5k Advice

[old] weeks_simon@hotmail.com · Post by **[old] weeks_simon@hotmail.com** » January 28th, 2006, 8:59 am

The best 5K time I've done is 18:16. Today first attempt after the Xmas break I did 18:27. I was rating about 1:51 all the way through, and ran out of gas for a sprint finish, but I was did it all at 22-23 strokes per min. Someone advised me to go for a higher rating. What do you think about that? Would it help me get a better time, or not?<br />

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » January 28th, 2006, 9:53 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(weeks_simon@hotmail.com @ Jan 28 2006, 01:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The best 5K time I've done is 18:16. Today first attempt after the Xmas break I did 18:27. I was rating about 1:51 all the way through, and ran out of gas for a sprint finish, but I was did it all at 22-23 strokes per min. Someone advised me to go for a higher rating. What do you think about that? Would it help me get a better time, or not? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />depends a bit off your height, but normally ratings between 26/32 are what gives the best results. 22/23 is to low.<br />

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » January 28th, 2006, 12:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Jan 28 2006, 01:53 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(weeks_simon@hotmail.com @ Jan 28 2006, 01:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The best 5K time I've done is 18:16. Today first attempt after the Xmas break I did 18:27. I was rating about 1:51 all the way through, and ran out of gas for a sprint finish, but I was did it all at 22-23 strokes per min. Someone advised me to go for a higher rating. What do you think about that? Would it help me get a better time, or not? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />depends a bit off your height, but normally ratings between 26/32 are what gives the best results. 22/23 is to low. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What determines 95+% of our 5k is your aerobic capacity. There is not much you can do to with altering strategies in comparison. Not going out too hard is one part of this and rating sound another part. <br /><br />The best 10k runners in the world start their first lap below 70 seconds , therefore should you? Off course not, that would probably kill you instead of making the most of what you've got. <br /><br />The best erging results are had by people at 26-32 SPM because they can manage those ratings, they can pull sub 16 or whatever for 5k. You can't, so you need to look at strategies for people in your own division.<br /><br />When constructing a strategy for a beginner or intermediate, sometimes implementing the same principles as a world class athlete does is the best thing to do, sometimes not. The fully trained body and the beginner body does not necessarily function or improve according to the same principles. <br /><br />Therefore: <br />-Blindly looking at numbers from world class athletes is the wrong approach to device a beginner strategy. <br /><br />-Blindly looking at principles in world class athlete training is the wrong approach. <br /><br />What's the right thing?<br />Well, I won't say anything about that. <br /><br />However, your SPI was 11.2 to 11.7, depending on your size these strokes may be too tough on you especially when returning from a christmas break, with I assume, reduced training. Perhaps you would have gone faster with a higher rate. Perhaps next time such a stroke will be less taxing on you and combined with a higher aerobic capacity you should go for a higer rate, amongst other things this depends on your size though, as mentioned.

[old] weeks_simon@hotmail.com · Post by **[old] weeks_simon@hotmail.com** » January 29th, 2006, 7:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jan 28 2006, 04:18 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(hjs @ Jan 28 2006, 01:53 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(weeks_simon@hotmail.com @ Jan 28 2006, 01:59 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The best 5K time I've done is 18:16. Today first attempt after the Xmas break I did 18:27. I was rating about 1:51 all the way through, and ran out of gas for a sprint finish, but I was did it all at 22-23 strokes per min. Someone advised me to go for a higher rating. What do you think about that? Would it help me get a better time, or not? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />depends a bit off your height, but normally ratings between 26/32 are what gives the best results. 22/23 is to low. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What determines 95+% of our 5k is your aerobic capacity. There is not much you can do to with altering strategies in comparison. Not going out too hard is one part of this and rating sound another part. <br /><br />The best 10k runners in the world start their first lap below 70 seconds , therefore should you? Off course not, that would probably kill you instead of making the most of what you've got. <br /><br />The best erging results are had by people at 26-32 SPM because they can manage those ratings, they can pull sub 16 or whatever for 5k. You can't, so you need to look at strategies for people in your own division.<br /><br />When constructing a strategy for a beginner or intermediate, sometimes implementing the same principles as a world class athlete does is the best thing to do, sometimes not. The fully trained body and the beginner body does not necessarily function or improve according to the same principles. <br /><br />Therefore: <br />-Blindly looking at numbers from world class athletes is the wrong approach to device a beginner strategy. <br /><br />-Blindly looking at principles in world class athlete training is the wrong approach. <br /><br />What's the right thing?<br />Well, I won't say anything about that. <br /><br />However, your SPI was 11.2 to 11.7, depending on your size these strokes may be too tough on you especially when returning from a christmas break, with I assume, reduced training. Perhaps you would have gone faster with a higher rate. Perhaps next time such a stroke will be less taxing on you and combined with a higher aerobic capacity you should go for a higer rate, amongst other things this depends on your size though, as mentioned. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[old] weeks_simon@hotmail.com · Post by **[old] weeks_simon@hotmail.com** » January 29th, 2006, 7:48 pm

Carl,<br />Thank you for your advice.<br />My tactic is normally to set off at slightly higher pace (sub 1:50) for the first 500m and then settle into an sustainable pace (say 1:52)...and then go for a sprint finish on the final 500m. Seems to work okay for me, but its a slower stroke rate than a Head race on the water over 5k.<br />Not sure what you mean by SPI (excuse my ignorance)?

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » January 29th, 2006, 8:15 pm

SPI means Stroke Power Index and is your wattage divided by rate. It's a measure of how much work you put into each stroke. You are a rather tall and heavy guy so your SPI doesn't seem to be too high in comparison. Training will heighten your aerobic capacity and ease of delivering this SPI, which will be quite ok for a 5k I think. Perhaps next time you could try not doing the first 500 faster than sustainable, this is how I prefer to do it since it reduces lactic acid, will be less painful mentaly and may therefore be faster.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » January 30th, 2006, 5:35 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jan 30 2006, 01:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>SPI means Stroke Power Index and is your wattage divided by rate. It's a measure of how much work you put into each stroke. You are a rather tall and heavy guy so your SPI doesn't seem to be too high in comparison. Training will heighten your aerobic capacity and ease of delivering this SPI, which will be quite ok for a 5k I think. Perhaps next time you could try not doing the first 500 faster than sustainable, this is how I prefer to do it since it reduces lactic acid, will be less painful mentaly and may therefore be faster. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Carl,<br /><br />strokerate has not much to do white fitness level. Also a 18 min 5 k is not bad at all. Doing this in 20/22 rate is not the best way. It is to slow. he should at least up it to 25/26. Doing this his stroke would be much lighter and the rowing would be much smoother.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » January 30th, 2006, 3:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Jan 30 2006, 09:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Carl,<br /><br />strokerate has not much to do white fitness level. Also a 18 min 5 k is not bad at all. Doing this in 20/22 rate is not the best way. It is to slow. he should at least up it to 25/26. Doing this his stroke would be much lighter and the rowing would be much smoother. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I agree the rate can be quite similar between different fitness levels. I believe the actual stroke rate was 22-23 and not 20-22, though. Moving from 23 to 25 won't cost much energy. However, for his size it seems plausible he should not fatigue his mucles too much with his current SPI and speed of the fan wheel, it may therefore be more efficient. It depends on how much his strength and coordination is developed and also what is most comfortable mentaly. How can you be certain of the opposite? <br /><br />Not only that it may be more efficient (in my view), it should provide habituation for a stroke he can use when his aerobic capacity grows as well. My suggestion is to continue with the SPI and manage a higher rate because of higher aerobic fitness.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » January 30th, 2006, 4:07 pm

@ carl.<br /><br />you are right about the 22/23. he is 1.93 , that is tall but not enormes. offcause I can't know for sure but normaly 22/23 is not the most efficient rate. Low rating is good for develloping strenght but not the most economic way to row. to rate 22/23 you have to slow down the recovery, if he could up the rating to 25/27. 20 % ish, he could lower his peakforce with 20 % and row the same pace. This will be more economic.<br />I looked at his 2 k and that seems a bit slow, so I think he should do some more speedtraining. A nice training is a 6 k with 12 x 100 m sprint. row 400 meter at 2 k plus 15/20 and then 10 stokes at 2k min 3/5. This not on force but more on rate.<br /><br />

[old] Simon Weeks · Post by **[old] Simon Weeks** » January 30th, 2006, 7:48 pm

at 22-24 I AM trying to focus on relaxing and slowing the recovery...so I don't slam into front stops. I've never tried doing a 5K at or above 25 s.p.m. Will give it a try and see what happens. I don't really do 2K's yet...so could probably go a bit faster. Best time for 500m is around 1:35.<br />

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » January 30th, 2006, 8:34 pm

The simple answer Simon is that if you are going for a 5k PB then you are looking to achieve the fastest possible time (that I know is a dum comment )<br /><br />Ok if we agree that the most efficient way to achieve that time is to even split the piece (last few 100m not included) then you have an average pace / 500 for the 5000m. This pace is going to be determined by your fitness levels - the stroke rate that you can achieve this average pace at is irrelevant as long as it is even. If you could hold 1:51 for the whole piece and your rate to do that was 22/23spm then there is nothing wrong with that. If you could have held an faster average pace at a faster rate then you would have done so but physically you were not able to. No point in rating higher just to maintain the same pace (actually you would use up more energy)<br /><br />If you want to go faster you have two choices, get stronger and keep the same rating (this will eventually run out) or get fitter and rate higher and as long as your effort per stroke is the same you will as a consequence be going faster.<br /><br />There is no right or wrong rate I believe - just what you are capable of. Note we are talking about max efforts here not training.<br /><br />George

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » January 30th, 2006, 8:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Jan 31 2006, 09:07 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>@ carl.<br /><br />you are right about the 22/23. he is 1.93 , that is tall but not enormes. offcause <b>I can't know for sure but normaly 22/23 is not the most efficient rate. Low rating is good for develloping strenght but not the most economic way to row. to rate 22/23 you have to slow down the recovery, if he could up the rating to 25/27. 20 % ish, he could lower his peakforce with 20 % and row the same pace. This will be more economic.</b><br />I looked at his 2 k and that seems a bit slow, so I think he should do some more speedtraining. A nice training is a 6 k with 12 x 100 m sprint. row 400 meter at 2 k plus 15/20 and then 10 stokes at 2k min 3/5. This not on force but more on rate. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I am not sure of your point here regarding efficiency. To rate higher for a given pace is less efficient not more efficient. The recovery costs you energy so to rate higher with no tangible output is to waste energy. If you are strength is your strong point rather than your endurance then a low rate with a longer recovery plays to your strength, as you get fitter then you can sustain a higher rate at the same force and 'manage' the reduced recovery aerobically, this means you go faster.<br /><br />Not sure your comment about the 2k is relevant either as you dont know Simon's circumstances or his objectives. What is the point of doing speed training to improve his 2k if is objective is 6 or 8 months down the track - Simon in my opinion should be working on his aerobic fitness which ultimately will improve his speed long term.<br /><br />my thoughts George

[old] jbell · Post by **[old] jbell** » January 30th, 2006, 9:36 pm

I'm not nearly your height and I can hold 28spm for my 6k. 25 is a good pace for your height I would think. BTW, I'm not that smart, what pace is that for your 5k?

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » January 31st, 2006, 4:57 am

[quote=george nz,Jan 31 2006, 01:43 AM]<br />[quote=hjs,Jan 31 2006, 09:07 AM]@ carl.<br /><br /><br /><br />I am not sure of your point here regarding efficiency. To rate higher for a given pace is less efficient not more efficient. The recovery costs you energy so to rate higher with no tangible output is to waste energy. If you are strength is your strong point rather than your endurance then a low rate with a longer recovery plays to your strength, as you get fitter then you can sustain a higher rate at the same force and 'manage' the reduced recovery aerobically, this means you go faster.<br /><br />Not sure your comment about the 2k is relevant either as you dont know Simon's circumstances or his objectives. What is the point of doing speed training to improve his 2k if is objective is 6 or 8 months down the track - Simon in my opinion should be working on his aerobic fitness which ultimately will improve his speed long term.<br /><br />my thoughts George<br /><br />Hello george.<br /><br />Doing a pb they only important thing is the split. No point at looking at the rate during the attempt. Let it come naturaly.<br /><br />The pace has to be as smooth as possible you say, I agree, but that means that also the powerinput has to be as smooth as possible. <br />rating low means a hard and thus fast stroke and long revovery. This is a short period of drive and long recovery. So the total drive time is short. few strokes and also fast ones.<br />rating faster means much longer drivetime. more strokes and the stokes are less fast(you need less power / stroke) So the totall drive time is much longer. recovery less.<br />The recovery does take energie, true, but not that much and most of the work is done by muscle who don,t do any work during the drive.<br /><br />The amount of energie we can use at a certain point is fixed. We will row the fastest I we use this energie as economic as possible. Compare it with a car. If we want to drive 100 km an hour it best to drive the hole piece that speed, not pieces 60 and than 140 to average that 100.<br />For rowing we can,t evently pace, cous only the drive period is the powergiven time. So there are two things. for the drive, try to avoid a high peakforce, that costs to much energie but on the other end don,t rate to high to avoid having to recover to much.<br /><br />What I want is say is. there is a lot of talk about low rating and the benefits of it and you hear almost nothing about training a higher rate. I think this is a mistake. You need to train both. The higher rating doesn,t come out off itself, you have to train it the same as you have to train the power by rating lower.<br /><br />Just my view but i do think it makes sence.<br /> <br /> <br />[/quote]<br />

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » January 31st, 2006, 4:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Jan 31 2006, 09:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What I want is say is. there is a lot of talk about low rating and the benefits of it and you hear almost nothing about training a higher rate. I think this is a mistake. You need to train both. The higher rating doesn,t come out off itself, you have to train it the same as you have to train the power by rating lower.<br /><br />Just my view but i do think it makes sence.<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Hi, sorry for cutting off most of your post but wanted to save space and I agreed with what you said. I think this is the most interesting point to discuss.<br /><br />I agree that you need to definitely train to rate higher but for that be effective in terms of improved pace you need to develop the strength and endurance to do so.<br /><br />I am just starting a 16 week build up to a race and a part of the plan is to split my training into 4 sections of 4 weeks approx. The basis of the plan is increasing levels of intensity and associated stroke rates eg:<br /><br />1/ Lo / Lo intensity rate 20 - 22 (some would call this UT2 + low end UT1)<br />2/ Lo / Hi intensity rate 24 - 26 (UT1)<br />3/ Sub maximal rate 26-30 (AT)<br />4/ Maximal rate 30 - 34 (Race pace)<br /><br />The Lo/Lo intensity work would continue through -out for recovery and aerobic fitness.<br /><br />These are rough guide but the concept is to build the strength and endurance throughout and not get into high rate high pace work sooner than I am physically able to handle it. Now this is a different approach to some of the other plans and I will be recording the effectiveness as I go, but to me it makes some sense.<br /><br />George