at least for high caliber rowers, which I suppose is a significant caveat).

Research: Amuse Bouche

Rowing related research is sent to me automatically by email. Below are a few of the more amusing items:

Item #1: The Influence of Supplementation With Artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) Extract on Selected Redox Parameters in Rowers. A serious double-blind placebo study of Polish national rowing team members to find some substance that will help produce an "enhanced antioxidant defense system" for people who exercise hard, this study measured total antioxidant capacity (TAC) in blood plasma. The artichoke extract didn't work as hoped, but apparently it reduced serum cholesterol. To be more precise, the extract "resulted in higher plasma TAC than placebo but did not limit oxidative damage to erythrocytes in competitive rowers subjected to strenuous training." You can laugh, but you must give them credit for publishing a result that wasn't positive.

There is some interesting research on anti-oxidants and athletic performance (another post for another time).

Item #2. Effect of elk velvet antler supplementation on the hormonal response to acute and chronic exercise in male and female rowers.  I looked to make sure the date on this wasn't April 1. Apparently, elk velvet antler (EVA) is thought to provide all kinds of health benefits, so why not test it to see if it helps athletic performance, particularly in rowers. Turns out it doesn't do much of anything for the rowers. "It appears that 10 wk of EVA supplementation does not significantly improve rowing performance nor alter hormonal responses at rest or after acute exercise than training alone." The list of failed ergogenic aids is a long one.

Item #3: Strapping rowers to their sliding seat improves performance during the start of ergometer rowing. Fasten your seat belts, put your tray tables in the upright position and prepare for take-off. I'm not sure what motivated this research, but the two researchers found that in 5-stroke starts, power output was 12% higher for the rowers who were strapped down. "We conclude that strapping a rower's pelvis to the sliding seat allows more vigorous execution of the stroke phases, resulting in a substantial improvement in performance during the start of ergometer rowing." Look to see if seat belts will be allowed in the next World Indoor Rowing Championships. Or velcro.

This reminds me of some really short ergometer races I participated in as part of the 2007 New Zealand Masters Games. I happened to be in Wellington for a few days in 2007 with my family, not too far from the Masters Games site in Wanganui. I was able to participate in one day of the indoor rowing portion of the competition. The events included 1000m, 500m and 300m distances. I watched heats of some of these shorter races and a large percentage of folks came off their seats in the first few strokes. I barely kept my butt down in the 300m race. If only we had brought our seat belts!

Detraining: Fitness is Fleeting

“De-Train, boss, de-train.” 
Remember the Herve Villechaize character, Tattoo, in “Fantasy Island” alerting Ricardo “Corinthian Leather” Montalbán to the arriving plane. Ok, maybe you don’t and kudos to you. Still, I like the notion of Tatoo announcing to all rowers in November: "De-Train, De-Train", and then all the rowers would sit back, sip umbrella drinks and enjoy the detraining vacation of their choice, maybe on Fantasy Island.

Detraining is the word exercise physiologists use to describe what happens when you stop training for some period of time; it’s the reversal of adaptations to exercise. It likely happens to many of us after the end of our competitive seasons, when we think we should take some time off.

How much fitness is lost and over what period of time? 
One of the major tenets of exercise physiology-- the reversibility principal--says that even for athletes with years of training, adaptations can be lost. My exercise physiology text book states that "only 1 or 2 weeks of detraining significantly reduces both metabolic and exercise capacity." And, after 3 weeks of detraining (less than the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas) things get markedly worse. The authors (McArdle, Katch and Katch) provide a dismal laundry list of fitness losses:

• VO2Max declines by 8%
• Lactate threshold drops by 7%
• Heart stroke volume decreases by 10%
• Plasma volume diminishes by 12%
• Capillary density drops by 7%
• Oxidative enzyme capacity is down by 29%
• Muscle glycogen synthesis drops by 29%
• Time to fatigue is 10% sooner. 

I'll focus a bit on the first: VO2max. One of the key physiological adaptations for athletes is the increased ability to transport and use oxygen. Also known as aerobic capacity or maximal oxygen consumption, VO2max is the commonly used term for the most oxygen an athlete uses (as opposed to breathes in). It is often considered the benchmark of aerobic fitness. Not surprisingly, VO2max is highly correlated with rowing performance, particularly for 2000m. For example, a study on the Concept II ergometer (it's easier to conduct this type of study on the ergometers than on the water) concluded that:

"VO2max was the best single predictor of the velocity for the 2000 m time-trial".

A study of "highly trained runners and cyclists" showed a 7% decline in VO2max in just 12 days and 14% decline in 56 days (see graphic below). I had to include this because I spent time making the chart. It is sort of redundant, but reinforces the point about a loss in VO2max.

Adapted from Coyle et al. J Appl Physiol.1984; 57: 1857-1864

You can imagine that it is difficult for scientists to find competitive athletes who take much time off, but occasionally researchers apparently find someone who is either injured and wants to get back or someone who is contemplating retirement and then reconsiders after some time off. The researchers poke, prod and measure these poor people and get some interesting data. These "case studies" are not the large subject studies that scientists prefer, but they can be illuminating.

One such study involves a single Olympic caliber rower. The detraining and retraining of an elite rower: a case study shows an example of a loss of VO2max (8% drop), this after 8 weeks of inactivity following the Sydney Olympic games.

Possibly more tangible for readers here might be the 25% drop in power this rower experienced on the Concept II ergometer at "reference blood lactate concentrations". The reference points are typically at 2 and 4 millimoles of lactate, the latter of which is considered by many to be the lactate threshold (a subject for another post). Without knowing the meaning of this last phrase, you can still figure out that this rower experienced a huge loss of power. In his case, the 25% drop happens to be 100 watts. This means that at full fitness, he was pulling 400 watts or roughly a 1:35/500meter split. A 25% decrease in power would translate to 300 watts (400-100) and a more pedestrian (!) 1:45/500meter split. That's a significant difference.

OK, but how long does it take to regain lost fitness?
The last study is interesting for the amount of VO2max lost and for the loss in power on the rowing ergometer, but it is particularly interesting because the rower in question decided to return to training and continued with physiology testing. While he recovered much of his fitness quite quickly, it took approximately 20 weeks to regain what he had lost in just 8 weeks. The researchers summarized:

"These results show that detraining in the elite athlete can be pronounced, with rapid improvements upon retraining which slow, so that retraining takes considerably longer to achieve than detraining did."

This result--that retraining takes longer than the detraining--has been repeated elsewhere to some extent, but with variation.

Most of us are not elite athletes, though, so we wonder what would happen to us. Here is an example of detraining and retraining that may be closer to our own experience. In this case study, the subject is a 49-year old, competitive masters level cyclist who breaks her clavicle. Conveniently for us and the researchers, she has some physiology testing 2 days before getting into that accident. She is off the bike for 32-days and then resumes training. It takes her approximately 6 weeks to return to pre-accident fitness, although her peak power output takes 72 days to re-establish.

The time course of retraining appears, in general, to take longer than the detraining. Take a month off and it might take you two to get fully back in shape.

What is the least amount of training one can do to maintain fitness?
So, you want to train a bit less, but you're not willing to lose all that hard-earned fitness.

A study of runners demonstrated that gains in VO2max over a 10-week period could be maintained by training as little as 2 days a week, for 40-minutes each time, as long as the intensity was high enough.

"it is possible to maintain the increased VO2max for at least 15 wk by training at high intensity for 2 d/wk or 4 d/wk"

Another study, with the same initial training protocol (10 weeks of 40-minutes a day) tested a reduction in training duration (as oppposed to frequency). After the first 10-weeks of training, participants were put in two training groups, one that trained for only 26-minutes a day, and one that trained for only 13-minutes a day. Remarkably, the authors found that:

"it is possible to maintain almost all of the performance increases with up to a two-thirds reduction of training duration"

A study of swimmers showed that training just 3-days a week was sufficient to maintain aerobic capacity (VO2max).

A study titled "Reduced training maintains performance in distance runners" reduced training volume of elite runners by 70% for 3 weeks, but included workouts at an intensity of close to 95% of VO2max to maintain fitness.

However, a later study by some of the same researchers diminished not only the volume of training but also the intensity, such that no training was executed above 70% of VO2max. In this case, endurance performance dropped even though some metrics such as VO2max remained unchanged. The authors write:

"It is concluded that aerobic capacity was maintained in these runners, despite the combined reduction in training volume and intensity. However, it appears that training intensity during RT (reduced training) is important for the maintenance of 5 km running performance."

So, what do we make of all of this?

• If you take time off--more than a couple of weeks(?)--you risk losing some fitness. This shows up particularly in a decreased VO2max, which is clearly important to rowing performance.
• You can maintain VO2max and still substantially reduce training frequency and volume, but you will need to include some higher intensity workouts.
• 70% of VO2max intensity was the lowest intensity to maintain VO2max. Other studies used 80-95% of VO2max intensity to maintain VO2max. Workout durations varied.
• VO2max is only one fitness metric. Clearly if you reduce training duration and frequency, you will lose endurance if not other aspects of fitness. 

There are many references here to percentages of VO2max, so I have created a VO2max % calculator.

What about on the water rowing intensity for maintaining aerobic capacity (VO2max)?
I can think of a way to calculate on the water intensities (e.g., heart rate) but I think it is too fraught with potential inaccuracies to be worthwhile. More on that in another post.

Other questions:

1. If you get sick and miss training, what is the best way to resume?
2. Does cross-training (running, xc skiing, or cycling) help maintain rowing VO2max or is it activity-specific?
3. Assuming one just wants to maintain VO2max, how long and how frequent should one perform an 80% VO2max intensity workout? 20 minutes once a week?

Bye-bye for now. Happy detraining. Or not.