Training Tip: Erg Test the Duration, Not the Distance
Archive post from 2/21/22
We know that the biomechanical and physiological demands of the erg are significantly different than rowing or sculling. “Ergs don’t float” addresses this difference, “but they move boats” addresses the similar general force and fitness characteristics.
An idea I’ve been working with over the last year or so is to think about erg training and testing for the approximate duration of the race, not just the distance. The distance is arbitrary on the erg, and it’s the duration that matters most from a physiological perspective.
We can flip our model by testing how many meters we can achieve in a given amount of time, rather than the amount of time it takes to cover a certain distance. Take a look at the races you’d like to participate in this season and get a sense of what times earned a gold medal, podium position, or look like a good goal for you. Then, train and test around that approximate time instead of the distance of the race. Weather conditions and such can affect race results, of course, so we’re looking at estimations here rather than split seconds.
For example, the times for the men’s eight in the IRA 2021 were between 5:32 and 5:43, so maybe a 5:40 test. Women’s eights in the NCAA-D1 2021 were between 6:17 and 6:30, so maybe a 6:20 or 6:30 test. Based on 2021 US Masters Nationals results, a masters rower racing 1km in the women’s E-class quad might do a 3:45 test, while one racing 1km in the men’s H-class single might use 4:00, and so on for all the other ages and categories.
The point is that we know that 2km on ergs isn’t 2km on water, so we shouldn’t feel locked into testing the same distance with both. In duration-based testing, the rower who goes the most meters in the allowed time is the faster rower.
I got this idea originally from a 2009 study that tested eight male rowers on a static erg, erg on slides, and on-water single sculls. They found that they achieved the same average time in both types of erging (6:45), but went 8:30 on water. Importantly, the increased duration of the on-water time also increased the aerobic energy system contribution to 87%, compared to 84% on ergs. It’s a small difference, but it’s enough to potentially tip the physiological advantage in a sport where races are decided by fractions of seconds. The researchers propose that single scullers might use a 2.5km test instead of a 2km test to account for this physiological difference. I thought, why bother increasing the distance when we could just use this to test the duration we care about anyway?
Anecdotally, this also seems easier on rowers from a mental perspective. I notice less anxiety, fewer mental blocks to performance, and a generally more positive testing environment with the time-for-meters approach rather than the conventional meters-for-time approach. If we acknowledge that the erg doesn’t perfectly simulate the on-water performance environment anyway, then I think we should question the extra stress from arbitrary performance parameters.
