Concept2 Forum

Interesting week of training I've had. I did two HMs earlier in the week -- nothing too ambitious, just somewhere steady between UT1 and UT2. Today, I felt very tired, but wanted to stretch by doing something light, which in my mind means no less than 10K, anything less than that (unless it's intervals or a time trial) makes me think I'm not putting in sufficient effort. So I got on there with a view to doing a low rate, steady 10K .But then gradually, feeling strong, I just kept squeezing the pace until I ended up with a PB out of nowhere. First time under 39 minutes, which, in the context of what I do, feels quite good. So, what I deduce from that is that (a) you just never know what you might feel like doing and (b) HMs are beneficial, from a psychological standpoint at least, for shorter distances like 10K. It makes a massive difference to know that you have only to sustain something for 40 + minutes than to do so for 1 hour +++. Anyone any thoughts?

Mark can I at least contribute the thought of congratulations on the PB?

Out of interest what sort of pace did you start and finished this one at - how much squeeze was required, and at what stage did the idea of the PB enter calculations?

I know the last two TTs I've done - (a 5k and a 10k - both of which have been PBs) I've felt near the start that the expectations on timing and anticipation of the non-fun to come have themselves consumed some energy (adrenaline perhaps helpful for short distances but I would not say so for me for pieces of this length) - I guess you did avoid all of that by having zero expectations initially!

Bloodbuzz Corio wrote:Mark can I at least contribute the thought of congratulations on the PB?

Out of interest what sort of pace did you start and finished this one at - how much squeeze was required, and at what stage did the idea of the PB enter calculations?

I know the last two TTs I've done - (a 5k and a 10k - both of which have been PBs) I've felt near the start that the expectations on timing and anticipation of the non-fun to come have themselves consumed some energy (adrenaline perhaps helpful for short distances but I would not say so for me for pieces of this length) - I guess you did avoid all of that by having zero expectations initially!

Thanks very much!

It looked like this:

1.56.7 10000 24 overall 38-54

2.02 --- 2000 23
1.58.7 --- 4000 23
1.55.8--- 6000 25
1.55.6--- 8000 25
1.50.9-- 10000 27

I guess I started thinking about a PB somewhere between 6000 and 8000k at the point where I saw that my projected finish would be, if I continued at 1.55ish, below my previous PB (which was 39-37) I should say too thought that I don't do 10K time trials often, which would probably explain the 40 second improvement!

Well done!

It also points out, to me, the value of negative splitting. Getting through a nice chunk without having the "oh crap" feeling and then driving it home is how I need to do it. Of course there are those aerobic beasts that can be on edge for long periods...

G-dub wrote:Well done!

It also points out, to me, the value of negative splitting. Getting through a nice chunk without having the "oh crap" feeling and then driving it home is how I need to do it. Of course there are those aerobic beasts that can be on edge for long periods...

I agree with you, BUT, there is part of me that thinks, "If you can sit at 1.55 and less for most of this, why not start at 1.55 and stay there... That's the challenge ( and I genuinely believe it's mostly in the mind)

Give it a go! I would add that I am not recommending extreme negative splitting per se.

MarkEg wrote: It looked like this:

1.56.7 10000 24 overall 38-54

2.02 --- 2000 23
1.58.7 --- 4000 23
1.55.8--- 6000 25
1.55.6--- 8000 25
1.50.9-- 10000 27

Mark: are the numbers at the end of those lines your spm?

ohCanada wrote:

MarkEg wrote: It looked like this:

1.56.7 10000 24 overall 38-54

2.02 --- 2000 23
1.58.7 --- 4000 23
1.55.8--- 6000 25
1.55.6--- 8000 25
1.50.9-- 10000 27

Mark: are the numbers at the end of those lines your spm?

Yes, that's correct!

Man. Where do you set the damper to get that much distance out of that stroke rate (I know damper isn't really relevant, but the curious want to know. Thanks)?

ohCanada wrote:Man. Where do you set the damper to get that much distance out of that stroke rate (I know damper isn't really relevant, but the curious want to know. Thanks)?

I row on drag factor 132, which on my machine equates to around 4 on the damper. I should say that I've done a LOT of rate 20's, even rate 18's, with emphasis on really maximizing stroke effectiveness and power. Really makes a difference in pieces like this.

Well done, you were pulling a nice solid stroke beginning to end, over 9 Watt-minutes, apart from the initial warm-up. How does that relate to your age/height?

You can see it yourself by switching the memory page to Watts.

MarkEg wrote:

G-dub wrote:Well done!

It also points out, to me, the value of negative splitting. Getting through a nice chunk without having the "oh crap" feeling and then driving it home is how I need to do it. Of course there are those aerobic beasts that can be on edge for long periods...

I agree with you, BUT, there is part of me that thinks, "If you can sit at 1.55 and less for most of this, why not start at 1.55 and stay there... That's the challenge ( and I genuinely believe it's mostly in the mind)

100% certain you can. The way you paced it now was very unefficient. The term negative split does not apply. That would be a slight pace increese not 10 seconds.

Shows the power of long easy meters. Very important for aerobic training.

jamesg wrote:Well done, you were pulling a nice solid stroke beginning to end, over 9 Watt-minutes, apart from the initial warm-up. How does that relate to your age/height?

You can see it yourself by switching the memory page to Watts.

Thanks -- I'm 5FT 10 and 80kg -- 45 years old

I've had a few of my PBs like this, maybe not quite as dramatic going that far down, but certainly some significant negatives splits. Of course, at that moment I'm sure I could have rowed slightly faster without negative splitting but that's the whole point of this this post, I think, that you never know when you'll feel that good. Maybe 9 times out of 10 (or 95 out of a 100) if he goes out at 1:55 he ends up dying because he just doesn't have it that day. Not sure how productive that would be. Negative splitting allows you to feel it out and go or the PB when you're ready. We're not all optimally tuned professional athletes, we have jobs, stress, irregular schedules, etc.

-Steve