Concept2 Forum

Search Feature does not seem to be working very well. I get one hit "law" and can't seem to find any reference to Paul's Law in it.

Does Paul's Law state that for each doubling of distance, about a 5 second drop in pace is predicted? Or was it 3 seconds?

Thanks,

Rich

RowtheRockies wrote:Search Feature does not seem to be working very well. I get one hit "law" and can't seem to find any reference to Paul's Law in it.

Does Paul's Law state that for each doubling of distance, about a 5 second drop in pace is predicted? Or was it 3 seconds?

Thanks,

Rich

5 seconds.

The 3 has to do with something regarding bust sizes if I remember correctly. "Double D add 3... blah blah..... "

PaulS wrote:

RowtheRockies wrote:Does Paul's Law state that for each doubling of distance, about a 5 second drop in pace is predicted? Or was it 3 seconds?

5 seconds.

I'm a relative newbie, and just so that I understand:

If I can pull say, a 1:47 for 500m then I should be able to pull 1000m at a 1:52 pace and 2000m at 1:57 pace etc - correct?

Assuming I have the stamina for the longer distances

Brian

BrianStaff wrote:

PaulS wrote:

RowtheRockies wrote:Does Paul's Law state that for each doubling of distance, about a 5 second drop in pace is predicted? Or was it 3 seconds?

5 seconds.

I'm a relative newbie, and just so that I understand:

If I can pull say, a 1:47 for 500m then I should be able to pull 1000m at a 1:52 pace and 2000m at 1:57 pace etc - correct?

Assuming I have the stamina for the longer distances

Brian

Yes, and your qualifier is a very important bit. Pauls Law is supposed to be used to aid in focussing the areas to target for specific training.

If you are hitting the paces above, then continue with your training as your fitness is balanced and just needs more progressive resistance.

If you are getting drop off of more than 5 seconds as you increase the distance then more endurance work should be scheduled, if you drop off less than 5 seconds as the distance goes up, then get in a bit more power work.

In general more endurance work is required, and as fate would have it, takes longer to make progress with. Power can be increased considerably more quickly, and then the new PB's can be established with the greater endurance that was already in place in the cases where the person was shown to be lacking power.

Or more generally,

difference in pace = 5* log_2(d1/d2)
= 5 * log_10(d1/d2) / log_10(2)
= 5 * ln(d1/d2) / ln(2)

where log_2 is log base 2. log_10 is log base 10, ln is the natural log (base e)

So if d1=5000 and d2 = 2000, then pace difference is 6.6 seconds ( and if d2=5000 and d1=2000, the calculation comes out to -6.6 seconds.)

Nosmo wrote:Or more generally,

difference in pace = 5* log_2(d1/d2)
= 5 * log_10(d1/d2) / log_10(2)
= 5 * ln(d1/d2) / ln(2)

where log_2 is log base 2. log_10 is log base 10, ln is the natural log (base e)

So if d1=5000 and d2 = 2000, then pace difference is 6.6 seconds ( and if d2=5000 and d1=2000, the calculation comes out to -6.6 seconds.)

Thanks for clearing that up Paul!

NOSMO, can you explain those calculations for us mathematically challenged folks.
Rich

RowtheRockies wrote: NOSMO, can you explain those calculations for us mathematically challenged folks.
Rich

You don't have to know what it means, just plug it into your calculator

If you have a scientific calculator there should be a button with log, or ln on it. If you don't, and have Windows, you go to start , click on run and type in "calc", hit OK. Then go to view and click scientific.


If you really want a math lesson, You could think "log" of this way:

logarithms or "logs" are the opposite of exponents. You probably remember that 10 squared is 100, and 10 cubed is 1000. (in computer notation 10^2=100, and 10^3=1000). So the log(100)=2 and log(1000)=3. These are "common" logarithms or base 10.

Now if you take the log of ratio of two numbers then you get how many factors of 10 the numerator is compared with the denominatior. So the log(2000/20)=2 because 2000 is two factor of 10 bigger then 20.

Now the weird/cool thing is exponents and logarithms don't have to be integers.
10^1.5=31.6 or log(31.6)=1.5.

Since Paul's law refers to doubling of the distance, we want log base 2. log_2(8)=3 since 2^3=8.

So back to Paul's law:

5 * log_2(5000/2000) = 5* log_2(5/2). Now 5 * log_2(5/2) should be a little more then 1, because 5 is a little more then twice 2. If you plug it into your calculator you will get 1.322. (since you don't have a log_2 on your calculator, use log_10(5/2)/log_10(2), try taking the log_2 of 2,4 8,16, etc and you will see it works fine).

So 5 * log_2(5000/2000) = 5* 1.322 = 6.61 seconds.

Another thing about logrithms is log(x/y)=-log(y/x).
Pauls law would give -6.61 seconds for 5*log_2(2000/5000).

5 seconds per doubling works well except for the short distances because they become too anaerobic in nature. 7 seconds seems to be the 500m/1k gap for many.

I noticed when I was very new to rowing, the gap was alot wider than 5 seconds per doubling as I had anaerobic strength but no endurance - as you continually endurance train, the gap will assymptotically approach some value, and around 5 seems to be the most common end result.
I just use thomas's pace predictor which is essentially based on Pauls Law, but works out the the slope from two of your PB's
http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/conten ... -predictor

If you discount the 500m, which is really just a freak show anyway, the best lwts do one of Rich's Glitches: "Double the d, add 3."

1K: 1:34
2K: 1:37
5K: 1:42
6K: 1:43
30min: 1:44
10K: 1:45
60min: 1:47
HM: 1:48
FM: 1:51

1K: 1:27
2K: 1:30
5K: 1:35
6K: 1:36
30min: 1:37
10K: 1:38
60min: 1:40
HM: 1:41
FM: 1:44

etc.

Paul is way off the mark on this, so his attempt at a generalization is hardly a "law."

Paul's flaw?

ranger

Given that the 'best lws' generally don't rank their times, it's hard for me to fathom the empirical basis for the claim that

Ranger wrote:...the best lwts do one of Rich's Glitches: "Double the d, add 3."

Particularly in Olympic years, the Ebbesens, Rasmussens, Stephansens, Luinis, Dufours, Hammonds, Hoogestegers, Schlenkers, etc. of the world tend reveal as little of their fitness as they can. I have zero doubt that if they did, the current C2 WR listings for LWs would need substantial revision at everything other than 2k.

More to the point, the record lists badly need revision anyway. One of the relative few world-class OTW MLWs to rank something other than a 2k is Denmark's Mads Rasmussen. An Olympian and FISA world champion, he is the listed holder for 6k at 19:40.4 (2005). That works out to 1:38.4/500 pace.

Compare the C2-listed 10k MLW records for 19-29 and 30-39

19-29 MLW 32:49.2 26 Suranga Lakamarachchi L M LKA 2005 (1:38.5 pace)
30-39 MLW 32:15.7 31 Augusto Farfan L M PER 2005 (1:36.8 pace)

Mads Rasmussen is a real rower and his 6k result is legitimate. Augusto Farfan also is a real rower -- he finished 2nd in the Masters A Double in the SEGUNDO CAMPEONATO INTER CLUBES SUDAMERICANO DE VELOCIDAD - MASTER INTERCLUBES regatta (2007), and sat in two winning 8s. However the 10k time listed for him is simply not credible. There is no way that anyone -- even Henrik Stephansen -- has rowed a 10k at a pace 1.6 seconds/500m faster than Mads Rasmussen rowed for 6k. As for "Suranga Lakamarachchi's" result, not only is the pace not credible, a Google web search fails to turn up a single hit on the surname....

While I'm at it, "Dan Warren" of the US did NOT do this for 1k at age 13 and a LW:

1000 2:57.0 13 Dan Warren L M USA 2000

I suspect this is either a total spoof -- "Dan Warren" is a character played by Josh Lucas in the true-story rowing film "Miracle At Oxford", aka "True Blue," and in real life works for BBC Sport -- or else it was entered wrong (there is at least one real Dan Warren in the US rowing OTW).

NavHaz wrote: I have zero doubt that if they did, the current C2 WR listings for LWs would need substantial revision at everything other than 2k.

Sure.

But for "best" lwts, I also mean the "best" lwts in the various age groups.

As the "best" lwts in the various age groups slow down for 2K, their other times slow down, too.

In what relationship?

"Double the d, add 3."

For instance, when Mike C. pulled 1:34.5 for 2K, I suspect his time for 32K was much closer to 1:46.5 than 1:54.5!

In training, Mike C. worked up to 30K UT1 rows at 1:48. These Level 3 rows are purposely submaximal, training rows not trials.

There isn't much to debate about.

Given the facts, for certain communities of rowers (e.g., the best lightweights), Paul's Flaw is just wrong.

The proper generalization is one of Rich's Glitches:

"Double the d, add 3."

For example, here is the profile for Mike VB, the 55s lwt hammer:

1K 1:38
2K: 1:41
5K: 1:46
6K: 1:47
30min: 1:48
10K: 1:49
60min: 1:51
HM: 1:52
FM: 1:55

Mike VB's profile is just Mike C's profile at 40 years old shifted up 7 seconds per 500m.

Mike C's profile when he was 40 years old

1K: 1:31
2K: 1:34
5K: 1:39
6K: 1:40
30min: 1:41
10K: 1:42
60min: 1:44
HM: 1:45
FM: 1:48

is just an Open lwt WR profile

1K: 1:27
2K: 1:30
5K: 1:35
6K: 1:36
30min: 1:37
10K: 1:38
60min: 1:40
HM: 1:41
FM: 1:44

shifted up 4 seconds per 500m.

My goal this year is to get my times down to Mike C's profile when he was 40 years old.

The endpoints on this profile are a FM, 1:48 @ 21 spm and a 1K, 1:31 @ 36 spm.

Both are 13 SPI.

ranger

NavigationHazard wrote:Given that the 'best lws' generally don't rank their times, it's hard for me to fathom the empirical basis for the claim that

...the best lwts do one of Rich's Glitches: "Double the d, add 3."

Particularly in Olympic years, the Ebbesens, Rasmussens, Stephansens, Luinis, Dufours, Hammonds, Hoogestegers, Schlenkers, etc. of the world tend reveal as little of their fitness as they can. I have zero doubt that if they did, the current C2 WR listings for LWs would need substantial revision at everything other than 2k.

More to the point, the record lists badly need revision anyway. One of the relative few world-class OTW MLWs to rank something other than a 2k is Denmark's Mads Rasmussen. An Olympian and FISA world champion, he is the listed holder for 6k at 19:40.4 (2005). That works out to 1:38.4/500 pace.

Compare the C2-listed 10k MLW records for 19-29 and 30-39

19-29 MLW 32:49.2 26 Suranga Lakamarachchi L M LKA 2005 (1:38.5 pace)
30-39 MLW 32:15.7 31 Augusto Farfan L M PER 2005 (1:36.8 pace)

Mads Rasmussen is a real rower and his 6k result is legitimate. Augusto Farfan also is a real rower -- he finished 2nd in the Masters A Double in the SEGUNDO CAMPEONATO INTER CLUBES SUDAMERICANO DE VELOCIDAD - MASTER INTERCLUBES regatta (2007), and sat in two winning 8s. However the 10k time listed for him is simply not credible. There is no way that anyone -- even Henrik Stephansen -- has rowed a 10k at a pace 1.6 seconds/500m faster than Mads Rasmussen rowed for 6k. As for "Suranga Lakamarachchi's" result, not only is the pace not credible, a Google web search fails to turn up a single hit on the surname....

While I'm at it, "Dan Warren" of the US did NOT do this for 1k at age 13 and a LW:

1000 2:57.0 13 Dan Warren L M USA 2000

I suspect this is either a total spoof -- "Dan Warren" is a character played by Josh Lucas in the true-story rowing film "Miracle At Oxford", aka "True Blue," and in real life works for BBC Sport -- or else it was entered wrong (there is at least one real Dan Warren in the US rowing OTW).

And why aren't you thrown off the forum for not attributing quotes?

Is this another "[f]law" of rowing?

Hardly.

Much deeper issues are involved.

ranger

Grow up.

Rather than respond to a moderator's request to desist by snarkily repeating the behavior, as you did on the UK Forum, I've cheerfully edited my original post to attribute correctly now your specious claim.

Note that the standard "Quote" button on the "Post a reply" page on this Forum does not attribute quotes. Insert them in this fashion (rather than quoting the original post in its entirety) and the attribution must be added manually. However there is nothing on the page to even hint at how to do it. For future reference the syntax minus the brackets turns out to be quote="****" Blah blah /quote with Blah blah the quote and **** in quotation marks the attribution.

NavigationHazard wrote:
Rather than respond to a moderator's request to desist by snarkily repeating the behavior, as you did on the UK Forum, I've cheerfully edited my original post to attribute correctly now your specious claim.

Why did you do it in the first place?

I suspect it is because you don't have any respect for other people's words, or at least, that is the implication in my case.

And you are an academic?

There is no excuse for such an egregious gaff.

If I were the moderator, I would throw you off the forum right now.

The rest of your blather is just a tangle of lame excuses, hiding your true intentions.

[Sound like anything familar? ]

ranger

Rich, You're in A Hole! Stop Digging!

Or do you want another spanking?

You never learn......