Is 500m essentially irrelevant for 2K on up?

[Cyclingman1]

Actually, I believe in doing intervals, though I don't do enough of them. Interestingly enough, when I was competing in duathlons [run,bike,run] events, I religiously followed my own training program with weekly sessions of 8x400m or 4x800m. The run distances in the events were 5-6.2 miles. And I had no illusions of doing super fast 400's or 800's.There were no ranking systems around for those events. The only ranking was on race day, and I did pretty well - seldom being beaten in masters division in events across the southeastern US.

Now, there is the C2 ranking and the nonathlon staring at you. One can see individuals making one's .5K and 1K times look like one is rowing in quick sand. Those same individuals, for the most part, are well behind in 2K on up. One just has to accept that body type is important for performance and fully accept that trying to be what one is not is counter productive, hence my first comment. I just have to let 500m timetrialing go, even when I see a LW 59 year old, let alone the HW's, stomp me by 4 seconds. Arghh!!!

Deviating slightly, my bigger issue is failure to train consistently. I do this and that and my results show it (daily logbook entries, not rankings) - roller coaster results. One reason for not following a plan is that many of them have enough rowing in them for three people, let alone one. After a couple of days on those plans, I would have to sleep a week. Anyway, another subject. Thanks for weighing in on 500m relevance.

[lindsayh]

skews all of the rules of thumb for older rowers. His 18:38 5K @1:51.8 predicts around 1:46.5 or 7:06 2K. The 6:50 @ 1:42.5 is well below that. But the 1K @1:35.5 would predict a 2K of 6:42. His power, though falling rapidly after 1K, is still reasonably effective at 2K before falling off even more. He does not come at 2K through endurance, but hangs on with power.

Hi guys,
I am sorry to revive an old thread but I was unaware of this discussion until tonight (a gym buddy with too much time on his hands stumbled over it).
I thought that as my name was mentioned I should have a right to reply! In some ways I guess flattered to be noticed from the other side of the world.

I am sorry to skew all the rules of thumb but can assure you it is entirely unintentional. I would sometimes love to swap a sub 18 5km or a 6:35 2k with my 1:25 500m (except when it relegates TJO to number 2). It is a bit of a mystery to me but I think the answer is beyond training and Henry is right - some people are sprinters and nothing can really change that - even lots of metres. He is also right in suggesting that we do a lot of sprint type training including weights though we (at the gym) do some longer stuff too. I am doing about 50kms a week including some longer slowish pieces (an hour last night 14km). This week also included 30x 30"/30"r @ 1:38 and 6x 2km/5'r
My 2km time is now down to 6:46.9 (in March) and I think my 5km form is about 18:15 so a bit better than the numbers used in the thread but still not much better than average I guess. I think there is still maybe 4/5 secs more off my 2km time in the next 12 months. I should say that the 2km was not really hanging on with power but was a reasonable "Caviston" type negative split - last 500m @1:40. I am also hoping to get into the 1:24s for the 500m later this year and my LP is still around 1:15 - that part I can't explain as I am not a huge muscle guy either.
Thanks for the indulgence

[TomR]

Somewhere I read that your 10 sec pace in watts "should" be 173% of your 2k pace.

Your 60 second pace should be 153%.

Your 5k pace should be 85%, and your 10k pace should be 76%.

These figures may come from the terrific UK training guide that was written a decade or so ago and is still available on the UK site. I think the values came from the Danish, who used them in planning an individual's training. If you're a powerful mutt, build endurance. If you can go forever, add some snort.

You can easily plot your own times and values and see what might make the most sense for you to speed up your 2k.

[KevJGK]

Having studied the various training plans a few years back I decided to follow Mike Caviston’s Wolverine Plan. A major influence on that decision was the sheer amount of work and dedication the author put into developing and documenting the plan plus obviously the results he derived from using it. Workouts like 8 x 500m and 4 x 1000m were central to the plan and the following paragraph is taken from a few of the plans notes which can be found here:

http://www.eudemonia.co.uk/wp%20notes.pdf

SELECTING A PACE. A lot of discussion centers around how a workout like 8 x 500m should compare to 2K pace. But the discussion is usually backwards. A typical comment is, "I can do 2K @ pace x. What should I pull for 8 x 500m?" And someone will invariably suggest 2K - 1, 2K - 2, 2K - 3, etc. The correct response is, 8 x 500m is a training tool and you should do it as fast as you can do it (within the proper parameters for that workout). Don't worry about how it relates to 2K as you go through your training cycle. Just try to gradually improve your ability to perform that workout. I mean, if you are training to improve your 2K, your 2K speed is in transition anyway, so terms like "2K - x" don't have a lot of practical value. At the beginning of a new training cycle, a reasonable starting point is roughly 2K - 1 (meaning 1 sec/500m faster than your best 2K pace from the previous training cycle). If you've never done a 2K, just gradually get used to the format by doing 8 x 500m with the first 2 or 3 pieces at some moderate pace, gradually increasing as you go, finishing hard for the last couple. Calculate your average pace for the workout and next time start maybe half a second above that average and gradually bring the pace down over the course of the workout. Repeat until the variation between pieces is very small and you really have to work hard to maintain your pace at the end. Personally, I'm very happy to improve at the rate of about 2 tenths of a second/500m every week. I don't believe in doing Level 1 workouts more than once (very occasionally twice) per week for fear of overtraining and burning out too soon. - Now, once you have a Level 1 baseline, and as you approach your big race, it is reasonable to ask, "OK, if I can do 8 x 500m @ pace x, how fast can I do 2K?" There's no blanket formula for everyone, and it's worth charting your own personal progress to discover your personal correlation. I might suggest that if you perform your best 8 x 500m the week before a race, you might do the opening 500m of your 2K @ (8 x 500m) + 3 and evaluate whether to push the pace faster as you approach the halfway point. Personally, I find 4 x 1K to be a more accurate and reliable predictor of my 2K performance, and while I do 8 x 500m periodically I have made 4 x 1K my core race pace workout over the past couple seasons.

[Ralph Earle]

Yes.

Ten years ago from the rankings I compiled 500, 2K and 5K times across all ages for heavyweight and lightweight men. The correlations were:

Heavyweight
500 vs 2K = -0.11 (n=25)
500 vs 5K = -0.12 (n=25)
2K vs 5K = +0.96 (n=14)

Lightweight
500 vs 2K = -0.34 (n=28)
500 vs 5K = +0.16 (n=28)
2K vs 5K = +0.92 (n=19)

[TomR]

more proof, if we needed it, that calling the Crash-B races "sprints" is a cruel misnomer

[hjs]

more proof, if we needed it, that calling the Crash-B races "sprints" is a cruel misnomer

Indeed sprints, even the 500 is no a sprint, everything above 1 minute is not a sprint anymore.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

A flat-out 2k effort for the majority of people will be >80% aerobic, while a 500m all-out sprint will be under 30% aerobic. If your 500m split suggests a much faster 2k split, you just aren't working out enough on your aerobic power/endurance.

At my peak my fastest 500m was right around 1:23-1:24, while my 2k was 1:37 or so. My low pull was 1:09 but the low pull is really a worthless number if you ask me.

[hjs]

A flat-out 2k effort for the majority of people will be >80% aerobic, while a 500m all-out sprint will be under 30% aerobic. If your 500m split suggests a much faster 2k split, you just aren't working out enough on your aerobic power/endurance.

At my peak my fastest 500m was right around 1:23-1:24, while my 2k was 1:37 or so. My low pull was 1:09 but the low pull is really a worthless number if you ask me.

A pure sprinter can train what he can, but he will never be great at longer work. If you have lots of fast twitch muscle fiber you can,t change that. The other way around dito. With no fast twitch your 500 will be very crap.

Low pull, as in fastest pace you can row is very usefull for sprinting, the correlation between 500 and low pull is high.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

The only reason I disagree is because for the low pull all form goes out the window and you do whatever you can to get the lowest split, which is not very good erging that can be maintained for more than a couple of max strokes. My low pull was significantly faster than the low pulls of guys over 20 seconds faster than me on a 2k.

[hjs]

The only reason I disagree is because for the low pull all form goes out the window and you do whatever you can to get the lowest split, which is not very good erging that can be maintained for more than a couple of max strokes. My low pull was significantly faster than the low pulls of guys over 20 seconds faster than me on a 2k.

That is you, for me a lowpull is sprinting at max, so a lowpull is not a number, but real power/ speed, the correlation is with the 500, much less with the 2k, other factors are ofcourse much more important, but still, all other things constant, getting a stronger low pull will increase your 2k.
With good technique a lowpull can be maintained for around 7/8 strokes. Give or take 1 second on the split.

[Bob S.]

The only reason I disagree is because for the low pull all form goes out the window and you do whatever you can to get the lowest split, which is not very good erging that can be maintained for more than a couple of max strokes. My low pull was significantly faster than the low pulls of guys over 20 seconds faster than me on a 2k.

This post aroused my curiosity. Did your coach include low pulls as part of the testing or was this just the guys on the squad fooling around?

I also get the feeling that "low pull" is not all that clearly defined. Your expression is a couple of max strokes. hjs describes it as 7/8 strokes. There is a big difference here, since maintaining a fast pace for 7/8 strokes requires much better technique than just dashing off a couple of quick, all-out drives. Naturally this difference in definition would lead to different conclusions about the utility of low pull. Frankly, I had never heard of low pull until I read about it (years ago) on the C2 forums. If it was done at the clubs that I rowed with, no one ever mentioned it.

Bob S.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

Bob - we did 60 minute test, 6k test, 2k test, 1 minute test, and low pull. The low pull for us was the absolute lowest split you could pull for a stroke. I don't claim that to be the correct or widely accepted definition, mainly because I don't think there is one. I really don't think any serious programs use the low pull as part of their selection or training.

As I states earlier, I don't see what possible use there is for the low pull insofar as using the results for crew section or to establish a training plan.

[Gettingold]

In peak power training the low pull or max wattage provides the basis for a training range. The overall goal is to improve the low pull or max power to accrue more metres for the same stroke rate. The anaerobic threshold is hard to improve so peak power training provides a medium to exploit the most powerful energy system in the body. This will help with long distance as well as short. I have seen my 100m tmes improve dramatically with peak power training and maintaining lower stroke rates over longer distances has become easier. Now my run home can also be maximised. My low pull is 1:10 but I seem to now be able to stay under 1:14 for a considerable time. Last night I did a 5k and a 2k row. I finished the 5ks with the last 100m under 1:29 average. My 2k was meant to be a cool down but I was sitting comfortably on 1:47 and decided to to go a little quicker finishing with 1:44.3 average overall.
Armando...your low pull is fantastic. You should give peak power training a go. You're sure to benefit.
Terry