Good call. I was strongly considering this at the beginning of the winter, before it turned out that it's been relatively mild with not much snow.
If you like to bike, you can get a good resistance trainer for your bicycle for about $150.
If you like to bike, you can get a good resistance trainer for your bicycle for about $150.
If you like to bike, you can get a good resistance trainer for your bicycle for about $150.
what the hell is that?
an ellipticyclerowermill (model D)
i'll do an extra burpee as penance.You wasted your 35th post in 9 years on this? D:
i'll do an extra burpee as penance.
oh, and i never got around to imported old profile :
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=imported_hn+site:forums.anandtech.com&aq=f&aqi=&oq=
Running is essentially free and by far the most vigorous cardio workout you can do. P90X cannot replace running for taxing your cv system. Crossfit itself includes running, doesn't it?
As a runner, I'd like to boast this, but it's not really true. Intense cycling and rowing are just as good. Rowing frequently beats running out for calories burned per time period. Therefore running is not the "most vigorous cardio workout you can do." CrossFit entails some running, but it frequently utilizes rowing and cardiovascular conditioning through circuit-like weighted movements.
About the rowing, how do you compare it to running in terms of the workout. Should I aim for the same relative caloric expenditure as I do when I run meaning if I run at a 900c/hr burn, should I row at an equiv 900c/hr burn or should I aim for the same heart rates? Because I find that I'm unable to go as long if I row at the same HR as when I run at high intensity for 45 mins.
Firstly, 900 calories per hour is a nearly unattainable rate. I don't know if you were just throwing it out there, but if your machines say you're burning that many calories, then it's wrong beyond belief. It depends on what your goals are. If you're crosstraining and looking to change it up, it might behoove you to go harder for a shorter period of time. If we're comparing directly to running, I'd say yes - keep your HR around the same. Perhaps more important is your rate of perceived exertion (RPE). This is just how hard you're pushing yourself on a given movement (typically in %s). You're not a rower - you're a runner, I imagine. Because you're not as efficient and haven't spent as much time rowing, your muscles aren't trained for it in the right spots. Because of this, you waste a lot of energy on firing muscles that don't really need to be contracting/tight. That wastes ATP and oxygen. I'd focus on form and lower the RPE until I got the hang of it.
Also, rowing is never as comfortable as running. Your body can start firing autorhythmic cells to keep you going. Sometimes on really long runs, you forget you're even running. However, you don't really get the same thing with rowing. On top of that, you're utilizing many more muscles against a heavier load. You've gotta keep all these things in mind. Rowing and running aren't the same thing so eventually I'd row at the same RPE and try to better my times on each.
Well yea, that's what they read and also what I'm throwing out there but I know the numbers are fudged. I have a HR monitor that shows expenditure more accurately but I don't use it at the gym either(don't really care about caloric expenditure during exercise since a lot of it happens after the workout during recovery). I mostly use the numbers from the machines more as a gauge, especially the rower. Since the calories/hour fluctuates while rowing(based on exertion), I aim to stay above a certain number so I know I'm not slacking and that I'm improving over time. When I first started, the rower was showing me at a rate of 500/hr, I'm now rowing avging above 750/hr and I would try to avg higher. So whether or not I'm actually burning that is irrelevant to me, it's that I'm improving is what I use it for.
So my question was not really about caloric expenditure, it was comparison to running using this same gauge. I thought if I could pull out 900/hr on a treadmill then, I should be pulling 900/hr on a rower yet I could do 1 hr on a treadmill but can barely sustain 30 mins on a rower at 800. Then I thought maybe I should aim for the same heart rate but it's the same, I can run an hour at over 170bpm but to get to 170bpm at a rower would mean a 10 min workout. RPE seems like an interesting technique but it's not as easy as looking at a display and seeing a number and know if your'e doing better or worse than the last time.
Well, the thing is caloric expenditure is a poor measurement of performance. You should measure things like time for x amount of distance or how far you can go in x amount of time. That's a much better indicator.
I do that too but then it gets hard to compare one workout against another since I change it up all the time. One day I would work towards climbing(higher incline) while others I work on speed or endurance so that x miles over a time, etc don't translate well. So with specific workouts like best times, I keep my personal bests memorized so that my next attempt at the same exact run, I know what to aim for but when comparing different workouts on the same or different machines, I typically use the calories/hr.
Whether or not I'm good at it, I do use RPE to an extent, especially when I run outside where I don't have dials and displays to show me how hard I'm running but when I think about it at the gym, I just get a nagging feeling like I'm unsure if I'm working just as hard when comparing my rowing to running. Like you said, rowing is an entirely different beast.
http://rommachine.net/ Costs $14k. Some people actually have bought it.
900 cal per hour is FAR from unatainable. The avg male burns about 100-115 cal per mile. Run at 9mph and presto! Also, rowing on the C2 at about 2:06 pace per 500m will burn about the same.
900 cal per hour is FAR from unatainable. The avg male burns about 100-115 cal per mile. Run at 9mph and presto! Also, rowing on the C2 at about 2:06 pace per 500m will burn about the same.