Is A 2min/500m Row Equal To 6min/mile Run Pace?

[[old] akit110]

Okay, maybe this is a strange question. I am familiar with what a 6:00min/mile or 5:00min/mile pace represents in running. Thus, I was curious if 2:00 min/500m pace in erging is roughly equivalent to a 6:00min/mile pace in running? <br /><br />I would say 6:00min/mile is probably the 'beginning' of a faster running. Just like it seems that 2:00min/500m is the 'beginning' of faster erging. A fit young man (not necessarily a trained runner) might be able to run a mile or two at 6:00min/mile for a fitness test. A superb long-distance runner might be able to run a marathon at that pace. <br /><br />

[[old] MarcusLL]

I think to make comparisons between running and rowing you've got to take into account the type of person you're comparing for: I think for almost any build given equivalent training experience 6:00 running pace would be harder than 2:00 rowing pace, but the difference would become more pronounced the larger the athlete, and a very scrawny 130lb 5'5 guy would probably find the running slightly easier.

[[old] Dickie]

I can Erg 2000m at sub 7:00 (1:45 per 500) at 49 years old but my fastest mile is 6:18 when I was 20 and in training for wrestling. The last time I ran was 4 years ago and I completed 2 miles in 18 minutes, that was about the same timeframe that I set my PB for 2k on the erg at 6:46.4.<br /><br />My daughter can run sub 6:00 for the mile but can not break 9:00 on the erg.<br /><br />Fred Dickie<br />

[[old] dmhayden]

Hunting around on the web, I found the results page for the New Haven 5k run. The 90th percentile time (the time that was better than 90% of all runners) was 21:11. Then I looked at the concept2 online ranking for a 5k row. Among all age groups and both sexes, the 90th percentile time is 18:17.<br /><br />If we assume that these times represent comparable athletic abilities, then running times are about 15%-20% faster than rowing times.<br /><br />Of course this assumes that this one distance is representative and that the Concept2 ranks and the New Haven 5k ranks represent comparable spectrums of athletes etc. etc., but it's probably reasonably close. You could do a similar comparison for other distances. Note, for example, that the 90th percentile for marathon rowers is around 2:47:08, which is probably slower than the 90th percentile for runners.

[[old] donm79]

6 min miles are harder than 2:00/500m. My best ever 10k run was 35:30, and that was damn tough. I'd probably be good for a 1:53/500m 10k row.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-akit110+Apr 1 2005, 06:08 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(akit110 @ Apr 1 2005, 06:08 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay, maybe this is a strange question. I am familiar with what a 6:00min/mile or 5:00min/mile pace represents in running.  Thus,  I was curious if 2:00 min/500m pace in erging is roughly equivalent to a 6:00min/mile pace in running?  <br /><br />I would say 6:00min/mile is probably the 'beginning' of a faster running.  Just like it seems that 2:00min/500m is the 'beginning' of faster erging.  A fit young man (not necessarily a trained runner) might be able to run a mile or two at 6:00min/mile for a fitness test.    A superb long-distance runner might be able to run a marathon at that pace. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />But 1:50 would more likely be called "the beginning of faster erging". <br /><br />Though that would be highly dependent on the distance/time being completed.<br /><br />Think about it this way; the 100M sprint running takes under 10 seconds at the highest level, a 10 second 100M sprint Erging would be a 0:50.0 Avg Pace. Anyone think they've got someone to do that? Yes, from a dead start, that's what they do in running isn't it?<br /><br />Each second in overall time for the Erg 100M changes the average Pace by 5 seconds, for those that are wondering. <br /><br />The bodyweight issue would certainly make significant differences, one major difference being that bigh heavy guys don't whine about how their time should be adjusted to account for the disadvantage while running. <br />

[[old] andyArvid]

<!--QuoteBegin-dmhayden+Apr 1 2005, 02:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dmhayden @ Apr 1 2005, 02:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hunting around on the web, I found the results page for the New Haven 5k run.  The 90th percentile time (the time that was better than 90% of all runners) was 21:11.  Then I looked at the concept2 online ranking for a 5k row.  Among all age groups and both sexes, the 90th percentile time is 18:17.<br /><br />If we assume that these times represent comparable athletic abilities, then running times are about 15%-20% faster than rowing times.<br /><br />Of course this assumes that this one distance is representative and that the Concept2 ranks and the New Haven 5k ranks represent comparable spectrums of athletes etc. etc., but it's probably reasonably close.  You could do a similar comparison for other distances. Note, for example, that the 90th percentile for marathon rowers is around 2:47:08, which is probably slower than the 90th percentile for runners. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />There is a big flaw in this argument. The concept2 rankings are voluntarily entered and represent the (season) best effort of each person. The New Haven 5k are not voluntarily entered and could but probably do not represent the best effort for each person.<br /><br />By the way for the marathon you are way off. NYC Marathon 90th percentile 3:39:12 . 99th percentile is 2:56:52. Of course NYC Marathon is full of pluggers. I am one of the few pluggers to row a marathon (22nd percentile).

[[old] d.guest]

This is just another example of how you can't compare rowing and running. I don't know how big the person was who said they row 10k at a 1:53 and run 10k in 35min or something, but I regularly row 10k in the 1:53 range, and I can only run 10k in 41min. I am only 170 lbs at 6'1".

[[old] BobD]

Why don't you just look at the total calories burned during the given period. At the same heart rate on my ERG I burn about 20% less calories than when I run for the same period. This means that when you run you work harder (you have to lift your body completely into the air at each step).

[[old] d.guest]

I am not very familiar with the calorie option on the erg but I don't think you input age or weight, I don't know how you are calculating calories with running, treadmill maybe. If this is the case, then you would enter both age and weight, which would mean you are calculating calories burned in two different ways. Also how accurate are these calorie calculators, esspecially if you are not entering age and weight? Maybe we have a new topic for discussion.

[[old] Carl Henrik]

My 1500m PB runnng is 4:30 and erging I would do around 4:52, Im 75kg<br /><br />My impression is that top runners have more supreme efficiency than top ergers in relation to beginners. Like running, rowing is also superior to erging in that way.<br /><br />If I was at average top runner efficiency, at the same weight as I am now and could consume as much oxygen running as erging now I would have a chance at sub 4. So I am set back half a minute in efficiency even when decently efficient, this is not the case in erging I think. Top ergers just have bigger oxygen consumption than club level ones.

[[old] allapologies916]

I can probably do 500 M in sub 1:30, and can run a mile in about 5:50-5:40... I definately do not think they are equal

[[old] donm79]

<!--QuoteBegin-d.guest+Apr 2 2005, 10:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(d.guest @ Apr 2 2005, 10:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is just another example of how you can't compare rowing and running. I don't know how big the person was who said they row 10k at a 1:53 and run 10k in 35min or something, but I regularly row 10k in the 1:53 range, and I can only run 10k in 41min. I am only 170 lbs at 6'1". <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm 6'1" 175lbs. Do you run much at all?

[[old] ranger]

Comparing my best at both, I run or row at about the same speed. This means that, for me, 6:00 mile pace running is equal to about 1:52 rowing. <br /><br />When I was in my 30s, I used to run marathons at about a 6:15 pace and I have rowed a marathon at 1:54. <br /><br />In my running days, 35:30 was a pretty good 10K for me (although I ran as fast as 34:00 once), and that is just about my 10K on the erg, too. <br /><br />Rowing or running, a 5K in 17:00 would be pretty good and comparable.<br /><br />ranger 54 M lwt

[[old] Bill]

Hello,<br /><br />How about this as a semi quantitative attempt to compare the activities ?<br /><br />Put an a heart rate monitor.<br /><br />Do one activity on day1<br /><br />Do the other activity on day 3<br /><br />Compare the graphs of heart rates, compare the calories calculated by the monitor for each activity, compare the rate of calorie burn<br /><br />Probably get different results for different people.<br /><br />Bill