37.5 Seconds Off 2k Pb!!!

[old] Normsthename · Post by **[old] Normsthename** » August 26th, 2005, 6:09 pm

I have now been rowing for 3 weeks, and initially set myself a 2K time of 9:59.6 (Don't laugh! ) Well nearly 3 weeks, and I could'nt better it at all. I knew I could beat the time easily, but I always go off like a train, and then end up 'paddling' after half distance. I needed to pace myself much better. So for once I decided to use a bit of brain instead of brawn..... I knocked a quick spreadsheet up to set the split times, this is what the computer came up with :- Computer predicted time 2000 metres @ 9:30 2000 - 1600 metres @ 142 watts 1600 - 1200 metres @ 128 watts 1200 - 800 metres @ 115 watts 800 - 400 metres @ 104 watts 400 - 0 metres @ 94 watts I knew I could do that standing on my head, so not believing the computer I gave it a go tonight.... I did the first 4 splits as near as possible to the above watts, then with the last 400 metres I had loads left in the tank, and so I stepped it up a notch Result = 9:22.1 Knocking 37.5 seconds off of my previous pathetic time, to a new pathetic time I know with a bit of fine tuning on the figures I will be able to knock another chunk off of the times The spreadsheet is customisable to any distance, and number of split distances, don't know if it any use to anybody.... Andy

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » August 26th, 2005, 6:15 pm

Congratulations!!

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » August 26th, 2005, 6:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Normsthename @ Aug 26 2005, 03:09 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I have now been rowing for 3 weeks, and initially set myself a 2K time of 9:59.6 (Don't laugh! ) Well nearly 3 weeks, and I could'nt better it at all. I knew I could beat the time easily, but I always go off like a train, and then end up 'paddling' after half distance. I needed to pace myself much better. So for once I decided to use a bit of brain instead of brawn..... I knocked a quick spreadsheet up to set the split times, this is what the computer came up with :- Computer predicted time 2000 metres @ 9:30 2000 - 1600 metres @ 142 watts 1600 - 1200 metres @ 128 watts 1200 - 800 metres @ 115 watts 800 - 400 metres @ 104 watts 400 - 0 metres @ 94 watts I knew I could do that standing on my head, so not believing the computer I gave it a go tonight.... I did the first 4 splits as near as possible to the above watts, then with the last 400 metres I had loads left in the tank, and so I stepped it up a notch Result = 9:22.1 Knocking 37.5 seconds off of my previous pathetic time, to a new pathetic time I know with a bit of fine tuning on the figures I will be able to knock another chunk off of the times The spreadsheet is customisable to any distance, and number of split distances, don't know if it any use to anybody.... Andy </td></tr></table> Excellent!

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » August 26th, 2005, 6:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Normsthename @ Aug 26 2005, 11:09 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I have now been rowing for 3 weeks, and initially set myself a 2K time of 9:59.6 (Don't laugh! ) ... Result = 9:22.1 Knocking 37.5 seconds off of my previous ... </td></tr></table> Excellent. Well done. So a 8:00 min 2K by the end of November (as I said the week before last) is starting to look like a reality. <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... entry32322' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... ry32322</a>

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » August 26th, 2005, 6:41 pm

Andy, What is the basis for the program that "the computer came up with"? It looks very strange to me. On the water there is usually a psychological advantage to getting a quick start. There is also much to be gained by trying to pick it up in the last quarter. On the indoor rowing machines, I don't think that there is any particular advantage to a quick start. My own strategy has been to try to hold as close as I can to a constant pace - whatever is needed to meet my goal at the time. At the CRASHB I was advised to alter this slightly. It was suggested that I start a couple of seconds slower per split and holding it steady, then, for the last thousand, try to hold it a couple of seconds under until the last three hundred, where I needed to kick it for all I had. I don't have a correlation of watts vs split times for the range that I am in, but I am sure that a couple of seconds difference in split times is miniscule compared to the big variation in wattages recommended by that computer program. I would think that if you try to keep it at about 124 watts for the first 1600 meters, that you would be ahead of your previous first 1600 and have a lot more left for that last 400. I wasn't able to stick with the program recommended to me during the fourth 500. I kept spiking to 5 to 8 seconds slower than I needed and ended up about 5 seconds off my goal. Nevertheless, I won my hammer handily and set my best post-op time, 1.4 seconds better than my qualifying time. regards, Bob S.

[old] Normsthename · Post by **[old] Normsthename** » August 26th, 2005, 6:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So a 8:00 min 2K by the end of November (as I said the week before last) is starting to look like a reality. </td></tr></table> Fingers crossed! <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is the basis for the program that "the computer came up with"? </td></tr></table> It was a watts formula that I found on the forum Watts = ( 1/((Pace/Distance)^3)) * 2.8 I wrote the spreadsheet to try and pace myself a little better. I also did another test when on the Concept, I did a 500m using the above data, but just for 100 metre splits, I did'nt know what the computer result would be, but I rowed it as accurately as I could to see if it matched the computers data :- 500-400 @142 watts 400-300 @128 watts 300-200 @115 watts 200-100 @104 watts 100-0 @94 watts Actual time 500m @ 2:22.5 When I inputted the data into the spreadsheet, it predicted 2:25 I always rowed slightly more than the watts required, so it was not too far adrift! I will be using it for futures PB's...I hope! Andy

[old] julieofarc · Post by **[old] julieofarc** » August 26th, 2005, 8:46 pm

Normsthename,Aug 26 2005, 03:59 PM wrote: 
So a 8:00 min 2K by the end of November (as I said the week before last) is starting to look like a reality. 
 Citroen- what do you find a reasonable goal to drop 2k times per month is? In a dream world, I'd like to bring my time down to qualifying time for the CRASH-B's (for a female heavyweight age 31 is 7:16 altitude adjusted). I'm currently at a 8:58. (Last month was a 9:15) So, that's 74 seconds over 5 months= 15 sec. each month Is it feasible to bring it down 15 sec/month? And am I correct in assuming that bringing the time decrease will be inversely proportional to fitness level? (Meaning, as the months go by I will be able to drop less time because my fitness level has risen and I don't have as much 'slack' to take up.) Go, Andy, go! I'll race ya to 8:00! Bein' a guy, I'd think you spotting me 22 seconds would be only fair.... I've been reading some Sculling books, and it seems race strategy varies. However, the consensus seems to be a short racing start, then settling into a pace you can maintain, and finally sprinting at the finish if you have anything left to give. By the way, any particular reason you use the watts rather than the 500/m split & stroke ratings? Julie

[old] csabour · Post by **[old] csabour** » August 27th, 2005, 12:25 am

you'll improve like mad if you have just started rowing. pbs of 30 seconds or so is very common if one trains everyday. I remember my first erg test was 8:39 last spring. by the summer it was 7:55. in the fall is must have been around 7:40 (i pulled 2:05 split on a 6k). and the winter was 7:28. and since that winter time it has been sooo much harder to bring down the pb. Im improving by shaving second over the weeks, im resting at a 7:13 now.

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » August 27th, 2005, 5:11 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(julieofarc @ Aug 27 2005, 01:46 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Is it feasible to bring it down 15 sec/month? And am I correct in assuming that bringing the time decrease will be inversely proportional to fitness level? (Meaning, as the months go by I will be able to drop less time because my fitness level has risen and I don't have as much 'slack' to take up.) </td></tr></table> I don't think you can look at it in those terms. You'll start by seeing massive changes in PB. Then it will gradually plateau. I've been stuck at 7:14 (I want 6:59.9 or better) for a long time (partly because I've been concentrating on the longer distances rather the 2K and less). I'll get my first million metres with a marathon on 10th Sept. Then I'm looking at trying for a second million by April 2006. I'm also looking at entering BIRC. So I'm going to look at "The Pete Plan" <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5409' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5409</a> to see if I can get the distance in and improve my 2K time. One thing that can motivate you is by recording your times on <a href='http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/log.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/log.asp</a> then always ranking your personal best time for each of the standard times/distances (500m, 1K, 2K, 5K, 6K, 30', 10K, 60', ½M, FM). From that I can see that my 7:14 2K is 133 of 495 or 27%. Also signup for <a href='http://www.nonathlon.com' target='_blank'>http://www.nonathlon.com</a> and record the same times on there. Then you can compare against folks who aren't in your age group (the Nonathlon folks have done a lot of analysis to even out performance regardless of age). Drop the drag factor, keep rowing, pull harder.

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » August 27th, 2005, 5:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Normsthename @ Aug 26 2005, 11:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is the basis for the program that "the computer came up with"? </td></tr></table> It was a watts formula that I found on the forum Watts = ( 1/((Pace/Distance)^3)) * 2.8 I wrote the spreadsheet to try and pace myself a little better. I also did another test when on the Concept, I did a 500m using the above data, but just for 100 metre splits, I did'nt know what the computer result would be, but I rowed it as accurately as I could to see if it matched the computers data :- 500-400 @142 watts 400-300 @128 watts 300-200 @115 watts 200-100 @104 watts 100-0 @94 watts Actual time 500m @ 2:22.5 </td></tr></table> If you're using MS Excel it can work on times. It's simple to get 500m pace from time for a fixed distance (for example 10K pace is time/20). You don't need to convert to watts (which only confuses those of us who are used to working with 500m pace). For your session you've done it upside down to the way I'd pace an uneven session. I'd have started at, say, 2:30 then 2:28, 2:26, 2:24 and finally 2:22 for the last split. How far are you rowing as a warm-up?

[old] Normsthename · Post by **[old] Normsthename** » August 27th, 2005, 8:16 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Go, Andy, go! I'll race ya to 8:00! Bein' a guy, I'd think you spotting me 22 seconds would be only fair.... </td></tr></table> Lady, start your engine! Not sure I would/will ever get down to 8.00, it looks a very long way off! But it won't be for the lack of trying! <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>By the way, any particular reason you use the watts rather than the 500/m split & stroke ratings? </td></tr></table> Just seemed a easy method to pace myself. I found it easy to concentrate on pulling the target watts every time, so I get a constant monitoring of my pace. I know 500m splits etc are easier for others, but being new to rowing I have to think about the difference between 2:30 & 2:00 for instance! <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For your session you've done it upside down to the way I'd pace an uneven session. I'd have started at, say, 2:30 then 2:28, 2:26, 2:24 and finally 2:22 for the last split. How far are you rowing as a warm-up? </td></tr></table> Well that particular row was just a test to see if the spreadsheet was matching actual rowing. When I set up the 9:30 time, I set it to my starting maximum & finishing watts, I know I fade badly after half distance not being that fit yet, so I adjusted it to targets I thought I could hit.... I warmed up for about 1000 metres.... the most I have rowed in a session is 6500 metres, and that is with intervals.... Andy

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » August 27th, 2005, 10:04 am

Since you have only been rowing for 3 weeks, I would strongly encourage you not to focus on your 2k time, or to row a lot 2k races at this stage as some measure of your progress. Particularly since you want to lose weight, much more important is learning to row steady and far and build your endurance. You say you have only rowed 6500 max. I would suggest your short term goal would be to get to be able to row a 10k. When you can row a 10k confidently, at almost any pace, you will crush your existing 2k time and you will look back at your computer program and your struggles now in amusement. The 2k is an endurance event, compressed into 6-9 minutes of fun. You need endurance to hold a steady pace of the 2k and you build that endurance by rowing long distances (10k and up). Good luck though and keep it up.

[old] Canoeist · Post by **[old] Canoeist** » August 30th, 2005, 8:35 am

Andy, Now that you have a 2K time of 9:22, a good starting pace would be 2:20 pace. If you can hold that all the way through, you set another PB! Keep that pace for 1600m, then if you are feeling good, pick up the pace for even a bigger gain. Good luck, Paul Flack

[old] slo_boat · Post by **[old] slo_boat** » August 30th, 2005, 10:09 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Normsthename @ Aug 26 2005, 05:09 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I have now been rowing for 3 weeks, and initially set myself a 2K time of 9:59.6 (Don't laugh! )Andy </td></tr></table> Don't worry about anyone on here laughing at you. If we're honest withoutselves, we'll all admit that we've all been where you are right now in some way or another. On this forum you will find: World class athletes who know exactly what it took them to get where they are-They have tremendous respect for your efforts and are happy that you have joined the rowing/erging community. A few buttheads A few well regarded coaches A huge number of people who are doing the best they can even though they aren't the fastest or the fittest-they are glad you joined them. (This is were I fit in.) Good Luck. Don't worry about your times. One of these days you'll look at the monitor, and you won't believe how far you have come.

Concept2 Forum

37.5 Seconds Off 2k Pb!!!

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General