My best 2000m time is 7:03.8 though it's currently at 7:14
According to jensens model, this should give me a current 60 minute average split of 1:59
Today I held 2:03.5 for 40 minutes and that was a PB. My PB for an hour would be quite a bit slower than that.
Do I need to train more endurance?
If so should I do it by long distance or by intervals?
I am 176cm, 65Kg, 17 yo male.
Cheers
Jensens model help
Re: Jensens model help
Keeping in mind that predicting one piece's pace from another's is very contentious, and this is going to be kind of long and extremely opinionated...
My own model is based off of the concept of an exponential decay in critical output power over time (instead of saying there is a fixed relationship between 2K power and 60-minute power, because "distance" is a funky concept on the erg). Critical power, in case you don't know, is the idea that for a fixed workout time, there is a specific maximum power output value that you can sustain where right as you cross the time for the end of the workout, you simultaneously become completely incapable of sustaining that power output any longer. This exists and seems to scale very well for exercise in the aerobic zone, but doesn't really apply to primarily "fat burning zone" work like an all-day bike ride, and absolutely doesn't work for anaerobic pieces like 500m or genuine sprints.
I've gone through several iterations of the exponential constant used, and calibrating it off of the numbers for Jensen's model, accessed from ergrowing.com and using a 7 minute 2k, has yielded the best results for both me and my wife (who was fairly new to rowing when she started trying out my model, and thought the entire idea of the model was full of crap, but now pretty much treats it as a rule).
Different calibration values such as the Canadian national team standards and Paul's law yield a lower 60-minute demand for a given 2K time. I started out with Paul's law, and it felt pretty good to start with, but I quickly got to the point where a 30 minute piece "proportional" to a hard 2K effort was laughably easy -- Paul's law may work well on the water, or it may just be intended to find a training pace based on a race performance, but what I wanted was critical power, and that's not what Paul's law provides. The Canadian team standards felt much better for a while, but after a few months on those I was back in the same place. I decided to see what I could really do, and within the span of a week, I fairly easily overshot the predicted 1-hour pace by 20 watts or so, but had to try 3 times to hit the 2K goal (well below "proportional" to 1-hour). That 2K was probably the hardest effort I've ever done, and it took two or three weeks to fully recover from it.
At that point I recalibrated to Jensen's model as noted above. Its numbers reflected what I had felt, and in fact were spot-on for aligning the perceived effort of what I was doing at the time. They've been spot-on since, as well, whether my overall fitness has been down from slacking off, growing explosively from getting back into things, or leveled off.
So, short version, I think that if you specifically train sustained-power workouts of varied distance while holding to the speed proportions that Jensen's model gives, you will find it pretty accurate for aligning the perceived efforts of different workout distances. In other words, yes, I think you need to train more endurance. If you're not training endurance now, a lot of the difference will be mental toughness and just putting up with the suffering. If you use Paul's law, you will probably find that the longer pieces become far too easy, and that shorter distances become far too difficult.
Since the ergrowing thing doesn't show 40 minutes to see where you are within the Jensen model, here are the numbers I get out of my model (which, again, is calibrated off of Jensen's at a 303W 2K) based on your 40 minute time:
1K: 252W
2K: 230W
5K: 203W
6K: 198W
30': 193W
10K: 185W
60': 176W
And here are the numbers based on your 2K time:
1K: 300W
2K: 274W
5K: 242W
6K: 236W
30': 228W
10K: 221W
60': 209W
I recommend training with the monitor on watts, with short splits (500m or 2mins), and trying to keep the watt average for the split on target. This allows much more precise and consistent pacing than what the monitor gives you for 500m split pacing. The more consistent the pacing, the better the overall result you'll get from the piece.
Start out just trying to get consistent with the first number spread, and work to get to the second number spread. This means bringing your 2K (etc) training pace back to start with, to allow your longer-distance pieces to catch up, so to speak. By the time you make it to the second set of numbers, you'll probably feel like the 2K and the 60 minute are fairly even in terms of effort and pain.
My own model is based off of the concept of an exponential decay in critical output power over time (instead of saying there is a fixed relationship between 2K power and 60-minute power, because "distance" is a funky concept on the erg). Critical power, in case you don't know, is the idea that for a fixed workout time, there is a specific maximum power output value that you can sustain where right as you cross the time for the end of the workout, you simultaneously become completely incapable of sustaining that power output any longer. This exists and seems to scale very well for exercise in the aerobic zone, but doesn't really apply to primarily "fat burning zone" work like an all-day bike ride, and absolutely doesn't work for anaerobic pieces like 500m or genuine sprints.
I've gone through several iterations of the exponential constant used, and calibrating it off of the numbers for Jensen's model, accessed from ergrowing.com and using a 7 minute 2k, has yielded the best results for both me and my wife (who was fairly new to rowing when she started trying out my model, and thought the entire idea of the model was full of crap, but now pretty much treats it as a rule).
Different calibration values such as the Canadian national team standards and Paul's law yield a lower 60-minute demand for a given 2K time. I started out with Paul's law, and it felt pretty good to start with, but I quickly got to the point where a 30 minute piece "proportional" to a hard 2K effort was laughably easy -- Paul's law may work well on the water, or it may just be intended to find a training pace based on a race performance, but what I wanted was critical power, and that's not what Paul's law provides. The Canadian team standards felt much better for a while, but after a few months on those I was back in the same place. I decided to see what I could really do, and within the span of a week, I fairly easily overshot the predicted 1-hour pace by 20 watts or so, but had to try 3 times to hit the 2K goal (well below "proportional" to 1-hour). That 2K was probably the hardest effort I've ever done, and it took two or three weeks to fully recover from it.
At that point I recalibrated to Jensen's model as noted above. Its numbers reflected what I had felt, and in fact were spot-on for aligning the perceived effort of what I was doing at the time. They've been spot-on since, as well, whether my overall fitness has been down from slacking off, growing explosively from getting back into things, or leveled off.
So, short version, I think that if you specifically train sustained-power workouts of varied distance while holding to the speed proportions that Jensen's model gives, you will find it pretty accurate for aligning the perceived efforts of different workout distances. In other words, yes, I think you need to train more endurance. If you're not training endurance now, a lot of the difference will be mental toughness and just putting up with the suffering. If you use Paul's law, you will probably find that the longer pieces become far too easy, and that shorter distances become far too difficult.
Since the ergrowing thing doesn't show 40 minutes to see where you are within the Jensen model, here are the numbers I get out of my model (which, again, is calibrated off of Jensen's at a 303W 2K) based on your 40 minute time:
1K: 252W
2K: 230W
5K: 203W
6K: 198W
30': 193W
10K: 185W
60': 176W
And here are the numbers based on your 2K time:
1K: 300W
2K: 274W
5K: 242W
6K: 236W
30': 228W
10K: 221W
60': 209W
I recommend training with the monitor on watts, with short splits (500m or 2mins), and trying to keep the watt average for the split on target. This allows much more precise and consistent pacing than what the monitor gives you for 500m split pacing. The more consistent the pacing, the better the overall result you'll get from the piece.
Start out just trying to get consistent with the first number spread, and work to get to the second number spread. This means bringing your 2K (etc) training pace back to start with, to allow your longer-distance pieces to catch up, so to speak. By the time you make it to the second set of numbers, you'll probably feel like the 2K and the 60 minute are fairly even in terms of effort and pain.