Concept2 Forum

The following tables were compiled with interest in looking at WR declines over 10 yr increments in groups of lightweight men.

I have chosen lightweights because w/o doing too much review we can be certain that they are all approx. the same weight.

Here are the WR times for each distance 500 thru 2k: (source C2 official WRs)
(In order to keep 10 yr time frames: notice I've excluded the 5 yr groups after age 50)

Age>500 m> 1000m> 2000m
30 > 1:24.5 > 2:57.8 > 6:06.4
40 > 1:24.7 > 3:01.0 > 6:18.2
50 > 1:24.2 > 3:03.3 > 6:25.1
60 > 1:29.9 > 3:16.7 > 6:42.5
70 > 1:38.4 > 3:29.1 > 7:13.4
80 > 1:41.1 > 3:47.2 > 7:42.0


and here is the (rough) calculated fall within each distance:

Age>500 m> 1000m>2000m
30 > 100% > 100% > 100%
40 > 100% > 98% > 97%
50 > 100% > 97% > 95%
60 > 96% > 89% > 90%
70 > 83% > 82% > 82%
80 > 80% > 72% > 73%

From the second table we can surmise the following averages drops:

Age>500 m> 1000m>2000m
30 > ...
40 > (avg = 98%) IOW: 2% less than the 30 yr age group
50 > (avg = 97%) IOW: 3% less
60 > (avg = 92%) IOW: 8% less
70 > (avg = 82%) IOW: 18% less
80 > (avg = 75%) IOW: 25% less

Observation#1:decline increases at an increasing rate through the end of the 70-79 age group.

Again: all this is calculated in a rough way... there's a percent or two leeway in the real figures. I didn't bother to put them on a spreadsheet.
But, after all, WRs are not truly representative of each group

mikvan52 wrote: Again: all this is calculated in a rough way... there's a percent or two leeway in the real figures. I didn't bother to put them on a spreadsheet.
But, after all, WRs are not truly representative of each group

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtHTc8wIo4Q

An idea on how to use the tables:

Say, hypothetically, you once rowed a 6:28 wr-type or pb-type performance as 50 year old lwt.
If you remain at your best at age 60 and are still a lwt:
Consult the table:

Age>500 m> 1000m>2000m
30 > ...
40 > (avg = 98%) IOW: 2% less than the 30 yr age group
50 > (avg = 97%) IOW: 3% less
60 > (avg = 92%) IOW: 8% less
70 > (avg = 82%) IOW: 18% less
80 > (avg = 75%) IOW: 25% less

You can reasonable expect to be (8%-3%) 5% slower.

Calculation 6:28 x 105% = 6:47-6:48

I find this (these tables) good for reasonable goal setting for aging athletes who have been at it (erging) for at least 10 years near max training.

So you are proposing using the same kind of scale the WP uses to plan L2 and L3 workouts, but for aging?

Makes sense, perhaps we will see it accurately predict the results of the next month of racing.

bloomp wrote: perhaps we will see it accurately predict the results of the next month of racing.

These numbers will hold up roughly for everyone who's been maxed out for 10 - 20 years (admittedly, that's a small group in itself)

Let me say again: these are very rough percentages... but we are looking at a cross section of WR holders only...

But consider the fact that training scales down as you go further from the small sample of near WR holders. Someone who trains to set a WR will row a lot more than someone just training. And thus proportionately they will see the same decline if the same respective level of training is maintained. Then again, that assumes all things are held in constant (other health issues), and that the athletes not working for a WR row will do enough work to maintain their fitness.

Paul:
Thanks for that. You seem to be up on your education in such matters.

As an aside:

I admire those who, like salmon, swim against the current of time, and strive endlessly to reach their goal oblivious to fate, cheerful all the while.

There will be people who argue that this does not apply to them. They are right if:
#1 they are talking about shorter periods of time than 10 years
#2 they weren't in excellent shape at two times ten years apart

...Remember: This is a "best of the best" analysis. Arguing from the specific to the general is not a way to deny these numbers as the general takes the specific into account already.

Now, many people will be interested in the percentages for peak performances over time for periods of less than ten years.

Could we not maintain that percentages of these 10-year figures would work? I believe so. Why?
Because the number behave(mathematically) according the "smooth function" principles that have been thoroughly examined and proven in mathematics.
Human performance can only be conceived of as a "smooth function" f(x)

Very simply: x axis; y axis; smooth curve of performance over time.

Want to read more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-analyt ... h_function



IOW: Hilbert not Dilbert


See also: google search = "wikipedia Frege smooth function"
Result:

Mathematical logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gottlob Frege presented an independent development of logic with ... Previous conceptions of a function as a rule for computation, or a smooth graph, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic

WRs are the only truly representation of performance for each age.

A minor shortcoming could be that perhaps no truly maximum performances has been reached, regardless of age, though that is true for all ages. Certainly the out of shape population is not a good measure of performance, again regardless of the age.

Thus WR's are the only and the best, measurement of relative performance.

You might be interested to see the Perathlon, which is based on a WR curve of WR age records, and which thereby has percentages calculated for each age. http://johnlvs2run.wordpress.com/category/perathlon/

mikvan52 wrote:I admire those who, like salmon, swim against the current of time, and strive endlessly to reach their goal oblivious to fate, cheerful all the while.

Glug, glug.

Jump, wiggle; jump, wiggle; jump, wiggle.

You're in for a surprise, Mike.

Nay-sayers are idiots.

I now have seven weeks of sharpening.

I'll start with 8 x 500m @ 1:34, tomorrow and Friday, and work down from there.

Weight is great.

I'll have no problem making weight this year in...where?

Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Boston, Columbus, Chicago, Detroit.

Gosh, before I am done this winter, I'll get in about 50 more sharpening workouts.

I will be doing fast distance training, sharpening, and extensive cross-training--every day.

I like to put in about four hours a day, a little more than your half an hour.

As a kid, I ran the quarter and half mile on the track for a decade in the spring, the 100m in swimming for a decade in the winter.

In rowing, I love 500s.

Yummy.

Over the course of my life, I have done _thousands_ of these little monsters.

In 2003, I did 20 x 500m @ 1:36, paddle a 500m in between, not even knowing how to row.

I am _much_ better than that now.

About three seconds per 500m, I think.

I now row well.

12 SPI

ranger

John Rupp wrote:WRs are the only truly representation of performance for each age.

Well said, John.

It is only at the limits of performance that comparisons are valid and curves of improvement/decline are relevant.

For those who are only casually interested in something, there is no mathematics.

The casually interested are just lazy, irrelevant sons of bitches, attending to their own concerns, most of which is self-indulgent.

They have nothing to do with history, nothing to do with sport.

ranger

Except that if the 2k WRs represent the best possible performances on an erg, all Perathlon scores by all rowers at all other distances should be less than 1000 points. That's not the case.

J. Ortega's 2:39.6 1k at age 25 yields 1017.6 Perathlon points.
B. Pfaller's 1:13.7 500m at age 24 yields 1004.3 Perathlon points.
Rob Smith's 1:14.4 500m at age 37 yields 1003.8 Perathlon points.
Jim Castellan's 3:00.0 1k at age 60 yields 1002.6 Perathlon points.

Etc.

Conversely, the great Andy Ripley's 50+ MHW record of 6:07.7 -- which has stood since 1998 -- yields but 969.2 Perathlon points. I have great trouble with any relative-weighting system that rates his row as having the same virtual equivalence to Rob Waddell's WR as your 2003 HM does to Henrik Stephensen's mark.

If nothing else, why not calculate everything in relation to the 1k records, since Ortega's performance offhand looks like the single best result ever accepted as a record.

Nav--

So what did you rate in your 6:28 2K the other day?

32 spm?



Rowing like a 60s lwt these days?

Pretty pathetic stuff for a big boy.

A quality heavyweight pulls 15 SPI at normal rates.

Where is that?

ranger

Time to get it on, Mike.

Nay-sayers are idiots:

Quote! Quote! Quote! Quote!

Ponder then the implications. If your vaunted "aerobic capacity" really IS still "maximal," emphasis on present tense, you MUST be at least as fast on a comparable sub-threshold endurance row as you were in 2003. You are not. You will not be. You are and will be slower. Significantly slower, notwithstanding any gains in strength and/or technique you may think you have achieved. It follows that your aerobic capacity has diminished, with any age-related decline compounded many times over by the pernicious consequences of neglect.

Jon Bone, 11/6/08

You'll do no such things. You might be able to do three reps of 1' r32/1' @1:34, with a rolling start. Maybe even four. But not more, not now. Ten is flatly impossible. 15, which is more like it for a 6:16 2k, is farther beyond your capacity and comprehension than differential calculus would be to a hamster. As for 1' r35/1' @ 1:31, you will likely fail on rep 2. If you ever try it, that is, which is laughably unlikely.

--Jon Bone 12/28/08

You will no more "do" 16:30 for 5k than I will "do" the Dutch olympic women's eight (and their luscious cox). Even as a fat boy you'll struggle to get within a minute of that -- if you can even do 17:30 any more.

Jon Bone, 1/1/09

There is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO way an old man like you will pull a 6:16.

--Zrower33 12/12/08

If you pull a 6:16 I will flip my boat in the finals at Worlds and sh*t myself on purpose.

--Zrower33 1/1/09

ranger wrote:

I have already done 6:29 @ 12 SPI, and that was without distance rowing or sharpening.


ranger

tut tut tut, watch that noose, I have been around a bit longer, you ceartenly did sharpen for that row . Maybe not 100%, not to mention this was a few years back and that you did train quit a bit differant.

Around 6.40 at best Dangy. Wanne bet I give you a 3 to 1 ratio



It was a good row though, the only good row the last 5 years, among many many poor ones............

---hjs 12/10/08

At sub 165 lbs ... prospects for a 6:16 don't compute.... at all.

--Mike VanBeuren 12/11/09

I'm not playing around.

ranger