Crazy new 2k erg strategy - what do you think? Share yours.

[Yankeerunner]

My best races have always be negatively split, although sometimes so slightly that it could be considered even pace. And even pace requires increased effort to maintain that pace and could actually be considered negative split effort.

Beyond the physical I find a psychological spiral both up and down. If my split get slower as a race progresses it can be a bit of a downer and lead to discouragement. If the split keeps getting faster when I increase the effort it is psychologically pleasing and probably leads to a flow of adrenaline that allows the pace to increase even more. At least for me that's how it seems to work.

[Bob S.]

I have to acknowledge that some individuals claim to do best with a negative split strategy for a time trial, but I still question whether it is the best strategy.

I would like to point out that I think there is a difference between a time trial, an individual event, and race where one is literally racing side-by-side. In a race, a negative split strategy makes a lot of sense, the hope being that enough energy is conserved to overtake a competitor at the end. But is that the same as trying for the best time? Maybe, maybe not.

As I pointed out earlier:
The French Rowing Fed predicts and suggests that for a final 6:59.1 and pre race capability of 1.34/500m, a time trialer can/should do 1:42.2; 1:46.8; 1:46.8; 1:43.3 to maximize time. One could quibble with the exact intervals, but I don't think that they can be readily dismissed.

With negative splits one has the psychological as well as the physical burden of rowing ever faster as one is tiring. With the French suggestion or some variation of it, one gets off to a good start and permits one's self to slow down as one is tiring and at the same time preserving some energy for the final push. Also there is usually less ground to make up with this strategy. That is what the faster start buys one. One might say that lactic will build up with a fast start. But if one has been training with 500m intervals a few seconds below race pace, one fast 500m at the start that is actually slower than the training 500m should not be that devastating.

I'm not going to argue with the success that is claimed with negative intervals for those who can pull it off. But I really do wonder if that is the "best" strategy. I know that it does not work for me for the reasons stated above. A quick start gives a cushion instead of having to battle uphill.

Just found this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1725010/

I'm sure this topic has been debated somewhere in this forum. Every subject is recycled every so often.

I did only a cursory search on this, but this site looks like it has the full story:

http://warmup.freespiritsrowing.com/for ... f=7&t=1921

Mike did an extensive job digging up actual race results to come to his conclusions, which are still regarded as radical by most of the rowing community.

As far as racing side by side is concerned, I am convinced that those who say, "row your own race," have the best advice. With a solid race plan in mind, ignore the others and stick to you plan. I remember one of my few cross country races, in which a number of the starters went out well ahead of the pack early in the race. I overheard one of the others mutter to a friend, "they'll be back," and, sure enough, they were.

One great example of sticking to you own plan was Xeno's Olympic gold medal race. He just bided his time and ended up blowing away the rest of the field with a fantastic sprint.

Just based on physics, even splitting is the best. Physiology is another matter. It is far more complex and is argued endlessly on the rowing forums and probably in other sports as well. But I am convinced that psychology plays the biggest role in this. Some will have a solid pacing plan and the concentration to stick to it ignoring what is going on around them. Others need the stimulus of side by side competition to bring out their strongest efforts. Others do best with a competent coach/coxswain who can keep them on track with their pacing and can help bring out their best efforts for that final sprint.

I guess that I belong in that last category. For my best results at major competitions (3 WRs) I had skilled coaching. That's only possible on the erg, of course. There are no coxswains for single sculls and the cox of a 4+ or 8+ has to work with the team as a whole.

Bob S.

[Cyclingman1]

I believe that Xeno is not in favor of negative splits. I'm certain that I saw a quote by him on that subject. I have no idea what pacing he actually uses in races.

Read Mike's take on the subject. His conclusions seem to be in direct opposition to data that clearly shows that negative splits were not used in the highest levels of competition both OTW and ergs. Not sure how he reconciles that.

The bottom line is that we all do what works for us. For me, it is always a below race pace start. Used it in running and now in rowing.

[Quatroux]

Xeno's 2k strategy is listed here: http://xenocoach.com/2013/01/crash-b-20 ... t-of-hell/
This is a very recent post by him. Here's my understanding of his plan:

Sprint first 18 strokes then settle into target pace +1" until you reach 900 meters to go. You will have eroded all of the time saved by the fast start by this 1100m mark (900m to go).

Spend the next 500 meters (900 to 400) at your target pace. At 400m to go, take 4 to 5 strokes at +1 to prepare for the final sprint.

Full sprint for the last 300 meters.

You really should watch the video or at least read this in his own words via the link.

[Cyclingman1]

The following was posted on Apr 20, 2006 by Dougsurf; he quotes Xeno:

This is how I race a 2000 meter Indoor Rowing Race on the Concept 2 Rower, CRASH-B or Long Beach Sprint 2006

Hi,
On the ergo you have immediate feedback what your pace is. This is not the case in racing on the water. On the water it was by feel and race experience. On the ergo you aware of every split time and second you pull.

So this is how I personally row a 2K.

First I determine what I am capable of for 2k, by rowing a few race pace 1000 and 500m, and past ability and my current endurance ability for steady state.

In 2004 I pushed 5:53
In 2005 6:02 ( I believe)

For the sake of simplicity I will show the race plan for a 6:00 2K

First eighteen strokes bring the average per 500 meters down to 1:27ish without overdoing it and using adrenaline. Be very carful not to be blinded by adrenaline, if you do that mistake you explode somwhere between 1200m and 800 meters to go.

After the first 18 strokes find your race pace, which DOES not have to be 1:30, you have a head start because of the start. So I would push 130-131 occasionaly seeing 1:32. I am carfully monitoring the total average split per 500. So slowly the "start-lead" fizzels down to a total average of 1:30. This occured to me at 900 meters to go. So now it is down to buisness. I couldn't immediately adjust to maintaining 1:30 constant overall average so I lost in overall average 0.4 seconds bringing it to 1:30.4. The further you go into the piece the less the total average per 500 meters fluctuates! Once I find the pace at exactly and consistantly 1:30 I am at roughly 650 meters to go. Cool I see the end of the tunnel, yeah! I also do not feel totally tired either because I chose the right pace and only had to row the 1:30 for roughly 500 meters. So by the time I hit 350 meters to go I sprint because I know it is roughly thirty stroke. That is psycho babble of coursem, because it is going to be more like 38 strokes, but who cares about an extra 8 strokes when you only have 50 meters left. Believe me, when the sprint is set up right, for the remaining 350 meters, YOU CAN DROP YOUR OVERALL AVERGE by 0.5 seconds or even 0.8.
I hope this helps.

I realize that this is different from negative splitting. I am NOT a negative splitter. We should have a get together at the IRON OARSMAN one day and eat at the outback stake house down the street.
XENO

In the above, the rower is gradually slowing down for the first 1100m until race pace is reached. Then race pace is maintained until the final few hundred meters and the rower finds out how much is left in the tank.

[Rockin Roland]

I agree with the above in that you cannot directly compare racing on the water to racing on an erg. They are so different. Too many variables and uncontrolled factors come into play in the boat. Wheras on the erg you are sitting on a simple piece of excercise equipment in a room within a controlled environment.

As I said in my previous post, negative spliting works best for experienced rowers who have many times, through years of training, explored their limitations and boundaries. They know how to pace themselves for negative splitting. They know through experience what initial starting pace to commence with and how much range they are capable of to play with. They wouldn't go out too hot and burn before the 1000m mark. To me the very fast first 500m method is not the smart way of doing things. It leaves you without a solid plan for the remaining 1500m and too much risk.

Below are my splits from the PM4 monitor for the 2000m time trial I did last monday:

500m 1:38.4 32 spm 156 bpm HR
1000m 1:37.9 32 spm 169 bpm HR
1500m 1:37.4 33 spm 177 bpm HR
2000m 1:36.0 36 spm 178 bpm HR

Total 6:29.8 33 average spm 170 bpm average HR Age 51 Weight 86kg

There are some things that need to be pointed out from my above successful 2000m time trial:
1) The negative spliting for the first 1500m changed only by small amounts (half a second per 500m) before the two surges in the final 500m (which improved pace by further 1.5 seconds). I believe if I tried negative splitting by one second incremants for initial 1500m I would have blown up and eventually hit the wall too soon.

2) My stroke rate remained the same for the first 1500m hence my negative split pacing was controlled by increasing pressure on the handle via application of power, rather than rating up and down the slide. That is negative split pace and not stroke rate. Don't fall for the trap of negative splitting stroke rate. I believe you'd be playing with fire there.

3) Given my age of 51 yo, in theory my max heart rate should be 169 bpm. The majority of the time trial was performed at close to or at my max heart rate. Performing at max heart rate for such a duration and still being capable of finding a bit more from somewhere to improve the splits, not only requires a highly trained fitness/strength level , but also the right mental capacity. Negative splitting requires the right mental capacity to work outside one's own comfort zone for long durations of time.

4) Ability to pace to the very last 100m is essential for success. Although the above splits don't show it. Most of my last 500m was done at 1:35 pace until with about 50m to go my pace shot back up to about 1:38 pace by which time I was completely spent and had no chance of bringing the splits back down again.

[Mike Caviston]

This topic has long been of interest to me and I’ve put a lot of time and energy into gathering data from races. I’ve discussed the results and ramifications several times, most recently here:
http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24478

Read Mike's take on the subject. His conclusions seem to be in direct opposition to data that clearly shows that negative splits were not used in the highest levels of competition both OTW and ergs. Not sure how he reconciles that.

I’m not sure I can untangle that sentence to understand its statement. Negative splits have been used at the highest levels of competition both OTW and ergs, with better success than any other strategy or pacing profile.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

RR that is very impressive. Kudos on the sub 6:30!

I still maintain that negative splitting works best. As many have pointed out it takes a certain level of experience and knowledge of your fitness and previous times.

[OarConsequences]

@AWAL
What you propose is indeed a crazy strategy. It's true that the math works out as you describe but the math isn't the one doing the work. It's easy to just say "All I have to do is keep my splits at 1:30 the whole way then sprint a little at the end then I'll beat 6:00!" but the reality is of course different. It is understandable how it may seem like that could work but as others have pointed out, it won't. You will need more energy to execute a sprint/relax race pace than a constant speed. The other thing to consider is if the strategy really would work then you'd see people using it in competition, not just in rowing but running, cycling, speed skating, etc. There simply isn't enough recover benefit from easing off the pace to compensate for the extra energy to go faster than pace.

@Cyclingman1
Just because the French Rowing Federation recommends something doesn't mean that it is the best way. As for strategy, I put full faith in Mike Caviston's recommendations which are based on actual results. It is easy for someone to come up with a strategy (see OP's thoughts on how a 2K could be run) but a strategy backed up with data is going to carry far more weight in my book. Also remember, as pointed out by Mike, that just because someone does well with a different strategy doesn't preclude the possibility that they would have done even better with negative splitting.

I also hear what you're saying about having to do increase speed at the end of the race when you are most tired. What you need to consider is that you won't be as tired at the end if you have been conserving energy up to that point by starting off relatively easier. If you were going to go bike 20 miles and wanted to get the best possible time, would sprinting full out the first mile be a sound strategy? You'd be winded and have 19 miles left to go. That's an extreme example of course but the point is to suggest that positive splitting is really just a very watered down version of fly and die strategy which is known not to work.

For more information on Mike's data on the matter see this thread: http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... c&start=15

[Cyclingman1]

It is easy for someone to come up with a strategy (see OP's thoughts on how a 2K could be run)

Really - it's easy? I've been a competitive athlete for decades. Coming up with overall racing strategies and race-specific strategies is never easy. Much goes into formulating strategies. Mike C's interpretation of what he sees has legitimacy. However, there are plenty of contrary interpretations and ideas about how to race.

Personally, I don't like negative splits. It is not a reason for criticism. Slow starts equals slow results for me. On the other hand, I've done well with faster starts. There is no reason to distort faster starts by referring to them as "fly and die." Faster starts can be as controlled as negative splits. You may notice that I don't call my approach the best; however, nor do I think it inferior.

[OarConsequences]

When I say "easy" I mean easy to come up with an arbitrary one like "Split +5 for the first half, split -5 for the second half." I can rattle of dozens of other strategies in few minutes. I'm not suggesting that it is simple to create an effective one. What I'm saying is that OP or anyone else can whip out a strategy without effort. My point is that just publishing a strategy does not mean it's effective whereas Mike's strategy has data to back it up.

Does one strategy fit all? Of course not. If you have a strategy that works best for you then by all means you should of course stick to it. But Mike's data shows that *in general*, the best strategy is negative splits. But I have an open mind and if there is data to support the idea that other strategies work better than negative splits then I'd love to read up on it.

Sorry to have offended about positive splitting. You are correct, it is a distortion and it is an unfair characterization. I retract the comparison because positive splits can be managed. I do however want to clarify that there is a flip side to front loading a race and that is that there will be less in the tank available at the end compared to back loading.

[Cyclingman1]

When I say "easy" I mean easy to come up with an arbitrary one like "Split +5 for the first half, split -5 for the second half." I can rattle of dozens of other strategies in few minutes. I'm not suggesting that it is simple to create an effective one. What I'm saying is that OP or anyone else can whip out a strategy without effort. My point is that just publishing a strategy does not mean it's effective whereas Mike's strategy has data to back it up.

Sorry to have offended about positive splitting. You are correct, it is a distortion and it is an unfair characterization. I retract the comparison because positive splits can be managed. I do however want to clarify that there is a flip side to front loading a race and that is that there will be less in the tank available at the end compared to back loading.

Mr Consequences, You just cannot play nice on this subject. You apologize and then turn around and label positive splitting as "arbitrary." Presumably negative splitting is all reasonable and rational. Ignoring the word "arbitrary," no one can follow perfectly plans laid out for racing. There are way too many factors involved - way too many to even begin mentioning. In addition, people do not race all that much. Practice makes perfect. One simply has not the practice to perfectly perdict and follow racing strategies except in more or less broad terms.

Getting past the "just whip out a strategy" comment, I more or less try to row -1.5, 0.0, +1.5, 0.0 in my 500m splits relative to desired average for 2000m. It is not arbitrary. It is what I think will maximize my total time. Really sticking my neck for all the naysayers to jump on me, I will share my best 2000m times and splits for this year. I did not do my plan exactly, but actually came very close.

Attempt Final time Average Splits with SPM
6:40.0 6:40.7 1:40.2 1:37.8 (-2.4)/34; 1:40.3 (+0.1)/35; 1:41.7 (+1.5)/35; 1:40.8 (+0.6)/31.

This is my less than WR effort for +65 HWT. I wanted to hit 6:40 and was on target, but could only manage 1:40.8 at the end. Had I done 0.0 at the end or 1:40.0, I would have gotten below 6:40. Don't even tell me that had I done xxxxxx, that I would have made it. I had zero gas in the tank at the end. That is what racing is all about. How much do you have left in the end. It makes all the difference. On another day, I may well have gotten the 6:40.

6:43.0 6:42.9 1:40.7 1:39.1 (-1.6); 1:40.5 (-0.2); 1:42.9 (+2.2); 1:40.3 (-0.4). SPM 33

6:44.0 6:43.7 1:40.9 1:39.1 (-1.8)/35; 1:41.1 (+0.2)/33; 1:42.6 ( +1.7)/32; 1:40.9 (0.0)/30.

These last two efforts were very close to the numbers I planned for.

Mr. Consequences, could you possibly share your racing background with the forum so that perhaps it can be better understood why you are so postive that negative splits are the best strategy - in fact, so positive that you denigrate other approaches?

[OarConsequences]

@Cyclingman1
Again, I apologize for my mischaracterization of positive splitting. As I said in my previous post, I retract that statement. If there is anything that I can do to resolve this for you let me know.

I am not labeling positive splitting as arbitrary. In fact the off the cuff example that I provided is negative splitting.

The point I was trying to make is simply that anyone can write down a racing scheme whether it's positive, negative, or otherwise (for example: +2 for 250, -2 for 250, 0 for 500, -2 for 250, +2 for 250, 0 for 500) but that publishing that strategy does not necessarily mean that it is going to be the most effective.

Do I think negative splitting is reasonable and rationale? My personal opinion is yes based on the data that I've seen. Again, I'd love to see more research on the subject and I hold an open mind. I also realize that there is no one answer that is best for everyone.

The reason I am in the negative splits camp is based on what I've read of Mike Caviston's research on the topic. His data from many different events (and different sports for that matter) backs up the idea that negatives are the way to go. Apart from the numbers I personally feel that it makes intuitive sense as well though I'm sure others have differing opinions. I don't see why any single person's racing background would matter in comparison to the compiled data available but since you ask, I don't race.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

It only matters insofar as psychology can play just as big a part in a 2k race as physiology. Those who race/erg would know that you can be as prepared as you want but come race time things may not go as planned, and sometimes it's due to psychological reasons.

[Bob S.]

It only matters insofar as psychology can play just as big a part in a 2k race as physiology. Those who race/erg would know that you can be as prepared as you want but come race time things may not go as planned, and sometimes it's due to psychological reasons.

Coxing can help a lot with that. I have found that whatever game plan I use, it is blown out of my mind early on and a bit useless. It doesn't seem as bad for home time trials. I used a pace boat for my most recent TT and just concentrated on keeping a nose ahead, ending up with 0.3 second lower than my goal. It doesn't work that way in competitions. You can't use pace boats and it is pointless to pay any attention to the competitor boats on the screen if you want to row your own race. I have been fortunate to have great coxing for several competitions and in each case, the cox helped a lot to keep me focused on my game plan. On three occasions it resulted in WR 2ks. The major problem for me is trying to pick the proper pace goal. I can't go by what I do in training, because it is done at an altitude of 4,000' and the competitions are at sea level. I cut anywhere from 10-30 seconds off in a 2k when I row at a sea level event. As a result, I can only make a rough guess about an appropriate pace goal.

Another advantage of good coxing is that he/she can fine tune the rower's technique with careful suggestions. It does have to be much - just a word or two. Simple suggestions like breathe deeply, drive the legs, reach out, sit up. I found that just the single words like breathe, reach, and legs were useful to me. Then, at the right time, the call to go all out in the sprint. I suppose those who race a lot don't need those things so much, but I find it hard to stay focused under race conditions.

Bob S.