5k Score As Predictor Of 2k Score

[[old] wells-james@aramark.com]

I understand Dick Bell, coach of Detroit BC, used to have his folks do a 5K for score. The 5K score, divided by two, with 30 seconds subtracted from the result, was an excellent predictor of 2500 meter score--for those of who remember when the Model B was brand new, and before the "speed ring."<br><br>Any thoughts on how to predict a 2K score based on a 5K (or other long AT type piece, e.g. 20 minutes, 6K, etc.)?<br><br>Thanks!

[[old] Carl Henrik]

The calculations you describe fits with "double the d add 6" , which means that for every time you double the distance, the average pace will be 6 seconds slower. <br><br>For most distances, the 6 is not a 6, but in the range of 3 to 5, varying with different individuals. <br><br>I have, however, heard of many cases where the relationship between 5k and 2k, does give a higher value such as 6 for all out efforts. <br><br>If you like to have a goal for a 2k race that will be exremely tough or impossible to reach unless you are heavily blessed in anaerobic capacity(or just bad aerobically in comparison). Then a 6 is your choice. Doing some logarithmic math on this it means that you should then subtract 7.9 seconds from you 5k pace to get your 2k pace. <br><br>The lower limit I would say is to only subtract 4 seconds. Somewhere within that range you will find your own relation. Keep in mind that hwts and young people tend to have a higher constant than lwts and old people.

[[old] Almostflipped]

From what I've seen with 6k's (which are nearly the same as 20' or 5k)the general rule has been your 2k avg. splits will be 5-9 seconds faster. Mostly depending on the type of training you have been doing, personal muscular traits, and quite frankly whether a person tends to push harder on one rather than the other. If you are looking for a starting goal, try 6 seconds faster.<br><br>Another option that I have seen is to take your 6k score, convert it to seconds, and divide by 3.25. In theory this should predict within a few second range what your 2k will be. Not sure of the validity of this, seems to match in some cases and not in others. Would appreciate feedback if anyone has seen this before or has successfully used it on a larger scale (i've only tried it with a few people so far with mixed results).

[[old] tow rope]

Try this:<br><br>In distance running there is a formula for predicting your time in a race based on the results of a race at different distance. As a runner I found this to be very accurate<br><br>T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)^1.0707: So a 20:00 5K time predicts ((20:00*((10000/(5000))^1.0707) = 42:01 10K<br><br>Bert

[[old] jamesg]

If you want to plan a 2k race, the simplest thing is to do a hard 500 2-3 days before the race, then use the French protocol for the four 500m bits: 92, 88, 88 and 91% of the 500 speed. This gets you to -500 without feeling like death, if you're fit. Then you can relax or wind it up according to the prize money available.

[[old] TomR/the elder]

James--<br><br>W/ the French protocol, do you convert the 500 pace to watts and then apply the percentages?<br><br>My 500 pace is always considerably better than my 2k, and unlike you, I'm confident applying the French percentages to my 500 would lead to certain death in a 2k.<br><br>Tom Rawls

[[old] Atorrante]

I've hear or read somewhere, that if you can row a 5K in 18:00, you should do a sub-7 in the 2K

[[old] Almostflipped]

That would make sense, works out to a 1:48 split over 5k. Most people who can break 23 for 6k can also break 7, and that is only 1:55 splits.

[[old] jamesg]

Tom R<br>The FP used %s of "speed", so e.g. if 100sec is the 500m test pace, the 4x500 bits in the 2k would be done at 100/0.92 etc. In Watts it means on average about 25% less than the 500 test W level.<br><br>It's more a race plan than a predictor, and I've found it works nicely if I've any endurance, ie done enough long distance work. The first fastish 500 seems to act as a painkiller, then slowing down (this is the important bit) gets me to -300 or so with plenty in hand and the brain still working.