90 minute piece!!!

[azink]

hi! i am a junior lightweight girl and i recently rowed 90 minutes at a 2:09.4 and 21 spm. i was wondering what i should aim for for a 2k??

[hjs]

hi! i am a junior lightweight girl and i recently rowed 90 minutes at a 2:09.4 and 21 spm. i was wondering what i should aim for for a 2k??

very hard to say. A 90 min piece says nothing about your ability to row a quick 2k. Sorry. Row some shorter interval work and you will know more.

8 x 500 r 3min
5 x 1k r 5 min.

This kind of work. The 500 can be done a bit faster then your 2k pace and the 1k a bit slower.

[Jeandre]

Well that depends how and why you were doing your 90mins. It's a very popular UT2 (utilization 2) piece (normally 3x30mins) used to boost the aerobic base and one normally does testing in order to determine at what avg and HR to work at. If this is the case the test you did will probaly be more informative (not much though) but as hjs said do some shorter intervals or just go for a 2k at what pace you think you are capable of, if you blow you know it's too hard and if you feel vaguely normal afterwards then you know you are capable of more.

But as a training tool long low intensity pieces are invaluable.

[Nosmo]

Was that a continuous 90 minutes? That is very fast for a junior ltw girl! It would be just under 1:31 for a half marathon! Check out the rankings on the concept II web site, there are not many times listed, but it is faster then all of them for any year: and some of those people have done under 7:40.
As others have said you need to do shorter pieces to figure out what to aim for. The sugestions above are good. An alternative is to try something like the following:

Over several workouts trying 2000m peices, but do them at a pace you know you can sustain for the whole thing. SO start at say a 2:02 which should not be much of a problem. Do it at a constant pace. Next time (which may or maynot be the same day). Try a couple of seconds faster. When you get to a point where it hurts near then end but is not a problem to finish then you are close the pace you want to start at for an all out test. FOr a 2000m test, start out at say 1 second faster then your fastest, then if you feel OK increase the pace 1 second at 1000m, then again at 500 to go, and then do the last 250 as fast as you can. You should always be starting at a pace you know you can finish at.

[PaulS]

hi! i am a junior lightweight girl and i recently rowed 90 minutes at a 2:09.4 and 21 spm. i was wondering what i should aim for for a 2k??

Start at 1:52, and negative split the 500's as suggested by Nosmo.

BTW - That is one heck of a 90 minute piece for a Junior LW.
Frankly I find it quite difficult to believe, but if you said that's what you did it's good enough to answer the question about doing your 2k.

If there was a typo, just subtract 17 seconds from your 90 minute pace, if that 90 minute pace was as fast as you could do it.

PS - If you want a quick acid test on the 2k pace, go for a 500m PB and if you get a 1:42 (relative to the numbers above), you are right on track.

[p-fitz]

BTW - That is one heck of a 90 minute piece for a Junior LW. Frankly I find it quite difficult to believe

Ditto, especially at 21 spm.

[azink]

thanks for all the help! haha yea i was surprised i did so well..but ive been doing 90 minute pieces since the beginning of december and have realized how much they help..i guess i just felt really good yesterday!

i acutally recently (before christmas) did a 2k at a 27 spm cap at a 7:38...do you think i could go much faster if it was open rating?

thanks!

[Nosmo]

If there was a typo, just subtract 17 seconds from your 90 minute pace, if that 90 minute pace was as fast as you could do it.

Paul,
You seem to be saying that ones 2000m pace should be 17 seconds faster then ones 90 min pace. And the 500m pace should be 10 seconds faster then that. Is that right?
I've only done a couple of 2K's recently, but my 90 minute pace is about 12 seconds slower then my 2K. Don't know how fast my 500m is but I'd guess it is more like 6 or 7 seconds faster then my 2K. Granted I haven't done much anerobic work recently, but still I find it hard to believe that your numbers would apply to lightweight girl, or to me, a 46 yr old 150 lbs male.
Nosmo
PS I'm a little embaressed to be arguing with you twice in three days, but I am really trying to learn not pick fights. You obviously know more about rowing than I do.

[PaulS]

thanks for all the help! haha yea i was surprised i did so well..but ive been doing 90 minute pieces since the beginning of december and have realized how much they help..i guess i just felt really good yesterday!

i acutally recently (before christmas) did a 2k at a 27 spm cap at a 7:38...do you think i could go much faster if it was open rating?

thanks!

Oh yeah, perhaps keep the rate cap to 30 for the go at the 1:52 or better and you may well come in around 7:25 or better. YGG! (You Go Girl!)

[Nosmo]

thanks for all the help! haha yea i was surprised i did so well..but ive been doing 90 minute pieces since the beginning of december and have realized how much they help..i guess i just felt really good yesterday!

i acutally recently (before christmas) did a 2k at a 27 spm cap at a 7:38...do you think i could go much faster if it was open rating?

thanks!

Well looks like you have a good estimate. Yes you should be able to go faster at a higher rating. What were your splits like for the 7:38? Your second in the on line ranking, Don't you can get the 8 seconds to get to first by rating alone, but it is really impressive

[PaulS]

If there was a typo, just subtract 17 seconds from your 90 minute pace, if that 90 minute pace was as fast as you could do it.

Paul,
You seem to be saying that ones 2000m pace should be 17 seconds faster then ones 90 min pace. And the 500m pace should be 10 seconds faster then that. Is that right?
I've only done a couple of 2K's recently, but my 90 minute pace is about 12 seconds slower then my 2K. Don't know how fast my 500m is but I'd guess it is more like 6 or 7 seconds faster then my 2K. Granted I haven't done much anerobic work recently, but still I find it hard to believe that your numbers would apply to lightweight girl, or to me, a 46 yr old 150 lbs male.
Nosmo
PS I'm a little embaressed to be arguing with you twice in three days, but I am really trying to learn not pick fights. You obviously know more about rowing than I do.

It would really be better to have the distances to work from, but yes, what I am applying to the performance has been termed "Paul's Law", which works out to taking 5 second changes in pace when doubling/halving the distance or time.

i.e. 500m Pace = x, 1k x+5, 2k = x+10, 4k = x+15, 6k = x+17.5, etc...

"Paul's Law" really is a way to determine if your strength/endurance fitness is in balance so that you can target the area that requires work. Once in balance, then work a progressive program across all distances.

The only real way to determine performance is to do it.

Say a person has a 500m of 1:24, but a 2k of 6:32 (1:38)? Obviously they are strong enough, but need to work on aerobic base.

It could go the other way, i.e. 2k of 6:36 (1:39), but a 500m of 1:30. They need to gain some strength before the 2k is going to progress.

It works across gender/age/weight ranges, because the pace is self adjusting and power requirements are non-linear.

While going from shorter to longer distances is not particularly good as a predictor, going from longer to shorter tends to be nearly a guaranteed conservative estimate of capability, as the endurance component (long term CV base) is already in place.

No problem with arguing, it would be very boring if we all agreed, wouldn't it?

If I'm not being clear, or you want to discuss anything further, please continue. I'm looking forward to hearing back about azink's 2k, as it's pretty exciting to see perfromance like that.

[Nosmo]

It would really be better to have the distances to work from, but yes, what I am applying to the performance has been termed "Paul's Law", which works out to taking 5 second changes in pace when doubling/halving the distance or time.

i.e. 500m Pace = x, 1k x+5, 2k = x+10, 4k = x+15, 6k = x+17.5, etc...

"Paul's Law" really is a way to determine if your strength/endurance fitness is in balance so that you can target the area that requires work. Once in balance, then work a progressive program across all distances.

The only real way to determine performance is to do it.

Say a person has a 500m of 1:24, but a 2k of 6:32 (1:38)? Obviously they are strong enough, but need to work on aerobic base.

It could go the other way, i.e. 2k of 6:36 (1:39), but a 500m of 1:30. They need to gain some strength before the 2k is going to progress.

It works across gender/age/weight ranges, because the pace is self adjusting and power requirements are non-linear.

Well that is really interesting. I know I haven't done much aerobic and strength work recently but I'm a long way off from your formula:
my recent times are:
2K 7:11 (1:48)
5K 18:58 (1:54) +6
10K 38:49 (1:56.5) +2.5
HM 1:23:34 (1:58.9) +2.4

When I did these, I felt the 5K was my best effort. Very steady pace throughout and didn't have much left. The 2K was the worst--only positive split times. On the 10K and HM, I did go substantially faster at the end and belive I would lower these if I did them again. So the 2K to 5K splits is close to your formula but the others are not. I've only been erging regularly for a few months and have been focusing on distance so perhaps when I'm in better shape the times will drop.

Even so the last time I was erging regularly I was in much better shape my best 5K pace was just under 1:48 which would be consistant with my current HM. At that time I was cycling 150-180 miles on the weekends and doing intense work on the erg during the week. I was 3 lbs lighter, 10 years younger and in much better shape.

[PaulS]

It would really be better to have the distances to work from, but yes, what I am applying to the performance has been termed "Paul's Law", which works out to taking 5 second changes in pace when doubling/halving the distance or time.

i.e. 500m Pace = x, 1k x+5, 2k = x+10, 4k = x+15, 6k = x+17.5, etc...

"Paul's Law" really is a way to determine if your strength/endurance fitness is in balance so that you can target the area that requires work. Once in balance, then work a progressive program across all distances.

The only real way to determine performance is to do it.

Say a person has a 500m of 1:24, but a 2k of 6:32 (1:38)? Obviously they are strong enough, but need to work on aerobic base.

It could go the other way, i.e. 2k of 6:36 (1:39), but a 500m of 1:30. They need to gain some strength before the 2k is going to progress.

It works across gender/age/weight ranges, because the pace is self adjusting and power requirements are non-linear.

Well that is really interesting. I know I haven't done much aerobic and strength work recently but I'm a long way off from your formula:
my recent times are:
2K 7:11 (1:48)
5K 18:58 (1:54) +6
10K 38:49 (1:56.5) +2.5
HM 1:23:34 (1:58.9) +2.4

When I did these, I felt the 5K was my best effort. Very steady pace throughout and didn't have much left. The 2K was the worst--only positive split times. On the 10K and HM, I did go substantially faster at the end and belive I would lower these if I did them again. So the 2K to 5K splits is close to your formula but the others are not. I've only been erging regularly for a few months and have been focusing on distance so perhaps when I'm in better shape the times will drop.

Even so the last time I was erging regularly I was in much better shape my best 5K pace was just under 1:48 which would be consistant with my current HM. At that time I was cycling 150-180 miles on the weekends and doing intense work on the erg during the week. I was 3 lbs lighter, 10 years younger and in much better shape.

I've no idea what age you are, but you are showing a considerable drop in strength, which tens to happen quite a bit faster than aerobic capacity loss. Your endurance looks quite good, whereas when you need to put donw the power it just isn't there. Not to worry, with a good aerobic base, it's not going to take long to make significant gains in strength. Did you try a 1k or 500m to fill out the series?

Once again, it's not a formula that fits you, you either fit it, or work on the things that it indicates you need to work on, namely strength. You can take pride in only being +2.4 sec in pace from your 10k to HM or think "Oh my goodness, my 10k should be at the same pace as my current 5k.", and my 5k should be 1:49, with my 2k going sub-7 by quite a bit (1:42). You choose, I'm not here to force anyone, but I have helped some athletes produce reasonably good results.

[Nosmo]

I've no idea what age you are, but you are showing a considerable drop in strength, which tens to happen quite a bit faster than aerobic capacity loss. Your endurance looks quite good, whereas when you need to put donw the power it just isn't there. Not to worry, with a good aerobic base, it's not going to take long to make significant gains in strength. Did you try a 1k or 500m to fill out the series?

I'm 46. 150 lbs 5'7". I've spent most of my life as more of an endurance athelete. Mostly cycling, with some running and rowing. I'm only recently getting back into what I consider semi-decent shape, and have been focusing more on endurance. I haven't trained seriously
in 10 years, but have fairly consistantly exercised several times a week.

I think I'll try 500m and 1K pieces in the morning. Not what I planned but now I'm curious. I'll let you know how it goes.

Once again, it's not a formula that fits you, you either fit it, or work on the things that it indicates you need to work on, namely strength. You can take pride in only being +2.4 sec in pace from your 10k to HM or think "Oh my goodness, my 10k should be at the same pace as my current 5k.", and my 5k should be 1:49, with my 2k going sub-7 by quite a bit (1:42). You choose, I'm not here to force anyone, but I have helped some athletes produce reasonably good results.

It hadn't occurred toke to take pride in the +2.4 second difference. Change the "should" to a "could" and I would agree with your quote.
So what do you recommend: Adding more short interval training and/or weight training?

Also what do you think increasing my strength would do for the HM time?

My races this year will probably just be a couple of head races, and the local bike club monthly time trials (will take me 55 to 60 minutes). My dream is to get back into good enough shape to do the Everest Challenge: a 2 day cycling stage race, ~150 miles, 29000' of climbing, finishing at the top of the white mountains at over 11,000 ft. So a 2K time is not particularly important too me.

Apologies for hijacking the another thread.

[sir-les]

that formula is interesting. Does it tell you whether your strength or aerobic fitness is letting you down? I feel my fitness is my weakness as i rank reasonably better in shorter pieces than longer for my age group (30-39). I feel my 1km and 2km are a fair bit short of what they should be.
My recent PB's (since 2004)
500m - 1:26.7
1000m - 3:11
2km - 6:38
5km - 17:57
10km - 36:59
Just as a footnote - i race surfboats, where the focus in a race is to get off the beach and out through the surf as quickly as possible, so we really need an explosive effort at the start and generally settling into a much steadier rate and power output once the boat is out past where the waves break. We race on adrenaline when the surf is big! Race distance is usually around 800m which usually takes around 4-5mins (prob equivalent to about a 1500m erg)