How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 11:40 pm

The PATT (predicted age time table) method determines a performance's percentage of a WR quality time, for each event, age, gender, and weight class. Here is how you can determine the PATT percentages for your times. Updated June 11, 2005. #1. Find the wrPATT pace from the table in #4, for your age, gender, and weight class. Example, the wrPATT pace for men's age 57 lwt is 1:39.9. Your 2k PATT percentage is simply your 2k's percentage of that time. For example, 1:39.9 divided by 1:51.0 gives me a PATT percentage of 90.0 for my 2k. This is calculated as follows: 1:39.9 = 99.9 seconds 1:51.0 = 111.0 seconds 99.9 / 111.0 X 100 = 90.0 Note that / = divided by and X = multiply. #2. We find our PATT percentages for the other 9 events the same way, with the addition of each event having a particular conversation factor (CF), as listed below: 500 ---> 1.153 1000 ---> 1.074 2000 ---> 1.000 5000 ---> .970 6000 ---> .964 30m ---> .952 10000 ---> .948 60m ---> .931 21097 ---> .925 42195 ---> .904 For example, the pace for 30:00 PB at age 58 was 1:55.5. My PATT percentage for this is calculated by taking the wrPATT time, divided by my time, times 100, and divided by the conversation factor. This is 1:40.5, divided by 1:55.5 times 100, divided by .952 = 91.4%, as follows: 1:40.5 / 1:55.5 X 100 / .952 = 91.4%. The calculations for all events are now complete. Round them to the nearest tenth, with the exception of the 30 and 60 minutes events which have another adjustment in step #3. #3. The 30 and 60 events are different, in that they are the same length of time for everyone, but the distance is different. The distance adjustment (DA) for this is to subtract 1 tenth for each full PATT percentage unit. For example, 91.4 is more than 8 full units below 100. Thus 91.4 - .8 = 90.4, which is the final PATT percentage for my 30 minute PB. Now all the events can be calculated completely. After you have calculated any or all of your PATT percentages, you are encouraged to post them in this thread. I would also appreciate you letting me know if these explanations are clear, and any suggestions you have to help make them more clear. Thanks. #4. Current 2k World Records and WR PATT times (wrPATT) Updated as of January 6, 2005. Updated yearly as new world records are set. age . . . . wL . . . . . wH . . . . . . mL . . . . . mH 10 . . . 2:15.4 . . . 1:59.6 . . . 1:55.4 . . . 1:55.4 11 . . . 2:10.3 . . . 1:55.9 . . . 1:51.7 . . . 1:50.2 12 . . . 2:05.8 . . . 1:52.6 . . . 1:48.3 . . . 1:45.6 13 . . . 2:01.8 . . . 1:49.7 . . . 1:45.3 . . . 1:41.6 14 . . . 1:58.2 . . . 1:47.0 . . . 1:42.6 . . . 1:38.0 15 . . . 1:55.0 . . . 1:44.6 . . . 1:40.2 . . . 1:34.8 16 . . . 1:52.0 . . . 1:42.4 . . . 1:38.0 . . . 1:31.9 17 . . . 1:49.3 . . . 1:40.4 . . . 1:35.9 . . . 1:29.2 18 . . . 1:46.8 . . . 1:38.5 . . . 1:34.0 . . . 1:26.8 19 . . . 1:44.5 . . . 1:37.2 . . . 1:32.2 . . . 1:24.6 20 . . . 1:44.2 . . . 1:37.2 . . . 1:30.6 . . . 1:24.2 30 . . . 1:44.2 . . . 1:37.2 . . . 1:30.6 . . . 1:24.2 31 . . . 1:44.6 . . . 1:37.2 . . . 1:31.0 . . . 1:24.2 32 . . . 1:45.1 . . . 1:37.6 . . . 1:31.5 . . . 1:24.2 33 . . . 1:45.5 . . . 1:38.2 . . . 1:31.9 . . . 1:24.6 34 . . . 1:45.9 . . . 1:38.8 . . . 1:32.3 . . . 1:24.9 35 . . . 1:46.3 . . . 1:39.3 . . . 1:32.7 . . . 1:25.2 36 . . . 1:46.7 . . . 1:39.9 . . . 1:33.1 . . . 1:25.6 37 . . . 1:47.1 . . . 1:40.4 . . . 1:33.5 . . . 1:25.9 38 . . . 1:47.5 . . . 1:41.0 . . . 1:33.9 . . . 1:26.2 39 . . . 1:47.8 . . . 1:41.5 . . . 1:34.2 . . . 1:26.5 40 . . . 1:48.2 . . . 1:42.0 . . . 1:34.6 . . . 1:26.8 41 . . . 1:48.5 . . . 1:42.5 . . . 1:34.8 . . . 1:27.4 42 . . . 1:48.8 . . . 1:43.0 . . . 1:35.0 . . . 1:27.9 43 . . . 1:49.1 . . . 1:43.5 . . . 1:35.2 . . . 1:28.4 44 . . . 1:49.4 . . . 1:44.0 . . . 1:35.4 . . . 1:28.9 45 . . . 1:49.7 . . . 1:44.4 . . . 1:35.5 . . . 1:29.5 46 . . . 1:50.0 . . . 1:44.9 . . . 1:35.7 . . . 1:30.0 47 . . . 1:50.2 . . . 1:45.3 . . . 1:35.9 . . . 1:30.5 48 . . . 1:50.5 . . . 1:45.7 . . . 1:36.1 . . . 1:30.9 49 . . . 1:50.8 . . . 1:46.2 . . . 1:36.2 . . . 1:31.4 50 . . . 1:51.0 . . . 1:46.6 . . . 1:36.4 . . 1:31.9 51 . . . 1:51.3 . . . 1:47.5 . . . 1:36.7 . . . 1:32.3 52 . . . 1:51.5 . . . 1:48.4 . . . 1:37.0 . . . 1:32.7 53 . . . 1:52.2 . . . 1:49.3 . . . 1:37.6 . . . 1:33.2 54 . . . 1:53.0 . . . 1:50.1 . . . 1:38.2 . . . 1:33.6 55 . . . 1:53.7 . . . 1:51.1 . . . 1:38.8 . . . 1:34.0 56 . . . 1:54.5 . . . 1:51.9 . . . 1:39.4 . . . 1:34.4 57 . . . 1:55.2 . . . 1:52.7 . . . 1:39.9 . . . 1:34.8 58 . . . 1:56.0 . . . 1:53.5 . . . 1:40.5 . . . 1:35.1 59 . . . 1:56.7 . . . 1:54.4 . . . 1:41.0 . . . 1:35.5 60 . . . 1:57.5 . . . 1:55.2 . . . 1:41.6 . . . 1:35.9 61 . . . 1:58.3 . . . 1:56.0 . . . 1:42.3 . . . 1:36.9 62 . . . 1:59.0 . . . 1:56.8 . . . 1:43.0 . . . 1:37.9 63 . . . 1:59.8 . . . 1:58.3 . . . 1:43.7 . . . 1:38.9 64 . . . 2:00.6 . . . 1:59.9 . . . 1:44.4 . . . 1:39.8 65 . . . 2:01.4 . . . 2:01.4 . . . 1:45.1 . . . 1:40.8 66 . . . 2:03.8 . . . 2:03.2 . . . 1:45.8 . . . 1:41.8 67 . . . 2:06.2 . . . 2:05.1 . . . 1:46.5 . . . 1:42.7 68 . . . 2:08.7 . . . 2:06.9 . . . 1:47.2 . . . 1:43.7 69 . . . 2:11.1 . . . 2:08.8 . . . 1:47.8 . . . 1:44.7 70 . . . 2:13.6 . . . 2:10.6 . . . 1:48.5 . . . 1:45.6 71 . . . 2:15.4 . . . 2:12.7 . . . 1:50.0 . . . 1:47.1 72 . . . 2:17.2 . . . 2:14.7 . . . 1:51.5 . . . 1:48.7 73 . . . 2:19.0 . . . 2:16.8 . . . 1:53.0 . . . 1:50.2 74 . . . 2:20.7 . . . 2:18.9 . . . 1:54.5 . . . 1:51.7 75 . . . 2:22.5 . . . 2:21.0 . . . 1:56.0 . . . 1:53.2 76 . . . 2:24.3 . . . 2:23.0 . . . 1:57.4 . . . 1:54.8 77 . . . 2:26.1 . . . 2:25.1 . . . 1:58.9 . . . 1:56.3 78 . . . 2:27.9 . . . 2:27.2 . . . 2:00.4 . . . 1:57.8 79 . . . 2:29.6 . . . 2:29.3 . . . 2:01.9 . . . 1:59.4 80 . . . 2:31.4 . . . 2:31.4 . . . 2:03.4 . . . 2:00.9 81 . . . 2:34.4 . . . 2:34.4 . . . 2:05.2 . . . 2:02.9 82 . . . 2:37.3 . . . 2:37.3 . . . 2:07.0 . . . 2:04.9 83 . . . 2:40.3 . . . 2:40.3 . . . 2:08.8 . . . 2:07.0 84 . . . 2:43.4 . . . 2:43.4 . . . 2:10.6 . . . 2:09.0 85 . . . 2:46.4 . . . 2:46.4 . . . 2:12.4 . . . 2:11.1 86 . . . 2:49.5 . . . 2:49.5 . . . 2:14.2 . . . 2:13.1 87 . . . 2:52.5 . . . 2:52.5 . . . 2:16.0 . . . 2:15.2 88 . . . 2:55.6 . . . 2:55.6 . . . 2:17.8 . . . 2:17.2 89 . . . 2:58.8 . . . 2:58.8 . . . 2:19.6 . . . 2:19.3 90 . . . 3:01.9 . . . 3:01.9 . . . 2:21.4 . . . 2:21.4 91 . . . 3:05.1 . . . 3:05.1 . . . 2:23.2 . . . 2:23.2 92 . . . 3:08.2 . . . 3:08.2 . . . 2:25.0 . . . 2:25.0 93 . . . 3:11.4 . . . 3:11.4 . . . 2:26.9 . . . 2:26.9 94 . . . 3:14.7 . . . 3:14.7 . . . 2:28.7 . . . 2:28.7 95 . . . 3:17.9 . . . 3:17.9 . . . 2:30.5 . . . 2:30.5 96 . . . 3:21.1 . . . 3:21.1 . . . 2:32.4 . . . 2:32.4 97 . . . 3:24.4 . . . 3:24.4 . . . 2:34.2 . . . 2:34.2 98 . . . 3:27.7 . . . 3:27.7 . . . 2:36.0 . . . 2:36.0 99 . . . 3:31.0 . . . 3:31.0 . . . 2:37.9 . . . 2:37.9 The original threads about PAT and PATT are located here: <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?a ... entry11019' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?a ... 019</a> <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... entry14188' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... ry14188</a>

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » January 27th, 2005, 8:44 am

Okay, John, I'll bite. Assuming I've done the math accurately, I make my PATTs at the moment to be: 500m 94.9 % 1000m 90.7 % 2000m 92.1 % 5000m 91.4 % 6000m 90.8 % 10000m 89.5 % 30min 90.8 % 60min 80.5 % 21097m 83.5 % I haven't done a full marathon yet.* Average PATT: 89.3%, although I'll be the first to admit that my 60m and half-marathon times are very soft in comparison to the rest of my scores. Throw those out and it's 91.5%. Pace Ranger, perhaps this falloff is a legacy of my middle-distance track days, so many years and pounds ago now, when I violently disliked LSD (long slow distance).... *Note to Bayko: I got too involved in the Red Sox to marathon during the Series; I'm going to try to erg the Superbowl....

[old] Rocket Roy · Post by **[old] Rocket Roy** » January 27th, 2005, 8:54 am

I can't do it! What does 1.40.5/ 1.55.5/ mean? times or divide or plus?

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 27th, 2005, 9:37 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'>What does 1.40.5/ 1.55.5/ mean? times or divide or plus? </td></tr></table> It doesn't mean anything - he's typed it badly. What he means is (100*1:40.5)/(1:55.5*0.952) where * is multiply and / is divide by. Remember to convert the times into seconds first. Disclaimer: my clarifying John's maths should in no way be taken as an indicator of support for the notion of 'PATT'

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 27th, 2005, 5:04 pm

Nav, Nice range of times. Thanks for calculating them out. How do you feel the percentages represent your performances, from one event to the others? Roy, / = divide by X = multiply I have added this to the first message. You can use either the first formula, which has less key strokes, or the one by Physicist. Physicist, Yes, first convert your 500 paces to seconds and tenths etc. Thanks for clarifying the formula.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 27th, 2005, 6:39 pm

Here are my stats: 500 87.2% 1000 86.6% 2000 89.1% 5000 85.6% 6000 84.9% 30m 85.9% 10000 85.5% 60m 84.8% 21097 81.5% 42195 79.2% I think because I care about the 2k the most I get the best score. When I look at the other distances and look at the times I need to get an 89% score something seems funny. A 37:00 10k and 2:44 marathon seem considerably more difficult to attain (for me anyway). I'm not sure I'm suited to run at 90% of my 2k speed over a marathon regardless of how I train. Too much fast twitch? I do not know.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » January 28th, 2005, 12:38 am

I'm not sure I "get" this... The PAT 2K pace for F 44 hwt is 1:44. That is 104 seconds, yes? So to figure this out for a marathon, I should divide 104 by 133.46 (pace for marathon was 2:13.46), then divide this whole thing by .904, and multiply it all by 100. This would give me a Patt Percentage of 86%. I don't understand what that means. Does that mean I'm 14% away from the world record pace for the marathon? The Nonathlon score was 1019 points--so I was surprised that it was only 86%. Did I mess up on the math? I think I will stop thinking and just go row.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 28th, 2005, 2:12 am

Carla, Yes that's right, 86.2%. 100% represents a WR equivalent time, so it is not really possible to get more than 100%. However 86.2 is very good for the marathon.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 28th, 2005, 4:48 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'>100% represents a WR equivalent time, so it is not really possible to get more than 100%. </td></tr></table> Sure it is--if you break the world record (and therefore force a revision of the tables as a whole). Earthquake. Seismic shift. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 28th, 2005, 4:53 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'> I'm not sure I'm suited to run at 90% of my 2k speed over a marathon regardless of how I train. Too much fast twitch? I do not know. </td></tr></table> Jim-- I don't think that fast twitch and slow twitch have anything to do with it. Rowing favors slow twitch. Your marathon time is an indication of your commitment to foundational training--UT2 work. Your UT2 pace and your marathon time, I think, will always be closely aligned. Moral (if your marathon time is out of line with your other times): You are neglecting the foundation of your training. ranger

[old] Cran · Post by **[old] Cran** » January 28th, 2005, 5:24 am

Shouldn't you be using watts instead of seconds?

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » January 28th, 2005, 9:14 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'>How do you feel the percentages represent your performances, from one event to the others? </td></tr></table> On the whole they probably reflect my intuitive self-awareness: to the limited extent I have either, I have comparatively more speed than endurance. On the other hand, the constancy from 1k through 30m suggests that I'm probably doing a pretty good job of balancing my training -- such as it is given time constraints -- over the short and middle distances I plan to compete at. Regarding self-depricating comments by myself and others in this thread, it's worth noting that John's PATT scores, Nonathlon scores, etc. all rate past performance. The older the performances they're derived from, the less indicative they're likely to be of current ability. To get the most meaningful results from assessing your own performances across events, I think you want to try to compare scores from a relatively short period of time. My crappy 60 min and 1/2-marathon scores, for example, are mostly a function of the fact that I don't train for the distances and go that far only rarely. But they're also artifacts of the fact that they're some months older than the recent block of times reflected in my 500m-30min scores. A lot can change in a couple of months, depending on whether you're on the erg/water or off....

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 28th, 2005, 1:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Jim-- I don't think that fast twitch and slow twitch have anything to do with it. Rowing favors slow twitch. Your marathon time is an indication of your commitment to foundational training--UT2 work. Your UT2 pace and your marathon time, I think, will always be closely aligned. Moral (if your marathon time is out of line with your other times): You are neglecting the foundation of your training. ranger </td></tr></table> I get your point. Yes, my marathon speed would grow proportionately faster than my 2k pace were I to row more marathon paced meters. That "more" is on a gross basis. I'm not really neglecting these base paced rows. Looking at my log I can see that 57% of my 713 rows are done at 70% (about 300 hours at 2:05-2:10). And as a general trend my distance pieces are getting proportionately better and better year over year. I feel that this is a good thing, in that my foundations for faster rowing in the future are in the making (or at least persistent and easy to maintain). I'm in no hurry. I'm enjoying the trip immensely, too. Despite this apparently low marathon score, I am not taking it that I've got a flaw other than I'm not training nearly as much as I could/should.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 28th, 2005, 5:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 28 2005, 12:48 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>100% represents a WR equivalent time, so it is not really possible to get more than 100%. </td></tr></table> Sure it is--if you break the world record (and therefore force a revision of the tables as a whole). Earthquake. Seismic shift. ranger </td></tr></table> Indeed. All 2k world records will result in revision of the PAT times, thus the highest percentage for a 2k will be 100%. PATT conversion factors for the other events will not change. So it is possible, but not likely, to get more than 100% for any of the other 9 events. In any case the highest percentage (and world record equivalent) for any of the other 9 events will be --very-- close to, and highly likely --not-- above, 100% at the maximum.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 28th, 2005, 6:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Cran @ Jan 28 2005, 01:24 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Shouldn't you be using watts instead of seconds? </td></tr></table> Cran, Seconds are linear, whereas watts would be exponential. It's a matter of choice but seconds give a gradual and even progression. 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.

Concept2 Forum

How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training