New Personal Best! Brag About That New Pb!

[RBFC]

Hit a new PB for the 500m this morning. 1:28.8 for 500m! Still learning how to row the piece most efficiently, but this is a full second better than my previous best. Fun stuff!

Thanks to the members of this forum for motivation!

Lee

[Carl Watts]

Good to see someone with a new PB, well done

The 500M is pretty brutal and quite differnt I find to longer events. You just feel the energy begin to rapidly drain from your legs at about the 300M mark and yet your cardio system has not yet had the time to max out.

Higher drag and a higher pace of about 34spm appears to work for me.

[RBFC]

Carl,

Thanks for the kind words. As I'm fairly new to dedicated rowing, I'm still figuring many things out. I used a higher drag factor on this latest run, and kept my rate ~30. My previous run, I rated 38 for the first 200m, then down to 30, with a DF = 140. 140 is not high enough for the 500, the conclusion I'm coming to. If I rate at approx. 33-34 next time, I should be just about where I need to be.

There were 3 distinct points during this 500 where I actively slowed down. I was hitting 1:23 pace each time (all 3 instances occurred during the first 300m) and I purposely slowed down. I had virtually no "fly & die" effect, as my pace was almost the same for each 100m. So, I feel that I have more speed and all I have to do is get my act together with regard to pace and rate. Great mind games. I'm really enjoying this pursuit, and will move on to longer pieces as the after-effects of last year's pneumonia continue to clear. As it is, I enjoy a good coughing session when I finish these 500's.

Regards,

Lee

[Cyclingman1]

You did not indicate your DF for this latest time. You said previous was 140.
What is DF for 5000m?

The posted times are really skewed. The 500m time is top ten for 50-59 rankings. 1000m time is top 25. But the distance times are outside the top 250. I think that you have certain natural strength that gets you through shorter distances, but aerobic fitness is a far bigger factor beyond 1000m. I see plenty of people with your 1000m time rowing sub 7min for 2k and around 18 min for 5000m. It takes a good while to get that kind of fitness. I actually suggest that you have no real reason for rowing fast 500 meters. You need long rows and intermediate rows at slightly faster pace, IMHO.

[hjs]

Carl,

Thanks for the kind words. As I'm fairly new to dedicated rowing, I'm still figuring many things out. I used a higher drag factor on this latest run, and kept my rate ~30. My previous run, I rated 38 for the first 200m, then down to 30, with a DF = 140. 140 is not high enough for the 500, the conclusion I'm coming to. If I rate at approx. 33-34 next time, I should be just about where I need to be.

There were 3 distinct points during this 500 where I actively slowed down. I was hitting 1:23 pace each time (all 3 instances occurred during the first 300m) and I purposely slowed down. I had virtually no "fly & die" effect, as my pace was almost the same for each 100m. So, I feel that I have more speed and all I have to do is get my act together with regard to pace and rate. Great mind games. I'm really enjoying this pursuit, and will move on to longer pieces as the after-effects of last year's pneumonia continue to clear. As it is, I enjoy a good coughing session when I finish these 500's.

Regards,

Lee

Rating 33/34 is very low for a 500, around 40 is much more common. You also have to use a sprintstroke, that is shorter with less movement on the slide.

[RBFC]

You did not indicate your DF for this latest time. You said previous was 140.
What is DF for 5000m?

The posted times are really skewed. The 500m time is top ten for 50-59 rankings. 1000m time is top 25. But the distance times are outside the top 250. I think that you have certain natural strength that gets you through shorter distances, but aerobic fitness is a far bigger factor beyond 1000m. I see plenty of people with your 1000m time rowing sub 7min for 2k and around 18 min for 5000m. It takes a good while to get that kind of fitness. I actually suggest that you have no real reason for rowing fast 500 meters. You need long rows and intermediate rows at slightly faster pace, IMHO.

The drag factor for this run was 175. For the posted 5000m, it was 140.

Without asking any questions, you immediately made assumptions about the times I posted. The 5000m and 30min times are just cruising workout times and not PB attempts. I filled in those times in the signature image just because I actually had rowed them recently. I rowed the 1000m time posted last November, and had just been recovering from pneumonia through August. I explained a bit more about this in my initial post here. As my pulmonary function returns, perhaps I'll go after some longer distance PBs.

My "certain natural strength" is the product of about 40 years of hard training. I operate a combatives business where "certain natural strength" is an absolute requisite. The 500m distance actually replicates the demands of a dynamic combat engagement pretty well. While your interest may lie in more aerobically-focused events, I need to retain the qualities I've mentioned. I can understand that you made these comments without knowing who/what/why about me. That's why I feel less insulted as I write this than I did upon first reading your comments.

So, I do have a reason to row fast 500's. I've also posted that I'm very new to rowing in the "single, dedicated" usage mode, rather than as part of a circuit-style workout that included weights and calesthenics. In the 90's, I was top 5 in the Lemond Time Trial cycling challenge in my age group in Ohio (a short race of 5 miles). I ran 9.9 for 100 yds. at age 43. So, I've been a power/sprint athlete for quite some time.

At first, your comments struck me as you telling Usain Bolt that he needs to run more marathons.... Perhaps not everyone has the same priorities as you when they engage in rowing. I was hoping to get a bit more technical understanding of strategy for rowing short sprints. The post following yours, which offers some rate and stroke length suggestions, is more closely what I was hoping for. I hope that this further disclosure will help my fellow members understand more clearly what my goals are and why I'm asking the questions I submit.

Lee

[RBFC]

Rating 33/34 is very low for a 500, around 40 is much more common. You also have to use a sprintstroke, that is shorter with less movement on the slide.

Interesting. I'll give this a try the next time I row a hard 500. The PB I posted is only the 5th time I've rowed that distance for a serious PB attempt. I just don't get to it every day with my other training.

Is the higher rate and "sprintstroke" common across the different height/weight divisions in rowing? I read somewhere on here that moving a large body back & forth at a high rate uses much more energy. Watching some of the record attempt youtube videos doesn't seem to demonstrate a shorter stroke. I'll keep looking around.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Lee

[hjs]

Rating 33/34 is very low for a 500, around 40 is much more common. You also have to use a sprintstroke, that is shorter with less movement on the slide.

Interesting. I'll give this a try the next time I row a hard 500. The PB I posted is only the 5th time I've rowed that distance for a serious PB attempt. I just don't get to it every day with my other training.

Is the higher rate and "sprintstroke" common across the different height/weight divisions in rowing? I read somewhere on here that moving a large body back & forth at a high rate uses much more energy. Watching some of the record attempt youtube videos doesn't seem to demonstrate a shorter stroke. I'll keep looking around.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Lee

Search for 500 meter erging. Gender/age seize does matter ofcourse, but the sprintstroke itself it always shorter and rated high. This goes for every sport by the way, if it is running, swimming, cycling etc the rate always has to be high and the lenght of the movement will become shorter.
Rate 33/34 is simply to low to yield the best possible result. You certainly should not try for a pb every session, try to get used to rating higher first and I now for sure you will improve quit a bit. Some 200 meters at your desired pace/rate with a few minurs rest inbeween are good training for this.

[Cyclingman1]

I most certainly was not attempting to insult anyone with my comments. I simply comment on what I read on the forum and try to put a perspective on it. Since the signature had the 500m PB time in it, I simply assumed that the rest of the times were PB's. I suspect for most posters that would be the case - why post less than one's best?

I think for 99% of rowers 2K remains the event by which one is measured. It is extremely difficult. One needs strength and aerobic capacity. 500m is an important distance for me. If I could row 1:28.x for 500m I would have some world records. Conservatively, 6:30 2K is well within sight with such ability. I think many reading this would, like me, like to be able to row 1:28.x.

You are quite right, I do not know your particulars. I merely commented on the skewed numbers. A 1:28 rower with good aerobic fitness is going to be in the 17's for 5000m. I can row in the upper 17's and cannot get close to 1:28. I would be scarey if I could.

[RBFC]

I've removed the distances that were not PBs.

If it were all I was doing for fitness, AND if I was fully recovered, I'd go after some longer distances too. It's OK if some folks think that the 500 is not as significant as other distances. It is significant for what I use it for.

Lee

[Carl Watts]

32-34 worked the best for me on the 500M

I have tried to rate up but it doesn't work for a FULL stroke. Personally I don't beleive in altering the same stroke as I use for every other distance just to try and improve the time. What would improve my time however is not doing 1:20 pace for the first 300M and then having to dramtiaclly slow due to fatigue. Going at 1:25 from the start and keeping it going would be a far better option to improve the current time.

[RBFC]

32-34 worked the best for me on the 500M

I have tried to rate up but it doesn't work for a FULL stroke. Personally I don't beleive in altering the same stroke as I use for every other distance just to try and improve the time. What would improve my time however is not doing 1:20 pace for the first 300M and then having to dramtiaclly slow due to fatigue. Going at 1:25 from the start and keeping it going would be a far better option to improve the current time.

Carl,

That's how I did this time: by keeping a constant pace and rate. I was about 30 spm on this one, and thought I might go up a bit next time I try. I don't know that I could pull off a "short-stroke" piece, as I'm just getting the hang of the "regular-stroke"! I think I can go out a little faster and hang on. I distinctly remember seeing 200m left to go and thinking that I wasn't going to burn out this time, like I did when going 1 second slower/500m (r = 38 for 200m, then crash&burn). I can see something in the 1:26 range coming soon when I get a few things together. If I get tired of running, fighting, and lifting weights, maybe the longer distances will be next.

Thanks,

Lee

[hjs]

32-34 worked the best for me on the 500M

I have tried to rate up but it doesn't work for a FULL stroke. Personally I don't beleive in altering the same stroke as I use for every other distance just to try and improve the time. What would improve my time however is not doing 1:20 pace for the first 300M and then having to dramtiaclly slow due to fatigue. Going at 1:25 from the start and keeping it going would be a far better option to improve the current time.

Sprinting is sprinting and not cruising at full stroke. There you go wrong, for the best result you should use the stroke that is the most suited.

[Carl Watts]

The power I already had, but it has taken me a couple of years to get a better balance and bring the speed up and the rating way down on the longer distance rows, the cardio system just fell over in a heap ! always find the signatures interesting as they tend to skew one way or the other and it gives you some insite as to a persons sporting background.

[Cyclingman1]

All you guys rowing in the 1:20's for 500m especially the mid 1:20's probably cannot appreciate what a luxury that is to have that kind of power and speed in your back pocket no matter what distance you are doing. Of course, I realize that we are all pysiologically different. Most of us are not made of the best from both worlds - great power and aerobic capacity.

Carl, you have much more balanced PB's, although you tend to the power side. I'm looking at that 6:56 (1:44) for 2K and wondering if that can't come down. I do 6:49 (1:42.2) for 2K and am right at 1:35 for 500m. I'm rowing far closer to my power capacity (500m best + 7 secs); in other words, I seem to have a high AT. You do 2K at a pace that is nearly 18 secs slower than your best 500m. But really interesting is that you slow down by about only 3 sec per 500m for 5K. Just observing - not a criticism.