Is it possible for a LWT to shave 10 seconds off a 2k in just over a month?

[nick rockliff]

And based on the physics an even paced race is the most efficient as it needs the least energy.

In theory. But in practice, no one has rowed even paced in competition. And "most effective" is the goal, not "most efficient". You'd think it was the same thing, but not necessarily.

For any individual the theoretical most optimal approach typically does not match the most effective strategy.
My comment should only underline that the slightly negative split approach probably matches better than any approach giving higher fluctuation in paces throughout the race.

My 2k PB was set at a race, splits were:

1:34.1
1:34.1
1.34.1
1.34.1

I finished 1st in the race.

[Sakly]

In theory. But in practice, no one has rowed even paced in competition. And "most effective" is the goal, not "most efficient". You'd think it was the same thing, but not necessarily.

For any individual the theoretical most optimal approach typically does not match the most effective strategy.
My comment should only underline that the slightly negative split approach probably matches better than any approach giving higher fluctuation in paces throughout the race.

My 2k PB was set at a race, splits were:

1:34.1
1:34.1
1.34.1
1.34.1

I finished 1st in the race.

So your individual and the theoretical optimum were matching

[Ombrax]

I'm no racer, but I like to push myself (which isn't necessarily saying much). Despite the physics, which I understand quite well, psychologically it's really hard for me to do a workout that I plan going in to be a "hard" effort at a flat pace, I much prefer negative splits. Pick a distance, 2k, 4k, 5k, whatever, if I look at my previous hard efforts I think to myself "there's no way I could maintain that for the entire thing, even though on average I know I did."

One of these days I should try a flat pace matching the overall average of previous workouts, but I also know that unless I'm about to puke and keel over, I'll do my best to push a bit more at the end.

[Tandstad]

I have not finished many 2k's, but the splits for my PB deviated by only 1 split:
1:34.5 500m 1:34.5 415 1727 33 167
1:34.2 1,000m 1:34.2 419 1741 33 174
1:33.5 1,500m 1:33.5 428 1773 33 180
1:33.8 2,000m 1:33.8 424 1759 34 180

Had I not done a HD in the start of the 4th 500 meter, it would have been slight negative splitting all the way, the approach I like best. For longer sessions, I like best doing big negative splits.

I definitely think sub 7 could be possible for threadstarter, but it will require hard work and a good strategy.

[Kerry1960]

Ombrax wrote "I'm no racer, but I like to push myself (which isn't necessarily saying much). Despite the physics, which I understand quite well, psychologically it's really hard for me to do a workout that I plan going in to be a "hard" effort at a flat pace, I much prefer negative splits. Pick a distance, 2k, 4k, 5k, whatever, if I look at my previous hard efforts I think to myself "there's no way I could maintain that for the entire thing, even though on average I know I did.
One of these days I should try a flat pace matching the overall average of previous workouts, but I also know that unless I'm about to puke and keel over, I'll do my best to push a bit more at the end."


I think exactly the same way as you. I like to negative split, whatever distance, and sprint at the end.

[iain]

Personally I think the mind is a huge determinant of performance, so the optimal strategy is the one where the mind games allow you to push yourself the most (given that despite the cube law I find that the difference between the actual average power and the power to perform the overall time is surprisingly small for any continuous effort). Addressing the original question, I would expect the power improvement to decline over time and so 1 month is unlikely to be enough. that said, better pacing, any improvement in technique and the ability to push harder when seeing the 7 min barrier is possible could allow it. Now that you know that you can do 7:0X, that should mean that on an optimal day you can get a bit below as last time you didn't have that reassuring knowledge.

Personally I am in awe of Mike being able to up the pace 40% through a 2k. That is just too much for me. Even when I believe that I can make the target pace and so the increase is to a pace I believe I can maintain, increasing to it with 4 figures left on the monitor when it is starting to feel really hard (I think I am blessed by releasing higher endorphins than most, but these will not be at full production 800m in!) That said my best 2ks have been relatively flat from 100m to 1400m with several increases in pace in the last 600 (this has been as low as 250 on some runs). I believe Mike that the fast start is not a free gain, but always find it takes me 100 to settle into race pace and prefer to slow to target rather than increase my pace to it.

JMHO

Iain

[Mike Caviston]

The French protocol if it's wrong, is wrong only in the percentages.

The French protocol is wrong because it tells you to start the race at a pace that you know is faster than you can hold for the entire race. Even though you planned to slow down, it's too late, and the damage is done. Start at a pace a tiny bit slower than you expect to finish with.

My 2k PB was set at a race, splits were:
1:34.1
1:34.1
1.34.1
1.34.1
I finished 1st in the race.

I stand corrected. I've analyzed thousands of races and never seen four equal splits. The best I've done is finish with 3-4 tenths of a second difference between my first and last 500m. The practical application is, since it is so difficult to maintain a perfectly constant pace right from the start, it is best to be just a little conservative and start a bit slower than you think you can finish, since the penalty for starting even a little too fast is greater.

[Ombrax]

Another benefit of negative splits (at least for me) is that it's always nice, and motivating, to look at the PM and see that your current pace is faster than your average. You can then watch the avg pace gradually improve, which pushes me to work even harder.

There's nothing worse than rowing at a pace that's below the average for that piece. Plus, the faster you go the sooner the pain will end. (that's one reason I prefer a distance row over a timed row - going harder on a timed row doesn't get you any closer to the end)

[robhely]

Another benefit of negative splits (at least for me) is that it's always nice, and motivating, to look at the PM and see that your current pace is faster than your average. You can then watch the avg pace gradually improve, which pushes me to work even harder.

There's nothing worse than rowing at a pace that's below the average for that piece. Plus, the faster you go the sooner the pain will end.

I can see this working for me on the 2k as it has on longer distances. It's super motivating to be above the target pace and feeling like it's sustainable. There's also a sense of having banked a bit of 'reserve' so slowing down a bit wouldn't necessarily be a failed attempt at a PB.

[jackarabit]

500m is of course the SPLIT of splits because it’s the defined term of the OTW pace ratio. Elapsed time to travel 500m is the TBD term. So it’s customary to compare degrees of damn skippy using this ratio. It follows that it’s just, righteous, convenient, and taken for granted that 2k should be taken as four 500m reps.

On the psychology of execution front, distance segments of 2km decremented as 800-600-400-200m lend a bit of helpful self-delusion to the tookay chore. Next bit harder but of shorter duration. Like sprinting to the airport restroom.

[iain]

It's super motivating to be above the target pace and feeling like it's sustainable. There's also a sense of having banked a bit of 'reserve' so slowing down a bit wouldn't necessarily be a failed attempt at a PB.

I think you have this backward. Neg splitting is starting SLOWER and speeding up so you start slower than target and always have to go faster to make target. AIUI this is to delay the build up of acid in the muscles that degrade performance, Ie a physiological benefit. Psychologically it is tough later, but I find the worst psychological challenges are in the earlier stages. I cannot count the number of times I have stopped or slowed either before half way or have already lost the mental barrier in the first half (either reducing the distance t be rowed by deciding to stop early or setting very short goals that each become difficult to proceed from).

[aussie nick]

In theory. But in practice, no one has rowed even paced in competition. And "most effective" is the goal, not "most efficient". You'd think it was the same thing, but not necessarily.

For any individual the theoretical most optimal approach typically does not match the most effective strategy.
My comment should only underline that the slightly negative split approach probably matches better than any approach giving higher fluctuation in paces throughout the race.

My 2k PB was set at a race, splits were:

1:34.1
1:34.1
1.34.1
1.34.1

I finished 1st in the race.

ah..but was the stroke rate the same in all 4?

[nick rockliff]

For any individual the theoretical most optimal approach typically does not match the most effective strategy.
My comment should only underline that the slightly negative split approach probably matches better than any approach giving higher fluctuation in paces throughout the race.

My 2k PB was set at a race, splits were:

1:34.1
1:34.1
1.34.1
1.34.1

I finished 1st in the race.

ah..but was the stroke rate the same in all 4?

Afraid not, was 31, 31, 31, 32.

[aussie nick]

My 2k PB was set at a race, splits were:

1:34.1
1:34.1
1.34.1
1.34.1

I finished 1st in the race.

ah..but was the stroke rate the same in all 4?

Afraid not, was 31, 31, 31, 32.

shocking inconsistency. Must do better

[RWAGR]

For virtually every piece at least up to and including an hour, I go out ahead of target for the first split. I then have to make a conscious effort to slow down to target or target + 1. Then for the final split I use whatever is left in the tank. This means I basically never do a pure negative split, but do tend to achieve a negative split from the second split onwards, if that makes sense. I think rowing that first split ahead of target - while I’m sure technically suboptimal - is a useful way of channeling nervous energy and building up a little “lead” over the target such that slowing down for splits 2 onwards doesn’t hurt as much mentally.