lhunt

Yes, I agree. I don't know, Christopher - I'm learning, too! It takes microseconds to get that paddle all the way in, and there's not much feedback as to exactly where you are. Still, if you check these two pages, you see, that's what they say. (Search for "salmon" in the first one, and "catch" in the second one.) Here, Brent Reitz clarifies that it's a pause with the torso, not the hands. That actually makes sense - gives you the best of both worlds. -Lisa

About neoprene stink: I wash all my neoprene (incl. wetsuit and socks) in my front loading washing machine after every use, and do whatever it takes to dry them quickly (radiator or sun). It keeps the stink quite manageable. If the stink has already built up, soaking overnight in Woolite maybe twice as strong as on the label, then washing machine (with no soap) to get the Woolite out works surprisingly well.

Pix from last year here... -Lisa

Last summer a couple of us stumbled across a rogue lobster trap that had drifted inland. It was up in one of the many little fissures of the Annisquam River that go dry at low tide, and had a full load of unhappy crabs. Makes me wonder how many lobsters are lost in the traps we don't see.

Captions available on Picasa (or most of them, I would think). If you download the Picasa software you can put the caption on the picture on your computer for posterity, and it will be carried along when you upload to the web.

Well, for photos, Picasa works pretty well for me. I'm not into buying prints online but they do offer the option (they link to other vendors). Picasa actually has two components: an online photo sharing site like Snapfish, and some special software you can download to your computer. The downloadable software scans for all the photos on your computer (you can limit the range if you wish), then gives you some nice easy-to-use tools to view, organize and edit. Once you have that software installed, uploading pix to the online sharing site is one button click. The software allows you to edit your photos without saving the edited version as another .jpg. It just saves the edits in a database and re-applies them to the old photo each time you view or upload or whatever. This saves space and helps get around the loss of quality you can suffer if you save a .jpg over and over. You can "undo" your edits a year later if you want to. If you opt not to use the downloadable software you can still share your photos like any other photo sharing site. Note that like other sharing sites, you need to be cognizant of the privacy status of your shared photos. If you upload them as "public", other people can search for them and see them. But it's easy to make them private. There are space limitations and some other things that make it not perfect, but, as I say, it works pretty well for me. Now as to trip reports, not sure what you mean. I post trip reports on a site called NSPN :-)... -Lisa

Tough to answer without trying them all - we had a discussion about it back here... Cath mentioned Delorme and I'd check that out if I were in the market for a new one. Just make sure that there is no internal magnetic compass, or if there is, that it can be disabled when kayaking. I use a Garmin GPSmap (a couple of them, in fact). It is water resistant, but I always keep it in an Aquapac. I think that the constant salt water exposure is just too much for a device like that. I can usually see it "well enough". There is a "big numbers" feature that gives you any 3 of the many different data fields in large black numbers on the main screen. The map is harder to see, but I can still see it on my deck if I tilt it up a little on a plastic dashboard thingy I have. OK, I can't read the text on the map while underway, but I can see the find pointer, and the track line (if any), so that's the important thing. Yes, of course, I agree. There are many trips taken for simple pleasure on which I tote the GPS along but never refer to it. In those cases, it's just nice to have the log for later. But I always take a camera, too, so there's that :-) -Lisa

I keep a GPS on my deck showing speed, odometer, and elapsed time. I have recorded a track of just about every trip I've ever taken, so I have an electronic log (here is an old, partial, much-shared one from 2009). It's also fun to share a Google Maps track for a given trip in the trip report. On long open crossings, I occasionally do a find on the far side and switch to the map view to keep a straight line despite currents or crosswinds. I find this to be especially helpful during races as it somehow helps me concentrate better on the task at hand. Have used during fog as well, of course, but not as the only option. Lisa

Drag of the SOT I believe! But the current shouldn't have any effect on cadence... BTW: here is one way to get a chest strap... -Lisa

Um... then I don't think you can use the example of a car with the emergency brake on, can you? I think that mixes in too many other concepts (Isn't that the dynamic energy of going up the hill turned into the potential energy of the stopped car or something like that?) Certainly the car with the emergency brake on isn't burning any gas, but I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion. The car trying to stay still by revving the engine is burning gas, and a person trying to keep the kayak moving but being pushed back by the wind is also burning calories. The guy paddling like mad to stand still is actually moving - his hands are moving, anyway (and more of him, if he has a good stroke :-) ) So he is definitely burning calories to keep his paddle moving against resistance. I'm saying he isn't working as aerobically because he has to slow his movements when pulling the paddle through the water. That's because the muscles involved can't take in enough oxygen locally to do the deed. The blood vessels aren't getting it there fast enough or the muscle cells aren't taking it up fast enough, or whatever. The heart and lungs are therefore not limiting him - his muscles are limiting him. Breathing harder doesn't help because there's a local logjam in oxygen transport. This situation results from the water feeling "thicker" (because the boat can't move forward to relieve some of the resistance). The paddler feels it as the burn of muscle fatigue. I think I understand all of this as being a good reason why it's hard to reach maximum heart/lung efficiency when paddling upwind. This guy is getting a great workout, making his muscles a little bigger with every stroke, but he's not working his heart and lungs quite as much. Now, if you talk about downwind, you get different limitations. Rob talked about paddling downwind in such a fast wind that you can't paddle fast enough. No, you're not going to get a very high heart rate doing that, either. Any time your cadence has to increase beyond some optimal level, you'll fall off on your aerobics, and it will make more sense to "coast". I believe this, but cannot really explain it. Leon, I don't think you have explained it very well, either (yet), although it seems to be obvious to you that it happens. I bet it has something to do with the recovery time in the muscles - they contract by sliding the muscle fibers one over the other, and they have to slide back (relax) before they can contract again. Since the muscles aren't working very hard when the paddle is in the water, the resulting sum of oxygen usage is reduced, and because there is a limitation on turnaround time, the paddler can't make up for it by moving faster. Or something like that. Of course, in both cases, if the guy keeps paddling at the lower or higher cadence, he probably can train his muscles to increase the range. And when paddling against the wind, it is possible, as Leon has often reminded me, to take a shorter stroke so as to increase the cadence. That gets you into the little rest period while you switch sides more frequently, spreading the anaerobic load a little. I'm pretty bad at it, though. In any case, we're basically believing the conventional wisdom that if your heart and lungs aren't working as hard as possible for the given exercise and duration that you aren't burning as many calories during the exercise time as you would be otherwise. OK, probably so, I guess - after all, the heart and lungs themselves can burn calories if they are working hard. As I said, I think the difference is pretty slight. The difference given between weight lifting and running is much bigger, because when weightlifting you are usually only exercising one muscle at a time, sometimes pretty small ones, like triceps, which can't consume much oxygen at the best of times. But when paddling you're exercising core and upper body, and, if you are paddling knees up, legs. So I just think the difference would be pretty small. Anyway, those are my thoughts about it, for what it's worth! -Lisa

Yeah, well, we can't paddle, either - it's snowing here. I don't see it; I meant to disagree (respectfully :-) ) with Rob. OK, if you say so. I thought your bicycling example was only if there was no load on the pedals because the bike had no gear for it. I'm talking about using a machine where there is some resistance, but low enough to require a higher than optimum cadence. You did say there is an optimum cadence, and I agree. The question is, if it is pure physics, why isn't a very high cadence with low resistance not optimum?

I was referencing this article (OK, it's for women, but I think the basic concept holds for all). Mostly the part that says: "Calorie for calorie, cardio has a slight advantage. You'll burn 8 to 10 calories a minute hoisting weights, compared with 10 to 12 calories a minute running or cycling" Now, that's a pretty small difference for two very different activities. And we are talking here about one activity that is pretty similar (going upwind or down). The article goes on to point out, though, that building muscle burns as many calories in the long run. Another frame of reference is using the elliptical machine at the gym with a heart monitor. There is an optimum setting, as you say - an optimum cadence. Too heavy and I can't get to max. That's understood. But too light, same problem, even if there is some resistance. That's harder to understand. There is biochemistry involved, along with your basic physics. But I think we're mostly in agreement. Actually this happens all the time in races, and in workouts on the river. I'm pretty sure on this point: I huff and puff more going downwind, definitely, though abs and legs burn more going upwind. Heart monitor proves it. This is true even when the current counteracts the wind; that is, even when I end up going the same speed over ground in both directions (which presumably removes most of the psychological component). -Lisa

No, of course not. It's just nice to get some of each. Here's my thought: Take it to an extreme. Imagine paddling against such a high wind that you can barely move your paddle (this wind is pushing you backwards). If that's hard to imagine, try imagining sitting on a stationary kayak-shaped rock in the middle of a river facing downstream with such a high current that it's hard (but possible) to move the paddle against it. Now take a few strokes. Are you limited by heart rate/breathing or by muscle strength? On the other hand, turn around and face upstream and "paddle". Are you limited by heart rate/breathing, or by your ability to turn the paddle around fast enough? It's similar to comparing weight lifting against using the elliptical machine at the gym. Or maybe it's more similar to using the elliptical machine at a moderate level vs. a very high (slow) level. Or pedaling a bicycle up a very steep hill vs. going on the flat, vs. going downhill. At some point the exercise is too "hard" (you can't get any cadence, and are just straining your muscles anaerobically), or too "easy" (you are limited by your ability to make the motions fast enough, such as when bicycling down a very steep hill - just can't get your legs to move that fast). But if there is some resistance, you are going to get your heart and lungs working harder if your muscles are moving fast than if they are just straining against a heavy weight. Kayaking, like most exercise, is part aerobic, part strength training. When you go upwind, the ratio of strength training to aerobic exercise goes up. I believe from experience that going against a stiff wind is less aerobic, and with a stiff wind is more. Maybe the tipping point isn't exactly in still air - maybe it's slightly one way or the other. That would depend on how muscly you are. I think a muscly guy would find the tipping point to be more upwind than me, because he can keep up his cadence better. It's also harder to keep up with Leon in a stiff headwind, but that's another topic altogether! As to calories, I have a feeling that the difference is there. But because the calorie difference between aerobic and anaerobic is pretty minor, the difference when paddling upwind vs. downwind is even more minor, because it's a blend of both types of exercise. -Lisa

Going against the wind is less aerobic, more strength training. You have to pull harder at each stroke to move the paddle (actually the paddle is staying relatively still, it's harder to move you, but it comes to the same thing). Your cadence tends to go down when moving against the wind, too (unless you take shorter strokes). Now, which burns more calories, aerobic vs. strength training? Hmmm..."Per unit time"... Well, you burn more calories in an hour of aerobic activity than an hour of strength training. But if you really pour on the juice going upwind you will still burn extra calories for an hour afterward trying to rebuild muscle, and having extra muscle makes you burn more calories per day even when you're not exercising. So if "per unit time" means calories you actually burn while paddling, it makes me vote for the downwinder. But for actually losing weight and keeping it off, I'd go the other way. Depending, of course, on those bran flakes. Happily, if you went downwind you are probably going to have to go back upwind to get home, or vice versa, so you'll get both. Ain't life beautiful? -Lisa

I don't think anyone has mentioned disorganized chop vs. - well - whatever you call it when it's wind-driven, big and sharp but organized (I remember somebody saying swells are always driven by the deep ocean dynamics, not wind). Even with a short period I can take much bigger organized waves than disorganized chop. One other line of thought: Once you set off as a group, the whole group moves only as fast as the slowest person. That means, if you frequently paddle in a group, at some point you are likely to need to paddle slower than your comfort level in conditions. It can happen if anyone is sick or injured, or has equipment problems, or if one member of the group is being towed (by someone other than yourself). One approach is to actually practice expanding your comfort level. I think that being able to paddle slowly in conditions (rather than constantly stopping, which is nerve racking) is an important skill that we should practice like any other. We practice rolling, surfing, rescues, paddling backwards and sideways, even standing in or on our boats. Why not add one more to the list?

If anybody wants to contribute photos for the slideshow, I'll collect them. I'll need .jpegs, so if you are using a photo sharing site, make sure that they are publicly downloadable. Otherwise, email is OK - can use a bulk emailer like wetransfer.com if you want. Lisa lisa underscore huntington at yahoo

Me, too. Is it something I said? :-) -Lisa

Hi, Cath, Yes, "smaller" boats are never small enough, even for me, and I'm much bigger than you are (135 lb.) After paddling a boat designed for a 200 lb. payload I just got my custom made stripper (the infamous "Mustang Sally"), which is designed for a 160 lb. payload. What a difference! I'm no longer bobbing about like a cork, and there is less weathercocking. The new boat has a much shorter rudder (it's for racing so, yes, I use a rudder), but I don't really miss the extra 3", because the boat is down in the water where she should be. Probably other people know more about the smaller, less racy sea kayaks. At one time, when I was looking for such a boat, I felt that the Eliza, etc., were all too short. OK, these boats are not necessarily designed for "straight and fast" (like mine is), but still... 15 feet seems short for a sea kayak. The waterline is probably, what, 13 feet? That's not much longer than a rec boat. Chatham 16 has a 13' waterline, too. It is definitely designed for maneuverability, not for tracking or speed. All that overhang comes at a price. The QCC Q10 is designed for smaller people and is a straight tracker and fast for its length. It is also quite short, but at least most of its length is waterline. But these straight boats won't excel at rock play or surfing, it's not what they are designed for. I also paddled the Force Cat 3 once, that was nice. It wasn't very rough that day, but I did feel like it was tracking well. It gets pretty good reviews by the lighter women. I think if I decided to get a "regular" (non-racing) sea kayak that would be my first choice. But for your weight, even that will be a little too big. I definitely feel that if the Chatham 16 is too big for you, the Chatham 17 certainly will be, too. A custom-made boat like mine is more expensive (maybe just a little more than the suggested retail price for most carbon boats). The huge advantage is that you can choose your own design. If the boat is painted there is no special maintenance (varnishing, etc.) Anyway, those are some opinions. That and $3.52 will get you a frappuccino (!) Lisa

Zinc oxide, then, as a sunscreen ingredient, must be one culprit. -Lisa

Aha. Yes, it was the kind of night you only get once in a blue moon. Yes. And absence makes the heart grow fonder, too. -Lisa

Thank you all! Yes, Elizabeth (or anyone else), of course. In fact, if you've done it already, do it again. I just replaced them all with full resolution versions. I'll leave them that way for a week or so (running out of space on Picasa). A sunset to remember certainly. It came to me as I was paddling that night what a shame it is to live in a mostly wooded neighborhood where one never really sees a decent sunset. Oh, well, can't have everything, seemingly. -Lisa

Pictures here, but they don't do it justice. What a lovely evening! Thank you Christopher for showing me a whole new world. Here is our track. (Both the pix and the trax include my warmup paddle beforehand.) -ghostly galleon #10 Lisa

Accuweather says mostly clear for Gloucester tomorrow night. Could change, of course. Is anyone interested in starting early to beat the traffic, then coming back to the cove to meet the group? I'm thinking of going to Lane's around 4:30 give or take. -Lisa

I'd like to come, too, even though it's way past my bedtime... -Lisa

Way to go, Pru!!!