Erging (Indoor Rowing) Update

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Case in point: at the Yahoo

site is a news item regarding glycemic index. Data apparently shows
that the glycemic index is a bunch of hooey. Not a real big deal even
for diabetics, so for people without that, the mantra shoiuld be: eat
less, exercise more. Except we're always looking for a short cut. But

my point is this. I go to the rec.nutrition site and not a word about
that study, which you think would be big news. They are so buried in
minutue it's unbelievable. This sounds like a gripe but I'm laughing
at how the world works.<<

The best nutrition newsgroup is sci.med.nutrition. There are a lot of
very well informed people there, all of whom care passionately about
their diet.

I was once told by a PhD nutritionist that PhD nutritionists are the
bottom feeders of medical science research...meaning that the field
tends to be populated by those who couldn't Hackett (to make this
relevant to the swimming newsgroup) in molecular biology.

Anyway, nutrition research is the dismal science of medical research.

Most importantly, there is so much built in bias. Nothing is more
personal to the average person (yours truly included) than one's diet.
Insult my food and it'll get a bigger rise out of me than insulting
almost anything else about me, including relatives and views on
swimming technique. These biases permeate all nutrition research, in
all sorts of corrosive ways.

One thing which is crystal clear about human evolution is that humans
evolved to be physically active. The couch potato lifestyle is, in this
regard, inherently pathological. So the only interventional diet
studies I pay any serious attention to are diet studies in which the
group under study is also engaged in a supervised, structured,
documented exercise program. I have no interest whatsoever in studies
designed to identify the "best" diet for the average couch potato. Yet
such studies constitute easily 99% of all diet and nutrition research.

On the other hand, pathologic human behavior generates business for the
medical profession, which is (fortunately for those so engaged) a
growth industry, pun intended.

Larry W

Quoted message said:

I was once told by a PhD nutritionist that PhD nutritionists are the
bottom feeders of medical science research...meaning that the field
tends to be populated by those who couldn't Hackett (to make this
relevant to the swimming newsgroup) in molecular biology.

Anyway, nutrition research is the dismal science of medical research.

Like any researchers, science or other, nutritionists need
funding which most often depends on what they've already
done. The more they've already published, the more easily
they can get support. It's a great shame because the
sources of funding are usually seeking a profit from the
results (cereal is good for you, eat more, buy more) and the
sooner the results are published, the more quickly the
profit comes rolling in. This is at least as true in
pharmaceutical research and with an even more devastating
outcome. Don't blame the nutritionists for their
temporarily absolute final best definitive advice. That's
how they get paid. Too bad the universities can't pay their
researchers and the results therefore be the outcome of more
thorough research.

I have great faith in my instincts and tastes. I knew
sooner or later my need for dark menacing mysterious
chocolate would be justified, even if the research leading
to that brilliant discovery was funded by Hershey. And
thank you, California vintners, for that other wise observation.

rtk

I have been trying the erging machine, but there is no one
at my gym to give any competent advice. So I figured that I might
as well ask a question here.

I am mostly concerned with not messing up my back, as this is supposedly
the worst mistake to make. In particular, it seems to me that it
is very important to keep the handles as low as possible throughout
the stroke (excluding recovery, perhaps). If one imagines rotating
the whole picture 90 degrees, then it's like saying that you want to
lift things close to your body. Does this reasoning make sense to you,
or am I missing something here?

Lev
P.S. I have not been doing erging for long, maybe 5 times total
in past couple of weeks, after years of not using it. Just today I tried
the 2000m (damper 4) and went 7:25.3, which was very difficult for me.
Previously, I was just doing 30 min sets, best distance 7220m,
and that's what I will probably switch back to after today, since 2000m
was just too crazy.

"Lev Borisov" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been trying the erging machine, but there is no one
at my gym to give any competent advice. So I figured that I might
as well ask a question here.

There is currently a lively current thread, 'Erging(indoor rowing) update'
on this
newsgroup, with lots of good information, links, technique
and training advice, and applicability to swimming.

Read through the posts, there's hardly any chaff in there
and we address good rowing technique, and link to sites
that demonstrate it.

There's lots of rowers on the rec.sport.rowing site and
include erging in the FAQ.

Mike