Another newbie

[GlennUk]

It really falls apart for me too, but my endurance is much stronger than my raw speed. (Working on the latter.) It's a decent place to start though. And when you get a few baseline times at different distances, my preferred tool is this one: http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum/ ... -predictor

I have not see this particular predictor before, and looking over various predictors online, Id suggest Im best not taking them too seriously at the moment.

As an observation, it appears to me that often ergers want to 'do their best' for a range of distances, but quite often, follow a 'generic training plan', one often geared towards 2k, the PP for example.

Nothing wrong with that, but i do wonder, looking at the predictors, if this is where they fall down, based on a recent 500m SB i am predicted to be able to go sub 7 for the 2k.

I have often wondered if i could (i haven't b4, 7:04.6 2011) but realise if i want to achieve a 2k pb (whatever the final score), then i need to concentrate on training for it specifically.

Could it be that the predictors can only be 'accurate' if we are training for a specific distance/event?

Just a thought

[p_b82]

I should have said when I posted the link - the accuracy is debatable as there's a lot that it's just totally wrong and a lot that it's "close enough"....

My 2k - which is a big margin percentile terms above my other times, says that everything I do should be faster. supposedly my HM pace is 2:20.

but my 60' time is what gave me the target to aim for on the HM pace of 2:24; but that's currently right up at my aerobic limit rather than strength - my previous HM was 2:29 split as an fyi - in fact my 60' estimate suggests all my other rows can be quicker bar the 2k itself.

Now I know that I can take a big chunk off my 5k - I did it unofficially last week. So I look at that numbers and go - well this says I should be able to do X; so I reckon I can take more than that off, and then see if I'm right or not. when I set a "best" predictor time I then see if I can beat it at another distance, so far it has worked - my 2k was 4s per 500m faster than predicted.

But I agree with Glenn's comments, the predictors have to assume is perfectly capable at every distance to come up with a value - and the needs of a HM are very different to that of a 2K.

[iain]

As a newbie I'm improving rapidly now and can pretty much break any of my PBs whenever I want Great feeling. I've put off doing another 2k until this Sunday but the 3k I did from a couple of days ago gives me some confidence that I can break my current 2k PB of 08:23 this weekend.

12:59.5 3,000m 2:09.9 160 849 28 59

Maybe see if I can do 6 mins for 1500m later today.

6' 1.5k is 10S/500 quicker, that is double Paul's Law. Personally I use a modified version of Paul's Law which I think is what is used by the predictor, this is that the split changes by the same amount for each doubling (the "Paul's Constant" that varies between people and on their fitness situation). However this is only accurate for 1k to 10k. Some people record that 500m can be 3S faster than the predictor probably mainly due to rating up. As a result, times used for the predictor should also be in the 1-10km range. It also gets better the further apart the distances are as otherwise only a tiny change has a large impact. With this caveat, your 2k PB and this 3k give a Paul's Constant of over 7S/500m/doubling. To me that means this 3k doesn't provide evidence that you can go significantly faster over 2k, although only you know the relative efforts of the 2 sessions.

[Kerry1960]

Tried 1.5k@6mins at lunchtime today and failed marginally. Paced it so wrong (see evidence ) .

Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
6:01.2 1,500m 2:00.4 201 990 32
1:55.7 500m 1:55.7 226 1077 33
2:02.6 500m 2:02.6 190 953 32
2:02.9 500m 2:02.9 189 948 32


Could have done 6 mins if I hadn't been too cocky at the start. Went off way too fast (for me) and paid for it later.Lesson learnt .

Still, a good indicator for next 2k.

[Sakly]

Tried 1.5k@6mins at lunchtime today and failed marginally. Paced it so wrong (see evidence ) .

Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
6:01.2 1,500m 2:00.4 201 990 32
1:55.7 500m 1:55.7 226 1077 33
2:02.6 500m 2:02.6 190 953 32
2:02.9 500m 2:02.9 189 948 32


Could have done 6 mins if I hadn't been too cocky at the start. Went off way too fast (for me) and paid for it later.Lesson learnt .

Still, a good indicator for next 2k.

I think you should work on your stroke power and efficiency. 200W at a rate of 32 gives you a bit more than 6W/stroke. That is very low for your height and weight.
Go for some r20 workouts and work on stroke power (probably using 1k intervals, if steady state is too hard). Then translate it to higher rates for the shorter distances.

[Kerry1960]

Sakly, I think you're right. I am somewhat limited with the leg push part of the stroke although it has improved from where I started. Neither of my knees is in great shape and I only had knee surgery for torn meniscus in October

[Sakly]

Sakly, I think you're right. I am somewhat limited with the leg push part of the stroke although it has improved from where I started. Neither of my knees is in great shape and I only had knee surgery for torn meniscus in October

Ok, that is a reason for sure
Hope you recover good. Better progress slowly to not hamper your recovery

[Slidewinder]

200W at a rate of 32 gives you a bit more than 6W/stroke. That is very low for your height and weight.

Watts is the rate of doing work. 200W is already his average rate of doing work, not 6W. Six watts of power would only be enough to stretch the elastic cord.

[Kerry1960]

Can anyone enlighten me on the benefits of steady state r20 training. I've never done it . I'm thinking it should enable you to work on your technique and also encourage a more explosive drive since you have less momentum going into the catch Am I right? Any other benefits?

[Dangerscouse]

Can anyone enlighten me on the benefits of steady state r20 training. I've never done it . I'm thinking it should enable you to work on your technique and also encourage a more explosive drive since you have less momentum going into the catch Am I right? Any other benefits?

Yeah, you're right. There's also a (possible) benefit of building a stronger stroke, which can translate into higher stroke rates.

It's also useful as you're not wasting energy needlessly going up and down the rail, although I find that r24 is very much a comfort zone for me, as I did my FM PB at this stroke rate, so it can be subjective as I know others who can't row faster than r24

[Sakly]

200W at a rate of 32 gives you a bit more than 6W/stroke. That is very low for your height and weight.

Watts is the rate of doing work. 200W is already his average rate of doing work, not 6W. Six watts of power would only be enough to stretch the elastic cord.

Watt is energy per time. 200W is the average (over the complete time), then a single stroke adds a specific fraction of energy to the average over time. If the time is restricted to one minute and the average of the complete time is 200W, then the average of one minute can be assumed to also be 200W. If I need 32 strokes to generate 200W average per minute, each stroke adds 200W/32=6,25W.

[Kerry1960]

Stu "⁷Yeah, you're right. There's also a (possible) benefit of building a stronger stroke, which can translate into higher stroke rates.

It's also useful as you're not wasting energy needlessly going up and down the rail, although I find that r24 is very much a comfort zone for me, as I did my FM PB at this stroke rate, so it can be subjective as I know others who can't row faster than r24"

I can see why r24 would work on 10k and beyond. I've only done a serious timed row at 5k so far but got into a very good rhythm at r25 which I felt I could maintain for a long time. I'm gonna try a 10k next week and try to maintain that sort of stroke rate.

[Slidewinder]

200W at a rate of 32 gives you a bit more than 6W/stroke. That is very low for your height and weight.

Watts is the rate of doing work. 200W is already his average rate of doing work, not 6W. Six watts of power would only be enough to stretch the elastic cord.

Watt is energy per time. 200W is the average (over the complete time), then a single stroke adds a specific fraction of energy to the average over time. If the time is restricted to one minute and the average of the complete time is 200W, then the average of one minute can be assumed to also be 200W. If I need 32 strokes to generate 200W average per minute, each stroke adds 200W/32=6,25W.

You are incorrect. 6 watts per stroke is 6/746 = .008 HP. If you repeat that 32 times your rate of doing work has not changed therefore at the completion of the 32 strokes you still have only generated .008 HP. Barely enough to stretch the elastic cord. The HP is not cumulative. 200 watts per stroke is 200/746 = .28 HP Repeat that 32 times for a minute and again, because the rate of doing work has not changed, at the end of the minute, you still will have only generated .28 HP (not (200 X 32)/746 = 8.6 HP).

[Sakly]

Watts is the rate of doing work. 200W is already his average rate of doing work, not 6W. Six watts of power would only be enough to stretch the elastic cord.

Watt is energy per time. 200W is the average (over the complete time), then a single stroke adds a specific fraction of energy to the average over time. If the time is restricted to one minute and the average of the complete time is 200W, then the average of one minute can be assumed to also be 200W. If I need 32 strokes to generate 200W average per minute, each stroke adds 200W/32=6,25W.

You are incorrect. 6 watts per stroke is 6/746 = .008 HP. If you repeat that 32 times your rate of doing work has not changed therefore at the completion of the 32 strokes you still have only generated .008 HP. Barely enough to stretch the elastic cord. The HP is not cumulative. 200 watts per stroke is 200/746 = .28 HP Repeat that 32 times for a minute and again, because the rate of doing work has not changed, at the end of the minute, you still will have only generated .28 HP (not (200 X 32)/746 = 8.6 HP).

Why now transferring to horse power, which is no official physical unit, but only a multiple of watts?
But yes, you are right. Every stroke (taken the recovery time to next stroke into account) is providing the average power shown on the PM, but if you would only pull one per minute that would drop the average power to 200/32 in this specific example.

[iain]

200W at a rate of 32 gives you a bit more than 6W/stroke. That is very low for your height and weight.

Watts is the rate of doing work. 200W is already his average rate of doing work, not 6W. Six watts of power would only be enough to stretch the elastic cord.

The units are WMin NOT Watts, an awkward unit but an easy range of numbers (hence why we use it). If you multiply by 60, 6.25 WMin becomes 375WS or 375J of work per stroke.

Re the use of this stat, it allows the amount of work done by each stroke to be determined. In the 1.5k, you dropped from 6.8WMin to 5.9WMin from the first to the middle 500. This may indicate that your stroke deteriorated as you tired. This is normal at the end (when most try and compensate by upping the rating), but shouldn't be significant through the middle section. By rowing slower (whether R24 or R20) you are correct that this allows you to concentrate on doing more (work) with each stroke, although you also need to watch gains which won't be untransferable to higher rates (such as excessive leanback). It is easier to try and get the squat feel of a more powerful stroke when you slow the recovery so that you aren't out of breath.

- IAin