What's my best distance?

[detlefchef]

The competition is still a month off and I hope to improve, but given where I am right now, what do any of you think?

500m 1:30.5
1000m 3:21
2000m 6:53

Check out:

http://www.machars.net/

Scroll down to the very last calculator.

Plugging in some of your numbers clearly shows that your 500m is your best, followed by the 2000m, with the 1000m the weakest.

Paul's rule isn't really designed as a predictor, but it still can give you a fair idea of where you stand.

Bob S.

edit: I see that a couple of other responses came in while I was trying to put this one together. Obviously, I didn't take the potential competition into account. I was just looking at how your times at various distances compared to one another.

With all due respect, I think Paul's Law is way off and actually would only be true for someone with significantly higher endurance than strength.

Within the last two weeks, I have attempted a PR in all three distances and my 500 remains 1:30.5, my 1K is now 3:14.8, and my 2K is 6:56.6 (my first entry was a typo because it was actually 6:58 at the time).

Regardless, I've ranked all these time and the percentiles for my age group are all within a pretty close range. (84th for the 500, 86th for the 1K, and 83rd for the 2K). So, that tells me that, relative to my peers, I'm not significantly stronger at any of these distances than I am at the others. Yet, according to Paul's Law, based on my 500 time, I should be almost 4 seconds faster in the 1K and 16 seconds faster in the 2K. Both of those times, however would indicate that I would rank significantly higher than I would in the 500 (93rd and 94th percentile respectively).

So, given the relative consistent nature of my percentile rankings, it would be hard to dismiss my results as just one man's data. Also, if these percentiles are flawed in any way, one would have to assume that they're all flawed somewhat equally. Safe to say that the 2K rankings are more complete because it's the benchmark. However, the fact that the 500 and 1K rankings are both inline with each other and with the 2K...

Granted, perhaps the 40-49 age group represents a statistical anomaly but that would seem odd. After all, that age group represents an age that is neither particularly young or old. Unlike very young or old age groups, there are enough people to produce reliable data. Also, while not the prime of an athletes ability, it's not so far off either.

Just thought I'd bring this up.

[Bob S.]

Paul's rule isn't really designed as a predictor, but it still can give you a fair idea of where you stand.
Bob S.

With all due respect, I think Paul's Law is way off and actually would only be true for someone with significantly higher endurance than strength.

In principle, I agree with you. As I said, it was not designed as a predictor. As I understand it, Paul Smith's original intent was to use this as a guide to your strength- endurance balance. In my own case, my long pieces are much faster than what Paul's law would predict from my shorter pieces (at least my 1K and 2K - my 500m seems to be an anomaly). I interpret this to mean that my endurance is much better than my strength and, in contrast to what you are saying, Paul's law is not true for me at all. Those who are slower the the Paul's law predictions at the long distance have strength that is better than their endurance.

I think that using the nonathlon figures is probably a better measure for predictions than Paul Smith's off the cuff 5" addition. It is based on a lot of data and shows you where you stand compared to your competitors. In my own case, the nonathlon shows the same deal, that my endurance outbalances my strength.

The nonathlon point assignment itself is far from ideal and can probably benefit from some further revisions. I have a 30' distance in it that gives me more points than my 10K which was not only longer, but done at a faster pace.

Bob S.

[El Caballo]

With all due respect, I think Paul's Law is way off and actually would only be true for someone with significantly higher endurance than strength.

Within the last two weeks, I have attempted a PR in all three distances and my 500 remains 1:30.5, my 1K is now 3:14.8, and my 2K is 6:56.6 (my first entry was a typo because it was actually 6:58 at the time).

Regardless, I've ranked all these time and the percentiles for my age group are all within a pretty close range. (84th for the 500, 86th for the 1K, and 83rd for the 2K). So, that tells me that, relative to my peers, I'm not significantly stronger at any of these distances than I am at the others. Yet, according to Paul's Law, based on my 500 time, I should be almost 4 seconds faster in the 1K and 16 seconds faster in the 2K. Both of those times, however would indicate that I would rank significantly higher than I would in the 500 (93rd and 94th percentile respectively).

So, given the relative consistent nature of my percentile rankings, it would be hard to dismiss my results as just one man's data. Also, if these percentiles are flawed in any way, one would have to assume that they're all flawed somewhat equally. Safe to say that the 2K rankings are more complete because it's the benchmark. However, the fact that the 500 and 1K rankings are both inline with each other and with the 2K...

There have been numerous discussions of "Paul's Law" over the last several years, and I think pretty much universal agreement that it doesn't work for shorter distances (less than 1k). The main reason, I believe, is because short distances (like 500m) are largely anaerobic, while distances of 2k or more are mostly aerobic.

One suggestion is to add an additional 2 seconds per 500m when going from 500m to 1000m (in other words, double the distance add 7 seconds) for that one interval. That is almost perfect with your 500m and 1k times, but it would seem your 2k time is a bit slow in comparison.

Out of curiosity, I entered your times into my spreadsheet (see my signature). Your times, when plotted vs. the log of distance are almost perfectly in line. Using 6.83 seconds change in pace for each doubling of distance instead of 5 seconds works almost perfectly for you. This suggests that you need to work on endurance to have a good balance between strength and endurance (which is what "Paul's Law" is based on). Looking at it another way, at the present time, the shorter distances are probably your best.

[detlefchef]

With all due respect, I think Paul's Law is way off and actually would only be true for someone with significantly higher endurance than strength.

Within the last two weeks, I have attempted a PR in all three distances and my 500 remains 1:30.5, my 1K is now 3:14.8, and my 2K is 6:56.6 (my first entry was a typo because it was actually 6:58 at the time).

Regardless, I've ranked all these time and the percentiles for my age group are all within a pretty close range. (84th for the 500, 86th for the 1K, and 83rd for the 2K). So, that tells me that, relative to my peers, I'm not significantly stronger at any of these distances than I am at the others. Yet, according to Paul's Law, based on my 500 time, I should be almost 4 seconds faster in the 1K and 16 seconds faster in the 2K. Both of those times, however would indicate that I would rank significantly higher than I would in the 500 (93rd and 94th percentile respectively).

So, given the relative consistent nature of my percentile rankings, it would be hard to dismiss my results as just one man's data. Also, if these percentiles are flawed in any way, one would have to assume that they're all flawed somewhat equally. Safe to say that the 2K rankings are more complete because it's the benchmark. However, the fact that the 500 and 1K rankings are both inline with each other and with the 2K...

There have been numerous discussions of "Paul's Law" over the last several years, and I think pretty much universal agreement that it doesn't work for shorter distances (less than 1k). The main reason, I believe, is because short distances (like 500m) are largely anaerobic, while distances of 2k or more are mostly aerobic.

One suggestion is to add an additional 2 seconds per 500m when going from 500m to 1000m (in other words, double the distance add 7 seconds) for that one interval. That is almost perfect with your 500m and 1k times, but it would seem your 2k time is a bit slow in comparison.

Out of curiosity, I entered your times into my spreadsheet (see my signature). Your times, when plotted vs. the log of distance are almost perfectly in line. Using 6.83 seconds change in pace for each doubling of distance instead of 5 seconds works almost perfectly for you. This suggests that you need to work on endurance to have a good balance between strength and endurance (which is what "Paul's Law" is based on). Looking at it another way, at the present time, the shorter distances are probably your best.

You nailed it.

And, despite what the percentiles say, my gut instinct is to say that I am proportionally stronger with shorter distances, which your analysis confirmed. I just don't have the patience to grind out long indoor workouts, so I tend to weights and HIT during the winter. By fall, after a summer of long rides, my endurance is in keeping with my strength, but that is certainly not the case right now.

[madmax]

hi all, ok im 6"4 39 years old 240lb not that fit(so i think) lol but my best so far is 2000m at 6:59.9 and 18:59.9 5000m and i did a 10.000 in 40.06 an that was hard .
i have done the 2000m in 6:54 about 8 years ago.

getin better every time i go ta gym

ps any tip's

[madmax]

now that was hard work

[Citroen]

http://twitpic.com/2bccoq
now that was hard work

How odd, you're using cal/hr rather than the more sensible pace (time/500m) or watts. Nobody on here uses calories for their normal display.

[madmax]

dose it matter? was just to show the time and how many meters i done i will go for my best 500m/2000m on thursday morning

[PaulH]

dose it matter? was just to show the time and how many meters i done i will go for my best 500m/2000m on thursday morning

It doesn't matter, no, but if you ask people for tips and then express your rowing in furlongs per fortnight you may find you get very few tips. If, by contrast, you make it easy for people to understand your situation, you're more likely to get responses.

[madmax]

he dint give me any tip's he made a coment , have you any tip's or you just going to make silly coments to?

[PaulH]

Tips? Sure, here's a few of my favourites:

1. Windex or other window cleaning solutions work well for cleaning the rail, though some prefer WD40 or GT85
2. If you're going to try rowing a marathon be sure the batteries in your monitor are fresh enough to make it the whole way through, because that's a lot of effort to waste.
3. Don't make snarky comments about a moderator on a forum, and especially don't make them to another moderator on the same forum.

Cheers, Paul

[madmax]

why you going to ban me from this very poplar busy forum?

[PaulH]

We only ever ban spammers, as the continuing presence of our most prolific poster demonstrates. Doesn't mean that some respect for members of the forum (mods or not) is a bad choice. That respect might, for example, include asking a more specific question than "I'm doing some rowing, any tips?" You might, for example, tell us a little about what your objectives are.

[Citroen]

does it matter? was just to show the time and how many meters i done i will go for my best 500m/2000m on thursday morning

It only matters in that I wasted time having to visit twitpic.com to see your monitor photo and then had to waste more time feeding 63:34.0 and 15019m into http://www.concept2.com/us/interactive/ ... ulator.asp to discover that you were rowing at an average 2:06.9 pace. (Which is mostly OK for a newbie doing a 15K row.)

I won't bother next time.

Advice:
1. use pace or watts as that makes more sense to most folks
2. post photos on imageshack.us and embed them in the forum in tags.
3. Get a video and ask us to critique that rather than a static monitor shot (which is largely meaningless).

why you going to ban me from this very poplar busy forum?

It ain't as popular as http://concept2.co.uk/forum where the Rest of the World hang out.

[madmax]

thats better thanks for the tips, my fastest 2000m is 6:59'9 and i would like to get it down to 6:30 so a lot of 5-10.000m to get some fitness, will that help. 5000m in 19:00 is my best so far(im not that fit)

ps i did the 15.000m to see if i could do it, and like i said i did 2000m b4 that so i was a bit fooked