Concept2 Forum

Once upon a time I was shown some erging tables. These tables listed times and corresponding splits for various distances. The way you used these tables was you looked up a certain time for a distance and then you read across horizontally to see the corresponding times and distances you should be pulling.

For instance: (Scores made up)
You pull a 1:45 split for a 2k.
You look this up and see you should be pulling a 1:51 for a 5k and a 1:34 for a 500m.

*Note: These are not conversion tables: they predict what you should pull.

I was wondering if anyone had ever heard of these tables and, if anyone has, if they know where I could find a copy of them?

I believe they were named after the coach that came up with them, although I am not sure. I also believe I was given a copy of these during a session at Craftsbury but I clearly lost them if I was. After reading some of the other forum topics I wonder if they couldn't have calculated splits on a watts basis or such, but that's just my pondering....

Thanks,
~ KB12

It's called the PERathlon and is based on PERcentages of World Record quality times.

You can find a link to it in my signature file.

KB12 wrote:Once upon a time I was shown some erging tables. These tables listed times and corresponding splits for various distances. The way you used these tables was you looked up a certain time for a distance and then you read across horizontally to see the corresponding times and distances you should be pulling.

You can construct your own table fairly easily. Take your 2k pace, and apply the following adjustments:

500m: -10s
1km: -5s
2km: 0
5km: +6.6s
6km: +7.9s
10km: +11.6s
HM: +17s
FM: +22s

That will make a single row in the table. You can add or subtract the same number of seconds from every entry to make another row as needed. You can also go from any distance pace to another by simply adding or subtracting the difference in the adjustments. For example, you have a 10km pace and want to go to a 6km pace, take your 10km pace and subtract (11.6-7.9)=3.7s to get the 6km pace. 5km pace to 1km pace would be (6.6 - (-5) = 11s off the 5km pace to get a target 1km pace.

These numbers are based on "Paul's Law" which says that each time you double the distance, you need to add about 5 seconds to the pace. It isn't perfect, but will give you a ballpark answer. As fitness improves, the numbers may shrink a bit - some like "double the d, add three" better than "double the d, add five".

If you got the chart at Craftsbury, it certainly wasn't the PATT or PERathlon, 'nuff said.

Bill

KB12 wrote:Once upon a time I was shown some erging tables. These tables listed times and corresponding splits for various distances. The way you used these tables was you looked up a certain time for a distance and then you read across horizontally to see the corresponding times and distances you should be pulling.

It's probably http://www.machars.net/ltb.xls

John Rupp wrote:It's called the PERathlon and is based on PERcentages of World Record quality times.

You can find a link to it in my signature file.

Take this s**t back to Ruppianland JR.

whp4 wrote:

KB12 wrote:Once upon a time I was shown some erging tables. These tables listed times and corresponding splits for various distances. The way you used these tables was you looked up a certain time for a distance and then you read across horizontally to see the corresponding times and distances you should be pulling.

You can construct your own table fairly easily. Take your 2k pace, and apply the following adjustments:

500m: -10s
1km: -5s
2km: 0
5km: +6.6s
6km: +7.9s
10km: +11.6s
HM: +17s
FM: +22s



Bill

This table is for the athletes who's enduranceside is weakish. A "normal" slowdown from 5 to 10 k would be 3 sec. for instance not 5. And the 10 k /hm again 3 instead of 5 seconds.

PaulS isn,t a man who lookes much further then 30 min. (I think does that to avoid a certain someone )

hjs wrote:

whp4 wrote:

KB12 wrote:Once upon a time I was shown some erging tables. These tables listed times and corresponding splits for various distances. The way you used these tables was you looked up a certain time for a distance and then you read across horizontally to see the corresponding times and distances you should be pulling.

You can construct your own table fairly easily. Take your 2k pace, and apply the following adjustments:

500m: -10s
1km: -5s
2km: 0
5km: +6.6s
6km: +7.9s
10km: +11.6s
HM: +17s
FM: +22s



Bill

This table is for the athletes who's enduranceside is weakish. A "normal" slowdown from 5 to 10 k would be 3 sec. for instance not 5. And the 10 k /hm again 3 instead of 5 seconds.

PaulS isn,t a man who lookes much further then 30 min. (I think does that to avoid a certain someone )

While most of what you say is reasonable, your "normal" adjustments look to me like they are for athlete's who are "weakish" on strength.

If your 5k is only 3 seconds in pace faster than your 10k, it's not because your 10k is so great, your 5k is poor, due to lack of strength. A new training focus is needed.

Paul's Law is the guide for balancing your Rowing fitness and determining the direction of training. i.e. You do the work to fit it, it does not attempt to fit you. (Similar to traffic law, you adjust your speed to fit, not the other way around. Well, I suppose you could give that a try. Good luck.)

What if the drop from 2k to 10k is as expected, but the 5k is slow? Eg, my 2k 5k 10k is 1:43.9, 1:52.4, 1:55.9, and this is not from lack of trying on the 5k!

Citroen:

I think this is exactly what I was looking for. I noted that you can switch the tabs to energy per stroke and input your own time to see the different levels which is pretty neat.

My only question is what is UT2, UT1, and TR? I see that they are 50, 60, and 105% respectively of your 2k pace but what do they stand for? I assume AT is aerobic threshold and AN is anaerobic threshold so I'm guessing these may be fat burning levels and something else?

I also notice UT1 says 2 mmols of lactate and AT says 4 mmols of lactate, I'm guess this is how much should be in your blood stream on a per liter basis or however they measure lactate?

Thanks,
~ KB12

MarcusLL wrote:What if the drop from 2k to 10k is as expected, but the 5k is slow? Eg, my 2k 5k 10k is 1:43.9, 1:52.4, 1:55.9, and this is not from lack of trying on the 5k!

Perhaps a bad day for your 5k? What do you think happened?

These are my lifetime pbs (though those three probably done within about 4 months of each other). I've been at the same level (to within a second of pace) for at least a couple of years, so I would say they're quite representative of my ability. If you look at my paces for different distances relative to other people's, I'm less bad over shorter distances, gradually getting worse to a low around 5k, and then start getting slightly less bad again upto 60 mins. I've tended to assume its just the natural genetic abilities of the different energy systems involved at different work rates. I seem am worst at the middle distances where 'being able to breath' is the limiting factor. (And also the fact that I think less people really try as hard over 10k/60 mins as they do over 2k or 5k, whereas I think I do, so my times start looking not so bad again!).

hjs wrote:PaulS isn,t a man who lookes much further then 30 min. (I think does that to avoid a certain someone )

I wonder who that could be.

There aren't that many 250 pounders around.

[quote="PaulS:

500m: -10s
1km: -5s
2km: 0
5km: +6.6s
6km: +7.9s
10km: +11.6s
HM: +17s
FM: +22s


While most of what you say is reasonable, your "normal" adjustments look to me like they are for athlete's who are "weakish" on strength.

If your 5k is only 3 seconds in pace faster than your 10k, it's not because your 10k is so great, your 5k is poor, due to lack of strength. A new training focus is needed.

Paul's Law is the guide for balancing your Rowing fitness and determining the direction of training. i.e. You do the work to fit it, it does not attempt to fit you. (Similar to traffic law, you adjust your speed to fit, not the other way around. Well, I suppose you could give that a try. Good luck.) [/quote]

I have to disagree and for the 500 and 1000 meter I also disagree. The differance has to be a bit more.
It is based on the energy systems used.
Look at the current Ctc.
If what you say is true most better rowers lack strenght

MarcusLL wrote:These are my lifetime pbs (though those three probably done within about 4 months of each other). I've been at the same level (to within a second of pace) for at least a couple of years, so I would say they're quite representative of my ability. If you look at my paces for different distances relative to other people's, I'm less bad over shorter distances, gradually getting worse to a low around 5k, and then start getting slightly less bad again upto 60 mins. I've tended to assume its just the natural genetic abilities of the different energy systems involved at different work rates. I seem am worst at the middle distances where 'being able to breath' is the limiting factor. (And also the fact that I think less people really try as hard over 10k/60 mins as they do over 2k or 5k, whereas I think I do, so my times start looking not so bad again!).

Do you have good enough records of your PB's to include Stroke rates? It would be interesting to see how you goo about all of these things. include as large a bit of the range from 500m to FM as you can.

PaulS wrote:

MarcusLL wrote:What if the drop from 2k to 10k is as expected, but the 5k is slow? Eg, my 2k 5k 10k is 1:43.9, 1:52.4, 1:55.9, and this is not from lack of trying on the 5k!

Perhaps a bad day for your 5k? What do you think happened?

marcus,

2 k versus 5k is 7.5
5 k versus 10k is 3.5

this is ok in my eyes.