Using Paul's Law to predict my 2K race pace

[kerosene]

I have to agree. And saying that the differences are small, only four seconds (!) going something like 1:40 for first 500 and 1:44 the third is beyond weird to me.

And my 500m times would put me on the 6:40 group which is ridiculous idea.

[kerosene]

I find this great.
https://youtu.be/j5_4upqhYeQ

I do not get the idea of (near) max effort start. Physics says it is not ideal. Still the video is good.

[JerekKruger]

Regarding using 500m as a predictor, it's maybe more reasonable when dealing with the original targets of the guide who were, presumably, elite level and therefore had excellent aerobic fitness. Otherwise I agree: it has me targetting 6:34 which is more than 10s faster than my PB (and my 500m is older than my previous PB of 6:53 as well ).

The Rowing WOD video was what I based my first 2k strategy on, though like you I didn't go quite so hard out the gate (and in my recent PB I went even less hard at the start and felt it was better). From a physics point of view it's not as efficient as truly flat pacing but from a biology perspective it might be better. Your muscles have about 10s of "free"* energy in the form ATP and creatine phosphate so going hard for the first 3-4 strokes might be more efficient than trying to flat pace from the start.

Of course the start he describes is longer than that, but he's also mainly talking to Crossfitters who rarely do 2ks and so might not have such a good idea of what split to target. In this case efficiency doesn't matter so much as they're unlikely to be redlining anyway.

*Free in the sense it doesn't require oxygen to use and doesn't produce lactate.

[jamesg]

The French protocol 500 test is useful if you have nothing better as basic pace guide and as race plan. It works well as is if you have good endurance and good technique, both of which are prerequisites in Olympic events. It can be done 2 days before a race.

In any case there is no obligation to follow exactly the percentages, we can use any scheme we like. Lacking endurance, I go about 5% Watts slower at all stages, if and when I do my once a year 2k.

It is for races, not for PBs. PBs are done at even pacing as to last effort, with some windup at the end. Races are usually a walkover, and we may have to race three-four times in a single day if the course is narrow. So there's no point in going fast if not strictly necessary. But if it's not a walkover, we have to have plenty in hand when we get to the last 500, which is where the real racing can happen. The French Federation tables are designed to ensure this.

For an example of race pacing see Xeno's Atlanta final. Watching the times we can see how he did it. All the others seemed to be using level pacing, which of course killed them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wViOIIh7pUU&t=138s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1WVQqYRox8

Seems IOC has cancelled the video in utube that had all the splits.

[hjs]

The French protocol 500 test is useful if you have nothing better as basic pace guide and as race plan. It works well as is if you have good endurance and good technique, both of which are prerequisites in Olympic events. It can be done 2 days before a race.

In any case there is no obligation to follow exactly the percentages, we can use any scheme we like. Lacking endurance, I go about 5% Watts slower at all stages, if and when I do my once a year 2k.

It is for races, not for PBs. PBs are done at even pacing as to last effort, with some windup at the end. Races are usually a walkover, and we may have to race three-four times in a single day if the course is narrow. So there's no point in going fast if not strictly necessary. But if it's not a walkover, we have to have plenty in hand when we get to the last 500, which is where the real racing can happen. The French Federation tables are designed to ensure this.

For an example of race pacing see Xeno's Atlanta final. Watching the times we can see how he did it. All the others seemed to be using level pacing, which of course killed them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wViOIIh7pUU&t=138s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1WVQqYRox8

Seems IOC has cancelled the video in utube that had all the splits.

Most erg races are one offs, you want to pull a max effort.
Otw is only "easy" for the best teams, if you just can make it to the next round or final, you also have to pull hard right away. Also, not seldom strong teams fail in the series due to "taking it easy"...

Worse example example if taking it easy was a German swimmer at the olympics, took it easy in the semi s, missed the final... Swom the fastest time off all in the B final........ horrible

[Mike Caviston]

I don't want to disrespect someone who has taken a lot of time and put in plenty of effort to provide advice to help others. And I hate when people parse posts line by line. But this is just plain wrong, so...

The French protocol 500 test is useful if you have nothing better as basic pace guide and as race plan.

Maybe if someone has literally never rowed before and for some reason they had to row a 2K and you needed something right now to predict a pace, you could use 500m. But the French protocol (fast-slow-slow-fast) would never be the best race plan.

In any case there is no obligation to follow exactly the percentages, we can use any scheme we like.

In other words, it's a good protocol, if we don't actually follow it.

It is for races, not for PBs. PBs are done at even pacing as to last effort, with some windup at the end.

The goal of a race is to be faster than your opponent. The best chance of being faster than your opponent is to set a PB.

Races are usually a walkover, and we may have to race three-four times in a single day if the course is narrow. So there's no point in going fast if not strictly necessary. But if it's not a walkover, we have to have plenty in hand when we get to the last 500, which is where the real racing can happen. The French Federation tables are designed to ensure this.

I'm not following here. No 2K format involves 3-4 races in a single day. If there is no point in going fast if not strictly necessary, why does the race plan call for doing the fastest pace at the start? The French protocol will not ensure lots of speed at the end; in fact it practically guarantees the opposite.

For an example of race pacing see Xeno's Atlanta final. Watching the times we can see how he did it. All the others seemed to be using level pacing, which of course killed them.

I agree, this race is very instructive. The splits were:
1 SUI 01:39.79, 01:44.38, 01:44.12, 01:36.56 (06:44.85)
2 CAN 01:37.85, 01:43.29, 01:45.87, 01:40.44 (06:47.45)
3 GER 01:38.32, 01:43.97, 01:45.61, 01:39.82 (06:47.72)
4 SLO 01:39.15, 01:44.53, 01:46.18, 01:41.85 (06:51.71)
5 CZE 01:41.10, 01:44.98, 01:43.23, 01:46.34 (06:55.65)
6 NOR 01:41.58, 01:44.86, 01:47.56, 01:45.51 (06:59.51)

In meters per second:
1 SUI 5.01, 4.79, 4.80, 5.18 (4.94)
2 CAN 5.11, 4.84, 4.72, 4.98 (4.91)
3 GER 5.09, 4.81, 4.73, 5.01 (4.91)
4 SLO 5.04, 4.78, 4.71, 4.91 (4.86)
5 CZE 4.95, 4.76, 4.84, 4.70 (4.81)
6 NOR 4.92, 4.77, 4.65, 4.74 (4.77)

And finally, the speed of each 500m as a % of final speed:
1 SUI 1.014, 0.970, 0.972, 1.048
2 CAN 1.041, 0.986, 0.962, 1.014
3 GER 1.037, 0.980, 0.965, 1.021
4 SLO 1.038, 0.985, 0.969, 1.011
5 CZE 1.028, 0.990, 1.007, 0.977
6 NOR 1.032, 1.000, 0.975, 0.994

Xeno was in 4th at 500m and had by far the most conservative, relaxed start. All the others did not use level pacing... which of course killed them. Xeno crushed it at the end because he saved it at the beginning. Everyone else died at the end (or couldn't bring it back to starting speed) because they flied at the beginning. The definition of negative split I use for my analyses of races is first 500m at less than 100% of final speed, and Xeno falls into the category of a slight positive split (and in fact his first 1K is slower than his second 1K). For all Olympic finals from 1996-2016, crews that used a slight negative split finished with an average place of 2.4, while from 101% to 106% or more of final speed in the first 500m (progressively more positive splits), the average place increased from 3.3 to 4.9. Not to mention the thousands of indoor races I've analyzed that show negative splits are clearly more effective than the French protocol (fast-slow-slow-fast).

[gooseflight]

1 SUI 01:39.79, 01:44.38, 01:44.12, 01:36.56 (06:44.85)
2 CAN 01:37.85, 01:43.29, 01:45.87, 01:40.44 (06:47.45)
3 GER 01:38.32, 01:43.97, 01:45.61, 01:39.82 (06:47.72)
4 SLO 01:39.15, 01:44.53, 01:46.18, 01:41.85 (06:51.71)
5 CZE 01:41.10, 01:44.98, 01:43.23, 01:46.34 (06:55.65)
6 NOR 01:41.58, 01:44.86, 01:47.56, 01:45.51 (06:59.51)

... Xeno crushed it at the end because he saved it at the beginning.

Nice try Mike but not really.

His [SUI] second and third 500s were over four seconds slower than the first.

Analysis:
Fast start (not the fastest)
Tapped along in the second and third 500s.
Superior fitness enabled him to deliver a killing final 500m

A lot like the French Protocol in fact.

Others had flatter pacing and didn't win.

[JerekKruger]

Perhaps an elite example that is more relevent to the sport at hand (indoor rowing) would be Joshua Dunkley Smith's sub 5:40 2k. His splits were:

1:24.5
1:24.9
1:25.3
1:24.9

I can't say for certain, but I strongly suspect that he wouldn't have managed if he tried for be something like:

1:23
1:27
1:27
1:23

I don't know Rob Waddell's splits for his world record, but the earlier link to the French protocol says he used a negative so splitting strategy. The two examples combined with the physical fact that flat pacing is the most efficient from a pure work done point of view convince me that, if going for your physiological max, relatively flat pacing with a slight negative split is the best strategy.

[gooseflight]

I don't know Rob Waddell's splits for his world record, but the earlier link to the French protocol says he used a negative so splitting strategy. The two examples combined with the physical fact that flat pacing is the most efficient from a pure work done point of view convince me that, if going for your physiological max, relatively flat pacing with a slight negative split is the best strategy.

Physiologically perhaps. Psychologically maybe not. Joshua Dinkley knows exactly what he's doing.

I have seen numerous examples of ergers attempting sub 7 who try flat pacing because it's advocated as The Best Thing. Lacking experience they arrive at 1500m still hovering around 1:45 pace.

Response: uh oh! Still 500 to go. I'm goosed. Can't do this.

Do it the French way (doesn't have to be as extreme as the Protocol). Arrive at 1500m and the average shows 1:44.4.

Response: yay! I'm on it. Only 500 to go. I'm having this. Watch me fly ...

Starting is always a big effort. The first 200 is always quick because the wheel is spinning fast. Ride it for another 300m and get the average down. Builds confidence. Relax for the next 1K then bring it home.

[hjs]

I don't know Rob Waddell's splits for his world record, but the earlier link to the French protocol says he used a negative so splitting strategy. The two examples combined with the physical fact that flat pacing is the most efficient from a pure work done point of view convince me that, if going for your physiological max, relatively flat pacing with a slight negative split is the best strategy.

Physiologically perhaps. Psychologically maybe not. Joshua Dinkley knows exactly what he's doing.

I have seen numerous examples of ergers attempting sub 7 who try flat pacing because it's advocated as The Best Thing. Lacking experience they arrive at 1500m still hovering around 1:45 pace.

Response: uh oh! Still 500 to go. I'm goosed. Can't do this.

Do it the French way (doesn't have to be as extreme as the Protocol). Arrive at 1500m and the average shows 1:44.4.

Response: yay! I'm on it. Only 500 to go. I'm having this. Watch me fly ...

Starting is always a big effort. The first 200 is always quick because the wheel is spinning fast. Ride it for another 300m and get the average down. Builds confidence. Relax for the next 1K then bring it home.

So you can,t pull 145.0 over 1500 and break, but if you pull even faster you could

If so you really really have trouble with your mind. At 1500 you should be tired an breathing hard, but still be able to keep pace. Last 300 you always need to have a bit left to give more rating.


76 kg guy pulling 6,09, watch his finish..... . Erg was poorly secured..

https://youtu.be/4mx4IuZcOC4

[gooseflight]

So you can,t pull 145.0 over 1500 and break, but if you pull even faster you could

It's not a question of can or can't but whether you think you can or can't.

OK 1:45 dead is a bit fine but you get my drift.

How many times have you seen people pull 7:00.2 going for sub 7?

[NavigationHazard]

Without necessarily disagreeing with anyone in this thread about physiology during an all-out 2k....

Recommendations like the French Protocol typically are derived from observed performance, whether during races or during controlled lab studies. For any given rower, their general validity is going to depend on how well that subject matches the characteristics of the study population. If the underlying performances are (say) by elite male OTW heavyweight sweep rowers of similar body proportions, training together and aiming to make the A final at the next FISA World Championships, and you're not an elite male HW OTW rower, etc., you should expect differences if you try to follow along slavishly.

Having said this, some pre-race strategizing -- whether or not the resulting race plan is optimum for you given your anthropomorphic characteristics, physiology, training, and goals on the day -- is almost certainly better than no strategy at all. Ignorance may be bliss in many fields of human endeavor, but approaching an erg 2k by sitting down and rowing as hard as you can as long as you can is usually a recipe for disaster.

[JerekKruger]

Well said Nav. What Xeno, JDS or a group of elite French rowers did isn't all that relevant to a bunch of recreational indoor rowers. Ultimately everyone has to experiment to find what works best for them.

I do find the French protocol bizarre though, but there's quite possibly other things around it we're not privy to.

@gooseflight - whilst almost certainly disappointing to the person in question, I imagine the vast majority of people who do row a 7:00.2 for a 2k go on to go sub-7 soon after.

[hjs]

So you can,t pull 145.0 over 1500 and break, but if you pull even faster you could

It's not a question of can or can't but whether you think you can or can't.

OK 1:45 dead is a bit fine but you get my drift.

How many times have you seen people pull 7:00.2 going for sub 7?

Thats a different matter, you talked about giving up around 1500m in, thats not about finishing. If you around75% in start thinking you kind, you in my view simply started to fast.

The "problem" with erging in general is the info, in most sports we have to use feel much more.

[Bloodbuzz Corio]

76 kg guy pulling 6,09, watch his finish..... . Erg was poorly secured..

https://youtu.be/4mx4IuZcOC4

And here I was thinking that in rowing the boat went backwards!