Paddler's Weight | OCPaddler.com

I agree with your reasoning, but it depends also on what kind of weight. Obviously I'll take a lean 200 pounder over a 200 pound flab-man. If it's just about pure weight let's add some reasonable weight to a "small" crew and see what happens ?

#1 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 9:32am

I think the strength to weight ratio might be a focus.

#2 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 9:46am

I would think that the team with the highest strength to weight ratio would win, although at some point average paddler weight might have an impact on boat speed? Just thinking out loud....

#3 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 9:46am

The fat weight is a problem because the paddler has to oxygenate that tissue which takes away from performance...muscle tissue participates in its own circulation and is more efficiently vascularized so it is less of a liability.

It would seem unlikely to me that leg strength would be an issue with those leverages presented by OC

My vision of an ideal would be a lean guy with a big upperbody and slender hips and legs...Kai, Jr type. I would also imagine that someone who could crank out 15-20 pullups would show good strength to bodyweight and that they could pull their own mass and then some!

I guess the ideal are revealed in study of the best...like the soviets did.

#4 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 9:48am

Shawn Michael said: "It would seem unlikely to me that leg strength would be an issue with those leverages presented by OC."

Please explain... Leg strength is vital.

#5 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 10:11am

Shawn if you don't think that legs are important go tie both of them up and go jump in a six man and tell me that legs aren't important. If you can use your legs then you can't paddle right. Even if you say you don't drive off your legs which is highly unlikely, you need to use your legs for balance and stability.

#6 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 11:14am

When I was coaching our Men's open crew, I did a lot of one man pulls. The bigger, heavier guys usually got the canoe down the course faster than the smaller lighter weight guys. After gathering data for a year, the next year I worked out a formula that took into consideration body weight to canoe weight ratio's and applied it to the time it took to get that 400 lb boat over a defined course length. The results I got was quite amazing. It opened my eyes to the 160 - 170 pound lean paddler vs. the 200 lb middle boat guys. I know the formula worked because as times varied, accordingly, so did the results after applying the formula.

Now you ask me, what was that formula?? Crap, I cannot remember for sure, I had it written down in training logs that I kept each year...which, I tossed out when I stopped coaching. I worked out the formula with my Math teacher friend and the bases for it was the body weight to canoe weight ratio applied to the time it took to get the canoe down the course. If you have a Math friend, maybe he can help.

Anyway, it worked.

Jaws Out.

#7 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 11:22am

Shawn, why do you insist that legs are not important in paddling when just about everyone else does? This has come up again and again in other posts and in all of them you insist that legs don't matter. Explain?

#8 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 11:52am

Shawn has never paddled in a 6 man. We all would like to see him do that, it would clear up a lot of things for him.

#9 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 12:07pm

RatchetJaws - independent of the formula, what did you learn, opened your eyes to what ?

For the purpose of this discussion - 160 versus 200 lbs.

The work that you perform is more with a heavier boat. If you have a heavier OC 1 paddler that paddles the same time over the same distance as a light paddler than the heavier guy has performed more work. in addition the OC 1 is designed to suit lighter paddlers.
If both step into the OC 6 together, the heavier guy is used to perform more work; will he/she move the boat better ?

There is an article on the internet that has some calculations and they had a 1 to 1/6 ratio - that is supposed to mean, if your weight was 10 % higher your speed would drop by 1.5 % - in theory.

I don't remember the conditions, I think it was kayak.

Rambo had an excel sheet to calculate this, withdifferent results.

Strength to weight matters most, but how do you assess it ? I don't see pull ups to have much to do with body rotation for example.

#10 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 12:29pm

It'd be interesting to see how many pull ups the top paddlers can do. I bet there's a pretty good correlation between #of pull ups and OC-1 performance.

eckhart, does the ability to calculate ones strength to weight ratio matter?

#11 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 12:17pm

I don't think it matters. 'Strength' in paddling to a large degree means efficiency - doesn't it. For a coach it may matter whether he/she preselects light or heavy guys at the beginning.

I think Australia has one pretty tall crew - is it Mololooba ? Lanikai in recent years have been lighter, but have been heavier in the 90ies as far as I know. It just matters who is available.

But if you plan to win Olympic gold medals - which type of youth paddlers would you select for long distance OC 6 ?

#12 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 12:28pm

Poops, eckhart,

Some stats:

This guy in my club can do 28 pull-ups without stopping, (I know, wow!) His flat water 1-mile average just under 8 minutes.
My Grandma can do zero pull-ups. Although never measured with a GPS, I estimate her average 1-mile time to be right around 36 minutes.

I think that there's a formula in there somewhere...

#13 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 12:36pm

Finally we got some good stats to back up the arguments; you should buy a GPS for your grandma though, she may be faster than you think.

#14 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 12:38pm

I hear she's pretty hot too.

#15 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 1:29pm

Eck...by establishing the body weight to canoe weight ratio, if both the light guy and the heavier guy was pulling the same weight...ratio wise, on a few occasions, the small lighter guy had the better time when adjusted for this ratio.

For example...for the 200 lb paddler one man pulls in the 400 lb boat, there is a 50% ratio. So, the small lighter paddler coming in at 150 lbs., to make it even, he should be paddling in a 300 lb. (50% ratio). The formula I developed took this into consideration and when applied to the 150 pounders time in the 400 lb canoe, I came up with adjusted times for all my lighter guys which gave me a truer picture of whose putting out what with regard to strength.

Jaws Out.

#16 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 1:50pm

it'll be a little different since you have to calculate the weight of the steersman, ama and iakos.. say 600 lb... still a difference but less since the overall number is more

maybe nitpicky but if you're going to come up with a number, then might as well be accurate

#17 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 2:02pm

I don't care about weight/height that much, I think you take whoever is good(duh). That being said, two of the best all-around paddlers I've known were 6-6ish, but they were just really good paddlers. The tall guys who are exceptional are just way more rare than average size top paddlers, so mostly you're gonna get average size guys. Like in basketball, the really talented big men are more valuable than anyone else.

#18 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 2:41pm

oops neremind, i tho weigth be some kind o' magic ratio o' weight vs. width.

but dang Jaws, wish ye still had that magical ratio. I`d like t' use 't, if ye be willin' t' share that be.

#19 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 4:00pm

Give me a crew of similar size and technique. They should be fit, know how to shut up in the canoe, and be over 6' tall. I don't care how much they weigh. Oh, and I want Jr. to steer.

One thing, for sure.... I don't think adding weight on purpose would help, overall. You want less waterline. Do you know anyone who has a great, lighter crew, that puts extra lead in their canoe?

#20 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 7:56pm

A heavyweight has a harder punch than a lightweight. You could argue that a heavier, taller paddler is able to generate a higher torque.

A heavier crew has more momentum once in motion; good or bad in the waves ?

I am undecided on this.

#21 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 8:35pm

mumbojumbo

e=mc2

That IS a scientific fact.

#22 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 9:22pm

Whoa! I never meant to imply that legs were not important I just meant that a guy who can squat 500lbs is not going to be able to apply any more leg drive to a canoe than a dude with stick legs who does a lot of OC and may have "weak" legs in a traditional sense

I never posted that legs were not important.

I said it would seem that other than acutally paddling, pullups might be a good indicator of potential to move ones weight and make the point that since we have two other "hearts" diapharam which pumps blood, muscle with "pumps" and circulates much of its own blood through contraction around the vasularity and the so that weight is not a much of a liability to as is fat which is a pure hinderance to circulation.

#23 Fri, 09/19/2008 - 10:20pm

Eckhart, you're right-a taller guy can theoretically apply more torque, but he has to be a good paddler, too. You have to work w/ the available paddlers, no matter what their size. Nowdays, not many of the top guys are much over 6', for whatever reason. The Tahitians aren't very tall either, right? I guess there's a point where the bigger guys, even though they may have more torque in some situations, are less efficient than the average size guys.

#24 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 3:32am

Actually, I think E = mc^2 is technically a scientific theory...

#25 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 4:16am

Are you sprinting in a Koa or doing long distance? In a sprint, I'd be inclined to have big bulls. In distance, it takes a lot more oxygen and energy to fuel those guys than a lean paddler.

#26 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 7:07am

How Can a Small Guy Ride So Strongly?

Question: I began riding last year and recently met my first professional cyclist in person. He's a good climber on a U.S. pro team. I'm astonished at how small he is! He looks skinny, emaciated and weak. But I know he can ride circles around me even though I'm an athletic 6-footer and 190 pounds. How can such an unimposing person put out so much power? I want to climb like him! -- Bradley N.

Comment: When you're familiar with athletes in most conventional sports, it's a shock to see how small and thin top cyclists are. The rule for climbing prowess: You should weigh (in pounds) no more than twice your height in inches. So at 6 feet (72 inches) you'd need to weigh 144 pounds rather than 190. Pro cycling tends to select lean, light-bodied athletes in the same way that the profile of a mastodon is required for football linemen. Climbing ability is crucial in racing, and it depends on the power-to-weight ratio. A light rider doesn't need to generate as much power as his heavier competitor because he has less weight to propel up hills. In the 2005 Tour de France with 189 starters, here's the profile of the average rider:

Height -- 1.79 meters (5 feet, 10.4 inches)
Weight -- 71 kilograms (156.2 pounds)
Resting heart rate -- 50 bpm
Lung capacity -- 5.69 liters (1.48 gallons)

Of course, there are exceptions. Five-time Tour winner Miguel Indurain is 6-foot-2 and weighed 190 pounds when he began racing. Lots of miles reduced him to 175. At that weight, his huge power output enabled him to ride with the specialist climbers in the mountains even though he outweighed most of them by 30-40 pounds. And of course he was nearly unbeatable in flat time trials where weight doesn't matter much but power output does. Think of Big Mig and don't give up hope for climbing well. Continue riding, train on hills and you'll improve to the limits of your physique.

#27 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 9:16am

http://eascoaching.blogspot.com/2005/11/aerobic-power-to-weight-relation...

#28 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 9:21am

Yeah , Big Mig was a 5 time winner but if you watch the vids of those races he was never dealt a good honest attack by any riders on any of the major climbs. Therefore the peloton sat there and let him dictate the pace of the climbs up there at the front . Then of couse , Big Mig stomped evertone in the time trials to get huge time gains.

Armstrong is a different kind of rider , fast uphill and fast in the time trials too .

Hes riding next years tour .

#29 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 9:30am

Yeah , Big Mig was a 5 time winner but if you watch the vids of those races he was never dealt a good honest attack by any riders on any of the major climbs. Therefore the peloton sat there and let him dictate the pace of the climbs up there at the front . Then of couse , Big Mig stomped everyone in the time trials to get huge time gains.

Armstrong is a different kind of rider , fast uphill and fast in the time trials too .

Hes riding next years tour .

#30 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 9:32am

Nice link malachi. Whether it's all true or not, That Alan Carlsson dude sure SOUNDS smart. I need to start applying more brain power into my paddling... AND lose weight.

#31 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 10:39am

Jackie Chan may have some worthwhile input to this thread.... goto's grandma may even improve her times with some martial arts training

#32 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 10:56am

My grandma's already dancing her ass off at the capoeira studio every Tues/Thurs night!

#33 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 11:13am

Download the Paddler Equivalence Calculator Spreadsheet here
http://www.box.net/shared/l5fhkxdrih

Cheers Rambo

#34 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 5:59pm

There's nothing wrong with a little extra around the mid section.

I don't want any comments from JC-9 0.

Don't you have a fire truck to go polish!

O-Cole

#35 Sat, 09/20/2008 - 7:59pm

fuze
Indurain would have such a buffer from the TTs that he didn't really need to respond to attacks in the mountains. He could just ride his pace (which wasn't too shabby) and limit any losses.
Armstrong used his team to the same effect. Set a steady killer tempo that would burn up the pure climbers. The pure climbers have super acceleration but maybe don't have the sustained power output of the TT guys. Since Indurain there seems to have been a change in strategy away from the pure climbers duking it out, to burning everyone off by sustained TT pace in the mountains.
And how's that for a paddling discussion?

#36 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 1:25pm

All , true but , it`s worth noting that to beat Indurain someone needed to at least attempt to take some time out him in the mountains . No rider was successful at this until Riss was able to pull it off in the Pyrenese (sp) that cold snowy day ,,, remember? Indurain is a hot weather rider , in bad weather he usually choked.

That first year Armstrong won the World Professional road title was a raw cold , rainy day, Indurain was there but his legs don`t move well in the cold.

We can switch back to paddling later...

#37 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 2:01pm

Hmmmmmm... well... I'm thinking that there are too many factors involved... too many "it depends" involved to come up with a hard fast rule regarding weight, ya??? In general though, assuming all boats are equal (haaaa!)... rather than strength to weight ratio, maybe a more accurate way of putting it would be force or even force applied/weight ratio. Because of course the total force exerted does not always translate into force applied. The total force applied would be influenced by a combination of strength, technique, length of stroke, length of lever and strokes/min. etc A long armed paddler/paddle would not only have the advantage of a longer reach, but also a longer lever=greater mechanical advantage=greater force applied for equal force exerted. Better technique among other things would=less drag/stroke.

So, a very light, long levered, strong, fast, paddler with flawless technique would be ideal. Any compromise in one area can be compensated for with increases in another. Course, the best way to apply force is to borrow it from the coean... nothing funner than catching a bump and coasting by your swoll buddy who is busting his culo but can't read the water.

That's the cool thing... many ways to get it done... a paddler with less strength than another can win with superior technique etc etc etc. Pick yer poison.

So anyhow... that's a f'n heap of words to say, dude, it depends. LOL

#38 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 2:10pm

Indurain was definitely a multi day rider depending upon a killer TT, while Armstrong showed more all around ability (and I'm definitely not an Armstrong fan). I feel that the defensive strategy used by Indurain and even Armstrong has taken a lot away from bike racing. The good old days of attacking 70 miles out and gaining 10 minutes, losing 15 the next day, gaining 12 the following, etc., etc. is way more exciting than putting your team on the front in TT mode and burning everyone off.
It used to be much more mano a mano, while now it is much more defensive and wheel sucking. Of course it is easy to say that as we don't have suck those wheels. And of course realizing that even the last place rider in the Tour is a better athlete than we will ever be.

#39 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 2:29pm

I hear what you`re saying , back in the day , guys used to go shooting off the front running on pure emotion and it was exciting to watch .

Now the top guys seem to be a lot more methodical about it , cool and calculating , while trying to avoid the minefield of things that can happen randomly....

#40 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 2:49pm

Yeah, the sport is much more defensive, radios have removed the need for riders to think, the overall caliber of rider is way higher so the old style of aggressive racing is probably not even possible anymore. And of course the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket.

#41 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 2:56pm

Except for paddling ... no money involved yet so it`s still,
a good , honest game to play .

#42 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 3:04pm

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about the whole OC in the Olympics, big pro races, etc.. Don't think that most people envision all the negatives that come with that. We have a pretty sweet deal right now as it is.

#43 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 3:26pm

Well said, JIibofo!!

Further thought on weight---the big strong guy also has more water resistance to overcome since the canoe is lower in the water.
Is paddling up wind or down wind more like climbing. Which is more like TT?

#44 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 3:55pm

The paddler Equivalence Calculator i posted above will give you your paddler rating, try it, it's interactive. You just enter your details where the yellow tables are.

Cheers Rambo

#45 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 4:34pm

I'd say upwind is more like climbing or a TT. Downwind you get breaks as you're surfing, then sprint to get the next ride so its sort of like intervals. Upwind you're just grinding out that steady effort going as hard as you can hold = a TT or climbing effort.

#46 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 5:13pm

I'd say upwind is more like climbing or a TT. Downwind you get breaks as you're surfing, then sprint to get the next ride so its sort of like intervals. Upwind you're just grinding out that steady effort going as hard as you can hold = a TT or climbing effort.

#47 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 5:14pm

Don't know what happened there. Just running up the post count i guess.

#48 Sun, 09/21/2008 - 5:17pm

Maybe upwind with waves and wind, weight and more strength would be an advantage like TT ie close to the same frontal area (wind drag aboput the same) but more power to push through. More momentum also to counter wave action.

Flat water (no wind) more like climbing. Higher power to weight ratio more of an advantage and wind resistance not a factor.

Downwind a whole different thing and ability to read and react (n and surf) more important than just strength.

Just trying to analyze this guess I should look at Rambo's calculator too!

#49 Mon, 09/22/2008 - 5:15pm

Shawn Michael had mentioned The fat weight is a problem because the paddler has to oxygenate that tissue which takes away from performance

Can anyone/Shawn explain in simple terms what exactly is meant by this? Oxygenate what tissue? Is the reference to "that tissue", fat? Not sure why that would be. I must be misunderstanding this.

Thanks

#50 Mon, 09/22/2008 - 5:42pm

Rambo, thanks for posting that excel download link on the equivalence thing. I'll probably never use it but its fun to look at. Interesting.

thanks again!

#51 Mon, 09/22/2008 - 6:23pm

Well lets say you have 5lbs of muscle tissue on your quads and I have 5 lbs of fat on my gut. Our heart and the pumping of our diaphram has to keep blood flowing to that tissue. The fat is more of a strain on your heart because the fat is totally passive and cannot contract and pump the blood anywhere. Everytime you step and move your muscle tissue helps pump ITS OWN BLOOD SUPPLY by squeezing blood along through the circuit. It can futher be argued that the way fat is capilarized makes it harder for the heart to pass blood through fat tissue than muscle tissue. Body fat % is more closely linked to all fitness markers than body weight, which is why the BMI is such a bad tool. A sprinter with fitness off the scale and 6% bodyfat can be "obese" and someone with 30% blubber who cant make it up a flight of stairs can be optimal. The employed tax payer pulls his own weight and the guy on food stamps strains the system.

#52 Mon, 09/22/2008 - 6:29pm

Also obviously the muscle tissue might help you move the boat where the fat on the gut will just make it really hard for you to bend forward and even constrict your breathing. Endurance activities will ultimately make your body want to be more efficient and "downsize" so big muscles are not great either and still metabolically expensive.

#53 Mon, 09/22/2008 - 6:34pm