New Personal Best! Brag About That New Pb!

[JMac]

Hopefully not 19 stone for too much longer!

Splits below, absolutely nothing in the tank after that!

[bonefixer]

I feel your pain, outstanding 500m Mac, why stop there, training below it is were the pain begins

Very well done.

Indeed, but 40:48 for 10K is comparatively poor. Each to their own of course, but I'd suggest that JMac is better off training over longer distances at 2:00ish than short intervals at sub 1:25.

[JMac]

I feel your pain, outstanding 500m Mac, why stop there, training below it is were the pain begins

Very well done.

Indeed, but 40:48 for 10K is comparatively poor. Each to their own of course, but I'd suggest that JMac is better off training over longer distances at 2:00ish than short intervals at sub 1:25.

I'll definitely try that. Still trying to get used to the pacing over the longer distances. Endurance definitely isn't a strength of mine, but hoping to get sub 40 for 10k before too long!

[hjs]

I feel your pain, outstanding 500m Mac, why stop there, training below it is were the pain begins

Very well done.

Indeed, but 40:48 for 10K is comparatively poor. Each to their own of course, but I'd suggest that JMac is better off training over longer distances at 2:00ish than short intervals at sub 1:25.

Its just Poor

With a 1.24 500 and 6.6 7 min should be paddle. Get to work

[jackarabit]

I feel your pain, outstanding 500m Mac, why stop there, training below it is were the pain begins

Very well done.

Indeed, but 40:48 for 10K is comparatively poor. Each to their own of course, but I'd suggest that JMac is better off training over longer distances at 2:00ish than short intervals at sub 1:25.

Its just Poor

With a 1.24 500 and 6.6 7 min should be paddle. Get to work

I wouldn't slam the outhouse door that hard. There was a time not so long ago when most here would have said JMac's times at distance were not in consonance with Paul's Law [Paul Smith's not Paul45's]. Bit of scholarly subtlety gone out of fashion now.

Seems in these PB threads we can't produce a simple, unqualified Attaboy! We could hold our water until someone asks if he or she should enter the House of Pain, seek the Aerobic Endurance Grail, or eat Gerbils raw.

[hjs]

Ok, maybe saying your aerobic fitness is fully untrained would be more positive. A 1.24 500 compares to 6.30/40 on the 2k.

Re Pauls law, not my thing, paces can,t be captured in one simple rule. There is no straight line, nor should we aim to have one over the distances.

[bonefixer]

There is no straight line, nor should we aim to have one over the distances.

No straight line, but there is a curve. Being a bit of a maths geek, I keep a spreadsheet of my PBs, and it plots a log-log curve of power vs distance, to which I fit a quadratic regression curve. It's a very good predictor of where I'm at and what I should do next. Clearly, of the 9 standard pieces (I don't include the marathon), 4 or 5 will be below the curve, 4 or 5 above. I tend to pick my weakest PB and try to put it above the curve. Most recent for example, my 6K was at 250W, my prediction was for 255, and I set my PB at 256. When a new PB is set the curve changes a bit, and a different one becomes the weak-link.

Although I haven't done so, I think I could use it to generate a single number which conveys how aerobically fit someone is, a factor which measures how performance falls off with longer distance. I remember seeing 2.11 as being the factor by which you multiply a time in order to do double the distance. If you're more than that you're less fit, and vice versa.

[hjs]

There is no straight line, nor should we aim to have one over the distances.

No straight line, but there is a curve. Being a bit of a maths geek, I keep a spreadsheet of my PBs, and it plots a log-log curve of power vs distance, to which I fit a quadratic regression curve. It's a very good predictor of where I'm at and what I should do next. Clearly, of the 9 standard pieces (I don't include the marathon), 4 or 5 will be below the curve, 4 or 5 above. I tend to pick my weakest PB and try to put it above the curve. Most recent for example, my 6K was at 250W, my prediction was for 255, and I set my PB at 256. When a new PB is set the curve changes a bit, and a different one becomes the weak-link.

Although I haven't done so, I think I could use it to generate a single number which conveys how aerobically fit someone is, a factor which measures how performance falls off with longer distance. I remember seeing 2.11 as being the factor by which you multiply a time in order to do double the distance. If you're more than that you're less fit, and vice versa.

Ye but thats individual, not general!

It also depends on ones training, focus on endurance and the curve will become flatter, focus on strenght vice versa.
Slow fiber versa more fast fibers. Gives different curves.

Re Looking at season bests, for me just the other way around, if some part of my training goes well I extra focus on that, the weaker stuff I ignore. Often a result of already extra focus or injury.

And 10 ranking pieces? Thats only the nonathlon, there are 13 ranking pieces. 100, 60sec, 4min.

[DNA_Rower]

Just took about 30s off my 10k PB as part of Beginner Pete Plan W19.

For ages I had not been able to get my 10k back under 40min, but recently through BPP built up to 11000m where I was able to hold 1:59.5, so when the BPP said to do another 10k I figured I could get a PB. Time was 39:20.9 (1:58.0/500m) at rate 23.

Feels good to beat a PB by so much but a bit disappointing to see it ranks only 66th percentile, whereas my 5k and 30min are 72nd and 76th percentiles respectively. Felt like I had quite a bit left in the tank so can probably get that closer to 39min.

[jackarabit]

Great comeback PB, DNA. Did it without bleeding out the eye sockets, did you? The best testimonial to the effectiveness of Marston's beginner strategy of ratcheting up volume and racheting up pace is that it works for greenies and for the experienced. More to come is a good place to be!

[bonefixer]

Ye but thats individual, not general!

It also depends on ones training, focus on endurance and the curve will become flatter, focus on strenght vice versa.
Slow fiber versa more fast fibers. Gives different curves.

Re Looking at season bests, for me just the other way around, if some part of my training goes well I extra focus on that, the weaker stuff I ignore. Often a result of already extra focus or injury.

And 10 ranking pieces? Thats only the nonathlon, there are 13 ranking pieces. 100, 60sec, 4min.

That's right, the specific curve is individual, but there will be a general pattern that applies, and the idea that double distance requires 2.x times the time is surely sound.

As for ranking pieces, I'm sure you're right. I don't go as low as 100m though - different test where your start is very important - and 60sec/4min tests are not much different in character from 500m and 1000m. From the 10 I do you could also drop 6K, 30min and 60min, leaving 7 distances that roughly double all the way (500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, HM, FM) - I do like doing the time based rather than the distance based pieces though, so perhaps just drop the 6K!

[hjs]

That's right, the specific curve is individual, but there will be a general pattern that applies, and the idea that double distance requires 2.x times the time is surely sound.

As for ranking pieces, I'm sure you're right. I don't go as low as 100m though - different test where your start is very important - and 60sec/4min tests are not much different in character from 500m and 1000m. From the 10 I do you could also drop 6K, 30min and 60min, leaving 7 distances that roughly double all the way (500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, HM, FM) - I do like doing the time based rather than the distance based pieces though, so perhaps just drop the 6K!

Re P s law ad5 per doubling, certainly don,t think thats true. 1k to 2k difference for me its a lot more. 30 min to 60 less, plus 3 sounds right here. Thats why I said, that law is not mine. Also it was not mend as a law but to see where a rowers strenght was to be found. Pauls athletes trained purely for the 2k. And most sessions where 6 or 8k. No longer.

And yes, lots of stuff overlaps. 5/6 30/10k 60/hm.

Below 500 and above 10k stuff gets more specific. Nothing wrong with those but less suited for general erging.

[JMac]

Managed to get a PB 2k. Probably could have been smoother, but happy to break 7 minutes for the first time.

Time Meters /500m s/m
6:50.3 2,000m 1:42.5 32
1:41.7 500m 1:41.7 37
1:44.2 1,000m 1:44.2 32
1:43.6 1,500m 1:43.6 31
1:40.9 2,000m 1:40.9 30

[hjs]

Managed to get a PB 2k. Probably could have been smoother, but happy to break 7 minutes for the first time.

Time Meters /500m s/m
6:50.3 2,000m 1:42.5 32
1:41.7 500m 1:41.7 37
1:44.2 1,000m 1:44.2 32
1:43.6 1,500m 1:43.6 31
1:40.9 2,000m 1:40.9 30

Looks fine and much more in line with your 500. But lots more potential.

Congrats

[-marius-]

New PB on 4' sprint today.
Goal was 1300m but missed it by 3m. Still not that bad considering it done in the morning on empty stomach and two days of not feeling too good.
Drag Factor: 175 - Forgot to reduce it to approx 150 after warm up. I wish to think it made a difference in the final minute of the sprint
Time Meters /500m Watts Cal/Hr s/m
4:00.0 1,297m 1:32.5 442 1819 37
1:00.0 323m 1:32.8 437 1801 36
2:00.0 324m 1:32.5 441 1815 37
3:00.0 324m 1:32.5 441 1815 36
4:00.0 327m 1:31.7 453 1858 39

Next goal is the current american 4' record for age class 40-49; 1309m