Rowing speed vs running speed

[suttle]

I'm coming at this issue from a very specific perspective. I've just acquired a C2, and have no real experience, other than a few gym workouts 20 odd years ago. I'm 65 and a half decent runner - can still knock out a sub 22 5k. I've got a bit of upper body strength (pull-ups etc) but I am cursed with being a short-arse, with particularly short arms and legs. I'm about 143lbs.

I'm a bit disappointed at my initial times on the C2. Years ago I just dipped below 8 mins for 2K; now I'm 9.40. (Incidentally, nowhere near my running time which would be about 8.15.)

So my questions are

1. what would be a 'good' time for 2k for a bloke of my vintage (or at least rival my running time)

2. what training would I need to do to get there?

And as a PS, are there any age grade calculators out there? (e.g. for running there is a calculator that measures your performance against the world record for your age).

Thanks for any advice!

First, take a look at the c2 rankings. That will give you an idea.

Second, being smaller is absolute a disadvantage, no way to get around this. But there are lightsweight, sub 75kg, who pulled below 6 minutes.

Third, if you are a decent runner, I think nothing will stop you in also becoming a decent rower. Think you will rapidly improve, your fitness is good, but specific strenght is what you lack.

Read around on the forum. In general though, first focus on good technique. Use a full, long stroke, with a low enough drag, not high! Keep the stroke smooth.
Trainingwise, go for longer session, and use a calm strong stroke. Compared to running, strenght is more important on the rower. This will take some time, but the early gains will come pretty fast.

Many thanks!

[hobbit]

I too row faster than I run, despite being totally the wrong size and shape for rowing. My best 5k running, since turning 60, is 22:11, whereas for rowing it's 21:03 (that was a good day). For 10k running, my only effort (whilst tearing a knee meniscus) is 48:10, whereas rowing it's 43:(whatever it says below). However, I've been working much harder on my running this last few months & I think that I was getting close to 20min shape. Now I'm injured again . I hope that my running will be significantly faster than my rowing by the autumn.

Of course, the ratio between the separately optimized running and rowing records is one thing and the running/rowing ratio for one person are completely different things. I'm pretty sure that most of the beasts on this forum would have a very hard time getting anywhere near their rowing records if you put them in running shoes.

I'm still mulling Allan Olesen's interesting post. My intuition, that may be total BS, is that it's easier to be "OK" at rowing than for running, but very hard to be "very good", so the range of times for rowing is smaller than for running.

Hi hobbit,

I'm not dissimilar to you in many ways. although I outweigh you by 20lbs, stare down at you from 5'6" and am 65. I'm a 22 min 5k runner (20:20 PB at 61, never to return) but suspect that I couldn't get anywhere near your stats on the erg. I'm assuming that at some point you went from running to rowing. Have you any tips to transform my current 9 minute plus 2k to something nearer to 8 (20 years ago I dipped under 8 - once!). Cheers.

Indeed we are similar. It's nice to have some company . Although I lose my excuse of being much smaller than everyone else .

In fact, I am still in full runner mode, as far as possible, but after a few months of good-for-me running training (50-60k/week), I managed to reawaken an old injury in the middle of my calf (apparently named a "calf heart attack"), so I'm back rowing without running for at least a month. I'm aiming to be 100% running fit for the European Masters 10k championships at the end of October.

I got my best times rowing by simply rowing a decent amount (averaged 30k a week during 2018/2019 season). I'm afraid I did not follow the excellent advice on this forum. It was mostly too fast and too short with not enough really hard interval sessions. Disgraceful behaviour . I just don't have the mental game to put in the quality and quantity of work that the stars here put in (Dangerscouse doing a half marathon before breakfast springs to mind, but there are loads of fine examples). This time around, at least I am doing lots of drills - guided by a 20 minute beginner's session follow along on Dark Horse rowing's Youtube channel. Its variety makes time fly by. Now I can do sessions like 20min at 20 strokes per min, or less, which teach you a strong stroke. For a couple of years, I've been doing a 3 times weekly core/abs/bodyweight/pilates/yoga session, which I imagine has helped my rowing.

I see no reason why you should not better my rowing times. We have the same build, age and aerobic fitness. Getting good technique is the key, as all the sages of the forum will tell you. Good luck! And keep us informed.

[MoonPlanet]

It depends a lot on speed. To row twice as fast you have to put down 8 times as much power (pretty much the same as cycling on level ground), but to run twice as fast you're only working a little more than twice as hard. Elite runners can run 3:00/km for 2 hours but elite rowers can only sustain 1:30 splits for about 15 minutes; at 4:00/km and 2:00 splits it's fairly even depending on how you're built and while the vast majority of recreational rowers can row a 10:00 2k, given that the average 5k finish time at my local Parkrun is around 29 minutes, about half of them wouldn't be able to run a 10:00 2k. The actual speed difference between a really good rower and a mediocre rower is far smaller than that for running.

Personally the "crossover" point for me is about the 5-10k range - I'd take very close to 19 minutes for both a 5k row and 5k run, and perhaps a little under 40 for a 10k of either. From my experience I'd say a change of 1s/500m rowing is about 3s/km running, meaning the Paul's Law rule of 5s corresponds to 15s/km running which is about right as most people say a 40 minute 10k (4:00/km) is about as hard as a 1:30 HM (4:15/km). This would suggest running energy usage increases with the square of speed which sounds a bit high to me (yes, elite runners are something else, but are they really burning through four times as much oxygen as your average 2-hour-HM runner?).

If it's worth anything apparently Mo Farah pulled a 7:48 2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

[hjs]

It depends a lot on speed. To row twice as fast you have to put down 8 times as much power (pretty much the same as cycling on level ground), but to run twice as fast you're only working a little more than twice as hard. Elite runners can run 3:00/km for 2 hours but elite rowers can only sustain 1:30 splits for about 15 minutes; at 4:00/km and 2:00 splits it's fairly even depending on how you're built and while the vast majority of recreational rowers can row a 10:00 2k, given that the average 5k finish time at my local Parkrun is around 29 minutes, about half of them wouldn't be able to run a 10:00 2k. The actual speed difference between a really good rower and a mediocre rower is far smaller than that for running.

Personally the "crossover" point for me is about the 5-10k range - I'd take very close to 19 minutes for both a 5k row and 5k run, and perhaps a little under 40 for a 10k of either. From my experience I'd say a change of 1s/500m rowing is about 3s/km running, meaning the Paul's Law rule of 5s corresponds to 15s/km running which is about right as most people say a 40 minute 10k (4:00/km) is about as hard as a 1:30 HM (4:15/km). This would suggest running energy usage increases with the square of speed which sounds a bit high to me (yes, elite runners are something else, but are they really burning through four times as much oxygen as your average 2-hour-HM runner?).

If it's worth anything apparently Mo Farah pulled a 7:48 2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

You surpace one big fact, a rower only “knows” how much energy is put in. For running its very different, say you have a 90kg guy, and I have seen those, who can run a 18 min 5k, compared to a 60kg guy who runs 14 min. The bigger guy is lots slower, but in fact the energy he is able to generate could even be more than the lighter guy.

[MoonPlanet]

It depends a lot on speed. To row twice as fast you have to put down 8 times as much power (pretty much the same as cycling on level ground), but to run twice as fast you're only working a little more than twice as hard. Elite runners can run 3:00/km for 2 hours but elite rowers can only sustain 1:30 splits for about 15 minutes; at 4:00/km and 2:00 splits it's fairly even depending on how you're built and while the vast majority of recreational rowers can row a 10:00 2k, given that the average 5k finish time at my local Parkrun is around 29 minutes, about half of them wouldn't be able to run a 10:00 2k. The actual speed difference between a really good rower and a mediocre rower is far smaller than that for running.

Personally the "crossover" point for me is about the 5-10k range - I'd take very close to 19 minutes for both a 5k row and 5k run, and perhaps a little under 40 for a 10k of either. From my experience I'd say a change of 1s/500m rowing is about 3s/km running, meaning the Paul's Law rule of 5s corresponds to 15s/km running which is about right as most people say a 40 minute 10k (4:00/km) is about as hard as a 1:30 HM (4:15/km). This would suggest running energy usage increases with the square of speed which sounds a bit high to me (yes, elite runners are something else, but are they really burning through four times as much oxygen as your average 2-hour-HM runner?).

If it's worth anything apparently Mo Farah pulled a 7:48 2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

You surpace one big fact, a rower only “knows” how much energy is put in. For running its very different, say you have a 90kg guy, and I have seen those, who can run a 18 min 5k, compared to a 60kg guy who runs 14 min. The bigger guy is lots slower, but in fact the energy he is able to generate could even be more than the lighter guy.

This is very true, but for almost everyone other than powerlifters there will be a "crossover" point beyond which running a given speed becomes easier than rowing it. Running energy use is thought to be proportional to mass so if a 60kg person running 4:00/km puts out 200W (2:00 splits on the rower), a 90kg person will put out about 300W (1:45 on the rower). My rule of thumb would then say 2:30/km is the same difficulty as a 1:15 split so if someone was strong and fast enough to go even faster than that, they could probably run 100m faster than they row. Not sure how well my rule of thumb scales to big changes in speed though as I generally stay in the 3:30-5:00/km range.

[suttle]

Thought I'd do update especially as Hobbit, for one, was kind enough to provide a lengthy and helpful response. I'm now a couple of months into my rowing 'career'.

As I came from a running background I wondered if I could get my rowing times anywhere near my running times. The good news is that my rowing time for 5K has now bettered my running time! The bad news is that this is largely because my running time has fallen off a cliff!

However, I have improved my rowing time (as a 65 year old, shorty, lightweight) to 8.31.1 for 2k and 22.53.5 for 5K (currently running at a woeful 23.51). I'd like to keep shaving the odd second off of each of these, although I know from experience that I must be near a plateau.

What I find a bit odd is that there doesn't seem to be an Age Grading in rowing. With running you can consult a calculator that gives you your time as a percentage of the world record for your age. So 80%+ is 'national class', 70%+ is 'regional class' etc. This is great as it allows for a fair comparison between ages (and sexes) and more specifically because it puts me in a different class to my son despite him hammering me in every race!

It's a shame that there's nothing similar for rowers as my impression is that you are a pretty 'statistical bunch'. Unless I'm missing something?

Anyway, I'm using the times in my age/weight/sex category on the 'Standings' site and gradually overhauling some of the slower brethren.

[boomingaway]

Thought I'd do update especially as Hobbit, for one, was kind enough to provide a lengthy and helpful response. I'm now a couple of months into my rowing 'career'.

As I came from a running background I wondered if I could get my rowing times anywhere near my running times. The good news is that my rowing time for 5K has now bettered my running time! The bad news is that this is largely because my running time has fallen off a cliff!

However, I have improved my rowing time (as a 65 year old, shorty, lightweight) to 8.31.1 for 2k and 22.53.5 for 5K (currently running at a woeful 23.51). I'd like to keep shaving the odd second off of each of these, although I know from experience that I must be near a plateau.

What I find a bit odd is that there doesn't seem to be an Age Grading in rowing. With running you can consult a calculator that gives you your time as a percentage of the world record for your age. So 80%+ is 'national class', 70%+ is 'regional class' etc. This is great as it allows for a fair comparison between ages (and sexes) and more specifically because it puts me in a different class to my son despite him hammering me in every race!

It's a shame that there's nothing similar for rowers as my impression is that you are a pretty 'statistical bunch'. Unless I'm missing something?

Anyway, I'm using the times in my age/weight/sex category on the 'Standings' site and gradually overhauling some of the slower brethren.

Look up the nonathlon. That's pretty much age grading for rowing.

[Allan Olesen]

What I find a bit odd is that there doesn't seem to be an Age Grading in rowing.

There are rankings for age groups in the C2 logbook. So you can see, which percentile in your age group you fit into.

Also, there is an age grading for rowing. We use it here in Denmark to remove any age advantages when we do relay races with mixed age teams. I think the grading comes from C2, but I am not sure.

[johnlvs2run]

What I find a bit odd is that there doesn't seem to be an Age Grading in rowing. With running you can consult a calculator that gives you your time as a percentage of the world record for your age. So 80%+ is 'national class', 70%+ is 'regional class' etc. This is great as it allows for a fair comparison between ages (and sexes) and more specifically because it puts me in a different class to my son despite him hammering me in every race!

Here are the world records for rowing and skiing, but none were found for cycling (ergs).

[MudSweatAndYears]

[..] for almost everyone other than powerlifters there will be a "crossover" point beyond which running a given speed becomes easier than rowing it.

Not sure if I understand you correctly. It seems to me that that for everyone there is a personal 'crossover distance' beyond which rowing speed surpasses running speed, right?

[suttle]

Thanks for the useful replies. Just to illustrate how the age grade thing works in running, I ran a 5k today (not under race conditions), I managed a 23.18 (definitely not a personal best) and the running calculator gave me a 71.46%. This is age specific - i.e 65 year male. Were I 64 the AG would be a little lower etc.

I've just come off the rower and managed a 22.43. Nothing like the standards in these parts but this was a PB. (And in absolute terms clearly a bit better than my running time.) But, I can see no equivalent calculator for an Age Grade. (Plus you'd need a weight category variable too.)

With running, in terms of events the usual categories (Age Categories) for races are either 60-64/65-69 or 60-69. I prefer the former as the gap between a freshly minted 60 year old and a late vintage 69 year is simply too wide to be fair. I guess it's pretty much the same with rowing.

Anyway, to cut this short, I was a decent 5k runner but getting slower and I'm a pretty crap 5k rower but getting a bit faster. And today, I managed both events so I can't be too much of a wreck.

Thanks for bearing with my ramble.

[OregonERG]

We can take a look at the age based world records in running and rowing. There is no reason to think that a runner should age less graciously than a rower. So if the difference between young people's world records and old people's world records is larger in running than in rowing, it is an indication that you are right.

I find this topic very interesting and appreciate all you that you guys have contributed to this thread.

I am a life-long runner who ran track and field from high school through college and did cross country and marathons all through my adult life. I still run about 2000 miles a year and try to "race" as best I can despite being almost 50 now. I never rowed and have only started Erg'ing a bit over the last couple years as a form of cross-training.

You know where this is going, right? I am now much faster in rowing than I am in running. I rowed a 37:13 in the 10km in 2020 and there is no way I could run that anymore. I rowed 15,740m for the Hour just last week and couldn't do that in running for a million Dollars! No way!

And while I am not an expert on this, I think it has a lot to do with two things:
1) some amount of weight gain doesn't kill your rowing. There are some heavy rowers who are still super fast. There are no heavy runners. Obviously, there are exceptions, but I know that as I gained 8-10 lbs (thanks to the lockdown), my running got a lot worse (even though I was still doing the miles) but in rowing, those extra 10 lbs didn't seem to matter as much (because rowing is not a weight-bearing sport).

2) there is simply less range in the potential pace when rowing. All my rowing, literally all of it, takes place between my PR paces of say 1:45 for short sets and 2:00 for long, easy rows. That range is just not as wide as in running. My race pace in a 10km running race might be around 6:15 per mile but my daily runs are like 7:45 pace. That is 90 seconds slower, or about 30 seconds per 500m (to put it in rowing terms). That is twice as much range per 500m.

Do you guys think there are other factors as well? After all, an elite level 2000m row is "only" a minute faster than my PR but an elite 2000m run is more than two minutes faster than my current time. It feels like in running there is just more of a spectrum in running between elite, normal, and easy efforts.

[Nomath]

Do you guys think there are other factors as well? After all, an elite level 2000m row is "only" a minute faster than my PR but an elite 2000m run is more than two minutes faster than my current time. It feels like in running there is just more of a spectrum in running between elite, normal, and easy efforts.

This is just a reflection of what others explained here before : in rowing speed goes up or drops with the (power)^0.33 , whereas in running it goes with up or down roughly with (power)^1.

As for the advantage of being tall, have a look at

[OregonERG]

As for the advantage of being tall, have a look at

I feel like this photo can give hope to people who are not rail thin. These guys would be giants (and overweight) at a marathon. Yet in rowing they are the great guys on the water! This is good news for me since I won't be getting back to my college running weight ever again!

[jamesg]

Years ago I used to pull the length of our local lake and back (total around 10km) in fifty minutes, after a week's practice. Anything but non-stop, navigation and so on.

The erg is very friendly to scullers, showing me times below 40 minutes for 10k done at (then 65 or so) slow UT1 rating. Fictitious of course, the erg goes nowhere. I don't think I've ever run 10k, I'm not the right shape. Certainly not in the last 60 years, but I could do 800m quite quick after our coach had us complete the outing by running along Hammersmith Embankment and back every night. I was 16 at the time.