How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 28th, 2005, 6:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 28 2005, 02:18 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Seconds are linear, whereas watts would be exponential. If the PAT times were done automatically, by computer program etc, they could be taken out to 3 places instead of just 1. For example 6:02.6 would be 90.65 instead of 90.6 etc. </td></tr></table> What? Decibels are exponential The Richter scale is exponential But Seconds and Watts are discreet. i.e. 10 seconds is twice as long as 5 seconds AND 200 watts is twice the power of 100 watts. The pace relationship for the PM2(and up) between seconds and Watts involves some exponents, but that doesn't change the character of the units. You're going to have to do better than that to promote this idea of PATT as being something other than strange mathmatical manipulations without any basis in reality. There has been a measure in the rowing world called "Percentage of Gold Medal Time" which looks at the top performances from previous years and sets a "Gold Medal Time" based on the trends. Athletes train with this in mind so that they have an idea of what type of perfomance is going to be required. If you are too far off of the Gold Medal Time in practice it makes little sense to waste resources on travelling to the World Cup, instead of putting in more training.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 28th, 2005, 7:12 pm

PaulS, The relationship certainly could be based on watts. However doing so would be quite complicated. Calculations would need to be done by computer. Watts are not linear so easy comparisons between percentages and times would not be possible. Also the resulting percentages would not be equivalent to percentage by time. World record 2k times and paces are given by time. So the same means and method is being used for PATT, which shows the direct percentages of those times.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 28th, 2005, 7:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 28 2005, 03:12 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul, 2k times are measured in time. Seconds give a linear representation of time. The PAT percentages are based on this linear relationship. </td></tr></table> But you are using Pace, not total time, and Pace is a calculated value based exactly on Watts. Keep trying.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 28th, 2005, 8:17 pm

PaulS, PATT is based on percentage of World Record equivalent times. For the sake of curiousity I have calculated your PATT percentages which come out roughly like this. 2k- 86% 10k- 78% h/m- 73%

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » January 29th, 2005, 7:58 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But you are using Pace, not total time, and Pace is a calculated value based exactly on Watts. </td></tr></table> For a distance of 500m, one's 500m pace is not a calculated value at all, it is elapsed time. Isn't it also going to have a constant relationship to watts if one ergs at constant pace? Moreover, I wonder how much of a real-world difference calculations based on watts would make. By way of empirical illustration, here are 500m splits for a gradual 5k warmup I just pulled randomly off my PM2. Time Watts Time Watts 1:57.2 217.4 1:51.9 249.9 1:54.6 232.4 1:49.8 264.5 1:54.3 234.3 1:49.5 266.6 1:54.4 233.5 1:49.1 269.3 1:53.8 237.4 1:48.8 271.4 This is a highly linear relationship, expressed by the best-fit equation watts=985.4129+(-6.56705*time). Adjusted R2 is .998 and change, meaning that 99.8% of the variance in the wattage can be accounted for by elapsed split time. If this sort of result is true in general, I don't understand the practical objection to John's using average pace rather than watts. But then I'm not a mathematician, and I'm more interested in riggers than rigor....

[old] CAROLE MAC · Post by **[old] CAROLE MAC** » January 29th, 2005, 8:06 am

this thread is making my head hurt .................................... <img src='http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticon ... y/1088.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 29th, 2005, 4:38 pm

Carole, How's your recovery coming along? The 30 and 60 minute events tend to have a slightly higher percentage as compared to the other events, the farther away from WR equivalents. For example if a PATT WR was 9000 meters for 30:00, and a rower did 8100 meters, this would be a 90% PATT percentage. However the 90% rower is not going as far. If s/he was also going 9000 meters then the pace would not be as fast and the percentage would be (probably very slightly) lower. As for comparison with others, this makes no difference. It only makes a difference comparing the 30 and 60 minute events to other events. I might work out a formula to even this out, at some point, or might not, but for now just wanted to mention this for those who have noticed the same.

[old] CAROLE MAC · Post by **[old] CAROLE MAC** » January 30th, 2005, 6:53 am

John recovery is coming along .. I can now put my foot on the floor and hobble around which makes life much easier my left thigh was getting very strong from all the hopping . It looks like the plaster will come off on the 7th Feb and then I will have to discuss with the Dr a recup plan . I am still training and in fact last week managed 60k albeit very slow still with foot on cushion . I tried putting my foot on footplate but it was agony so obviously not ready yet .

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 30th, 2005, 11:55 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Jan 29 2005, 03:58 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If this sort of result is true in general, I don't understand the practical objection to John's using average pace rather than watts. But then I'm not a mathematician, and I'm more interested in riggers than rigor.... </td></tr></table> Of course the 500m pace and time are equivalent for a 500M piece, however the pace is still a "calculated value" based on Watts. This isn't a "which came first, the chicke or egg?" discussion, Watts come first, then a pace is derived. It's a little more complicated than that in reality, i.e. each rev of the flywheel can be said to represent a fraction of a meter covered, once DF has been accounted for. There is no "practical objection", there was a query about the "practical reasoning" for using Pace (Sec/500M) rather than Watts (Joules/Sec), which I think has been addressed in the usual informative manner. Cheers.

[old] kjgress · Post by **[old] kjgress** » January 30th, 2005, 2:39 pm

Hello all: I have been following this discussion, did all the calculations and thought; Ok, so what? What is this useful for? So I thought that I would try and see if I could use the percentages to set goals for other distances based off my 2k percentage. I don't know how realistic they turned out. Maybe my 2k percentage is disproportionally higher because I raced last week and that is the most current PB or I am slacking off and I should really be pulling my longer distances at the calculated values. I think the answer lies somewhere in between because if I pulled the half marathon at the stated pace I would break the record for my age group by almost 45 seconds. Anyway, here are the numbers: PATT's 500 85.94% 1K 88.49% 2k 94.50% 5K 92.65% 6K 92.20% 30 min 92.63% 10K 92.36% 60 min 93.01% 1/2M 92.55% The formula worked backward to find the desired split: (age factor x 100) / (percent desired x distance conversion) = pace in seconds For me: (10820) / (94.5 x distance conversion) 500: (10820)/ (94.5 x 1.153) = 99.30 1:39.3 pace. Not on your life could I pull this! My current (although very old) PB is 1:49.2, I could probably get to 1:45 now. 1K pace would be 1:46.61 or 3:33.22 for the race. Current best is 3:47.7. 1/2M pace would be 2:03.78 or a time of 1:27:2.8. Current best is 1:28.53. Looking at the above numbers I realize that my 500 and 1K times are old and that I could pull those faster, although I don't think that I could ever get down to the numbers given for those distances. I do much better at the longer distances. (I think I need to revise that mindset because a look at the fastest times in my age group indicate that those with the fastest 500m times are also those with the fastest 1/2 M times). Any comments? How else could these calculations be used to help for training? (As a final note: I am going after that 1/2M record (1:27.44). The above time was pulled at altitude almost 3 months ago. The time will drop a minute just pulling at sea level. If nothing else, doing all these calculations gave me a new goal!).

[old] kjgress · Post by **[old] kjgress** » January 30th, 2005, 5:25 pm

Just can't seem to let this go and did a little more fiddling. I calculated the PATT for the WR 1/2M time listed above: 10820 / (124.778 x .925) = 93.74% Then I decided to do them all (40-49 lightweight women): 500 94.98% 1K 95.36% 2K 100.00% 5K 95.15% 6K 95.74% 10K 95.11% 30 min 97.24% 60 min 94.0% Hmmm: I wonder if 500, 1K and 5k became distances raced more often if those percentages would go up? Based on these calculations, I am closest to the 60 minute record, so maybe that is the one I should try for.

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » January 30th, 2005, 8:35 pm

John ... a couple confusions ... (1) What is the point of knowing my PATT? Is it meant to be some kind of decile ranking of my personal times against an absolute standard? (2) I'm wondering (like a few others) what the numbers are supposed to help me accomplish? (3) I understand there are 2K records but where you find all the records for all the specific ages and specific distances so that you could work the PATT percentages in your table? JimR

[old] kjgress · Post by **[old] kjgress** » January 30th, 2005, 9:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(JimR @ Jan 30 2005, 07:35 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>John ... a couple confusions ... (1) What is the point of knowing my PATT? Is it meant to be some kind of decile ranking of my personal times against an absolute standard? (2) I'm wondering (like a few others) what the numbers are supposed to help me accomplish? (3) I understand there are 2K records but where you find all the records for all the specific ages and specific distances so that you could work the PATT percentages in your table? JimR </td></tr></table> Jim: You can find the records (although I think they are just the fastest logbook times posted) on the Concept 2 home page at the bottom. The link is under the picture of the rower in the red shirt. It will allow you to search for gender age group and distance. One thing though is the conversion factor is for the other distances related to a 2K and the age group number is the split based on a 2k. Working the numbers for other distances based on these factors results in times that seem to be way too fast (someone else commented on this thing). So what I did was calculate the WR for my gender age group and weight for all the other distances against the WR for the 2K. I posted what I found: That the WR for the other distances are considerably off the WR for 2K. I think this is because races are predominately 2K. This affects how people train and also how many people row the distance (if more races and racers rowed 5k or 10k the WR times would most likely go down). What I looked at then was my percentage in a given distance related to the WR percentage in that distance. My closest was the 60 minute where my percentage is 93% and the WR percentage for my age group is 94%. Hope this helps!

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » January 31st, 2005, 8:19 pm

Got my PATT for 5k up to 92.3% today, up a bit thanks to knocking about 11 seconds elapsed time off. While I think of it, John, it's occurred to me that even with your 1-year increments there's still a bit of a threshold effect reflected in the scores. Were I to pull the same 5k time on the right consecutive days, I could gain about half a PATT percent as a birthday bonus. Call it the Steve Scott factor: back in 1996, he set the WR in the men's over-40 1500 m at the age of 40 years and 12 days.....

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 8th, 2005, 2:33 am

Carole, Hope your cast came off well and you're getting around much better. Jim, Knowing your PATT percentages is useful for comparing your times. Knowing the percentages helps you to see how your times are balanced and also provides additional motivation for improvements. I calculated the 1 year PAT times from the given world records by using the power (learning) curve formula. There is more detail of these things in previous threads.

Concept2 Forum

How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training