Paul's Law

[ranger]

If I train like you do I would follow "rangers law", if I trained like paul does I would follow his.

These laws don't have anything to do with your training.

If you train poorly, you turn out to be slow (at all distances).

If you train well, you turn out to be fast (at all distances).

But if you train in a balanced way, no matter whether you train well or poorly, if you are a quality lightweight, you still row "double the d, add 3."

The quality lightweights that Paul himself has trained row "double the d, add 3."

ranger

[Byron Drachman]

Hi Rich,

With your version of double the D, add 3, if I pushed the buttons correctly on my calculator, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:56 2K.

However, if we use Paul's law of double the D and add 5, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:04 2K.

Either way gives a stunning result.

Byron

[Yankeerunner]

Hi Rich,

With your version of double the D, add 3, if I pushed the buttons correctly on my calculator, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:56 2K.

However, if we use Paul's law of double the D and add 5, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:04 2K.

Either way gives a stunning result.

Byron

Repeatedly! In the fall. (Unfortunately in rangerworld the fall is synonymous with the horizon. The more it is approached the more it recedes. )

[PaulS]

Hi Rich,

With your version of double the D, add 3, if I pushed the buttons correctly on my calculator, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:56 2K.

However, if we use Paul's law of double the D and add 5, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:04 2K.

Either way gives a stunning result.

Byron

Wow a virtual 2k that took a little longer than the fastest 2500m I've seen, but I've got video, rather than "virtual".

When I used to be "fast", the longest I ever even bothered with was 70 minutes (covering ~20km), and though that sounds like "childs play" to you distance boys and girls, that sort of thing on the Erg in the early days was seen as pretty ridiculous. I was only doing it to see what staying on a "Recovery Pace" for an hour would be like; the extra 10 minutes just made it a round number (40 Miles in Model A terms). Very likely that it could have been kept up for twice the distance, but I'm sure it would have gotten to be a challenge.

Rich, when you actually DO SOMETHING (for real), let us know.

Byron, I'm pretty sure that Rich was projecting a Sub-6 2k for himself at one point, but then again, he projects a lot of things for himself that remain unrealized.

[Byron Drachman]

Paul wrote:

Byron, I'm pretty sure that Rich was projecting a Sub-6 2k for himself at one point

Hi Paul,

You remember well. I believe Rich's P.B. for a virtual 2K is 5:56, predicted a little more than a year ago. However, I did not do a thorough search of the literature. So perhaps some scholar find a better virtual 2K for Rich.

Byron

[Nosmo]

Any one know Joan Van Blom's Marathon time this year? Didn't find it in the records or ranking. Wanted to compare it to her 2K time.

In the process of looking for JVB's times I noticed Anna Bailey has all the world records from 500m to FM for Heavy Weight Women 50-59.

Distance, Time, Pace. Predicted Pace based on 2K and Paul's Law
500m, 1:36/1 1:36.1 1:36.65
1K, 3:31.5 1:45.75 1:41.65
2K 7:06.6 1:46.65 1:46.65
5K 18:47.2 1:52.72 1:53.2
6K 22:54.6 1:54.55 1:54.57
30min 7719 1:54.6 1:56.4
10K 38:47.0 1:55.85 1:58.26
60min 15048 1:59.6 2:01.2
HM 1:25:12.9 2:01.18 2:03.64
FM 2:53:16.3 2:03.2 2:08.64

Best fit to Pace = a * log_2(D/2000m) + b, is
a = 4.1044 ± 0.289
b = 107.2 ± 0.696

Best fit not including 1K, whichh looks like an outlier.
a = 4.305 ± 0.292
b = 107.14 ± 0.639

One would expect that if she trained properly for all the distances, the fall off would be less then 5 seconds per doubling which it is. Also I'm not so sure that the curve would be straight for distances over the HM.
Looking at the data, the best efforts look like the FM and the 2K. Just using those points the fall off is 3.76 per doubling.

It would be interesting to do this analysis on more people who put the effort into all the distances and to compare Lwts to Hwts.

[mikvan52]

Pardon my ignorant sKepticism, but why all this interest in a formula anyway?
IMHO there are so many different types of athletes out there... slow twitch, fast twitch,.... no twitch ....

If I pull a 1:41 and change split for 2k (6:45) and a 1:51 and change split for an hour (16k+) it may mean that I'm a better endurance athlete than a middle distance one
If both this times are my absolute bests the "double the distance, add 3 sec" would project a 1:53 split for the 60 min piece (or a 1:39 pace for the 2k => going the other way)


Of course it could mean a host of other things.
Formulae have a way of psyching ourselves out of improving too...

Hard work at a goal has a way of knocking away barriers by means of slowly progressing improvement.

In the end it all just seem like splitting hairs without purpose.

Other Comments: The longer distances and times are generally done w/o a partner or outside a race environment. For the competitive types like me that's a big difference from the push in contested 2k.

Secondly, just having completed a PB hour row, I feel my potential to improve at the longer stuff is higher.... Odd that I feel it will be harder for me to lower my Feb. PB at 2k

I also find yankeerunner's insight helpful (as a top runner of marathons) re: mental attitude (see "UK forum" topic today, elsewhere on this site)

[Micromonkey]

I agree Mike, I don't think there can be any accurate formula for individual predictions for performance over the range of distances.
Some athletes are better over longer distances and some over shorter.
Too many physiological and mental factors to be taken into account for any kind of fixed predictor.

And a virtual FM predicting a virtual 2k?.......just madness!



Nosmo, Anna has the 100k record too, not sure of the pace though.

[Nosmo]

Pardon my ignorant sKepticism, but why all this interest in a formula anyway?

Simple I like formulas. I'm a nerd. I'm not taking them too seriously.

I'm doing more consistent interval training this year and am curious to see what it does to my doubling constant.

I was interested in JVB, becuase the week before she set a WR at the Crash-B's she did a Marathon (which I thought was also a WR). I was just curious how the two compared given that she was training for the 2K and did not alter her program for the FM.

[ranger]

If I pull a 1:41 and change split for 2k (6:45) and a 1:51 and change split for an hour (16k+) it may mean that I'm a better endurance athlete than a middle distance one
If both this times are my absolute bests the "double the distance, add 3 sec" would project a 1:53 split for the 60 min piece (or a 1:39 pace for the 2k => going the other way)

No, the formula is "double the d, add 3," for all points along the way.

So,

2K 1:41
4K 1:44
8K 1:47
16K 1:50

1:50 is 16,300m for 60min.

And what did you say you rowed?

If you rowed just a bit short of that, it might be explained by (1) the fact that you really haven't rowed 1:41 for 2K, (2) 16.3K is 300m beyond 16K, and (3) you spend more time on the 2K than the distance events.

In other words, if you balanced your training and we calculated these things more carefully, the formula predicts your performance exactly.

ranger

[ranger]

With your version of double the D, add 3, if I pushed the buttons correctly on my calculator, your (virtual) FM@1:48 yields a (virtual) 5:56 2K

No.

6:20

2K 1:35
4K: 1:38
8K: 1:41
16K: 1:44
32K: 1:47
42K: 1:48

ranger

[ranger]

why all this interest in a formula anyway?

Why not?



It's interesting.

Purposeful purposelessness.

http://www.petergena.com/cageMCA.html

ranger

[ranger]

Rich, when you actually DO SOMETHING (for real), let us know.

I do about 20K a day on the erg.

If the weather is nice, I also go out OTW for another 10K.

I am doing a lot of 1:48 @ 20 spm right now, training for my FM trial at the end of the month.

Lots of sweat!

ranger

[PaulS]

Rich, when you actually DO SOMETHING (for real), let us know.

I do about 20K a day on the erg.

If the weather is nice, I also go out OTW for another 10K.

I am doing a lot of 1:48 @ 20 spm right now, training for my FM trial at the end of the month.

Lots of sweat!

ranger

So What! We all heard the same BS about last month (April 2008), you didn't do it then, you won't do it this month either, not ANY month for that matter, but you will continue to deceive yourself that you are doing "a lot" of 1:48 R20 and that will produce much of anything the way you do it. How long does it take for you to do that 20km? A couple hours? Hell a 2:00 would get it done in 80 minutes, but you don't even manage that, do you?

What is the largest number of consecutive strokes you take where 1:48 (or faster) and R20 is displayed on the PM? You don't have any idea, right?

Rich, when you actually DO SOMETHING (for real), let us know.

[Nosmo]

I am doing a lot of 1:48 @ 20 spm right now, training for my FM trial at the

Again what is "a lot"? how many meters are you doing at this rate/pace? How often, Steady state or intervals? How has the distance changed over the past few weeks.

What if I told you I did 1:46 @ 29-30 today (which I did)? You have no idea if I did 500m, 4x1000, or a HM or something else entirely. It doesn't tell you much of anything.