2k And 500m

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 22nd, 2005, 12:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Xeno @ Dec 21 2005, 12:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Tuna.<br /><br />I have another piece of information for you.<br /><br />In different Olympic teams, when a 500 meter is rowed flat out, full tilt, so hard that you do not want to take another stroke beyond, that should be in the ball park of 107% of your max 2K split time.<br />The 500 meter time is broken down into seconds to calculate the 100% 2K time. This is with the assumption that training has been consistent.<br /><br />I hope this helps.<br /><br />XENO <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Hi Xeno,<br /><br />Your formula seems to give a good estimate for me:<br />500m PB: 1:38.2; predicted 2K 7:00.3; actual 2K: 6:55.7<br />So in my case the percentage is 105.8 %<br /><br />Do you use other percentages to predict performances at longer distances, based on 2K?<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Francois<br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 22nd, 2005, 12:21 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(SteveV @ Dec 21 2005, 10:52 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Doesn't seem to work out well for me, way out<br /><br />500m - 1:25.7 (not particularly fast for a m40h)<br />your method predicts a 2km time of 6:06.7 (WR pace)<br />my 2km best 6:31.4 <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You're just a Brute! 500m paces and 2k Paces will be 10 seconds difference ("Paul's Law") with balanced fitness. (You would still be looking at 6:23 or so, when your endurance catches up to your strength. Thought the strength could have moved on by then also.)<br /><br />But if you want to go with the more lyrical "Double the D add 3", feel free.

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » December 22nd, 2005, 3:22 pm

Re the correlation between a 500 M test and a 2k, Stephen Seiler concludes there is only a weak correlation between the two:<br /><br />Muscle strength is strongly related to anaerobic capacity (500 meter time). But, is 500 meter performance time strongly correlated to 2k performance time? The answer is YES and NO. Yes, they are related if you take a range of people from untrained to elite oarsmen, or combine lightweight and heavy weight men and women into one very heterogeneous group. But, NO they are not related when you look within a specific group of well trained rowers. When I determined the relationship between power output/kg for 500 meters and 2000 meters among 25 heavyweight men, the correlation was a weak 0.50. In the top 10 heavyweight women it was 0.07 or basically zero! Among the men, 500 meter power varied by 30 percent, while 2k power only varied by 10 percent. <br /><br />Recently (2005), I applied the same approach to the online CII ergometer rankings. These data have become available since I first wrote this article. I took the top 10% of the performers age 20-40 in the 500m sprint. I then found those who had also performed 2k and 5k races. I then converted performance times to power output in watts using the same equation used by Concept II. The correlation between 500meter power output and 2000meter output was about 0,4. This means that 500meter power output only explained about 16% of the variation in 2k performance. However, the correlation between 2k and 5k power output was about 0.9, meaning that 80% of 2k performance was explained by variation in 5k performance. These data actually support nicely the known physiology of the 2k race. About 85% of the energy requirement during the race is supplied aerobically, while the remainder is supplied via anaerobic pathways. For those who are interested, these data also suggest that 5000meter power should average about 80-85% of 2,000m power. Among the good rowers I analyzed, this ratio ranged from 77% to about 90%. It is interesting to note in this context that the US National team no longer performs strength or sprint tests, only the 2k and 6k ergos. <br />

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » December 22nd, 2005, 5:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 22 2005, 09:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But if you want to go with the more lyrical "Double the D add 3", feel free. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />O.K., Paul, I give up. I have seen this quoted often enough on this forum, but I still haven't figured out what the "D" is that is supposed to be doubled. (Another) translation, please.<br /><br />Bob S., alien from a lost world of wooden shells and oars and rusty riggers.<br />

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » December 22nd, 2005, 6:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Dec 22 2005, 04:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 22 2005, 09:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But if you want to go with the more lyrical "Double the D add 3", feel free. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />O.K., Paul, I give up. I have seen this quoted often enough on this forum, but I still haven't figured out what the "D" is that is supposed to be doubled. (Another) translation, please.<br /><br />Bob S., alien from a lost world of wooden shells and oars and rusty riggers. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />D = Distance. As I understand it, theory is that, with every doubling of distance, the predicted 500 meter split goes up by 3 seconcs.

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » December 22nd, 2005, 8:01 pm

Well, "double the distance + 3" predicts a 5:58 for me based on a throwaway 500 (1:23.4) I did in October mainly to top this year's rankings for 50s fatties.<br /><br />I figure I'm actually probably at least a second and a half faster at the moment, which if the rubric holds should indicate 5:51.6. <br /><br />Since I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, either there's something wrong with the formula, or with me, or with both. <br /><br />Paul's rule suggests either a 6:13.6 or else a 6:07.6 depending on which 500 you choose as the starting point.<br /><br />Working off that 1:23.4, Xeno's 110% method suggests a 6:07.0; 107% a 5:57.0.<br /><br />Whoa, don't think those are right either.<br /><br />Maybe I just lack "balanced fitness," whatever that is. Or maybe I'm just disproportionately fast over 500m, other things equal.<br /><br />Interestingly, my 20' r28 pace for my September USIRT Dev Squad test was almost exactly 80% of the wattage of my October time trial. I think Seiler is on to something re the predictive value of longer pieces, and that the relationship was not by accident.<br /><br />

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » December 22nd, 2005, 8:15 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 23 2005, 12:01 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Interestingly, my 20' r28 pace for my September USIRT Dev Squad test was almost exactly 80% of the wattage of my October time trial. I think Seiler is on to something re the predictive value of longer pieces, and that the relationship was not by accident. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jon, what's your 30' R20 pace / distance? That should be close to 70% of 2K.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 22nd, 2005, 9:29 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 22 2005, 04:01 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Well, "double the distance + 3" predicts a 5:58 for me based on a throwaway 500 (1:23.4) I did in October mainly to top this year's rankings for 50s fatties.<br /><br />I figure I'm actually probably at least a second and a half faster at the moment, which if the rubric holds should indicate 5:51.6. <br /><br />Since I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, either there's something wrong with the formula, or with me, or with both. <br /><br />Paul's rule suggests either a 6:13.6 or else a 6:07.6 depending on which 500 you choose as the starting point.<br /><br />Working off that 1:23.4, Xeno's 110% method suggests a 6:07.0; 107% a 5:57.0.<br /><br />Whoa, don't think those are right either.<br /><br />Maybe I just lack "balanced fitness," whatever that is. Or maybe I'm just disproportionately fast over 500m, other things equal.<br /><br />Interestingly, my 20' r28 pace for my September USIRT Dev Squad test was almost exactly 80% of the wattage of my October time trial. I think Seiler is on to something re the predictive value of longer pieces, and that the relationship was not by accident. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not sure if you lack balance or not, due to the curtains, but it would surely appear that getting in some endurance work would be the ticket as you are obviously plenty strong.<br /><br />Q: How do I improve my 2k?<br />A: Improve your 6k.<br /><br />Cheers.

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » December 22nd, 2005, 10:19 pm

I seem to have the opposite problem from Jonathon. My 500m stinks. Of the five events that I ranked last season, the 500m is the only done that I haven't improved on.<br /><br /> 2005, 4000ft sea level 2006, 4000 ft sea level<br />500m: 1:49.2 1:50.2<br /><br />1k 4:11.6 4:03.1 4:00.8<br /><br />2k 8:50.9 8:18.1 8:27.5 8:05.6<br /><br />30' 6511m 6659m<br /><br />60' 13009m 13371m<br /><br />Since I improved substantially in the other four, I find it very disappointing that I couldn't improve on the 500m time. I tried it at Copenhagen in practice, but was reminded by one of the other team members that I shouldn't be horsing around with something like that just a couple of days before the competitions, so I eased off. (That was just after sneaking in the 1k piece at 400:8.)<br /><br />Bob S.<br /><br />

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » December 22nd, 2005, 10:27 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Dec 22 2005, 07:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I seem to have the opposite problem from Jonathon. My 500m stinks. Of the five events that I ranked last season, the 500m is the only done that I haven't improved on.<br /><br /> 2005, 4000ft sea level 2006, 4000 ft sea level<br />500m: 1:49.2 1:50.2<br /><br />1k 4:11.6 4:03.1 4:00.8<br /><br />2k 8:50.9 8:18.1 8:27.5 8:05.6<br /><br />30' 6511m 6659m<br /><br />60' 13009m 13371m<br /><br />Since I improved substantially in the other four, I find it very disappointing that I couldn't improve on the 500m time. I tried it at Copenhagen in practice, but was reminded by one of the other team members that I shouldn't be horsing around with something like that just a couple of days before the competitions, so I eased off. (That was just after sneaking in the 1k piece at 400:8.)<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />My columns got screwed up in transmission. The two listings each for the 500m, 30', and 60' were for the 2005 and 2006 seasons and were all at 4000 feet elevation. The first time for the 1k was for the 2005 at altitude; the second was for 2006 at altitude; the third was for 2006 at sea level. For the 2k it was 2005 at altitude, 2005 at sea level, 2006 at altitude and 2006 at sea level.<br /><br />Bob S.

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » December 22nd, 2005, 10:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Dec 22 2005, 07:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Dec 22 2005, 07:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I seem to have the opposite problem from Jonathon. My 500m stinks. Of the five events that I ranked last season, the 500m is the only done that I haven't improved on.<br /><br /> 2005, 4000ft sea level 2006, 4000 ft sea level<br />500m: 1:49.2 1:50.2<br /><br />1k 4:11.6 4:03.1 4:00.8<br /><br />2k 8:50.9 8:18.1 8:27.5 8:05.6<br /><br />30' 6511m 6659m<br /><br />60' 13009m 13371m<br /><br />Since I improved substantially in the other four, I find it very disappointing that I couldn't improve on the 500m time. I tried it at Copenhagen in practice, but was reminded by one of the other team members that I shouldn't be horsing around with something like that just a couple of days before the competitions, so I eased off. (That was just after sneaking in the 1k piece at 400:8.)<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />My columns got screwed up in transmission. The two listings each for the 500m, 30', and 60' were for the 2005 and 2006 seasons and were all at 4000 feet elevation. The first time for the 1k was for the 2005 at altitude; the second was for 2006 at altitude; the third was for 2006 at sea level. For the 2k it was 2005 at altitude, 2005 at sea level, 2006 at altitude and 2006 at sea level.<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well! That's a surprise. The original message had it screwed up, but in the quote, it came out almost as originally written. I don't know what to make of that.<br />

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » December 22nd, 2005, 11:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Dec 22 2005, 07:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 23 2005, 12:01 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Interestingly, my 20' r28 pace for my September USIRT Dev Squad test was almost exactly 80% of the wattage of my October time trial. I think Seiler is on to something re the predictive value of longer pieces, and that the relationship was not by accident. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jon, what's your 30' R20 pace / distance? That should be close to 70% of 2K. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I can't answer that because I haven't done 30' r20 flat out. I did something like 8265m this morning r20 as a UT2 workout. That's 1:48.9 pace, and if it had been done flat out would predict a 6:28 2k. I'd like to think I'll be significantly faster for the half hour if I put some effort into it and let my HR rise <br /><br />Seriously, if all goes well by the end of January I think I can potentially be around 1:44 for 30' r20. That may be wildly too ambitious a target; on the other hand it may turn out to be too cautious. We'll see how the training goes. <br />

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » December 22nd, 2005, 11:22 pm

Hi Robert<br /><br />Since we have not done a lactate test on you. From what you say, I am guessing that you are pretty much all aerobic. And that is great. A 12 year old is pretty much all ANaerobic.<br /><br />XENO

Concept2 Forum

2k And 500m

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ

FAQ