A Rowing calculator to estimate equivalent race performances

[kipkeino68]

I like using this calculator for running. http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/rununiv/ ... ulator.htm

Example, you can enter your 10K time and see what your time should be for all the other distances from 100M up to marathon.

I tried this calculator with my 5k rowing time and it was right on with my 10K time, but I not close to the 2K time. I need to work on my 2K, or find another calculator.

Is there a calculator like this for rowing??

[toby]

Is there a calculator like this for rowing??

There is "Paul's Law." Plug this into Excel:

=5*((LN(X/2000))/(LN(2)))

Where X=the distance for which you would like to know your predicted split time. Output is the split time difference relative to your 2K time. For instance, if you set X=10000 you will get 11.6, which predicts that your 10K split time should be 11.6sec/500m above your 2K split.

If you don't have a 2K reference time you can change the denominator to some distance for which you do have a reference, then the output split will be relative to the new distance in the denominator.

The slope term (5 in the equation above) apparently depends on your relative strength and endurance; greater than 5 if strength>endurance and less than 5 in the reverse case. If you have two reference values you can calculate your own personal slope term, of course. My slope is a bit less than 5.

I think most people (me included) use regular training pieces to estimate current 2K capability. My weekly WP-like workouts include a 6x500 and a 3x2K. These end up about 8sec/500m apart for me, and I can be confident of holding a 2K split halfway between the 6x500 and 3x2K. I just did my 3x2K this AM at 1:51.2 (faster than my 2K PB for last season!), so I reckon my current 2K split to be a shade over 1:47.

[kipkeino68]

Toby, Thanks for your detailed answer.

I don't have excel. I was hoping for a more dumbed down version like the running one.

I did a 5K time trial yesterday in 20:23.7 and I'm trying to get an idea
for my Crash B time. I'm predicting 7:38.

[toby]

I don't have excel. I was hoping for a more dumbed down version like the running one.

Here's what Paul's Law predicts for those who fit the "standard" 5sec/500m increase in split time with every doubling of distance:

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

I did a 5K time trial yesterday in 20:23.7 and I'm trying to get an idea for my Crash B time. I'm predicting 7:38.

Your 5K split is 2:02.4, so subtracting 6.6 we get 1:55.8 for your predicted 2K split (assuming your 5K was all-out, your fitness hasn't increased substantially since then, etc.), for 2K in the 7:43 neighborhood.

If you haven't practiced an all-out 2K there is still time to do one and recover in plenty of time for CRASH-B. If you think 7:38 is about right for next weekend then for a practice 2K in the next day or two you might consider trying something like this (~7:40):

1:56 first 500m
1:55 next 1000m
1:54 next 300m
as fast as possible for the last ~20 strokes

If your last 500m split is substantially below 1:54 then the 7:38 should come readily at a race venue. If you end up with a 7:38 or faster in the practice 2K you can adjust your CRASH-B goal accordingly.

Search the forum for Mike Caviston's advice on warmup and race pacing. It isn't safe to race without reading (and following) Mike's advice. He calls proper warmup and pacing "free speed" and I will attest to that (to the extent that anything I do can reasonably be called "speed").

Good luck in Boston!

[kipkeino68]

Thanks a lot Toby. I did a 2K time trial last week in 7:44.
I'm optimistic that my race time will be better than my practice time.

[toby]

Thanks a lot Toby. I did a 2K time trial last week in 7:44.
I'm optimistic that my race time will be better than my practice time.

Not to put a damper on enthusiasm, but a 7:38 is 1.5s/500m faster than the 7:44 (which sounds like a big difference to me -- that difference would take me 5-6 weeks of training at my current rate of improvement). If you were able to negative split the 7:44 with a much faster final 500m, and/or felt pretty fresh at the end (as opposed to the coughing, metallic-taste-in-the-back-of-throat day that usually follows an all-out 2K) perhaps things will go fine with the 7:38 target. It's interesting and possibly useful to note that your recent 5K and 2K are in close agreement with Paul's Law. If both the 2K and 5K were all-out efforts they are telling you something.

Mike C's analysis of pacing shows that going out 1s/500m too fast in the first 500m adds about 3s to the final 2K time. It's true that if you go out 1s/500m too slow that you can never get that second back, so knowing what you can do before the race starts is the most important part of proper pacing. I don't know how many tenths the excitement of a racing venue might be worth, but others on the forum might have an idea.

I admit to being a slave to my PM3 and pretty much never try a 2K at a pace that I'm not sure (based on training pieces) I can hold. I'd rather go under my target pace for the last 500m because I went out too slow in the first 1500 than be powerless to keep the split time from creeping up on rubbery legs in the last 10 (or more) strokes. There is no avoiding pain in an all-out 2K, but I prefer to confine it to the shortest possible time.

Good on you for being an adventurous optimist. If you even- or negative-split your race and can't remember taking the last 5 strokes you probably pegged your current ability pretty well. At the very least it should be a lot of fun and a great learning experience.

Do track down the Mike C pacing and warmup guides. Lots of great info there.

[Orc]

I think there are at least 2 problems with the comparison to the running calculator- first, that running is pretty much linear with respect to power vs. speed, whereas erging/rowing is anything but (speed varies with the cube of power).

i.e. to double your running speed double your effort. to double your rowing speed, put out 8 times as much power.

so , I wouldn't expect using the running calculator to figure out rowing/erging times to be all that useful.

Secondly, people have differently shaped critical power curves (plotting how much power you can put out for any duration in an all-out effort). so, using any one-size-fits-all formula or calculator will work well only for some people and not at all well for others. if you really want a useful predictor of your 2k time (or whatever) you have to figure it out empirically.

the best way is to do some 2k tests... really...

if you were to look at a bunch of people with similar 2k scores, you would likely find that some do relatively well at an all-out 500m score. others do much beter at 6k. on average they might conform to some rule of thumb that "doubling the distance adds x seconds to your split" but for any given individual the guideline may turn out to be only roughly accurate.

for example- comparing all-time personal bests with a 2xs partner of mine- I was 1 split /500m faster at 2k. at 2.5k his best was about 2 splits faster, at 5k, about 4 splits faster. at 500m, I was about 6 splits faster. at an all-out short effort, perhaps 12 splits faster. So, completely different power curves, despite a similar all-out 2k time.

marc

I like using this calculator for running. http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/rununiv/ ... ulator.htm

Example, you can enter your 10K time and see what your time should be for all the other distances from 100M up to marathon.

I tried this calculator with my 5k rowing time and it was right on with my 10K time, but I not close to the 2K time. I need to work on my 2K, or find another calculator.

Is there a calculator like this for rowing??

[jamesg]

KK68, I think more than a calculator, you need a pace guide and a strategy. As a pace guide, you could do a hard 500 and then race 2k at around 11% slower (according to how fit you are endurance wise). Today's maybe the last day for this 500 test if you race Sunday.
Strategy: go slow and wind it up at 3-400 out. Don't fall into the trap of thinking (at 3-500 in), this is easy. As you probably know already, at 1200-1500 it feels different and 2000 looks a long way off. Aesop's tortoise won because he or she had a good race strategy, and maybe more brains than hares have.
Have fun.

[Orc]

that guideline would have worked pretty well for me- my best 500m was about 12.2 % faster than my best 2k pace.

that was years ago and I have no idea what I could do for 2k now (except that it would be much slower ). I might use that 500m to get a sense of where my 2k might be.

marc

KK68, I think more than a calculator, you need a pace guide and a strategy. As a pace guide, you could do a hard 500 and then race 2k at around 11% slower (according to how fit you are endurance wise). Today's maybe the last day for this 500 test if you race Sunday.
Strategy: go slow and wind it up at 3-400 out. Don't fall into the trap of thinking (at 3-500 in), this is easy. As you probably know already, at 1200-1500 it feels different and 2000 looks a long way off. Aesop's tortoise won because he or she had a good race strategy, and maybe more brains than hares have.
Have fun.

[Nosmo]

Secondly, people have differently shaped critical power curves (plotting how much power you can put out for any duration in an all-out effort). so, using any one-size-fits-all formula or calculator will work well only for some people and not at all well for others. if you really want a useful predictor of your 2k time (or whatever) you have to figure it out empirically.

According to Paul, his law was based on elite rowers (of all sizes and ages) and that it pretty accurately if you have a balanced program for 2K races. So if you come to rowing from a weight lifting your pace will fall off faster then 5 seconds per doubling of the distance. If you come from an endurance cycling or running background then your pace may fall off slower then 5 seconds. After a period of balanced training for the 2K, the law should be fairly accurate.

It works OK for me upto about 5K, then I loose only 2.5 seconds going to 2K and another 2.6 going to a half marathon. But I have a distance cycling background and only just started the shorter intervals. This indicates I should work on strength and power. If someone is falling off faster then 5 seconds for each doubling of distance, then they should work on endurance.

Nosmo

[Orc]

It does seem like a fairly useful guide, but a lot of individuals won't conform to it well. So, the rule of thumb may be a good starting point. but mis-judging your pace even by a percent or 2 can make a huge difference in how your race goes.


Presumably if you are an elite rower, you have been selected to have certain attributes. One of them is the ability to withstand a high volume of
training. Another is that you are fast at 2k, so people who are especially good at very short or very long distances (but not 2k) will be weeded out.

But, I can think of plenty of rowers who tend to do relatively well at either shorter or longer distances. There are guys that could crush me at 500m that I could easilly beat at 2k or head race distance. And there are elite guys who I could beat in short power pieces that would crush me in head races. All of these people were experienced rowers trying to be the best 2k racers they could be.

Anyway, I would expect elite rowers to have smaller variations in physical attributes. Your mileage may vary.

I guess looking at your post, it seems self-contradictory. You say that your results don't conform to the law, so you need to work on specific attributes. this is exactly what you might gleen from using a critical power curve (it also can tell you where your strengths lie). If Paul's law held for all people (and not just those that have the profile of an average elite rower) then you wouldn't have to alter anything. but if it does vary from person to person (based on their training history, and specific attributes), then it can't be entirely accurate...


marc

According to Paul, his law was based on elite rowers (of all sizes and ages) and that it pretty accurately if you have a balanced program for 2K races. So if you come to rowing from a weight lifting your pace will fall off faster then 5 seconds per doubling of the distance. If you come from an endurance cycling or running background then your pace may fall off slower then 5 seconds. After a period of balanced training for the 2K, the law should be fairly accurate.

It works OK for me upto about 5K, then I loose only 2.5 seconds going to 2K and another 2.6 going to a half marathon. But I have a distance cycling background and only just started the shorter intervals. This indicates I should work on strength and power. If someone is falling off faster then 5 seconds for each doubling of distance, then they should work on endurance.

Nosmo

[PaulS]

Marc,

Just to clarify a bit about Paul's Law.

Anyone can have balanced fitness along the lines of strength/endurance, regardless of individual genetic characteristics.

We train to adapt to a higher level of perfomance and that training requires an objective and specific goals along the way. Plus some measure of sensitivity to a particular individuals strengths and weaknesses.

Paul's Law does not conform to the individual any more than the Law of Gravity does, it simply is what it is. If a person wants to lean toward the strength or endurance end of the spectrum, based on genetics or whatever reason they choose, that is their choice.

If all you did were 8k's until you could complete them at a 1:45 Pace, it is quite likely that you will be able to complete a 2k @ 1:35, but that is very high quality work across the board. If you work only toward the end of getting 32k @ 1:55 you are getting farther outside what could be called quality on the strength end of the equation and will probably start to sacrifice some of the strength requirement for the same 1:35 avg 2k.

Thnk of it like this. If your goal is to lift 200lbs overhead as a 1 rep max, there will be a lot quidker ways to get there than only working with a 100lb barbell. 2 reps of 100lbs may be the same amount of WORK as the 200lbs once, but it's not really THE SAME, is it?

There have been a few people that have claimmed quite fantastic 5k+ performances while at the same time having relatively lackluster 2k performance, and they dismiss that as "having no top end" or somesuch reasoning. Perhaps they are for real, and thus a freak of nature, which is also not something that the "normal" population should bother emulating by definition.

Does that help to clear it up at all?

[Orc]

I thought Paul's law was brought up for use as a predictor of 2k erg pace. As in- "I have an erg race in 3 weeks, and I pull a blah-blah for 5k. how fast should I go for my 2k?"

Maybe the formula will work well for the rower in question, and maybe it won't. And maybe you would conform more to the ideal ratios if you trained differently, but it's too late form him/her to do much about it.

And, while the rule of thumb might be useful to get a ballpark estimate, being off by a couple splits could have drastic consequences.

I agree that you can analyze an individuals performance via Paul's law and tweak training to alter the curve. This is basically the same as using a critical power curve.

What I was addressing was how accurate a general formula would be in precicting how fast a 2k erg score would be from erg scores of different length.

I susbscribe to the notion that the "best predictor of performance is performance". I'm pretty sure top rowers don't typically use formula's from long erg pieces to get their best 2k times, they base it from experience in other 2k tests, or at least similar-length efforts.

If a newbie (or someone like me who hasn't done a 2k test in a decade) really has no idea what they can pull, a rule of thumb might get them in the ballpark, but it wouldn't necessarilly be an accurate way to predict your optimal pace.

so, let's say your formula predicts a 1:35 and you pace based off of that, but you are really capable of averaging 1:37. you'll be a pretty unhappy erger in that 3rd 500m.

marc

ps- I'd rather use a rule of thumb than break my moratorium on 2k testing...

Marc,

Just to clarify a bit about Paul's Law.

Anyone can have balanced fitness along the lines of strength/endurance, regardless of individual genetic characteristics.

We train to adapt to a higher level of perfomance and that training requires an objective and specific goals along the way. Plus some measure of sensitivity to a particular individuals strengths and weaknesses.

Paul's Law does not conform to the individual any more than the Law of Gravity does, it simply is what it is. If a person wants to lean toward the strength or endurance end of the spectrum, based on genetics or whatever reason they choose, that is their choice.

If all you did were 8k's until you could complete them at a 1:45 Pace, it is quite likely that you will be able to complete a 2k @ 1:35, but that is very high quality work across the board. If you work only toward the end of getting 32k @ 1:55 you are getting farther outside what could be called quality on the strength end of the equation and will probably start to sacrifice some of the strength requirement for the same 1:35 avg 2k.

Thnk of it like this. If your goal is to lift 200lbs overhead as a 1 rep max, there will be a lot quidker ways to get there than only working with a 100lb barbell. 2 reps of 100lbs may be the same amount of WORK as the 200lbs once, but it's not really THE SAME, is it?

There have been a few people that have claimmed quite fantastic 5k+ performances while at the same time having relatively lackluster 2k performance, and they dismiss that as "having no top end" or somesuch reasoning. Perhaps they are for real, and thus a freak of nature, which is also not something that the "normal" population should bother emulating by definition.

Does that help to clear it up at all?

[PaulS]

I thought Paul's law was brought up for use as a predictor of 2k erg pace. As in- "I have an erg race in 3 weeks, and I pull a blah-blah for 5k. how fast should I go for my 2k?"

so, let's say your formula predicts a 1:35 and you pace based off of that, but you are really capable of averaging 1:37. you'll be a pretty unhappy erger in that 3rd 500m.

marc

ps- I'd rather use a rule of thumb than break my moratorium on 2k testing...

It can be used that way, but that really wan't the purpose.

Example:
You do a 5k Time trial and have an ending avg pace of X.
Using Pauls Law, a 2k target average pace would be X-7seconds.
i.e. 5k @ X, 2500 @ X-5, 1250m @ X-10, to get to 2000m 500m is 2/5ths of the way to 1250m so an additional 2 seconds in pace, 5+2=7.

Notice that a target for a 500m time trial would be X-17, so that could certainly be attempted and have an idea in short order how close it might work out for a particular individual.

I always suggest a negative splitted race plan for 2k's which gives the athlete a few milestones where they can make adjustments if required.

The more common way to fail miserably with Pauls Law is to do a highly over rated 500m trial and assume that adding 10 seconds to that pace will be attainable for a 2k, but the 500 really needs to have a rate cap no more than 10% over what you plan to use for the 2k or a fixed distance per stroke. Otherwise it's just a "flail" and happens to be short enough the we survived. The issue with flailing would likely disappear if the short test is moved to 1k.

[Nosmo]

Orc,
If you read everything carefully, nobody really disagrees.

Paul,
I just realized I over stroked my 500m time. My 500m time of 1:37.7 was at a 39-42, but my 2K pace of 1:47.7 was at 30-32. More indication that my strength is lacking.