6x500 R1 as predictor of 2K pace

[William]

It's quite useful to be able to predict one's potential 2K pace without enjoying the near death experience of actually doing an all out 2K.
There is a suggestion that doing a 6x500 R1 workout flat out can predict 2K pace reasonably accurately, and that it can provide a fairly solid benchmark for progress as it can be repeated weekly without too much physiological or psychological disruption.
There's a thread on the subject on the Concept2 website:

https://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 00#p590546

For myself, I find that 6x500 R1 gives a reasonable estimate of my 2K time (with absolute rest rather than gentle rowing between intervals) although I can do that workout at maybe 2K-1 pace without driving myself to the absolute limit. (In other words the workout suggests I can do 2K 4 seconds faster than I actually can)

There are other workouts (quite a large number in fact) that are purported to estimate 2K time.

https://www.coachbergenroth.com/2k-row- ... -training/

One of the more plausible is 1K x4 R5 done at 2K spm.

I'm wondering if anyone has any favourite predictor workouts or any views on using surrogate workouts as a benchmark or predictor?

[Mike Channin]

Great topic William.
I was actually thinking about what intervals session might work as a 2k pace test, but in intervals format to be slightly more palatable.
The CTC was actually reasonably useful; certainly the 900/r30s/900 part. The 100m start is a bit distracting, and the last 500m I had thought to be a good test of the pain of the latter stages of the 2k proper, although it turned out that it wasn't quite there for me. Still - CTC 1:43.4 vs 2k 1:43.7 was pretty close!

I was thinking 5x500/r30 might be good pace preparation, but I prefer the idea of 500/r1. I vaguely remember aiming for 1:40 split and 8x500 in the good old days, and I guess I was around 1:40 2k pace then too. (I'll have to check back though, as it might be the more approachable 500/r2:30 or 500/r3:30 which I also used to do).

For preparation, I used to use ramping up the distance done continuous at pace (1k, 4 min, 1500, mile), with a good solid mile (1609) at race pace as a good indicator of whether I could find another 391m or not. (I quite often gauge likelihood to complete off what it feels like to do 80% distance, so mile works well here too). And it helped that the Newark mile used to be the first race of the season way back when I did races. Part of the problem with 2k is how the 3rd (and sometimes 4th) quarter tend to feel, and you only get the true feeling of that by doing them continuous...

4x1k/r5 sounds a very interesting proposition; this is double the required distance but at race pace and rate, so would be great training/preparation (assuming I could actually manage it!). I've always struggled with 1k repeats, but maybe I need to get over that too, as this one does sound very useful.

[William]

Mike. Thanks for that input. It's always good to have a doable benchmark that doesn't require intense mental effort - something that can be repeated week after week to assess progress. The 1K r5 does sound interesting and I like the idea of a 5 minute break. I might give it a try when I get back to rowing at the end of April, although I must confess I find 1K the most difficult distance in terms of pace.. Yes I remember the 8x500 vogue with a fairly civilised 3:30 break between intervals. I did quite a few of those and they were great for both aerobic and anaerobic training. I used to do them at around 2k-3 pace and did no rowing in between intervals, though I probably should have done.
Ah! The Newark Mile - that was a great event. I broke the mile record there back in 2009. There used to be an Evesham Mile too but both those miles seem to have dropped off the calendar along with many other races unfortunately. It would be wonderful to see them revived.
Congratulations again on your 2K SB. You could be in with a chance of winning the 60-64 BRIC when you're in that age group if you maintain this rate of progress.

[Mike Channin]

My first race was Newark in 2004, and my only win was in the Newark 500m 30-39 Hwt in 2006.

I seriously doubt that I'll have much chance of getting a decent finish at BIRC, as my age group has always been dominated by massive heavyweights who are light years ahead of me.

Think I need to do some of these interval sessions to see how they go - thanks for the inspiration!

[Mike Channin]

Free Spirits Newark 2006, with a few guest appearances by myself (one of them was my mile PB)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpwWormWTY

[Mike Channin]

And I noticed you get a mention for BIRC 2006, William!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAzA7FVniNw

[William]

Mike. Thanks for those clips. A win at Newark is always good. I'd guess your physique is well adapted to 500 m. I note what you say about massive heavyweights. (I warmed up beside one of those at a meeting. He had thighs bigger than my waist and was pulling 1:20 at a slow rate without any apparent effort. Fortunately he was in a younger group so I didn't have to compete against him.) But I do have one observation. By the time I'd got into the 60-64 category, all the big guys had vanished. My main rivals were in the 80-90 range. On the whole, I'd speculate that really big guys don't age well.

[strider77]

Thanks for the nostalgia guys, I fondly remember Newark and Evesham.

Newark is where my avatar is from courtesy of Stan, when I beat Rocket Roy in the mile for the first and only time in 2008 !

Evesham was my first race for Free Spirits again in 2008 (and Stumpy's too) and I almost threw up with nerves before the race.

[William]

Newark is where my avatar is from courtesy of Stan, when I beat Rocket Roy in the mile for the first and only time in 2008 !

You beat Rocket Roy. Wow! That's more than I ever did. He competed at lightweight most of the time. I was standing beside his machine at Cardiff WIRC when he broke the 55-59 world LWT record with a time around 6:38 in 2006 (from memory). He was metronomic hitting 1:38-1:39 with virtually every stroke. Terrific guy.

[strider77]

William,

To be fair Roy was probably at his lowest level of fitness for sometime and rowing as a heavyweight.

My time was 5:31.9 (1:43.1/500) using DF 128 and 31 spm.

I think Nick Rockliff was first, Gary Dakin second, Andy Osborn third and I was fourth or fifth .

[William]

Alan.
I think I was in that race and did way over 5:30 and came second last.
There was a false start by Andy Osborn if I remember correctly.
Yes, Roy wasn't at his fittest - his belly actually protruded quite a long distance forward (though he lost the weight and won the CRASH-B the following year.)
Nick Rockliff was a legend!
The other time I raced Roy at HWT was in 2007 in Manchester when I came 4th (might have ben 5th) in 6:43 and he beat me for a medal, not by much. He shouldn't have been in that race as he'd entered as LWT but failed to make the weight so the organisers put him in our group at the last minute. As it was an honour to be in the same race as Roy I didn't mind too much.

[Iain]

Getting back to topic (sorry). Pete used to say 6 x 500 r1' was only a decent predictor if you did it at 2k rate. It is possible to rate much higher and I can go faster than the 2k-1 you mention when rating 35+.

There is a range of paces quoted for 4x1k r5' from 2k+1 to 2k-0.5. But I find this the best predictor. Personally I try and hold the pace I have managed on a good recent 4 x 1k (although usually use r4' as makes little difference) and then speed up at the end from there. The downside is that I would rate it as harder than a 2k. The real beauty as a predictor is that it mimics the 4 500M sections of a 2k (settling quickly to realistic pace even 'though it feels too easy, after first 250 the 2nd is about keeping the pace up and stroke strong as it gets rapidly harder, from 300 the third is like the "Deadzone, lots still to do and struggling, then last 500 is sprinting despite the hurt). The one big plus is that it is more forgiving of setting off too fast as the oxygen debt largely eliminated between intervals even 'though it returns quicker next time. Also forgiving of less warm up as this is only relevant for the first.

As for others, also constrained by 2k rating (so not useful if you don't know how high you can maintain for a 2k) is 8 x 500 r2'. Not used it but that has reasonable support for an easier option. Pete used to reckon on 5 x 750 r3:30 (he agreed 8 x 500 r 3:30 was 3S faster) was a reasonably good proxy, although I find I am 1S/500m or so faster with 3' rest. Probably not really maximising the subsequent 2ks!