"Effective Weight Limit"
There's been a "healthy" discussion going on in response to my last weigh-in
post, and I'd like to address the notion of "effective weight limit" that I
mentioned there.
The weight activities we've all been discussing occur just above the lightweight weight limit (it's 130, of course, but if it were different the same activities would simply occur above the different limit). Because of the particular weigh-in protocol used in college racing certain weight games can be played, which means that the "natural weight" a rower can be and still row lightweight is above the 130 pound limit. This weight is what I call the effective weight limit. I have no idea what this effective weight limit currently is, but a reasonable guess is probably around 135. Some rowers drop from a higher weight, but I think 135 sounds more like the effective weight. You'll notice that this weight is dependent on what we all call a rower's "natural weight." I put that term in quotes because it is a hypothetical weight that means different things to different people.
What then, is the definition of "natural weight?" Is it the weight a person would weigh if she did no physical activity and ate whatever she wanted? If she did minimal physical activity and drank diet soda? Natural weight means different things to different groups of people. To the average person, it may be the first definition. To the average college athlete, I hope it's something else. To me, a rower's natural weight is what she would weigh given a program of moderate physical activity and healthy eating habits. Now I need to provide two more definitions - moderate physical activity and healthy eating habits. I define moderate as moderate for an athlete, not for the general population. This isn't walking for twenty minutes three times a week. If you are a college athlete, and particularly a college rower, by the time you graduate you should be committed to a lifetime of physical fitness, whether it means rowing, running, triathlons, cross-country skiing, or something else just as strenuous. You may not know it now, but you're in this for life. Given that physical fitness should be a way of life, it should also be part of the definition of natural weight. As for healthy eating habits, let me put down my bag of cheese curls and give it some thought. I'm the worst person to define that, but I would say it means eating the right things in the right quantity. (Uh-oh, I've just given myself an eating disorder, haven't I?)
Now that I have a healthy, physically fit (but not yet rowing fit) woman, who eats well, I'd still let her cut a few pounds to row lightweight. You can see by this definition that "natural weight" is almost impossible to determine, but I still think this is about right.
Changing the weight limit, of course, doesn't change the gap between the limit and the effective weight limit. Changing the weigh-in protocol, however, does. A requirement to make weight every day, for example, would shrink that gap substantially, while a requirement to make weight twice a year would widen it substantially. Those programs that put out boats of opportunity would prefer that the gap be zero, while the dedicated programs would prefer that it be as large as it can be while not endangering or weakening their athletes. Therein lies the tension.
While I think we could narrow that gap a bit more than it currently is, I also don't think it should be zero. I think it shouldn't be zero because women who are natural lightweights, by my definition or perhaps when they are a bit less fit, often find that with more intensive training they add some muscle weight which, due to density differences, is not offset by the loss of fat. This discussion would be greatly enhanced if we knew how large the gap could safely be, but I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on that.
Another question entirely is if 130 pounds is the proper weight limit. Perhaps we'll discuss that another day.
9 comments:
Wisconsin has a dedicated program and would like to see day of competition weigh-ins. The Wisco lightweights weigh in several times each week, and nobody on the team is more than 133 lbs at any time of the year. If they are more than 133, they are not allowed to row. During racing season they are not allowed to be more than 131 lbs. Midweights (many of whom row for some of the Badgers' closest competitors) would not be able to eligible to row for the lightweights at Wisconsin. Lightweights should be within 2-3 pounds at all times, if not, they are not lightweights, because they have to drop too big a percentage of their total body weight to compete. This is unsafe. Those people who are not able to make weight on the day of a race and race safely are not lightweights. It is not safe for those people to row as lightweights. Weigh-ins on day of racing will make racing safer, and will limit the sport to those people who are natural lightwieghts, for whom this sport was intended.
I totally agree that it can be unsafe for a person to drop a lot of weight come race day, however, at the same time it is also possible for people to be 5+ pounds over the weight limit for a large portion of the year and still make weight comfortably at race time without endangering their health. Its very difficult to put a specific number on what a person should or should not be allowed to weigh to be considered a lightweight. Every person has a limit that is specific to them. With this being the case it is extremely difficult to make rules on this, and is probably why a lot of programs don't set rules on it and do it on a case by case basis.
Agreed... which is why fall is 135. Anyone can safely lose 5 pounds from november to march.
you can naturally be 130lbs and drink too much water, eat too much watermelon, or have a heavy meal that will get you to 135lbs.. does this mean that you're not a real lightweight? b/c you stepped on the scale and it said that you were over 133lbs? in the wisconsin rules it would!
How many people on your team drink 2 gallons of water or eat half a watermelon right before practice? Wisco averages each rower's weight monthly, so one weigh-in won't end anybody's season. But most of the wiegh-ins need to be at 131-132 lbs. it proves that these athletes are truly lightweights without having to make wieght in unhealthy ways.
The disagreement here seems to be about how to handle weigh-ins between races. I'm not sure anyone commenting would disagree with day of race weigh-ins - am I right? I would like to hear the argument against day of race weigh-ins.
Race day weigh-ins put more stress on race day, but it's part of being a lightweight. If you really are lightweight, then it doesn't add much stress to the day -- you just have to arrive early enough to weigh in on time. On the other hand, if you're trying to suck weight and carefully refuel before the race, I can imagine it is much more stressful.
The argument against race day weigh-ins tends to go something like this: no matter what you do, people will cut weight. Cutting weight the day before the race and then having time to refuel and rehydrate before racing is healthier for the athletes than cutting weight the day of the race and racing dehydrated. Of course, if the rowers were "natural" or actual lightweights, this wouldn't be a concern. But then it goes back to the question of how to ensure that rowers are actually lightweights... it's hard to see a way around this. One suggestion might be testing for hydration at weigh-ins, but that would be an organizational nightmare.
Good comment. It is hard to see a way around it. I've talked about the hydration testing before, and my concern is that since you can't check your hydration before actual testing (as you can weigh yourself), you'll need to lose extra weight so you can extra hydrate to make sure you pass the test. This would lower the effective weight limit by quite a bit, I think.
Post a Comment