Erging Tables

MarcusLL · Post by **MarcusLL** » April 5th, 2006, 4:19 am

Paces from 500m to 60 minutes are all pretty well tested, I only rarely do anything outside these bounds.

500 1:29.4 39 or 40 (educated guess at rate since 300 was at 42)
1000 1:38.4 36
2000 1:43.9 32
5000 1:52.4 30
10000 1:55.9 27
15248 1:58.1 26
21097 2:01.9 24 (not a strong pb as I haven't done it often)

calonius · Post by **calonius** » April 5th, 2006, 5:54 am

I would like to totally exclude 500m from these calculations since I do not believe there is a correlation between 500m and 2k results.

Arno

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » April 5th, 2006, 10:35 am

MarcusLL wrote:Paces from 500m to 60 minutes are all pretty well tested, I only rarely do anything outside these bounds.

500 1:29.4 39 or 40 (educated guess at rate since 300 was at 42)
1000 1:38.4 36
2000 1:43.9 32
5000 1:52.4 30
10000 1:55.9 27
15248 1:58.1 26
21097 2:01.9 24 (not a strong pb as I haven't done it often)

Are you doing these without a warm-up?
While calonius has a point about the 500m, since you are not particularly over-rating the 500m it is as applicable as anything else. (BTW - The French argue directly for the application of a 500m performance to a 2k strategy, so tossing it out would be a bit extreme.)
The most striking thing is the immediate decline from the 500m to the 1k.
IMO, you need more endurance work, though I don't consider that to be whispy 60 minute pieces where you can hold a conversation. More like 8k's, working your way down from evenly paced 2:00's, using some form of stroke rate discipline. (I'd recommend S10PS of course.)

whp4 · Post by **whp4** » April 5th, 2006, 10:49 am

calonius wrote:I would like to totally exclude 500m from these calculations since I do not believe there is a correlation between 500m and 2k results.

Arno

None whatsoever? I've found that it is pretty useful to look at 500m pace when estimating potential 2k pace. You can safely disregard all targets where 2k pace < 500m pace + 6 seconds, for example. I find 2k attempts to be too painful to want to do them without a reasonable expectation of success, so I know there isn't any point in attempting to go below 6:08 with my 500m pace of 1:32. This way, when I get a chance to do some speed work and break the 40-49 hwt record, I'll have the additional glory of having done it on the very first attempt

Bill

MarcusLL · Post by **MarcusLL** » April 5th, 2006, 10:51 am

Fair enough, on with the stm3 it is then.

All pbs <60 mins done with a warm-up.

I would guess that the drop-off is rapid from 500m to 1k simply because my fairly reasonable anaerobic strength, which probably helps me at least slightly in the 500, very rapidly becomes useless at distances greater than this and I'm back to my fairly rubbish aerobic system.

fish · Post by **fish** » April 5th, 2006, 10:53 am

It seems that my scores are weighted toward the endurance end. I haven't tried a 10K all out.

500 m - 1:48.9
2K - 1:56.3
5K - 2:01.3
30 min - 2:04.1

Arlene

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » April 5th, 2006, 1:18 pm

calonius wrote:I would like to totally exclude 500m from these calculations since I do not believe there is a correlation between 500m and 2k results.

Arno

There is a correlation, but has much greater accuracy when combined with one's time for a 5k or a 10k.

For example, 1000m and 5k times are excellent predictors of the 2k when taken together, 500m and 10000m times are good predictors, or 500m and 5k etc.

Neb154 · Post by **Neb154** » April 5th, 2006, 4:40 pm

My most recent times

2k 1:46.8
20' 1:55.0
30' 1:57.2
40' 1:59.6

hjs · Post by **hjs** » April 6th, 2006, 7:52 am

Compare the splits :

http://elm.dynamicducks.com/challenges/pb_table

The more people join this the more value it will have.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » April 6th, 2006, 12:53 pm

That simply looks like a table of who is the heaviest.

If you want to compare times, then use the PERathlon tables in my signature file.

hjs · Post by **hjs** » April 6th, 2006, 1:09 pm

John Rupp wrote:That simply looks like a table of who is the heaviest.

If you want to compare times, then use the PERathlon tables in my signature file.

Hmm you seem to see more than others. I see nothing about weight

But then again I don't live in Ruppianland.

Francois · Post by **Francois** » April 6th, 2006, 1:35 pm

MarcusLL wrote:Fair enough, on with the stm3 it is then.

All pbs <60 mins done with a warm-up.

I would guess that the drop-off is rapid from 500m to 1k simply because my fairly reasonable anaerobic strength, which probably helps me at least slightly in the 500, very rapidly becomes useless at distances greater than this and I'm back to my fairly rubbish aerobic system.

I have the opposite problem with a 500m at 1:38.2

Paul's law doesn't work for me because I have too much slow twitching muscles!

MarcusLL · Post by **MarcusLL** » April 6th, 2006, 2:03 pm

Yikes! We have 2k pbs with .1 second of each other - how on *earth* can you do a >16k hour!? Your 60 minute pace is faster than my 5k pace!

I have a suspicion we are rather different shapes . . .

Francois · Post by **Francois** » April 6th, 2006, 2:23 pm

MarcusLL wrote:Yikes! We have 2k pbs with .1 second of each other - how on *earth* can you do a >16k hour!? Your 60 minute pace is faster than my 5k pace!

I have a suspicion we are rather different shapes . . .

Your dps for the 500m and the 5k are almost the same: 8.4 and 8.9 respectively. Usually, there is a greater difference in dps. Maybe your 5k would be faster if you were to use a slower SR and pulling a little harder!

My hour row was done strapless at 24 spm (10.95 m/stroke), but I can't row at 1:29, not even for one single stroke to save my life!

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » April 6th, 2006, 2:38 pm

Francois wrote: I have the opposite problem with a 500m at 1:38.2
Paul's law doesn't work for me because I have too much slow twitching muscles!

Sorry Francois, It is you who does not 'work' for Paul's Law, not the other way around.

Slow twitch fibres can still be plenty strong, it just takes some work.