Is 500m essentially irrelevant for 2K on up?

[Cyclingman1]

It seems to me that 500m is so much different than all other distances, even 1K, as to be almost an irrelevancy in terms of training for or predicting from. It is almost a pure power distance; the metabolic pathways are much different than in greater distances; the stroke rate, even the stroke style, are considerably different.

Why bother even trying to improve 500m times? I think that getting good at 1K would be far more relevant.

Predicting 2K times from 500m is a total crap shoot. Predicting any times from other times is very inexact, but using 500m times really seems to be a waste of time.

[Bob S.]

For the most part I would agree with that, but there are a fair number of power ergers who excel at the 500m and shorter pieces and who enjoy competing in those events. Since the 500m is one of the ranked events, it will always be of interest.

For training and especially training for the 2k - yeah, not much point to it. But it is apparently useful as part of interval training, whether in a set of x number of 500ms or as part of a pyramid interval. Of course, that is not at all the same as a 500m time trial.

Bob S.

[hjs]

It seems to me that 500m is so much different than all other distances, even 1K, as to be almost an irrelevancy in terms of training for or predicting from. It is almost a pure power distance; the metabolic pathways are much different than in greater distances; the stroke rate, even the stroke style, are considerably different.

Why bother even trying to improve 500m times? I think that getting good at 1K would be far more relevant.

Predicting 2K times from 500m is a total crap shoot. Predicting any times from other times is very inexact, but using 500m times really seems to be a waste of time.

Thst is exactly what happens, rowers ignore the 500 and even the 1 is not done serious, the 2k is improved from the longer side. That said, there is a clear relation between max power and 2k potential, often the fastest people in max power have the fastest 2k, ofcourse with training aimed at the 2

[jamesg]

On the first page of the Rankings for 60-69 MH there are 17 people with times for both 0.5 and 2k.

Their average Watt ratio between the two distances is 1.54, SD 0.107, or 7%.

17 is a small number and the spread is wide for many reasons, too wide for forecasts, but that's hardly a problem. If anything, one could reverse it and say that for training a high ratio has a certain meaning, a lower one another.

The French federation used the 500 test for internationals, not to predict a 2k time, but to plan the race: 92-88-88-91% of ½k pace. This implies an average Watt ratio of 1.38.

It's not a predictor, but I found that protocol handy when on the blocks and wondering what to do next, after all one has to do something, but it does imply if not require a certain type of training. The advantage of a 500 test is that we can do it 2 days before a race. Most crews do something like that.

http://therowingcompany.com/birc/training_race_strategy

[Cyclingman1]

Thanks for all the comments.

The French numbers come close to the rule of thumb of +5s/500m pace for every doubling of distance, or 10s more for 2K. I too glanced at the .5K and 2K rankings - a lot of deviation from this rule.

Bob makes a good pt about the difference between time trialing .5K and .5K intervals. I find in doing a .5K time trial, that the effects of the 45-50 SPM and the exhaustion after about 300/350m and then hanging on seems to have little relevance to getting good at 2K. In 500x intervals, the SPM in far more controlled around 32, which is approx what a 2K time trial would be. Plus there is substantial recovery time from a .5K time trial. It might be nice to have a sexy .5K time, but it seems to say little. In 2012, I could do 1:40.1 for 2K, but only 1:35.3 for .5K [don't think I really tried to maximize]. 1K pace was 1:37.0, which was a far better predictor. This yr, my 1:31.1 for .5K so far has not translated into a fast 2K, although I have not timetrialed 2K in a while. Other than making me tired for a day, I doubt if the faster .5K has done a darn thing for me.

Of course, a huge factor is age. It is the very rare individual who does not lose a lot of strength beginning in one's 50s and accelerating through the 60s and 70s. But there is the rare person TJO of Hawaii who seems to be ageless.

Competitions like nonathlon ask that competitors try for best times across the board from .5K through FM. In my limited experienc, .5K and FM are the oddball distances, but for different reasons. One is sheer power, the other is sheer endurance. They both seem to be an irrelevancy for being good at 2 to 10K.

Does anyone have a thought as to the BEST predictor of 2K times? Is it 5K or 1K or a combination of those or other distances. RE the French method - I have my doubts about its usefulness because of all I've said. .5K is rowed so much differently than is 2K.

[hjs]

For 500 to 2k on average the rule ad 5 for doubling the distance does not apply, it,s more.

Most guys who ate high in the rankings at 500 either specialise or come from crossfit or weights.

A nice rule of thumb is 500 plus 10 k av divided by 2, often very close. The trouble is most people have a preference either for longer work or for sprints, that makes comparing difficult. Using both the 500 and 10k at current level takes that away a bit.

Fellow forum flyer Lindsay Hay pulled a 125 500 this season being 60 plus and not very tall 182 ish. His 2k is 6.50 ish. 17/18 seconds between the 2

[Cyclingman1]

Fellow forum flyer Lindsay Hay pulled a 125 500 this season being 60 plus and not very tall 182 ish. His 2k is 6.50 ish. 17/18 seconds between the 2

Hay 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.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

It seems to me that 500m is so much different than all other distances, even 1K, as to be almost an irrelevancy in terms of training for or predicting from. It is almost a pure power distance; the metabolic pathways are much different than in greater distances; the stroke rate, even the stroke style, are considerably different.

Why bother even trying to improve 500m times? I think that getting good at 1K would be far more relevant.

Predicting 2K times from 500m is a total crap shoot. Predicting any times from other times is very inexact, but using 500m times really seems to be a waste of time.

I agree with you. I don't have the source/citation available off the top of my head, but I've read in multiple places that doing workouts such as 500m repeats don't really accomplish anything as far as preparing you for a 2k (at least not anything that a longer workout wouldn't do better).

Obviously the fastest ergers at a 2k distance will most likely be the fastest at a 500m distance, but that's not because they train for the 500m, it's because they train for the 2k. I personally see no point in ever focusing on the 500m race if you are a rower primarily conerned with rowing 1k's (masters/juniors) or 2k's. A 500 m workout is too short to give you substantial gains to prepare you for a 1k/2k.

[hjs]

Fellow forum flyer Lindsay Hay pulled a 125 500 this season being 60 plus and not very tall 182 ish. His 2k is 6.50 ish. 17/18 seconds between the 2

Hay 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.

The main reason being his training, he loves sprinting, lives in heat and traines in a gym where everybody only does sprints...
Your 5 k 2k comparison is again not average, almost nobody has such a little difference. Only very endurance trained people.

[christopherregisryan]

I am not an exercise physiologist or an otw rower, so I can only provide second hand advice. Earlier this year I consulted with a few accomplished rowers on how to improve my 2k by next year's CRASH-Bs. The advice I received was to work on my weakness (in my case, endurance) for maximum benefit. My drop off from 500m to 1k was 10 splits and my drop from 1k to 2k was another 7 splits. These people advised me to focus on longer pieces (UT1 and UT2) to build more slow twitch fibers. They went as far as to say that, at my age (52), my power workouts will only slow the development of my endurance capacity as I need long recovery from power workouts. I asked one of the rowers (also an exercise physiologist) if the inverse would be true. If my 2k split was much closer to my 500m split, should I focus more on power? The answer was yes, but without ignoring the slow twitch fibers. A 2k is an endurance race. Power is nice for a 2k, but only the power that can be sustained for 6 - 8 minutes matters. I began doing longer training pieces in the spring, without giving up my power workouts. My goal is to make gains in the weight room, to maintain my speed on the shorter distances and to pick up a split or so on my 2k. That may be a bit greedy, but why not? If my 2k were only 9 splits from my 500m, I would do at least one power workout per week (cleans, box jumps, pullups, etc. with a low number of fast, explosive reps) and sacrifice an endurance workout or two to avoid overtraining. I would seek to put a bit more power into my stroke while maintaining the ability to hold on to a near max pace. You are already extremely fit with exceptional endurance. Good luck with your workouts/racing.

[jamesg]

Your (necessary) approach seems to be that tests are not the end, they are the beginning - of the next training period.

So a certain ½/2k Watt ratio will imply a certain type of future training. Internationals seem to need a ratio of 1.4 or better, to be competitive in a 2k. Very few on the first page of the 60-70 HM rankings have a ratio so low. Which could mean that most do not have the endurance that's needed for a good 2k.

A good 2k needs technique, to go fast, and endurance, to keep going fast. Simple really, and of course endurance is handy for lots of things, not just doing a 2k once a year.

[Cyclingman1]

So a certain ½/2k Watt ratio will imply a certain type of future training. Internationals seem to need a ratio of 1.4 or better, to be competitive in a 2k.

It is not crystal clear as to what is being implied with the ratio R of .5/2K. Let's say someone has a 1.4 ratio. Now what? Should someone improve .5K times and in essence pull down their 2K time. Or, should someone improve their 5K time and in essence push down their 2K time. Secondly what is so special about "1.4." Why not 1.2 or 1.6? What is possible?

For example, my R at this time is 1.41. I need to get to 1.32 with improvement in .5K not really doable. What is that supposed to be telling me? More power work? More distance work?

The above poster Chris seems to have an R of ~1.7. Presumably that is saying more LSD.

[hjs]

So a certain ½/2k Watt ratio will imply a certain type of future training. Internationals seem to need a ratio of 1.4 or better, to be competitive in a 2k.

It is not crystal clear as to what is being implied with the ratio R of .5/2K. Let's say someone has a 1.4 ratio. Now what? Should someone improve .5K times and in essence pull down their 2K time. Or, should someone improve their 5K time and in essence push down their 2K time. Secondly what is so special about "1.4." Why not 1.2 or 1.6? What is possible?

For example, my R at this time is 1.41. I need to get to 1.32 with improvement in .5K not really doable. What is that supposed to be telling me? More power work? More distance work?

The above poster Chris seems to have an R of ~1.7. Presumably that is saying more LSD.

The question is more, how you powertraining? If any. At some point rating higher is not efficient/possible so you need more power per stroke. I don't know how limited you are by back/hip? A guy like you will always be relative better at the 5 k side form the 2k. That is simply you talent. I think you could benifit from doing restricted rate stuff, not so much the longer work, but intervals, say 10 x 1 min off/on, or 500 or 1000 meters. Rate 24 or maybe 26 would build your stroke.

[brianh]

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx

Scroll down to table 2. A 500m would be zone 6, a 1k or 2k would be zone 5 (AN vs AT). This table shows what the OP describes: little direct overlap. The indirect effects can still be beneficial though. Occasionally when I've plateaued in aerobic performance, feeling like I should be able to improve my speed a bit but just can't manage it, adding in a bit of actual anaerobic work has helped me break through.

[MediumRare]

Brian, that's a great link and chart.

My thinking on this question is shaped by watching my high-school age son and his teammates develop their skills in the various running/track events. There's no question that there is a clear trend relating body type (muscle mass, not height so much) with event specialization. That is, only the very thin (below 2 lbs/in ht.) can excel at long distances; only the muscular (2.3 to 2.7 lbs/in?) can excel at sprints. My son is 71", 138 lbs so his BMI is right in the middle (for a teen runner) - and he excels at 800 m. With age, it seems after age 35 sprinting times degrade the fastest. There are some fascinating calculators in master's track and field (based on huge data sets) that relate performance quality across age and event.

Regarding training, all the runners include regular "long & slow" runs of 6 to 8 miles several times a week, even when their longest event is only 1 mile. And they all run speed workouts, too. The long-distance guys do regular 6 x 300 m runs, with the last 100 m at 100% effort.

So, conclusions IMHO: 500 m is a specialty event; only the more muscular types need apply to set WRs, obviously. On the other hand, it's a useful training tool among the arsenal of techniques to increase lactose tolerance and, of course, power. Everybody will have a different ratio of times between different length events, depending on their specialization/body type.