Getting 4x2K down to target pace

Gerhard · Post by **Gerhard** » July 9th, 2008, 7:12 am

John Rupp wrote: If you (=Nosmo) can't do 4x 2k at 2k plus 2.7 seconds, what makes you think that I could?

Probably 2 reasons:

1) your 2K is relatively slow
2) 2K pace + 2.7 seconds is your 5K pace. Not his.

If I can get 4x2K down to 5K pace, than so can you.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » July 9th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Gerhard, my 2k is 90 percent of the WR for my age and weight.
What is yours?

The answer to this thread is that the pacing is a matter of perspective.

The workout for one person can't be compared absolutely to another,
as people have different abilities, and certainly different levels of fitness.

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » July 9th, 2008, 2:09 pm

John Rupp wrote:Gerhard, my 2k is 90 percent of the WR for my age and weight.
What is yours?

The answer to this thread is that the pacing is a matter of perspective.

The workout for one person can't be compared absolutely to another,
as people have different abilities, and certainly different levels of fitness.

Let's be a bit more accurate John. You almost made the 75th percentile in your LM60-69 category for the 2008 season in the online ranking. "90% of the WR" is not particularly meaningful as a metric, due to the exponential nature of the power requirements to go faster on the Erg.

I know you will now go on about how the 90th percentile in your category is not nearly as good as "90% of the WR", but if that is true, why don't you get there for yourself?

Gerhard · Post by **Gerhard** » July 10th, 2008, 2:48 am

John Rupp wrote:Gerhard, my 2k is 90 percent of the WR for my age and weight.
What is yours?

I'm closer to 70% of WR, but what's the relevance to the thread?

I still consider your 2K relatively slow, compared to your 5K and longer distances. Mine is relatively strong, compared to my 5K and longer distances.

If there is any criticism in this thread, it's not about your rowing and it's not about you. It's about your reasoning. And childish remarks don't improve it.

thebigA · Post by **thebigA** » July 10th, 2008, 12:38 pm

Hi Gerhard

I vote for option 3 - I think it makes sense to have a goal and to be able to be consistent over the distance/rate you have set

My problem is the reverse to yours, my endurance is far better than my speed over shorter distances.

I am following one of the UK C2 interactive programmes. This lists the rates that I should be working at for the varying intensity levels and is geared around a 2K test pace. The problem I have is that for the lower rates it seems far too easy. I have tried it over the longer rows of an hour or so and if I use the pace they suggest then it feels more like a casual stroll around the shops. So I have taken to increasing the rate that I use to accord with the way it states that I should be feeling - this is signifcantly faster at the lower rates.

The upshot is that according to my UT1 and UT2 pace I should be pulling a 6:45 2K whereas I actually hover around 7:00

I put this down to the differences between people and perhaps the fact that I am not an Olympic athelete training as seriously as that would take - I guess you are the same.