Is it possible for a LWT to shave 10 seconds off a 2k in just over a month?

[robhely]

I've been erging for about 12 months now and one of my big goals is a 7 min 2k. Whilst this is not at all impressive for a tall HWT, I'm 53, 5'10.5" and currently 69kg, so a 7 min 2k would put me up over the 90th percentile on the rankings (currently on 89th percentile).

I just did a 2k test and whilst I went out way too hard at the start, came in at 7:09.9, which I was happy with as my previous PB from a few months ago was 7:22.6.

I'm training solidly 4 days a week, mainly mixing up 2 x long SS sessions with 2 x hard interval sessions and some weights. I also get quite a bit of UT2 exercise on another 2 days of the week MTBing.

I'm going on holiday in just over a month and won't have access to an erg for an entire month, so will probably be lacking quite a bit of form by the time I get back to it in early Jan.

So I'm wondering what it would take and if it's even possible to shave off that critical 10 seconds?

Im pretty happy with my 5k, 10k and 30min results for now and find the longer distances much easier than the 2k, which is definitely my weakest result and subsequently needs the most work.

[Citroen]

7:09.9 is a 282.5W workout.
7:00.0 is a 302.3W workout

So that's a 7% increase in power needed.

Compare that to your 7:22.6 (which is 258.7W workout) which is 9% worse than your 7:09.9.

So you've got another 7% to find to set a 7:00.0 time or 16% from 7:22.6.

If you work hard that's probably possible. Take small steps including longer pieces and don't race every workout.

[Cyclist2]

Oh, if were only a matter of simple percentages...

You'll find lots of threads about this very subject but here is the thing; Power required goes up by the cube of the speed increase. In other words, the faster you go, it gets harder and harder to go just a little faster.

I don't disagree that you may make it, but don't get discouraged if it doesn't happen quite as fast as your 7:22 -> 7:09 improvement. Your training plan looks solid, be patient.

[p_b82]

I guess there's also the question about the less tangible aspects.

Was this 2k 100% flat out? did you hold back 1% did you go over by 1% etc?
Was it a good day - how was your sleep, were you well rested beforehand, what were the weather conditions, the surrounding environment etc.

How long can you generate the needed 300w for currently?

[jamesg]

7:09 is good already on 69kg: 285W/69 = 4.1W/kg.

In the 2k, tapering, warmup and pacing are critical. The French protocol for 2k racing wants, for a 7' 2k, a 1:34 500m test, with 2k pacing:
1:42.2 1:46.8 1:46.8 1:43.3 = 6:59.1

I always found this a good way to race 2k, if only because at the start I knew what to do. It leaves room to go crazy in the last 500 if needed.

Todays WOD was 8X500m 2'R, also a good test for 2k, but not the day before.

The endurance can come from 5ks, 2-3 a week, done fast but at low rates, using your full race stroke. Before racing ease up on overloads.

[robhely]

I guess there's also the question about the less tangible aspects.

Was this 2k 100% flat out? did you hold back 1% did you go over by 1% etc?
Was it a good day - how was your sleep, were you well rested beforehand, what were the weather conditions, the surrounding environment etc.

How long can you generate the needed 300w for currently?

I'd say this was flat out, although I had no idea about pacing and was holding back at the start to try and get my splits down to my target of 1:49s. If I'd been aiming for a lower overall split, I would have gone out faster in the first 100 to buy myself some time, then coasted slightly above my target to leave room for picking up the pace in the last 300m.

It was a good day, I was well rested and hydrated. Weather was the perfect temperature.

I haven't actually tested to see how long I can hold 300w for, but I will. Would that be simply a matter of holding 1:45 splits for as long as I can?

[robhely]

7:09 is good already on 69kg: 285W/69 = 4.1W/kg.

In the 2k, tapering, warmup and pacing are critical. The French protocol for 2k racing wants, for a 7' 2k, a 1:34 500m test, with 2k pacing:
1:42.2 1:46.8 1:46.8 1:43.3 = 6:59.1

I always found this a good way to race 2k, if only because at the start I knew what to do. It leaves room to go crazy in the last 500 if needed.

Todays WOD was 8X500m 2'R, also a good test for 2k, but not the day before.

The endurance can come from 5ks, 2-3 a week, done fast but at low rates, using your full race stroke. Before racing ease up on overloads.

Thanks, some great tips there. I think having a plan like that is essential, I was totally flying blind in my recent attempt and didn't pace myself well because the plan changed once I'd already started and realised I was on track to go faster than anticipated. I could easily have gone faster in the first 500m without blowing up completely, then backed off for the next 1000m, picking it up again at the end. This seems really solid.

I like the 8 x 500m 2r sessions, I think I'll make that a staple along with 4 x 1000 5r and 10 x 30 sec max pace and 30 seconds rest. My longer rows are usually around 10000m at UT2, but I could go back to faster 5000m (low rate) pieces just for the 2k training. Or even one of each.

With the 1:34 500m test, do you mean that the French protocol requires a 500m time of 1:34 before being able to do a 7min 2k? I really struggle with sprints, I haven't had a crack at the 500m for a while now, but my last attempt was a very average 1:39.7. I think I could probably do a little bit better than that now, but don't think I could manage 1:34. I'm not good when my rate goes above about 35, my technique really falls apart. And I'm not sure I have enough muscle in my legs to smash it out at lower rates.

[p_b82]

haven't actually tested to see how long I can hold 300w for, but I will. Would that be simply a matter of holding 1:45 splits for as long as I can?

I use it as a bit of a steer to see what I've got in the tank, how much overhead I have and how it feels with an even pacing, but if with 3 mins left I'm already gasping/legs are jelly/Hr too high, then I know I need to do some more work before I give it a go.

I would say that generally speaking I'm better at holding a pace than I am speeding up/slowing down until the very last sprint when the tank gets emptied - if I go out too quick I really pay the price in the last splits. (not that I'm anywhere close to a 7min 2k mind).

[Kerry1960]

In the 2k, tapering, warmup and pacing are critical. The French protocol for 2k racing wants, for a 7' 2k, a 1:34 500m test, with 2k pacing:
1:42.2 1:46.8 1:46.8 1:43.3 = 6:59.1

Interesting approach to 2k TT . I've never thought of doing a 2k that way with a fast first and last 500. Everyone is different of course but I like to negative split 2ks and build the pace and the spm throughout.

I am tempted though to try JamesG approach the next time I try a 2k although not the actual split times I hasten to add.

[jamesg]

do you mean that the French protocol requires a 500m time of 1:34 before being able to do a 7min 2k?

That's what their Federation suggested, yes. Some years ago. The logic is: do the 500 test just a few days before racing, then calculate the race paces.

Since you're already close to seven minutes, rather than do a 500 test, which at 69kg is hard to do fast, it will be simpler to use the necessary paces and see how it goes.

[Mike Caviston]

There is abundant evidence indicating the French protocol is an inferior race strategy, based on a couple thousand individual indoor race performances across many years for men and women, light and open, across several age groups; and based on several hundred water races over many years at several elite levels (Olympic/World Championship, U23, Junior, and collegiate). The most effective race strategy is a slight negative split. The faster/more aggressive the start (relative to the overall pace for the entire race), the worse the results. That is, athletes or crews that use a slight negative split strategy (averaged across all the data) finish closer to first place with a faster speed than athletes or crews employing any other strategy. Maybe a negative split isn’t the most effective strategy for everyone (although I think it would be), but it is impossible to deny it is the most effective strategy for the majority.

[Sakly]

There is abundant evidence indicating the French protocol is an inferior race strategy, based on a couple thousand individual indoor race performances across many years for men and women, light and open, across several age groups; and based on several hundred water races over many years at several elite levels (Olympic/World Championship, U23, Junior, and collegiate). The most effective race strategy is a slight negative split. The faster/more aggressive the start (relative to the overall pace for the entire race), the worse the results. That is, athletes or crews that use a slight negative split strategy (averaged across all the data) finish closer to first place with a faster speed than athletes or crews employing any other strategy. Maybe a negative split isn’t the most effective strategy for everyone (although I think it would be), but it is impossible to deny it is the most effective strategy for the majority.

And based on the physics an even paced race is the most efficient as it needs the least energy.

[Mike Caviston]

And based on the physics an even paced race is the most efficient as it needs the least energy.

In theory. But in practice, no one has rowed even paced in competition. And "most effective" is the goal, not "most efficient". You'd think it was the same thing, but not necessarily.

[jamesg]

The problem is not what's best, but what to do and how to define it. This for us amateurs, not professionals who've raced hundreds of times.

The French protocol if it's wrong, is wrong only in the percentages. If we think 88, 89, 90, 91% of some test pace will be better, fine, just do it. But based on what, what's the test, and what's the training that best enables it? Do we even need to learn to row, to do it?

[Sakly]

And based on the physics an even paced race is the most efficient as it needs the least energy.

In theory. But in practice, no one has rowed even paced in competition. And "most effective" is the goal, not "most efficient". You'd think it was the same thing, but not necessarily.

For any individual the theoretical most optimal approach typically does not match the most effective strategy.
My comment should only underline that the slightly negative split approach probably matches better than any approach giving higher fluctuation in paces throughout the race.