Concept2 Forum

I'm helping a friend out with his rowing. I've read several books on it. I have him following a protocol where you test a 2k and then base training numbers from that. Suggested zones are as follows.

Current 2k /// UT2 /// UT1 /// AT /// TR /// AN
07:40 /// 2:13.0 /// 2:09.0 /// 2:01.0 /// ≤1:55.0 /// ≥1:51.0


What's weird though is that his 2k is not great at 7:41.6 (1:53.9) and he is absolutely broken doing it whereas his half marathon is 1:36:33.3 (2:17.2) and similarly his 6k at 23:57.8 (1:59.8) which I feel are abnormally good compared to his 2k.

His longer distances are abnormally better and he barely struggles to do them. He could have easily gotten better times on these, they were just his first attempts whereas he has had many attempts doing 2ks, and each time it cooks him.

The issue is that the protocol I'm giving stipulates training examples like this

30’UT2 /// 2:13.0 /// 96-122 /// 18-20

2x17’UT1 /// 2:14.0 /// 122-139 /// 20-24

But as I mentioned he is so good at these longer lower efforts that they are too easy. Is there a better training strategy for someone whos shorter distances are poor but longer distances are good?

It means when he is in zones UT2 and UT1 he is just going through the movements and not even nearly hitting the bpm as it's too easy. It's as if he can endlessly go at a pace of 2:00.0 - 2:10.0 or so but as soon as it cuts below 1:58.0 - 1:55.0 or so he just burns up.


Any ideas?

thanks

Sounds normal the shorter distances require more and more power rather than endurance and if you simply don't have the power you cannot pull the required pace.

It's very hard to get a balance your typically built one way or the other. You can work on your weakness to a degree but you still favor one or the other. Marathon runners look nothing like 100m sprinters.

There are one or two people of note in the rankings that put up exceptional distance rows but never rank anything 2k or below.

I don’t know where you got those numbers from but from the calculations I use, and find reliable a 7:40 2k = 230 watts. Half marathon pace is 65-70% of that so 150-161 watts or 2:10-2:13 pace.
Again based on 7:40 for 2k the ranges are UT2 2:16-2:30 and UT1 2:10-2:16.
As for heart rate that’s based on testing HR and HRR, for me it’s UT2 131-138 and for UT1 138-150.
Today I did 3x16’ at UT1 pace and it took over 10’ to get my HR to 138 in the first rep, 5:30 in the second and 2’ in the third, with my pace at my faster end of my range.
It does take a while to get the HR up there in UT workouts but, for UT2 in particular it is meant to be really easy, it’s a recovery session.
If your friend is able to row at the suggested pace for over 30’ without their HR getting into the zone then I would suggest his calculations are awry.

sarequads wrote: ↑

August 31st, 2021, 3:58 pm

I'm helping a friend out with his rowing. I've read several books on it. I have him following a protocol where you test a 2k and then base training numbers from that. Suggested zones are as follows.

Current 2k /// UT2 /// UT1 /// AT /// TR /// AN
07:40 /// 2:13.0 /// 2:09.0 /// 2:01.0 /// ≤1:55.0 /// ≥1:51.0


What's weird though is that his 2k is not great at 7:41.6 (1:53.9) and he is absolutely broken doing it whereas his half marathon is 1:36:33.3 (2:17.2) and similarly his 6k at 23:57.8 (1:59.8) which I feel are abnormally good compared to his 2k.

His longer distances are abnormally better and he barely struggles to do them. He could have easily gotten better times on these, they were just his first attempts whereas he has had many attempts doing 2ks, and each time it cooks him.

The issue is that the protocol I'm giving stipulates training examples like this

30’UT2 /// 2:13.0 /// 96-122 /// 18-20

2x17’UT1 /// 2:14.0 /// 122-139 /// 20-24

But as I mentioned he is so good at these longer lower efforts that they are too easy. Is there a better training strategy for someone whos shorter distances are poor but longer distances are good?

It means when he is in zones UT2 and UT1 he is just going through the movements and not even nearly hitting the bpm as it's too easy. It's as if he can endlessly go at a pace of 2:00.0 - 2:10.0 or so but as soon as it cuts below 1:58.0 - 1:55.0 or so he just burns up.


Any ideas?

thanks

If his flat out 90 minutes (the 1/2 marathon time of 1:36) is 2:17 splits then no way his UT2 (which is sustainable easily for 90 mins at a pace where he can carry on a conversation) can be 2:13. Something is wrong.

If his flat out 1/2 marathon split is 2:17 then this seems incorrect --> "..It's as if he can endlessly go at a pace of 2:00.0 - 2:10.0 or so "

Are you sure you have your numbers correct ?

I'm not seeing the 1/2 marathon of 2:17 or his 6K of 1:59.8 being abnormally fast for a 2K of 153:9, instead they are slow. Likewise if his flat out 90 minutes (the 1/2 marathon time) is 2:17 then no way his UT2 (which is sustainable easily for 90 mins while talking) can be 2:13.

The goal of UT2 pieces is to work at low enough effort levels to avoid getting rising lactate levels. We use HR or Wattage estimates because we don't have access to lactate testing. UT2 feels really slow. Is it possible that you are having him correctly row in UT2 and it just feels slow? The 2:13 is is reasonable UT2 number for a 1:53.9 2K - the half marathon split of 2:17 is the one that doesn't make sense.

ASIDE: Here's what Paul's Law predicts for those who fit the "standard" 5sec/500m increase in split time with every doubling of distance: These are FLAT OUT rates, not UT2 below lactate threshold times. viewtopic.php?t=5717

distance/split relative to 2K
500m/-10
1K/-5
2K/0
5K/+6.6
6K/+7.9
10K/+11.6
HM/+17
FM/+22

Neither. In Rowing, which is a sport, important is only the stroke. Keep the Watt-rating ratio high: 10 at least, at all ratings. This may need a change in style, so that you use the right muscle at the right time and speed.

Tsnor wrote: ↑

August 31st, 2021, 6:15 pm

ASIDE: Here's what Paul's Law predicts for those who fit the "standard" 5sec/500m increase in split time with every doubling of distance: These are FLAT OUT rates, not UT2 below lactate threshold times. viewtopic.php?t=5717

distance/split relative to 2K
500m/-10
1K/-5
2K/0
5K/+6.6
6K/+7.9
10K/+11.6
HM/+17
FM/+22

Nice blast from the past. Thanks. I miss Paul's contributions to the forum.

My own PBs were skewed a bit toward the endurance side of "standard," probably due to my background of running marathons for some 21 years when at my younger best. These were all FLAT OUT best efforts some 5 years into erging:

distance/split relative to 2K
500m/-10.4
1K/-4.3
2K/0
5K/+6.3
6K/+7.1
10K/+10.0
HM/+12
FM/+15.1

So if I have followed this correctly. If we say the 2k average is 1.50 that is zero, then the 1k should be 1.45 minus 5 secs and the 500m should be 1.40. is that correct?

Dutch wrote: ↑

September 1st, 2021, 2:21 pm

So if I have followed this correctly. If we say the 2k average is 1.50 that is zero, then the 1k should be 1.45 minus 5 secs and the 500m should be 1.40. is that correct?

Yes - but - it has also been said that Paul’s law does not apply for distances below 2k - the more knowledgable may chip in on this.
My best times show:
500 - -9.5
1000 - -2.7
2000 - 0
5000 - +7.5
10000 - +11.5
HM - +14.4

Dutch wrote: ↑

September 1st, 2021, 2:21 pm

So if I have followed this correctly. If we say the 2k average is 1.50 that is zero, then the 1k should be 1.45 minus 5 secs and the 500m should be 1.40. is that correct?

That is correct but as other have mentioned people tend to have more or less gaps depending on their strengths - I have a 7 second gap from 500m to 1000m and then again to 2000m but follow more closely to the suggested going to 5K and 10K. It shows that I am still stronger on sprints. It's a very rough estimate and was never meant as a predictor.

Quite interesting, the gap for me between 2k and 1 k is 8 seconds and between 2k and 500 is 20 seconds. Until this year I had never rowed more than five 2ks.
My times for 5k upwards are all nearly spot on to the second up to 10k. The time that I think I can possibly do for the hm, based on current form is literally to the second as well.

So, I am compelled to state that I never quite realize how little I know(about rowing) until I invest the time and sift through these forums.

I confess, I have always been a bit puzzled at seeing workouts on YouTube, or ErgZone or the Krew app and see workouts that suggest a pace based on a 2k time. I continue to ask myself if they just make these paces up, or if there is something to them. I have never heard of "Paul's Law" before, and am grateful to learn of it.

Tony Cook wrote: ↑

September 1st, 2021, 3:26 pm

Dutch wrote: ↑

September 1st, 2021, 2:21 pm

So if I have followed this correctly. If we say the 2k average is 1.50 that is zero, then the 1k should be 1.45 minus 5 secs and the 500m should be 1.40. is that correct?

Yes - but - it has also been said that Paul’s law does not apply for distances below 2k - the more knowledgable may chip in on this.
My best times show:
500 - -9.5
1000 - -2.7
2000 - 0
5000 - +7.5
10000 - +11.5
HM - +14.4

Logically, I would only assume that any aerobic predictor would only be useful at/above (approximately) 2k distance. The shorter the distance the more the non-aerobic contribution, and a more drastic drop.