2k vs. 20-min split?

[backsplashed]

Hi guys,
I was wondering what the correlation is between a 2k split and a 20-min split. Is there a "Your 2k split + _____ seconds" rule or something like that?
Thanks!

[Millie]

Yes there is - it's called 'Paul's law'. If you google it you'll find the full definition and formula (it's a log relationship), but put simply, for every doubling of distance the 500m split increases by 5 seconds.

Note that:
-this is really just a 'rule of thumb' and unlikely to apply exactly;
-it assumes you're well balanced in terms of speed v endurance ability. So if you're a pure sprinter you'll probably find it's more than 5 seconds; if you're more endurance based might be less than 5 seconds.

So it's kinda useful as if you do a few distances e.g. 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k you'll get a fair idea of where your weaknesses are (if you don't know them already!)

So for a 2k v 20 min, assuming 20 mins is approx 5k, you're looking at a rough 'rule of thumb' that your 20 min split is your 2k split + 6 to 7 seconds

[Millie]

Just found this thread on the UK concept2 forum all about Paul's Law if you want more background:

http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... &sk=t&sd=a

[hjs]

Hi guys,
I was wondering what the correlation is between a 2k split and a 20-min split. Is there a "Your 2k split + _____ seconds" rule or something like that?
Thanks!

Roughly 2k plus 6/7 seconds.

Pauls law is not correct, that is used to see where your trainingfocus should be. Its not for predicting.

[Cyclingman1]

for every doubling of distance the 500m split increases by 5 seconds. So if you're a pure sprinter you'll probably find it's more than 5 seconds; if you're more endurance based might be less than 5 seconds.

I think this a good rule of thumb. I am, for example, 5.1 secs slower for 5K over 2K. And only 3 sec slower for 10K over 5K. I'm definitely not a sprinter.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

Really depends on what point of your training cycle you are on or what you focus on more. However in general I'd say about 6 seconds is a good "rule of thumb"

[Ralph Earle]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace (i. e., 2K/0.78).

The complete set of ratios:
500m 138%
1000 117
2000 100
5000 82
20min 78
30min 73
10000 71
40min 69

UT2 50
UT1 60
AT 70
TR 105
AN 110

[mikvan52]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace (i. e., 2K/0.78).

The complete set of ratios:
500m 138%
1000 117
2000 100
5000 82
20min 78

Let's test this:

My 5k pace / my 2k pace

is 1:47.4/ 1:42.4

(in seconds) 107.4 / 102.4

this yields only a 5.0 second difference in pace....
PeRcentage wise: 4.88%... so my 5k is 95.12% of my 2k
something is wrong here
... it "should be" 82 %...

You know what I think? I think Hagerman's table is for watts, not pace:

My 5k watts are: 282.5
My 2k watts are: 326.0

282.5/326 = 86.6%... that's closer
And, since I'm a "distance guy", makes more sense... still proving that tables are just a rule of thumb.

[gregory.cook]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace.

Mixing distance pieces and timed pieces together is never going to go well without a baseline 2K pace. Clearly Hagermans's mix doesn't make sense for anyone with a 2K over 8:00 who would row a 5K in well over 20 minutes but would still be predicted to row slower for a shorter 20 minute piece.

[Bob S.]

You know what I think? I think Hagerman's table is for watts, not pace:

Sounds right to me Mike. Pace is not linear with the work done. 2k+x for a 6' 2k does not apply at all to an 8' 2k. That's one of the flaws of the so-called Paul's Law and with the early Pete Plan. Wattage is linear and the IP is based on that. Pace is a bit of an oddball concept and misnamed, in my opinion. The use of it by C2 seems to have evolved from the use of lap times for the mile run.

Bob S.

[Ralph Earle]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace.

Mixing distance pieces and timed pieces together is never going to go well without a baseline 2K pace. Clearly Hagermans's mix doesn't make sense for anyone with a 2K over 8:00 who would row a 5K in well over 20 minutes but would still be predicted to row slower for a shorter 20 minute piece.

That's a good point; my original reply was perhaps not on point, since Hagerman's table contains training paces, not estimated PBs.

For example, for a 2K in 7:23, Hagerman says to pace a 5K at 1:58.3, for a total time of 19:42.6,. but to pace a 20-minute piece at 2:00.1, for a total distance of 4,994 meters. The training effect will hardly differ, but it is a bit of a "Huh?".

[Ralph Earle]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace (i. e., 2K/0.78).

The complete set of ratios:
500m 138%
1000 117
2000 100
5000 82
20min 78

Let's test this:

My 5k pace / my 2k pace

is 1:47.4/ 1:42.4

(in seconds) 107.4 / 102.4

this yields only a 5.0 second difference in pace....
PeRcentage wise: 4.88%... so my 5k is 95.12% of my 2k
something is wrong here
... it "should be" 82 %...

You know what I think? I think Hagerman's table is for watts, not pace:

My 5k watts are: 282.5
My 2k watts are: 326.0

282.5/326 = 86.6%... that's closer
And, since I'm a "distance guy", makes more sense... still proving that tables are just a rule of thumb.

Interpolating, Hagerman's 2K pace of 1:42.4 corresponds to a 5K pace of 1:49.3 [~18:13] and a 20-minute pace of 1:51.1. From a training perspective, it wouldn't make sense to do 5Ks at PB pace; even +2s/500m is ambitious, to say the least.

[mikvan52]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace.

Mixing distance pieces and timed pieces together is never going to go well without a baseline 2K pace. Clearly Hagermans's mix doesn't make sense for anyone with a 2K over 8:00 who would row a 5K in well over 20 minutes but would still be predicted to row slower for a shorter 20 minute piece.

Excellent point, Greg... & (!) Hagerman's focus has always been on measuring elites... I've been to one of his lectures detailing performance data.. his focus remained primarily on the front of the pack. IOW: His power point presentation don't reflect a database of average-joe(sephine)-ergers.

We have to always keep in mind that there is wide variance between the slow twitch people and the fast twitch people... Case in point.>>.. No individual can be best at all ranking distances from 500 to 42,195 meters (unless the population sample is small)... and you can't train yourself to be that way. This fact points to variance even in the 6-8 minute piece to the 15-22 minute piece comparisons.
anecdotally: I always tell my novices (comparing 2k to 5k) that they'll see 5 to 6 seconds in split difference per 500m pace... if they are trained. (We all know that the 5k is a total fiasco for people without a base). I say this because novice ergers shouldn't worry about what they "should" be seeing early in a fitness program. Their personal pattern will develop over time... Why put up an artificial "I should be doing"? You are what you are. Anyway: The vast majority of individual workout goals should be limited effort experiences (%'s of max effort). But, even heart rate comparisons vary a good bit and are not statistically hard and fast indicators of precisely how hard athletes are working. Numbers are fun to look at but are not hard and fast predictors... The psychological side is huge... even in working out... Some people will not adequately work out in all training bands even though they realize on some level that good for them...What governs that choice? Wouldn't such predispositions affect their performances over a spectrum of distances?

As for making a distinction between what we train at vs what we race at... I probably don't have a good statistical grip on that subject.
Maybe, if one wore a heart rate belt and limited one's bpm's in the later meters, interesting stats would emerge in the comparisons between 2k vs 5k at different %HR max. IMO: It all get's a little too precise.

[Ralph Earle]

Dr. Fritz Hagerman's Lactate Training Bands spreadsheet has 20-minute pace as 78% of 2K pace.

Mixing distance pieces and timed pieces together is never going to go well without a baseline 2K pace. Clearly Hagermans's mix doesn't make sense for anyone with a 2K over 8:00 who would row a 5K in well over 20 minutes but would still be predicted to row slower for a shorter 20 minute piece.

Excellent point, Greg... & (!) Hagerman's focus has always been on measuring elites... I've been to one of his lectures detailing performance data.. his focus remained primarily on the front of the pack. IOW: His power point presentation don't reflect a database of average-joe(sephine)-ergers.

We have to always keep in mind that there is wide variance between the slow twitch people and the fast twitch people... Case in point.>>.. No individual can be best at all ranking distances from 500 to 42,195 meters (unless the population sample is small){Emphasis added]... and you can't train yourself to be that way. <snip>

Check out the 60-69 Heavyweight Men rankings for 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013. Don't forget the 100,000m. (N>500 is not "small.")

[Cyclingman1]

Check out the 60-69 Heavyweight Men rankings for 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

Of course, you refer to TJ Oesterling, 64, of Hawaii.

Oesterling has the size, strength, endurance to be excellent at all distances. Plus, he has tremendous experience. There are just not that many rowers with those kinds of capabilities and background. In addition, apparently, he has avoided serious health or injury issues given his extremely consistent, high-level performances over the years. That is a huge issue for older rowers. I wouldn't say he is a fluke, but he is a rarity. It might be a while before another Oesterling comes along.