500/2K Erg Times
Matt Kaminski
and 2000m erg with lots of rest between. I went back and looked at the 500m
times and the 2000m average split to see if there there was a correlation -
or at least if anyone stuck out one way or the other.
All 2000m average splits were right around 500m time + 15 seconds. (eg. a
rower who ran a 1:50 for the 500m piece would pull a 2:05 average for the
2000m).
What suprised me was how reliable this was across the team. A few kids who
were at the highest end of aerobic fitness were closer to the 500m time and
of course the ones with worse fitness were further off but those were the
exceptions.
Has anyone else looked at this? If there is a correlation what would be the
ideal difference between 500 and 2000m? There are lots of 2K scores
available but very little in the way of posted 500m times.
Just interesting stuff for a rowing coach with too much time on his hands.
Matt
Neil Wallace
Matt
look at
http://www.concept2.co.uk/birc/training_race_strategy.php
and scroll down.
BTW - try converting your kids ties to ave watts.. the correlation between
the relative intensities is much easier to interpret than from split times.
Neil
David Gillbe
stage someone mentioning a 500/2k/5k/hour test or something? what should be
the split difference between those? (roughly)
rowDML
the National Team.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3g7007%24153%40larry.rice.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=USRowing+national+team+testing+results&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3g7057%2415u%40larry.rice.edu&rnum=12
which includes the last (and only) time I beat Koven...
Anyway, plenty of numbers to crunch...
Dave out...
"Matt Kaminski" <mkam...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Mq4Xb.217122$rj7.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
James Squires
And that the Hour split = 2k split + 10-12 secs. again ish.
"David Gillbe" <david.NO^&$SPAMg...@merton.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c0itt6$eoe$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
chris harrison
Did I just misread the original post, but I thought he said that the
athletes were *running* the 500m piece and *erging* the 2k? Or was that
just my reading his post too literally?
PaulS
Generally I consider 500M + 10 sec to be an "in balance" difference.
Most of the time the endurance component is needing improvement (2K
pace is greater than 500M + 10 sec), ane then there seems to be a
difference as athletes get older and their endurance stays good, but
strength simply falls due to physiological changes beyond training
control (2k Pace is less than 500M + 10 sec).
All in all it's quite complicated, though complicating it is an effort
in futility and wastes time that could better be used planning to get
technique squared away. During the technical excercises fitness
levels will increase naturally. Getting fitness to balance very well
is something that doesn't come entirely into play until a pretty high
level of performance is reached, and getting to the "bleeding edge" of
performance is something that very few ever do.
- Paul Smith
dougm
distance & add 5".
Doug
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07ac95a.04021...@posting.google.com...
PaulS
> 500 + 10 would be consistent with the oft stated rule of thumb, "double the
> distance & add 5".
>
> Doug
I know, I'm the one who came up with the "rule". Sometimes refered to
as "Paul's Law". There are many who will not like it, but that's
tough. [:o)
- Paul Smith
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "dougm" <dmar...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<HPiXb.32415$uV3.58050@attbi_s51>
> ...
> > 500 + 10 would be consistent with the oft stated rule of thumb, "double
> > the distance & add 5".
> >
> > Doug
>
> I know, I'm the one who came up with the "rule". Sometimes refered to
> as "Paul's Law".
Paul's Law corollary 1:
> There are many who will not like it, but that's tough. [:o)
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of bad laws
--
PaulS
And look who blew by, a fan. How goes the rat race?
- Paul Smith
dougm
S = 16.6*log(D1/D2)
where S = split seconds difference
and D1 & D2 are the two distances in question
Grab a scientific calculator (the one in Windows will do) and give it a try.
That's a base 10 log. Works for "2D+5" and everything in between, like
figuring a 6k pace from a known 5k.
Anyone put that up before? A "Doug's rule" in the making?????
Sincerely,
A friend of Doug's
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07ac95a.04021...@posting.google.com...
Tim Granger
> Many deep apologies for the gross infringement. What I meant to say was:
>
> S = 16.6*log(D1/D2)
>
> where S = split seconds difference
> and D1 & D2 are the two distances in question
>
> Grab a scientific calculator (the one in Windows will do) and give it a try.
> That's a base 10 log. Works for "2D+5" and everything in between, like
> figuring a 6k pace from a known 5k.
>
> Anyone put that up before? A "Doug's rule" in the making?????
It differes from athlete to athlete, so having one magic formula is
never going to work.
Tim
PaulS
> Many deep apologies for the gross infringement. What I meant to say was:
>
> S = 16.6*log(D1/D2)
>
> where S = split seconds difference
> and D1 & D2 are the two distances in question
>
> Grab a scientific calculator (the one in Windows will do) and give it a try.
> That's a base 10 log. Works for "2D+5" and everything in between, like
> figuring a 6k pace from a known 5k.
>
> Anyone put that up before? A "Doug's rule" in the making?????
>
> Sincerely,
> A friend of Doug's
Boy, you Math whizzes are really something. I know a guy who has come
up with at least 3 different log related equations in an attempt to
"fit" what people are doing, he's not a "Paul's Law" supporter, but
fitting the curve to the performance is not what I'm interested in,
that would be like having variable speed limits based on what the car
was capable of.
Darn! Missed out again... [;o)
- Paul Smith
>
>
> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c07ac95a.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > "dougm" <dmar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<HPiXb.32415$uV3.58050@attbi_s51>...
> > > 500 + 10 would be consistent with the oft stated rule of thumb, "double
> the
> > > distance & add 5".
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > I know, I'm the one who came up with the "rule". Sometimes refered to
> > as "Paul's Law". [:o)
> >
> > - Paul Smith
Tim Granger
> Boy, you Math whizzes are really something. I know a guy who has come
> up with at least 3 different log related equations in an attempt to
> "fit" what people are doing, he's not a "Paul's Law" supporter, but
> fitting the curve to the performance is not what I'm interested in,
> that would be like having variable speed limits based on what the car
> was capable of.
>
> Darn! Missed out again... [;o)
Maybe in fitting someone performances you might get a simplier measure
of their fitness level (simpler than a bunch of raw numbers telling
split times for different length pieces). Would that not then help
you to tell where a person currently is, and what they need to do to
get to where you want them to be?
Tim
dougm
did have a place in my younger days a few months back. If it has a place, I
think maybe it's for the beginner, who's been rowing this length and that,
and just did his first test at something like 1k or 2k and knows what he can
do there. Now he wants to do a different distance, maybe because he/she just
heard that 10k's are good for endurance development, but doesn't have a clue
about what pace to attempt. Enter Paul's rule which covers 90%. Can
construct a chart of 500, 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k, ...1024k, ... and be happy for a
long time. Unless you're a troublemaker who gets confused translating 2k to
5k, or 5k to 6k. So I, grounded on the shoulders of preceding giants,
figured out the simple math, which isn't a curve fit, but just a translation
of scale to offset ( * to + (( a log)) ). I worked with this and PL for a
couple of months and it all worked very well, until I just got to know where
I stood at each and every distance, and went from there.
No way am I implying that this should work for everyone or even anyone. If
it helps some beginner somewhere to shorten the trial and error period of
pace determination, that'd be great.
Doug
"Tim Granger" <tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:o51d68c...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk...
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> "dougm" <dmar...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Many deep apologies for the gross infringement. What I meant to say was:
> >
> > S = 16.6*log(D1/D2)
> >
> > where S = split seconds difference
> > and D1 & D2 are the two distances in question
> >
> > Grab a scientific calculator (the one in Windows will do) and give it a
> > try. That's a base 10 log. Works for "2D+5" and everything in between,
> > like figuring a 6k pace from a known 5k.
> >
> > Anyone put that up before? A "Doug's rule" in the making?????
>
> never going to work.
Absolutely right, Tim. It will also depend upon the relative development of
anaerobic and aerobic muscle fibres. It will never be the case that one
formula will suit all, but different coaches train their athletes
differently, so it is hardly surprising that each coach can come up with a
magic formula that reflects their brilliance, is it?
Allan Bennett
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> paul_v...@hotmail.com (PaulS) writes:
> > Boy, you Math whizzes are really something. I know a guy who has come
> > up with at least 3 different log related equations in an attempt to
> > "fit" what people are doing, he's not a "Paul's Law" supporter, but
> > fitting the curve to the performance is not what I'm interested in,
> > that would be like having variable speed limits based on what the car
> > was capable of.
> >
> > Darn! Missed out again... [;o)
>
> of their fitness level (simpler than a bunch of raw numbers telling
> split times for different length pieces). Would that not then help
> you to tell where a person currently is, and what they need to do to
> get to where you want them to be?
We've been here before, ISTR.
There are many components to 'fitness', and if a measure is needed, I have
found the Critical Power approach to be the best and most informative.
Using two timed distances, it is easy to calculate the Critical Velocity and
Anaerobic Distance Capacity of an athlete (endurance and speed abilities,
basically). Training can then be determined by the need of the individual
and a repeat test will determine whether the training was successful - but
all of that was poo-pooed in an earlier thread.
Frankly, unless the reason for erging any particular distance is for
competition on an erg, there is little point in such comparisons. I doubt
that there would be any spin-offs for actual race performance in a boat. If
2k and 5k, for example, are done as /training/, actual times are irrelevant
also. Enjoyment, maybe, but naff-all else, IMO.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of spin-offs
--
Tim Granger
> There are many components to 'fitness', and if a measure is needed, I have
> found the Critical Power approach to be the best and most informative.
>
> Using two timed distances, it is easy to calculate the Critical Velocity and
> Anaerobic Distance Capacity of an athlete (endurance and speed abilities,
> basically). Training can then be determined by the need of the individual
> and a repeat test will determine whether the training was successful - but
> all of that was poo-pooed in an earlier thread.
>
> Frankly, unless the reason for erging any particular distance is for
> competition on an erg, there is little point in such comparisons. I doubt
> that there would be any spin-offs for actual race performance in a boat. If
> 2k and 5k, for example, are done as /training/, actual times are irrelevant
> also. Enjoyment, maybe, but naff-all else, IMO.
Apologies for this question - it's a bit late for me. Those two
paragraphs seems to contradict each other. In the first you say you
can do two different tests (ie a short piece and a longer piece) to
set a training plan, and to measure it's affectiveness. Then in the
last paragraph you're saying there's no point looking at the numbers.
Do you just mean comparisons between different people, or comparisons
for the same person over time? I'm sure I'm just not reading it
correctly, so clarification would be helpful.
Tim
Allan Bennett
I see your point, but there is not really any contradiction in my statements:
IMO. there is little point in setting arbitrary times for set distances (as
the formulae presented do) - it does not make physiological sense,
especially, as you pointed out, because everyone is different. From a
training perspective, intensity and duration are important - and they would
be dictated by physiology, the individual and the training effect that is
required. 'Racing' to beat a previous best or an opponent is not sound
training from a physiological pov.
From a testing viewpoint, raw times for set distances only give one
perspective - and an unreliable one if those times are predetermined by an
arbitrary formula.
The Critical Power concept, OTOH, gives a results that can be interpreted in
such a way that can enable sensible training prescriptions based upon aerobic
and anaerobic components of fitness. References can be found on the web, and
it was recommended by a physiologist from the BOMC. I have applied the
formulae to results from kayaking Olympic Squad training results which
enabled coaches to see where their athletes needed extra attention -
something not easily determined from the raw time-trial results.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of contradiction
--
Otto
> In article <o51d68c...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk>, Tim Granger
> <URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Maybe in fitting someone performances you might get a simpler measure
> > of their fitness level (simpler than a bunch of raw numbers telling
> > split times for different length pieces). Would that not then help
> > you to tell where a person currently is, and what they need to do to
> > get to where you want them to be?
>
> We've been here before, ISTR.
>
> There are many components to 'fitness', and if a measure is needed, I have
> found the Critical Power approach to be the best and most informative.
>
> Using two timed distances, it is easy to calculate the Critical Velocity
and
> Anaerobic Distance Capacity of an athlete (endurance and speed abilities,
> basically). Training can then be determined by the need of the individual
> and a repeat test will determine whether the training was successful - but
> all of that was poo-pooed in an earlier thread.
OK, let me take a stab at how the concept of Critical Velocity could be used
to find a pace for any test distance on a rowing machine.
This is a formula for determining Critical Velocity:
CV = (d2 - d1)/(t2 - t1) where d1, d2 and t1, t2 are distances and times for
two all-out pieces of different lengths.
For the first piece, do an all-out piece of 250m, so d1 = 250m. It's
basically a sprint - not much pacing required. Next, pick d2 at, say 1000m.
Maybe use Doug's or Paul's "Rules" (eyes rolling) to determine a ball-park
pace and readjust as you get deeper into the piece.
Plug the results into the equation and you've got a personal Critical
Velocity value (CV). Rearranging the equation for CV and solving for t2,
now you can use your CV to calculate a goal time for any length piece. It
would look something like this:
t2 = t1 + (d2 - d1)/CV
Not very difficult, really, and a far better training tool, IMHO, than the
"one size fits all" methods discussed in this thread.
-otto
Tim Granger
> OK, let me take a stab at how the concept of Critical Velocity could be used
> to find a pace for any test distance on a rowing machine.
>
> This is a formula for determining Critical Velocity:
>
> CV = (d2 - d1)/(t2 - t1) where d1, d2 and t1, t2 are distances and times for
> two all-out pieces of different lengths.
>
> For the first piece, do an all-out piece of 250m, so d1 = 250m. It's
> basically a sprint - not much pacing required. Next, pick d2 at, say 1000m.
> Maybe use Doug's or Paul's "Rules" (eyes rolling) to determine a ball-park
> pace and readjust as you get deeper into the piece.
>
> Plug the results into the equation and you've got a personal Critical
> Velocity value (CV). Rearranging the equation for CV and solving for t2,
> now you can use your CV to calculate a goal time for any length piece. It
> would look something like this:
>
> t2 = t1 + (d2 - d1)/CV
>
> Not very difficult, really, and a far better training tool, IMHO, than the
> "one size fits all" methods discussed in this thread.
That can't be correct - that says there is a linear relationship between
the time taken to do an erg (t2) and the distance of that erg (d2),
since presumably t1, d1, and CV are all fixed. That means that pace
is constant, and independent of distance. Erk!! What have I misunderstood?
Tim
Otto
You are not understanding the concept of Critical Velocity (Power,
whatever). Basically, you do these two pieces and plot them on a graph - x
axis is time, y axis is distance. From these two points you get a line.
Anywhere on this line determines your "breaking point", ie. the point in
time at which you can no longer maintain the pace.
For a more detailed description and how it relates to swimming, go to this
link which Allan Bennett submitted a few months back:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0162.htm
-otto
>
> Tim
PaulS
>
> This is a formula for determining Critical Velocity:
>
> CV = (d2 - d1)/(t2 - t1) where d1, d2 and t1, t2 are distances and times for
> two all-out pieces of different lengths.
>
> For the first piece, do an all-out piece of 250m, so d1 = 250m. It's
> basically a sprint - not much pacing required. Next, pick d2 at, say 1000m.
> Maybe use Doug's or Paul's "Rules" (eyes rolling) to determine a ball-park
> pace and readjust as you get deeper into the piece.
>
> Plug the results into the equation and you've got a personal Critical
> Velocity value (CV). Rearranging the equation for CV and solving for t2,
> now you can use your CV to calculate a goal time for any length piece. It
> would look something like this:
>
> t2 = t1 + (d2 - d1)/CV
>
> Not very difficult, really, and a far better training tool, IMHO, than the
> "one size fits all" methods discussed in this thread.
>
> -otto
That's "Paul's Law" to you.
I'll help with something catchy for the others:
"Dougs Declaration" (Patent Pending)
"Otto's Motto"
"Alan's Challenge"
So you make up your own "one size fits all" instead of using another,
excellent! You can complicate it all you want, but that won't change
the law, what are you, a lawyer or something? [;o)
- Paul (Simple solutions to complex problems) Smith
dougm
spun into the stratosphere. First, I go back to crediting Paul with the
original "fit". Is there anyone that thinks he can row a 4k in simply double
the time of a 2k? Might be a novice's first impression, like the linear
discussions here. But quickly dispelled after a piece or two. The rule (and
"declaration") just work much better as a guideline. And tell me if you
object Paul, but the "5" in "double D add 5" is not sacred. For some its 4
(in which case the declaration coefficient is 13.3 instead of 16.6), others
7 etc. It's a gross misrepresentation to regard this as a one size fits all
formula. It is based upon the known split of that individual at any
particular distance. Doesn't matter if its 1:30 or 1:55, for 1k or 10k. Very
individual. Fer gods sake this is not a training program, but one little
wrench in the toolbox. And if you find you don't fit this formula well at
all, say your 1k is 5 seconds longer than your 500, but your 10k is 20
seconds longer than your 5k, you think maybe your strength training might be
outpacing your aerobic training a bit?? As for critical velocity and
critical power, C2 figured all that out long ago and displayed it on the
monitor. What a pitiful distraction. But I agree this is not for everyone.
Say "log" and 90% of the population goes screaming for the hills.
Doug (just a cheap simple tool for free on the internet) M
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07ac95a.04022...@posting.google.com...
Allan Bennett
Otto - no, no, no, no, no...
Not sensible to pick such a short piece for the shorter effort - I suggest 2
minutes-or-so - but it should be a constant pace and to 'exhaustion'.
The second effort - also at constant pace and to 'exhaustion' at, say
8-10mins duration.
The formula cannot possibly work if you pre-set the pace to some arbitrary
speed. That is the whole point!
> Plug the results into the equation and you've got a personal Critical
> Velocity value (CV). Rearranging the equation for CV and solving for t2,
> now you can use your CV to calculate a goal time for any length piece. It
> would look something like this:
>
> t2 = t1 + (d2 - d1)/CV
>
> Not very difficult, really, and a far better training tool, IMHO, than the
> "one size fits all" methods discussed in this thread.
>
-otto, no. Otto, no. Otto, no, No, NO!
What I have been saying is that you cannot accurately assess the pace of two
pieces of work from the time established on one of them.
In addition, it also does not make physiological sense to use those arbitrary
paces as 'training'. And certainly absolute nonsense to use them for
assessment.
The formula you have quoted above is for training assessment - and best used
for comparative assessment after a period of training.
It cannot be used to predict the pace of a separate effort over a different,
arbitrary duration - that makes as much sense as the other predictions...
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of no no
--
PaulS
> For a group claiming ill allegence to spin-offs, this thread seems to have
> spun into the stratosphere. First, I go back to crediting Paul with the
> original "fit". Is there anyone that thinks he can row a 4k in simply double
> the time of a 2k? Might be a novice's first impression, like the linear
> discussions here. But quickly dispelled after a piece or two. The rule (and
> "declaration") just work much better as a guideline. And tell me if you
> object Paul, but the "5" in "double D add 5" is not sacred.
It's hard to call any number "sacred" but I suppose the 5 in Paul's
Law is about as sacred as it can be. [;o)
You are very sharp to recognize that it is completely self adapting to
the individual, and far from a "one size fits all" solution.
I think you are understanding correctly on how to use it as an
indicator for the training focus toolbox, however it's more like a
sledge hammer than a wrench. LOL
Aren't logs the things that we try to avoid when rowing?
Off to Boston! I hear the British are Coming!
- Paul "S10PS" Smith
dougm
who avoid training logs as well.
Best of luck to you, and all, in Boston. Hope to meet you there some year.
May get back to you P, for the scoop on a few NW crews I may be facing at
San Diego. Did I hear correctly that NW Regs. is still at Lake Vancouver?
Doug
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07ac95a.04022...@posting.google.com...
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> - Paul (Simple solutions
That figures....
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of Malek's Law
--
Allan Bennett
What you have misunderstood is that otto has got it wrong...
Plotting t2 and d2 on a graph gives a single point. Plotting two points (the
other being t1d1, gives a straight line (surprise, surprise). The slope of
the line is the critical velocity, and the intercept on the y-axis provides
the value for anaerobic distance capacity (ADC) - ie the distance covered
anaerobically.
It makes no more sense to use the distance that otto quotes for estimating
pace at another distance than any of the other methods proposed...
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of non-linear relationships
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:dmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> For a group claiming ill allegence to spin-offs, this thread seems to have
> spun into the stratosphere. First, I go back to crediting Paul with the
> original "fit". Is there anyone that thinks he can row a 4k in simply
> double the time of a 2k? Might be a novice's first impression, like the
> linear discussions here. But quickly dispelled after a piece or two. The
> rule (and "declaration") just work much better as a guideline. And tell me
> if you object Paul, but the "5" in "double D add 5" is not sacred. For some
> its 4 (in which case the declaration coefficient is 13.3 instead of 16.6),
> others 7 etc. It's a gross misrepresentation to regard this as a one size
> fits all formula. It is based upon the known split of that individual at
> any particular distance. Doesn't matter if its 1:30 or 1:55, for 1k or 10k.
> Very individual. Fer gods sake this is not a training program, but one
> little wrench in the toolbox. And if you find you don't fit this formula
> well at all, say your 1k is 5 seconds longer than your 500, but your 10k is
> 20 seconds longer than your 5k, you think maybe your strength training
> might be outpacing your aerobic training a bit??
Isn't that the point? It isn't reliable between individuals, and is likely
to change for each individual following specific training.
Worse still, those who propose such a system will have their athletes doing
the same sort of training regime regardless of their physiology, in order
that they fit the predetermined arbitrary numbers.
> As for critical velocity and critical power, C2 figured all that out long
> ago and displayed it on the monitor.
Have they? Can you explain?
> What a pitiful distraction. But I agree this is not for
> everyone. Say "log" and 90% of the population goes screaming for the hills.
>
> Doug (just a cheap simple tool for free on the internet) M
>
Maybe simple and cheap - but I am always satisfied with the best (modified
from Oscar Wilde).
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of Doug's Freebies
--
Allan Bennett
> news:<e4DZb.92177$jk2.441177@attbi_s53
> > ... For a group claiming ill allegence to spin-offs, this thread seems to
> > have spun into the stratosphere. First, I go back to crediting Paul with
> > the original "fit". Is there anyone that thinks he can row a 4k in simply
> > double the time of a 2k? Might be a novice's first impression, like the
> > linear discussions here. But quickly dispelled after a piece or two. The
> > rule (and "declaration") just work much better as a guideline. And tell
> > me if you object Paul, but the "5" in "double D add 5" is not sacred.
>
> It's hard to call any number "sacred" but I suppose the 5 in Paul's Law is
> about as sacred as it can be. [;o)
>
> You are very sharp to recognize that it is completely self adapting to the
> individual, and far from a "one size fits all" solution.
>
> I think you are understanding correctly on how to use it as an indicator
> for the training focus toolbox, however it's more like a sledge hammer than
> a wrench. LOL
>
So, Paul's Law of 5 - the story so far:
It isn't a 'one size fits all' solution.
It is different for different individuals.
It will be modified by different training regimes.
It is an arbitrary number.
5 is sacred.
The number isn't 5.
The formula can be used for predicting unknown performances.
The number is based on a known split.
The formula is offered to everyone of any standard.
Different coaches will use different numbers.
The number depends upon the distances.
But it isn't 5.
It's no longer a 'law', but an 'indicator'.
Not much of a law, is it?
PS, PS: I thought Pauls Law was: In America, it's not how much an item
costs, it's how much you save.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of outlaws
--
PaulS
I'll address these so you can learn, Mr. Bennett.
> So, Paul's Law of 5 - the story so far:
Just "Paul's Law", Thank you.
> It isn't a 'one size fits all' solution.
Maybe you need to define that term more precisely, however it will
work for anyone.
> It is different for different individuals.
Of course, individuals are different. (The 5 is not different.)
> It will be modified by different training regimes.
It will not be modified, the individual will.
> It is an arbitrary number.
Hardly.
> 5 is sacred.
Yes, isn't it? (No other number equals it.)
> The number isn't 5.
It isn't? Can't you read?
> The formula can be used for predicting unknown performances.
Absolutely, however it has a dependency on whether or not the
individuals fitness is balanced.
> The number is based on a known split.
No, it works based on a known point.
> The formula is offered to everyone of any standard.
Yes.
> Different coaches will use different numbers.
They will use anything they like, but they can not claim to be using
Paul's Law if they use different numbers.
> The number depends upon the distances.
No, it remains 5.
> But it isn't 5.
Yes it is 5.
> It's no longer a 'law', but an 'indicator'.
Sorry, still a "Law" that can be used as an "Indicator" if you like.
> Not much of a law, is it?
Sure it is, same as always.
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of outlaws
Does anyone care what you are, or are not, a fan of?
I was at the World Indoor Rowing Championships this past weekend and
heard that there was a guy targeting 5:32 for a 2K. Based on his
quite impressive 1K time of 2:39.8 (Avg Pace = 1:19.9), Paul's Law
would say that he would be good for a 2K Avg Pace of 1:24.9, or a 2K
of 5:39.6, you can look up the actual result for yourself, then spout
off a bit more for my entertainment.
Paul's Law would indicate that if he wants to target 5:32, he needs to
focus on an increase in strength, and get the 1K down to 2:36.0 first.
- Paul Smith
Allan Bennett
>
> I'll address these so you can learn, Mr. Bennett.
That's Dr Bennett to you.
> > So, Paul's Law of 5 - the story so far:
> Just "Paul's Law", Thank you.
So, Paul's Law of 5 or nothing it is then. I prefer the latter as it makes
more sense...
> > It isn't a 'one size fits all' solution.
> Maybe you need to define that term more precisely, however it will
> work for anyone.
I do not need to define anything - it's a quote from a previous post to which
you need to refer.
> > It is different for different individuals.
> Of course, individuals are different. (The 5 is not different.)
Yes, it is. Refer to a previous posting...
>
> > It will be modified by different training regimes.
> It will not be modified, the individual will.
..thus producing a different number. You can't have it both ways and retain
a credible argument.
>
> > It is an arbitrary number.
> Hardly.
I think you do not understand the comment.
> > 5 is sacred.
> Yes, isn't it? (No other number equals it.)
I think you miss the point.
> > The number isn't 5.
> It isn't? Can't you read?
Have you read the posts by others? Or do you just choose to ignore them so
you can justify your failing philosophies?
> > The formula can be used for predicting unknown performances.
> Absolutely, however it has a dependency on whether or not the
> individuals fitness is balanced.
So, the formula cannot be used for predicting unknown performances (the case
being made by the bullet-point. But, hey, you're from NA - irony doesn't
figure with you, I guess.)
> > The number is based on a known split.
> No, it works based on a known point.
Once again, refer to previous posts by others.
> > The formula is offered to everyone of any standard.
> Yes.
>
> > Different coaches will use different numbers.
> They will use anything they like, but they can not claim to be using
> Paul's Law if they use different numbers.
Read previous posts. And you are probably right - they won't use Paul's
thingy.
> > The number depends upon the distances.
> No, it remains 5.
Read previous posts.
> > But it isn't 5.
> Yes it is 5.
Read, and try to understand the comments above.
> > It's no longer a 'law', but an 'indicator'.
> Sorry, still a "Law" that can be used as an "Indicator" if you like.
Wriggle, wriggle - I no like.
> > Not much of a law, is it?
> Sure it is, same as always.
Lots of wriggly responses here, Mr Paul Law, but no answers and a failure to
address the fundamental issues.
My comments were in summary of the various posts by yourself and others.
The fundamental misdirections are as follows:
1. An accurate and reliable prediction of performance of a distance cannot be
made on the basis of a time at another distance.
2. Any resulting formula will depend upon the physiology of the individual
and the prevalent training. It will necessarily be based upon /actual/
performances, not pre-determined arbitrary estimates.
3. Such a prediction is irrelevant because it can lead to an ineffective
training pace (either too fast or too slow).
4. Such an approach cannot be used for assessment (either of training
programmes or ability).
>
> > Allan Bennett
> > Not a fan of outlaws
> Does anyone care what you are, or are not, a fan of?
What does it matter whether they do or not? Why should I worry whether you
do, or not?
>
> I was at the World Indoor Rowing Championships this past weekend and
> heard that there was a guy targeting 5:32 for a 2K. Based on his
> quite impressive 1K time of 2:39.8 (Avg Pace = 1:19.9), Paul's Law
> would say that he would be good for a 2K Avg Pace of 1:24.9, or a 2K
> of 5:39.6, you can look up the actual result for yourself, then spout
> off a bit more for my entertainment.
Well done - you've found 1 person that fits your formula. So what? That
proves nothing. It would also suggest that your philosophy is to aim for a
target time rather than a 'best' time.
That is not good coaching - especially as, had this subject started his final
piece at the correct pace, he would probably not have fitted your formula (ie
in chasing too fast a target, performance and result will have suffered).
> Paul's Law would indicate that if he wants to target 5:32, he needs to
> focus on an increase in strength, and get the 1K down to 2:36.0 first.
... which is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of training
physiology.
It's all very well telling me I can learn (ref your comment at the top of
your response), but the only thing /you/ are teaching me is not to take any
notice of you.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of wrigglers
--
Tim Granger
> > Just "Paul's Law", Thank you.
>
> So, Paul's Law of 5 or nothing it is then. I prefer the latter as it makes
> more sense...
>
> > > ▐ It isn't a 'one size fits all' solution.
> > Maybe you need to define that term more precisely, however it will
> > work for anyone.
>
> I do not need to define anything - it's a quote from a previous post to which
> you need to refer.
>
> > > ▐ It is different for different individuals.
> > Of course, individuals are different. (The 5 is not different.)
>
> Yes, it is. Refer to a previous posting...
>
> >
> > > ▐ It will be modified by different training regimes.
> > It will not be modified, the individual will.
>
> ..thus producing a different number. You can't have it both ways and retain
> a credible argument.
Is it a good summary that Paul think that the ideal balance between
strength and endurance for rowing (presumably to be able to achieve
the best 2km score) is that you add 5s to the split when you double
the distance, and that you should train to achieve that relationship.
Whereas Allan says that from two scores you can fit a linear line
and get the slope (critical velocity) and the intercept on the y axis
(the anaerobic distance capacity). Still slightly unsure of what you
use these number for - comparison for a single athlete over time,
comparison between different athletes at the same time, or some way of
assessing or setting training levels? Could you explain how this
works Allan?
Tim
PaulS
> Right about logs. Our lake is full of them right now. I know lots of rowers
> who avoid training logs as well.
>
> Best of luck to you, and all, in Boston. Hope to meet you there some year.
> May get back to you P, for the scoop on a few NW crews I may be facing at
> San Diego. Did I hear correctly that NW Regs. is still at Lake Vancouver?
>
> Doug
Great point about the training "logs", I've found similar issues with
my rowers.
Boston was very fun, in spite of the whirlwind tour, met a bunch of
folks to put faces to names, as well as personalities.
I've heard that Lake Vancouver will be the place for Masters Regionals
2004.
Regards,
Paul Smith
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > > Just "Paul's Law", Thank you.
> >
> > So, Paul's Law of 5 or nothing it is then. I prefer the latter as it
> > makes more sense...
> >
> > > > It isn't a 'one size fits all' solution.
> > > Maybe you need to define that term more precisely, however it will work
> > > for anyone.
> >
> > I do not need to define anything - it's a quote from a previous post to
> > which you need to refer.
> >
> > > > It is different for different individuals.
> > > Of course, individuals are different. (The 5 is not different.)
> >
> > Yes, it is. Refer to a previous posting...
> >
> > >
> > > > It will be modified by different training regimes.
> > > It will not be modified, the individual will.
> >
> > ..thus producing a different number. You can't have it both ways and
> > retain a credible argument.
>
> Is it a good summary that Paul think that the ideal balance between
> strength and endurance for rowing (presumably to be able to achieve the
> best 2km score) is that you add 5s to the split when you double the
> distance, and that you should train to achieve that relationship.
No, that particular summary is not evident from what has been stated. What
his approach does is 'predict', say, a 5k time from a known 2k time (see the
original post in this thread and others).
Such an approach will not - definitely not - guarantee the best time for the
5k, especially if the athlete adheres to the 'predicted' splits. It is,
simply, not scientific. It should not be used, either, for determining a
pace for training purposes.
The 'prediction' takes no account of the status, either in terms of fitness
or ability, of the athlete - and certainly ignores physiological variability.
It is, frankly, misleading at best, an insult to science and certainly not
something which should be suggested as a coaching tool to a wider audience.
Even worse is that he now suggests altering training in order to get
convergence towards his arbitrary scoring system (an admission that it
doesn't work in the first place!). What evidence does he proffer for
supporting that?
I would also take issue with the strength v endurance part, but that is
another debate...
> Whereas Allan says that from two scores you can fit a linear line
> and get the slope (critical velocity) and the intercept on the y axis
> (the anaerobic distance capacity). Still slightly unsure of what you
> use these number for - comparison for a single athlete over time,
> comparison between different athletes at the same time, or some way of
> assessing or setting training levels? Could you explain how this
> works Allan?
I can, but it is not an 'Allan says': credit should go to those who have done
the research (some references have been given, already).
The Critical Power concept gives a score which can be used to compare
individual athletes with each other; used for prescribing suitable training
programmes; and used for comparing the progress or otherwise of an
individual.
It is not used for any predictive purposes, but I have found a high
correlation between athletes of known relative power / endurance
capabilities.
HTH
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of contrived convergence
--
PaulS
> > I'll address these so you can learn, Mr. Bennett.
>
> That's Dr Bennett to you.
Okay, "Dr. Bennett" it is.
> Lots of wriggly responses here, Mr Paul Law, but no answers and a failure to
> address the fundamental issues.
Not so, but if you can not understand what I am saying at this point,
it must be due to a language barrier.
> My comments were in summary of the various posts by yourself and others.
>
> The fundamental misdirections are as follows:
>
> 1. An accurate and reliable prediction of performance of a distance cannot be
> made on the basis of a time at another distance.
>
> 2. Any resulting formula will depend upon the physiology of the individual
> and the prevalent training. It will necessarily be based upon /actual/
> performances, not pre-determined arbitrary estimates.
>
> 3. Such a prediction is irrelevant because it can lead to an ineffective
> training pace (either too fast or too slow).
>
> 4. Such an approach cannot be used for assessment (either of training
> programmes or ability).
No misdirection at all, sorry that you are blind to what I am saying,
open your mind a bit and use some of those brain cells that are piled
so high, and deep.
>
> >
> > > Allan Bennett
> > > Not a fan of outlaws
> > Does anyone care what you are, or are not, a fan of?
>
> What does it matter whether they do or not? Why should I worry whether you
> do, or not?
Exactly! For some reason you want to be at contention with me, when I
have noted several times that you have made some very good posts. (Not
all of them are good though.) So be it, I couldn't care less. Paul's
Law has stood the test of time and will continue to regardless of Dr.
Bennett's approval or acknowlegement.
>
> >
> > I was at the World Indoor Rowing Championships this past weekend and
> > heard that there was a guy targeting 5:32 for a 2K. Based on his
> > quite impressive 1K time of 2:39.8 (Avg Pace = 1:19.9), Paul's Law
> > would say that he would be good for a 2K Avg Pace of 1:24.9, or a 2K
> > of 5:39.6, you can look up the actual result for yourself, then spout
> > off a bit more for my entertainment.
>
> Well done - you've found 1 person that fits your formula. So what? That
> proves nothing. It would also suggest that your philosophy is to aim for a
> target time rather than a 'best' time.
I don't find them, they find "Paul's Law". What would be wrong with
targeting your best time? (Based on performance at another distance)
> That is not good coaching - especially as, had this subject started his final
> piece at the correct pace, he would probably not have fitted your formula (ie
> in chasing too fast a target, performance and result will have suffered).
I wasn't coaching him, if I were, my suggestion would have been to set
a pace according to Paul's Law, not carry so much of a burden through
the race and then possibly exceed that pace in the final sprint.
>
> > Paul's Law would indicate that if he wants to target 5:32, he needs to
> > focus on an increase in strength, and get the 1K down to 2:36.0 first.
>
> ... which is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of training
> physiology.
Which of course only you have an idea of?
> It's all very well telling me I can learn (ref your comment at the top of
> your response), but the only thing /you/ are teaching me is not to take any
> notice of you.
Please, I have no need for your attention, talk about a "wriggler",
you are the wriggliest link, good-bye!
- Paul Smith
PS - Talked with a professor of Physiology while at CRASH-B's this
past w/e to get an explanation of "critical velocity", apparently the
rack you are hanging everything on does not have a solid foundation,
no wonder you are so defensive and protective of it. Great "theory",
no practice.
Tim Granger
<snipped bit about Paul's ideas>
> > Whereas Allan says that from two scores you can fit a linear line
> > and get the slope (critical velocity) and the intercept on the y axis
> > (the anaerobic distance capacity). Still slightly unsure of what you
> > use these number for - comparison for a single athlete over time,
> > comparison between different athletes at the same time, or some way of
> > assessing or setting training levels? Could you explain how this
> > works Allan?
>
> I can, but it is not an 'Allan says': credit should go to those who have done
> the research (some references have been given, already).
>
> The Critical Power concept gives a score which can be used to compare
> individual athletes with each other; used for prescribing suitable training
> programmes; and used for comparing the progress or otherwise of an
> individual.
>
> It is not used for any predictive purposes, but I have found a high
> correlation between athletes of known relative power / endurance
> capabilities.
Great - thanks for clearing where these ideas are valid for, and what
they are not supposed to achieve. (maybe this protracted discussion
would have been cleaner if originally stated this formally!)
I get the idea about comparing two athletes, and the idea of comparing
progress over time. Where you say 'prescribing suitable training
programmes', how do you apply this to rowing training? Say I have a
500m time of 1.31 and a 2km time of 6.40, how do I use these ideas to
tell me what to do?
Tim
Ewoud Dronkert
> Say I have a 500m time of 1.31 and a 2km time of 6.40,
> how do I use these ideas to tell me what to do?
Give notice at job, ditch wife and kid, spend days training, eating and
resting. Report back in a year.
Neil Wallace
> I was at the World Indoor Rowing Championships this past weekend and
> heard that there was a guy targeting 5:32 for a 2K. Based on his
> quite impressive 1K time of 2:39.8 (Avg Pace = 1:19.9), Paul's Law
> would say that he would be good for a 2K Avg Pace of 1:24.9, or a 2K
> of 5:39.6, you can look up the actual result for yourself, then spout
> off a bit more for my entertainment.
>
Hi Paul,
Have you ever tried applying "Paul's law" to lightweight females, or 70 Year
old men?
If predictions are to be made, I much prefer using Watts. It is an ERGometer
not a SPEEDometer after all. I would guess that over 5K most people can
maintain about 85% of the power they do in a 2K test.
The percentage would probably be very predictable if we were to compare a 6
min test with a 20 min test.
Neil
p.s. what does "S10PS" stand for in your ads.
PaulS
>
> Is it a good summary that Paul think that the ideal balance between
> strength and endurance for rowing (presumably to be able to achieve
> the best 2km score) is that you add 5s to the split when you double
> the distance, and that you should train to achieve that relationship.
That's a reasonable summary, but it's not just for 2K, and could be
applied to moving up or down, in either distance or time. You might
be providing a bit of clarity for Allan in that Paul's Law is for
Concept 2 Indoor Rowing Ergometers specifically. I make no claims at
all as to how rats on a wheel will do.
- Paul Smith
>
> Whereas Allan says that from two scores you can fit a linear line
> and get the slope (critical velocity) and the intercept on the y axis
> (the anaerobic distance capacity). Still slightly unsure of what you
> use these number for - comparison for a single athlete over time,
> comparison between different athletes at the same time, or some way of
> assessing or setting training levels? Could you explain how this
> works Allan?
>
> Tim
This should be good, maybe Dr. Bennett will actually share some of his
brilliant genius regarding this critical velocity idea.
Allan Bennett
> >
> > Is it a good summary that Paul think that the ideal balance between
> > strength and endurance for rowing (presumably to be able to achieve
> > the best 2km score) is that you add 5s to the split when you double
> > the distance, and that you should train to achieve that relationship.
>
> That's a reasonable summary,
How can it be?
"...you should train to achieve that relationship." rather destroys your
argument. There should be no need to train for convergence if your so-called
'law' could stand up to scrutiny.
Furthermore, should someone be foolish enough to accept your approach as
proven, they would set the target determined by your arbitrary numbers and
either achieve it because it is right for them (it will be for some), fail to
complete the task because the pace was too high for their physiological
make-up (as it will be for some), or saunter through an easy piece because
the pace is too slow to tax their physiology (which is the inevitable
consequence of Darwin's theories).
> but it's not just for 2K, and could be applied to moving up or down, in
> either distance or time.
You'll be advocating it for space travel, too, no doubt...
> You might be providing a bit of clarity for Allan in that Paul's Law is for
> Concept 2 Indoor Rowing Ergometers specifically.
I need no clarity, thanks. I understand exactly what you are proposing - and
I know it is wrong.
> I make no claims at all as to how rats on a wheel will do.
No, that's right - because your theory has not been tested scientifically nor
subjected to the rigours of publication and scrutiny in the science press...
*You* won't even allow proper scrutiny here without resorting to personal
attacks when your claims are (quite rightly) challenged.
>
> - Paul Smith
>
> >
> > Whereas Allan says that from two scores you can fit a linear line
> > and get the slope (critical velocity) and the intercept on the y axis
> > (the anaerobic distance capacity). Still slightly unsure of what you
> > use these number for - comparison for a single athlete over time,
> > comparison between different athletes at the same time, or some way of
> > assessing or setting training levels? Could you explain how this
> > works Allan?
> >
> > Tim
>
> This should be good, maybe Dr. Bennett will actually share some of his
> brilliant genius regarding this critical velocity idea.
>
Done.
Further details can be posted for those wanting to know more. And the
concept has been published by renowned practitioners, scrutinised by peers
and tested in a number of sports.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of rigour
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> <snipped bit about Paul's ideas>
That's for the best :-)
When you宋e completed your all-out time trials, follow these steps:
1. Convert time to seconds
2. CV = (long distance - short distance)/(long time - short time)
3. ADC = long distance - (long time x CV)
4. ADC = short distance - (short time x CV)
The two values for ADC obtained in steps 3 and 4 should be identical; if not,
you宋e made a mistake in your calculations.
"Whilst there are no average or normative data for the tests at present, you
will be able to monitor progress and see how training is affecting your
aerobic (CV) and anaerobic fitness (ADC). If used in this way, testing is
likely to increase your motivation to train, help give clues about your
relative strengths and weaknesses, and let you see occasions when you might
benefit more from adjustments in either endurance or speed-work. For the
coach, it will also provide valuable feedback on the relative effectiveness
of the preceding training cycle." Lee Romer ( ex-British Olympic Medical
Centre)
If there are several of you, compare the results. If someone has a higher
ADC, for instance, and you want to be like him - do some high intensity
intervals. Similarly, if your endurance is a bit weak, train to build that
up.
I would suggest, for example: 6-8 weeks of threshold-boosting work such as 3
x 4-8 minute efforts per session (for endurance) or 6-8 weeks of short
interval work (for upping anaerobic capacity) before a re-test when scores
can be compared.
Of course, the test can be done on the water or on an erg (but don't try to
compare the results between these).
HTH.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of protractors
--
Allan Bennett
> > > I'll address these so you can learn, Mr. Bennett.
> >
> > That's Dr Bennett to you.
>
> Okay, "Dr. Bennett" it is.
>
> > Lots of wriggly responses here, Mr Paul Law, but no answers and a failure
> > to address the fundamental issues.
>
> Not so, but if you can not understand what I am saying at this point, it
> must be due to a language barrier.
No. It's due to your intolerance at any scrutiny of your proposals.
> > My comments were in summary of the various posts by yourself and others.
> >
> > The fundamental misdirections are as follows:
> >
> > 1. An accurate and reliable prediction of performance of a distance
> > cannot be made on the basis of a time at another distance.
> >
> > 2. Any resulting formula will depend upon the physiology of the
> > individual and the prevalent training. It will necessarily be based upon
> > /actual/ performances, not pre-determined arbitrary estimates.
> >
> > 3. Such a prediction is irrelevant because it can lead to an ineffective
> > training pace (either too fast or too slow).
> >
> > 4. Such an approach cannot be used for assessment (either of training
> > programmes or ability).
>
> No misdirection at all, sorry that you are blind to what I am saying,
> open your mind a bit and use some of those brain cells that are piled
> so high, and deep.
There you go again. Any hint of inquisitive criticism (fair and acceptable
practice in science) and you resort to personal attacks.
> >
> > >
> > > > Allan Bennett
> > > > Not a fan of outlaws
> > > Does anyone care what you are, or are not, a fan of?
> >
> > What does it matter whether they do or not? Why should I worry whether
> > you do, or not?
>
> Exactly! For some reason you want to be at contention with me,
Not at all - I would take on board your offerings if they made sense or if
you could convince me or justify your claims or give some supporting
literature or underlying science. But you haven't done, so I won't.
You won't even answer the critical analysis of your claims, except by making
ad hominem comments. That gets us nowhere.
I would be quite happy to admit you are right, but you won't let us openly
examine your proposals, and you offer nothing but belligerent rebuffs against
any examination.
> >
> > Well done - you've found 1 person that fits your formula. So what? That
> > proves nothing. It would also suggest that your philosophy is to aim for
> > a target time rather than a 'best' time.
>
> I don't find them, they find "Paul's Law". What would be wrong with
> targeting your best time? (Based on performance at another distance)
But THAT is the whole point that you are failing to address. You cannot
determine a 'best time' from a performance at a different distance -
especially when those distances or times cross physiological boundaries.
It isn't done in eg athletics. Nobody calculated Seb Coe's best 1500m or
mile time from his 800m performance. Nobody stated what time Carl Lewis
would complete the 200m after he won the 100m, so why should we accept your
approach without healthy scrutiny?
>
> > That is not good coaching - especially as, had this subject started his
> > final piece at the correct pace, he would probably not have fitted your
> > formula (ie in chasing too fast a target, performance and result will
> > have suffered).
>
> I wasn't coaching him, if I were, my suggestion would have been to set
> a pace according to Paul's Law, not carry so much of a burden through
> the race and then possibly exceed that pace in the final sprint.
I did not say you were coaching him. I assume he was attempting a target
based upon his ability on a previous occasion. It would have been quite
wrong to set him too low a pace and lose a competition. That is why your
approach is wrong. That is why it is bad coaching. (In my book coaching is
trying to get the best results from people...).
The fact that he hit your target figure after attempting a pace that was too
ambitious on the day merely highlights the error of your philosophy.
> PS - Talked with a professor of Physiology while at CRASH-B's this
> past w/e to get an explanation of "critical velocity", apparently the
> rack you are hanging everything on does not have a solid foundation,
> no wonder you are so defensive and protective of it. Great "theory",
> no practice.
So, bring on your secret Prof and lets debate the issues on this ng with him.
We have become accustomed over here to 'expert witnesses' (cot-death cases,
Hutton, Professor of Law who accepts lies as evidence), so expect lively
scrutiny.
And I haven't hung anything on any rack - I offered the concept, as a
suitable alternative to your stuff, to those wanting to use time-trials for
training assessment.
As for 'Great "theory", no practice' - go read the literature. I have
publications dating back to 1982 - lots of 'practice'. Lots of assessment.
Lots of scrutiny. Lots of comparisons.
One reviewer wrote: "Implication: A clear piece of evidence that shows
performance parameters are associated with training effects to a much
greater degree than are physiological measures. The best index of a training
response is the speed, magnitude, or accuracy of performance, not some
isolated partly related physiological measure."
That is bound to challenge the treasured orthodoxies of your mystery Prof.
(Wouldn't he just hate it if his lab was consigned to the history books
because we could all get by without the invasive, inaccurate and irrelevant
testing which currently substitutes for science and which he, no doubt,
supports because it keeps him in a job?)
I'm still waiting for the publication and references upon which you hang your
approach. Or would that be too much rope...?
BTW, what comments did your arcane Prof make on your ideas?
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of hanging
--
PaulS
>
> How can it be?
>
> "...you should train to achieve that relationship." rather destroys your
> argument. There should be no need to train for convergence if your so-called
> 'law' could stand up to scrutiny.
It does, quite easily, most likely this is why you don't like it much.
You can't find anything wrong with it so it must be lashed out
against immediately!
>
> Furthermore, should someone be foolish enough to accept your approach as
> proven, they would set the target determined by your arbitrary numbers and
> either achieve it because it is right for them (it will be for some), fail to
> complete the task because the pace was too high for their physiological
> make-up (as it will be for some), or saunter through an easy piece because
> the pace is too slow to tax their physiology (which is the inevitable
> consequence of Darwin's theories).
You don't know the whole story on Darwin do you?
>
> > but it's not just for 2K, and could be applied to moving up or down, in
> > either distance or time.
>
> You'll be advocating it for space travel, too, no doubt...
No, why would I do that?
> I need no clarity, thanks. I understand exactly what you are proposing - and
> I know it is wrong.
Of course you do.
> > I make no claims at all as to how rats on a wheel will do.
>
> No, that's right - because your theory has not been tested scientifically nor
> subjected to the rigours of publication and scrutiny in the science press...
But you say you are "Not a fan of rigour", we ar both speaking English
aren't we, seems you are contradicting yourself. Surprise,
surprise....
> *You* won't even allow proper scrutiny here without resorting to personal
> attacks when your claims are (quite rightly) challenged.
What personal attack would that be, Dr. Bennett?
> >
> > This should be good, maybe Dr. Bennett will actually share some of his
> > brilliant genius regarding this critical velocity idea.
> >
>
> Done.
>
> Further details can be posted for those wanting to know more. And the
> concept has been published by renowned practitioners, scrutinised by peers
> and tested in a number of sports.
Blah, blah, blah......... Critical velocity is true! Blah, blah,
blah.... It is! Blah, blah, blah... Nyah, nyah! Neener, neener!
Call me DR.!
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of rigour
>
> --
So, what is your problem with me, you think you need to protect all of
those poor little unsuspecting athletes that will listen and learn
from someone that isn't you? You seem to be a frustrated guy Allan,
and I say this with genuine concern, "There are decaffinated brands
that are just as tasty as the real thing." [;o)
Now if you think I'm genuinely going to hurt someone, please feel free
to stop that, but that's not what this is all about. Stick to the rat
race, I'll handle the hard stuff.
Cheers,
Paul Smith
PS - What is really sad, is that you are probably a respected guy in
some circles, and deservedly so, but you aren't impressing me much,
for such a bright guy.
Tim Granger
> In article <o51ishw...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk>, Tim Granger
> <URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > The Critical Power concept gives a score which can be used to compare
> > > individual athletes with each other; used for prescribing suitable
> > > training programmes; and used for comparing the progress or otherwise of
> > > an individual.
> > >
> > > It is not used for any predictive purposes, but I have found a high
> > > correlation between athletes of known relative power / endurance
> > > capabilities.
> >
> > > > I get the idea about comparing two athletes, and the idea of comparing
> > progress over time. Where you say 'prescribing suitable training
> > programmes', how do you apply this to rowing training? Say I have a
> > 500m time of 1.31 and a 2km time of 6.40, how do I use these ideas to
> > tell me what to do?
>
> When you▒ve completed your all-out time trials, follow these steps:
>
> 1. Convert time to seconds
> 2. CV = (long distance - short distance)/(long time - short time)
> 3. ADC = long distance - (long time x CV)
> 4. ADC = short distance - (short time x CV)
>
> The two values for ADC obtained in steps 3 and 4 should be identical; if not,
> you▒ve made a mistake in your calculations.
CV = 4.854
ADC = 58.25 = 58.25
> "Whilst there are no average or normative data for the tests at present, you
> will be able to monitor progress and see how training is affecting your
> aerobic (CV) and anaerobic fitness (ADC). If used in this way, testing is
> likely to increase your motivation to train, help give clues about your
> relative strengths and weaknesses, and let you see occasions when you might
> benefit more from adjustments in either endurance or speed-work. For the
> coach, it will also provide valuable feedback on the relative effectiveness
> of the preceding training cycle." Lee Romer ( ex-British Olympic Medical
> Centre)
>
> If there are several of you, compare the results. If someone has a higher
> ADC, for instance, and you want to be like him - do some high intensity
> intervals. Similarly, if your endurance is a bit weak, train to build that
> up.
Okay, so how do I know what I'm weak on? It's okay if you're a part
of a crew, but as a single sculler training on your own how can I tell
whether I'm limited by strength or endurance?
> I would suggest, for example: 6-8 weeks of threshold-boosting work such as 3
> x 4-8 minute efforts per session (for endurance) or 6-8 weeks of short
> interval work (for upping anaerobic capacity) before a re-test when scores
> can be compared.
Agreed - specificity in training is great, but I still don't see how
you can use CV/ADC to give you a training plan, unless you're trying
to converge your figures to someone else's figures.
I entirely see and agree with using these figures as a monitoring
programme for an individual, and as comparison between different
people in the same squad (ie using the same testing protocol), but not
sure of how to set a training plan for an individual, unless you have
a 'magic' set of values to aim for :)
Tim
Allan Bennett
> >
> > How can it be?
> >
> > "...you should train to achieve that relationship." rather destroys your
> > argument. There should be no need to train for convergence if your
> > so-called 'law' could stand up to scrutiny.
>
> It does, quite easily,
If it did, you would have produced the evidence. You have failed, totally, to
answer any questions regarding the scientific legitimacy of your claims.
It does NOT stand up to scrutiny.
> most likely this is why you don't like it much.
> You can't find anything wrong with it so it must be lashed out
> against immediately!
I think that most reading that will realise that:
a) there are fundamental problems with your idea which you have failed to
address
b) there is no science, research or principle upon which it hangs
c) it is of little use for prediction, no use for prescription and a waste of
time for assessment or competing
d) I have not 'lashed out', either immediately or subsequently - perhaps, you
need to look at *your* behaviour...
e) your idea is not an axiom which any serious athlete or coach would
support
f) your approach is a backward step in the advancement of sports physiology
understanding
> >
> > Furthermore, should someone be foolish enough to accept your approach as
> > proven, they would set the target determined by your arbitrary numbers
> > and either achieve it because it is right for them (it will be for some),
> > fail to complete the task because the pace was too high for their
> > physiological make-up (as it will be for some), or saunter through an
> > easy piece because the pace is too slow to tax their physiology (which is
> > the inevitable consequence of Darwin's theories).
>
> You don't know the whole story on Darwin do you?
Wrong. I am a great fan of Darwin. At least he produced and documented
evidence for his theories.
And, no doubt, Darwin would have addressed the issues raised in the above
paragraph rather than ignoring them and making some inane comment.
> > No, that's right - because your theory has not been tested scientifically
> > nor subjected to the rigours of publication and scrutiny in the science
> > press...
>
> But you say you are "Not a fan of rigour", we ar both speaking English
> aren't we, seems you are contradicting yourself. Surprise,
> surprise....
Now, what is the point in that throwaway line? How has that furthered any
debate? How has that answered any of the questions raised regarding your
theory?
BTW, I see no contradiction in my statements. None at all. Just because
something is factual, does not mean I have to like it. So, maybe 'we ar both
speaking English', but only one of us makes sense...
> Blah, blah, blah......... Critical velocity is true! Blah, blah,
> blah.... It is! Blah, blah, blah... Nyah, nyah! Neener, neener!
> Call me DR.!
Is that all you can muster?
If you don't agree with something, perhaps an explanation of your position
and some evidence would be more useful than puerile gibberish.
> So, what is your problem with me,
Strange though it may seem, I have no problem with you - just serious doubts
over what you write.
What you write suffers from an ever-widening credibility gap when you fail to
justify your claims with any statement of substance or any supporting
evidence.
BTW, I notice that you have snipped all references to your mysterious
Professor - and you have failed to answer the simple Q regarding his thoughts
on your postulate...
Not a very endearing trait: when you ignore the questions and sidestep the
issues whilst blundering towards the grand fallacy.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of decaffeinated beer
--
Tim Granger
But sadly those times are about what I was doing when I was training
quite a bit, before I got injured and started coaching lots... Doubt
I'd get anywhere near them nowadays!
Tim
hba...@pipeline.com
my own times all the way from 500m to 21097m. If I use log distance,
the number (for me) is 4.86 secs, whereas if I use log time, the number for
me is 4.51 secs. I am (approximately) a lightweight, and was born in 1947.
So, I think that this law seems to work for a wide variety of weights and ages.
Regarding the issue of why the number isn't exactly "5" -- either "5" was
always an approximation, or each person has a slightly different number,
or I need to work on my strength, or perhaps lightweights are forced to have a
slightly smaller number in order to make weight.
Henry Baker, Ph.D.
Walter Martindale
May I suggest that Both Paul S and Alan B take a break from their
argument, get a research project on this matter under way, and report
back in, say, a year or two. there will be some time required to do up
a properly researched proposal, getting university research committee to
approve the project, collecting subjects, pre-test data, training,
post-test data, and writing the thing up for publication in a refereed
journal (European Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, or Medicine and
Science in Exercise and Sports, or whatever it's called these days, for
example)
Perhaps they could collaborate. (hahahahahaha - really, just kidding)
Academic argument is always good for the "knowledge". Back and forth
"tis so" "tis not" isn't.
Walter
not a fan of extended tit-for-tat
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > In article <o51ishw...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk>, Tim Granger
> > <URL:mailto:tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > > The Critical Power concept gives a score which can be used to
> > > > > > compare
> > > > individual athletes with each other; used for prescribing suitable
> > > > training programmes; and used for comparing the progress or otherwise
> > > > of an individual.
> > > >
> > > > It is not used for any predictive purposes, but I have found a high
> > > > correlation between athletes of known relative power / endurance
> > > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > > > I get the idea about comparing two athletes, and the idea of
> > > > > comparing
> > > progress over time. Where you say 'prescribing suitable training
> > > programmes', how do you apply this to rowing training? Say I have a
> > > 500m time of 1.31 and a 2km time of 6.40, how do I use these ideas to
> > > tell me what to do?
> >
> > 1. Convert time to seconds 2. CV = (long distance - short
> > distance)/(long time - short time) 3. ADC = long distance - (long time x
> > CV) 4. ADC = short distance - (short time x CV)
> >
> > The two values for ADC obtained in steps 3 and 4 should be identical; if
>
> CV = 4.854 ADC = 58.25 = 58.25
>
> > "Whilst there are no average or normative data for the tests at present,
> > you will be able to monitor progress and see how training is affecting
> > your aerobic (CV) and anaerobic fitness (ADC). If used in this way,
> > testing is likely to increase your motivation to train, help give clues
> > about your relative strengths and weaknesses, and let you see occasions
> > when you might benefit more from adjustments in either endurance or
> > speed-work. For the coach, it will also provide valuable feedback on the
> > relative effectiveness of the preceding training cycle." Lee Romer (
> > ex-British Olympic Medical Centre)
> >
> > If there are several of you, compare the results. If someone has a
> > higher ADC, for instance, and you want to be like him - do some high
> > intensity intervals. Similarly, if your endurance is a bit weak, train
> > to build that up.
>
> Okay, so how do I know what I'm weak on? It's okay if you're a part of a
> crew, but as a single sculler training on your own how can I tell whether
> I'm limited by strength or endurance?
You will need comparisons with others. It doesn't matter whether they are of
similar ability or pace. Otherwise, you would have to experiment with
different training regimes (most athletes are aware of their strengths and
weaknesses, though).
>
> > I would suggest, for example: 6-8 weeks of threshold-boosting work such
> > as 3 x 4-8 minute efforts per session (for endurance) or 6-8 weeks of
> > short interval work (for upping anaerobic capacity) before a re-test when
> > scores can be compared.
>
> Agreed - specificity in training is great, but I still don't see how you
> can use CV/ADC to give you a training plan, unless you're trying to
> converge your figures to someone else's figures.
Ultimately, I presume you are trying to converge your performances in a boat
with those of the best in the world - it is similar with CP, but converging
these results is not the same as on-water performances, just a reflection of
your physiological status.
>
> I entirely see and agree with using these figures as a monitoring programme
> for an individual, and as comparison between different people in the same
> squad (ie using the same testing protocol), but not sure of how to set a
> training plan for an individual, unless you have a 'magic' set of values to
> aim for :)
As a means of assessment, it will be of no more value than any other raw data
(eg time-trial results) when used in isolation. One-off individual
time-trials are not much help unless you have something to compare...
You will need to reassess after a period of training which (hopefully) will
be geared to your needs - ie will be dependent on your need for greater
fitness / speed / higher threshold etc.
Most coaches (I would hope) use on-water time-trials at regular intervals to
determine who is benefiting from the training (how else would you do it?).
The beauty of this system is that weaknesses in the training or the
individual's response to it can be picked up without resorting to expensive,
time-consuming and, frankly, irrelevant tests.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of magic values
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:hba...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> I've found the "log law" (paul's law?) to be remarkably good for me for
> my own times all the way from 500m to 21097m. If I use log distance,
> the number (for me) is 4.86 secs, whereas if I use log time, the number for
> me is 4.51 secs. I am (approximately) a lightweight, and was born in 1947.
>
> So, I think that this law seems to work for a wide variety of weights and
> ages.
>
> Regarding the issue of why the number isn't exactly "5" -- either "5" was
> always an approximation, or each person has a slightly different number, or
> I need to work on my strength, or perhaps lightweights are forced to have a
> slightly smaller number in order to make weight.
>
> Henry Baker, Ph.D.
>
Henry, I think your maths is way more sophisticated than PS's! And I think he
can correct you on the use of 5...
However, if you go to the beginning of this thread, you will see that PS
claims his rule is predictive ie you can set the pace from a known result.
If you follow precisely the pace set by his numbers, his rule will fit
perfectly (how can it be otherwise?).
But that ain't training, it ain't assessment and it ain't coaching.
I also find it strange for a PHD to state that because the rule /doesn't
quite fit/ for you, it 'seems to work for a wide variety of weights and
ages'.
That ain't logical, it ain't conclusive and it ain't scientific.
Regarding the issue of why the number isn't exactly "5" - in the real world
where athletes are trying to improve (ie training hard) or assess their
training, it isn't any fixed number at all - the result will be whatever can
be achieved - and will be different for different distances, especially where
physiological boundaries are crossed, and a fixed number will be even more
significantly wrong when the subject has focused upon a single distance at a
specific pace (eg one that will achieve world class honours). To adhere to a
fixed pace calculated from an arbitrary number (or even one found in a
particular training regime) is the road to mediocrity, IMO.
Maybe that's what PS wants...!
Of course, in Paul's world it is fixed at "5". If it isn't, you had better
change your training until it *is* "5".
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of mediocrity
--
Neil Wallace
"Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:c1g99r$1ib062$1...@ID-220898.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi Paul,
>
> Have you ever tried applying "Paul's law" to lightweight females, or 70
Year
> old men?
>
I'll reply to my own post then..
Three people near the top of the rankings (so trained individuals) on the C2
site, chosen from different age groups.
G Benton 30yo HWT M
500m time 1:16.7 (775W)
2000m time 5:51.4 (516W - i.e. 67% of 500m power)
Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
1:26.7 so2K prediction 5:46.8 (or 537W - 69% of 500m power)
S Speechley 50yo LWT F
500m time 1:46.9 (287W)
2000m time 7:53.5 (210W - i.e. 73% of 500m power)
Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
1:56.9 so 2K prediction 7:47.6 (or 219W - 76% of 500m power)
Robin Foster 87yo HWT M
500m time 2:09.3 (162W)
2000m time 9:19.3 (128W - i.e. 79% of 500m power)
Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
2:19.3 so 2K prediction of 9:17.2 (or 129W - 79% of 500m power)
So Paul's law is in the right ball park (+/- 5 seconds) for these Athletes.
But a 500m test is obviously much less of a test of anaerobic fitness for
the slower athlete.
Much better to do, say, a 45 second sprint and an 8 minute test, you'd get
correlation across the board with the Watts, I'd wager.
Neil
PaulS
You have summed our discussion up magnificently!
> I see no contradiction in my statements.
> None at all.
> Just because something is factual, does not mean I have to like it.
>
> Dr. Allan Bennett
> --
Absolutely Priceless!
Why would I need to provide a personal attack when you do such a fine
job on your own?
- Paul Smith
PaulS
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> CV = 4.854
> ADC = 58.25 = 58.25
>
> > "Whilst there are no average or normative data for the tests at present, you
> > will be able to monitor progress and see how training is affecting your
> > aerobic (CV) and anaerobic fitness (ADC). If used in this way, testing is
> > likely to increase your motivation to train, help give clues about your
> > relative strengths and weaknesses, and let you see occasions when you might
> > benefit more from adjustments in either endurance or speed-work. For the
> > coach, it will also provide valuable feedback on the relative effectiveness
> > of the preceding training cycle." Lee Romer ( ex-British Olympic Medical
> > Centre)
> >
> > If there are several of you, compare the results. If someone has a higher
> > ADC, for instance, and you want to be like him - do some high intensity
> > intervals. Similarly, if your endurance is a bit weak, train to build that
> > up.
>
> Okay, so how do I know what I'm weak on? It's okay if you're a part
> of a crew, but as a single sculler training on your own how can I tell
> whether I'm limited by strength or endurance?
You shouldn't have "snipped" my bit: Clearly you need to work on
strength (Power), though you are not particularly out of balance.
Of course Dr. Bennett suggests working on "either strength OR
endurance then retest to determine if you went in the right direction
and go after either again". BRILLIANT STUFF!
>
> I entirely see and agree with using these figures as a monitoring
> programme for an individual, and as comparison between different
> people in the same squad (ie using the same testing protocol), but not
> sure of how to set a training plan for an individual, unless you have
> a 'magic' set of values to aim for :)
>
> Tim
Dr. Bennett apparently is a "Fan of magic values".
- Paul Smith
David Kemper
> In article <c07ac95a.04022...@posting.google.com>, PaulS
> <URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<ant2121398ab No...@freeserve.co.uk>...
> >
> > I'll address these so you can learn, Mr. Bennett.
>
> That's Dr Bennett to you.
>
:-)
'scuse me sticking my oar in chaps, I really don't want to go head to
head, or cause a row.
The quack is spot on about periodisation, full stop. <-I used this one,
but just look at it, yep, dull isn't it?
If you are going to insist on using periods, you should use lots like
this..........
Single periods are a drag, but we can gain extra lift by resorting to
exclamation marks!!!!!
On the other hand, we can learn much more if we use question marks, as
I'm sure you'll agree?
The real enthusiast can mix their punctuation for extra emphasis,
yes?!?!?!
Daffy
Not a fan of misunderstanding
Tim Granger
> I'll reply to my own post then..
>
> Three people near the top of the rankings (so trained individuals) on the C2
> site, chosen from different age groups.
>
> G Benton 30yo HWT M
> 500m time 1:16.7 (775W)
> 2000m time 5:51.4 (516W - i.e. 67% of 500m power)
> Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
> 1:26.7 so2K prediction 5:46.8 (or 537W - 69% of 500m power)
>
> S Speechley 50yo LWT F
> 500m time 1:46.9 (287W)
> 2000m time 7:53.5 (210W - i.e. 73% of 500m power)
> Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
> 1:56.9 so 2K prediction 7:47.6 (or 219W - 76% of 500m power)
>
> Robin Foster 87yo HWT M
> 500m time 2:09.3 (162W)
> 2000m time 9:19.3 (128W - i.e. 79% of 500m power)
> Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
> 2:19.3 so 2K prediction of 9:17.2 (or 129W - 79% of 500m power)
>
> So Paul's law is in the right ball park (+/- 5 seconds) for these Athletes.
Interesting figures. I think my conclusion from all of this (and I
expect to get irritated replied from both major participants :) is
that it's primarily a question of accuracy.
Tim
PaulS
Sorry Neil, of course I've applied Paul's Law in training a wide cross
section of athletes. The Google auto-guard stopped me from answering
you. (Too many posts within a time limit.)
More interesting is to take the same folks and apply the Critical
Velocity formulas offered.
GB - CV=5.461, ADC=81.179
SS - CV=4.092, ADC=62.602
RF - CV=3.488, ADC=48.953
What does that tell us, Dr. Bennett?
- Paul Smith
Doug
common sense bring this simple point, attempted so long ago, back to
Earth, in a refreshingly brief statement. This little formula/rule is
an approximation, it is flexible, it conveniently works off of splits
which are the most common erg language, and all I did was present a
testamony which you add to, that it works very well for us.
Some of us see things that are 90% right sometimes practical and
useful. Others can only focus on the 10% error, throw the baby out
with the bathwater, and conjur up countless inferences that were not
there, for nothing but the pleasure of tearing them down and hear
themselves preach.
In my own experience of being coached in a very wide variety of time
and distance pieces I find it a real challenge to quickly, in my head,
guestimate a reasonable pace based upon other known paces. I needed to
just again this morning, and Paul's law came through very well again
(don't even need a calculator with a log button) as a starting point
which was much closer to the right pace than that which the assistant
coach proposed. This is not the stuff of refereed research, but of
practical tools, creatively used, by minds that are open. No doubt its
not for everyone, but I'm confident that it's a useful tool for many.
Doug
hba...@pipeline.com wrote in message news:<stcp309kloqla85q1...@4ax.com>...
Walter Martindale
Doug wrote:
> Thanks Henry. It is very gratifying to see someone with brains and
> common sense bring this simple point, attempted so long ago, back to
> Earth, in a refreshingly brief statement. This little formula/rule is
> an approximation, it is flexible, it conveniently works off of splits
> which are the most common erg language, and all I did was present a
> testamony which you add to, that it works very well for us.
>
> Some of us see things that are 90% right sometimes practical and
> useful. Others can only focus on the 10% error, throw the baby out
> with the bathwater, and conjur up countless inferences that were not
> there, for nothing but the pleasure of tearing them down and hear
> themselves preach.
>
I tend to agree... I recently provided a training guide for someone who
wanted to race CRASH-B, and did. He had done a 6:28 in Jan, and wanted
to do "anything faster than 6:20." He did. (6:18)
The phone conversations were about strategy, he stuck with his plan, and
then went into "hang on for dear life" mode for the last 300 or so m.
Did I do a lot of research? No.
W
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:wmartind@SPAMSTOPPER??telusplanet.net> wrote:
> And the big wheels keep on turning....
> May I suggest that Both Paul S and Alan B take a break from their
> argument, get a research project on this matter under way, and report
> back in, say, a year or two. there will be some time required to do up
> a properly researched proposal, getting university research committee to
> approve the project, collecting subjects, pre-test data, training,
> post-test data, and writing the thing up for publication in a refereed
> journal (European Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, or Medicine and
> Science in Exercise and Sports, or whatever it's called these days, for
> example)
I doubt there would be any funding for the "5" project... and there is no way
any journal worthy of the paper its staff use in the small room would publish
it. They have reputations to nurture.
As for the Critical Power concept - it has been published. It is sound,
repeatable science which has not only stood up to scrutiny, but has been
shown to be more worthwhile than many other concepts that have served only to
confuse sports scientists for years.
> Perhaps they could collaborate. (hahahahahaha - really, just kidding)
> Academic argument is always good for the "knowledge". Back and forth
> "tis so" "tis not" isn't.
> Walter
> not a fan of extended tit-for-tat
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of the tit
--
Neil Wallace
snip
> You shouldn't have "snipped" my bit: Clearly you need to work on
> strength (Power), though you are not particularly out of balance.
As I am sure Paul knows full well, strength and power are different.
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Granger <tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > CV = 4.854 ADC = 58.25 = 58.25
> >
> > > "Whilst there are no average or normative data for the tests at
> > > present, you will be able to monitor progress and see how training is
> > > affecting your aerobic (CV) and anaerobic fitness (ADC). If used in
> > > this way, testing is likely to increase your motivation to train, help
> > > give clues about your relative strengths and weaknesses, and let you
> > > see occasions when you might benefit more from adjustments in either
> > > endurance or speed-work. For the coach, it will also provide valuable
> > > feedback on the relative effectiveness of the preceding training
> > > cycle." Lee Romer ( ex-British Olympic Medical Centre)
> > >
> > > If there are several of you, compare the results. If someone has a
> > > higher ADC, for instance, and you want to be like him - do some high
> > > intensity intervals. Similarly, if your endurance is a bit weak, train
> > > to build that up.
> >
> > Okay, so how do I know what I'm weak on? It's okay if you're a part of a
> > crew, but as a single sculler training on your own how can I tell whether
> > I'm limited by strength or endurance?
>
>
> You shouldn't have "snipped" my bit: Clearly you need to work on strength
> (Power), though you are not particularly out of balance.
Of course, 'strength' is not the same as 'power' and the training for them is
different.
> Of course Dr. Bennett suggests working on "either strength OR endurance
> then retest to determine if you went in the right direction and go after
> either again".
Not quite. Any training can be performed and should (if the training is
effective) produce a recordable change, but to achieve an improvement
/specifically/ on ADC or CV would need an emphasis in one direction or
another.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of the "snipped" bits
--
PaulS
> (In my book coaching is trying to get the best results from people...).
Ah, I see a philosophical rift of great magnitude.
In my book, coaching is helping people to get the best results from
themselves.
>
> The fact that he hit your target figure after attempting a pace that was too
> ambitious on the day merely highlights the error of your philosophy.
That's not what I did, and you know it. Paul's Law was in plain sight
prior to that performance. Even CV says that "digging a hole too deep
will make it impossible to get out", I could have suggested the proper
depth hole and a strategy for digging. [:o)
> So, bring on your secret Prof and lets debate the issues on this ng with him.
> We have become accustomed over here to 'expert witnesses' (cot-death cases,
> Hutton, Professor of Law who accepts lies as evidence), so expect lively
> scrutiny.
I don't have his permission to bring him into this discussion, but he
directs the training of his Universities Crew and they are quite
successful. He does not throw a fit whe I reference Paul's Law, but
when I described what was going on here we both had a good laugh.
>
> That is bound to challenge the treasured orthodoxies of your mystery Prof.
>
> (Wouldn't he just hate it if his lab was consigned to the history books
> because we could all get by without the invasive, inaccurate and irrelevant
> testing which currently substitutes for science and which he, no doubt,
> supports because it keeps him in a job?)
>
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of hanging
You must be in great fear of being found out for manipulated
statistical results of your own, as you are a classic example of
transferrance when attacking me, and anyone else who even remotely
supports my "Law". i.e. You accuse others of doing exactly what you
are doing, as some form of preemptive strike. Get help, it's
transparent.
Seriously, all the best in your work, and good luck.
- Paul Smith
Walter Martindale
Allan Bennett wrote:
> As for the Critical Power concept - it has been published. It is sound,
> repeatable science which has not only stood up to scrutiny, but has been
> shown to be more worthwhile than many other concepts that have served only to
> confuse sports scientists for years.
I've seen Critical Velocity literature, only a little of it, some by
Bell, G. at the U. of Alberta. Mostly on bikes and rowing machines.
We're a bit hard pressed to do anything repeatable on water here - it's
a river with no long straight reaches. Now, Montreal in the morning
when it's still calm might be a good place to try some of this, but only
in the summer.
W
Allan Bennett
>
> You have summed our discussion up magnificently!
>
> > I see no contradiction in my statements.
> > None at all.
> > Just because something is factual, does not mean I have to like it.
> Absolutely Priceless!
>
> Why would I need to provide a personal attack when you do such a fine
> job on your own?
Once again, PS has taken a statement out-of-context and is using it to make
ridiculous assumptions for which he has absolutely no evidence.
No change there, then.
(Still waiting for answers to the Qs put to him...)
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of small change
--
PaulS
But quite well tied together. Or have you found a way to increase
sustained power without a corresponding increase in strength?
"Trading rate for pace" is a term I often use for those that have hit
their strength (power) peak, and the only thing they can do to get a
faster pace on the Erg is reduce the demominator in the Joules/Sec
equation that gives Avg Watts/stroke.
For example, a 2:00 pace at a SR=20 and a 2:00 pace at SR=30 are very
different things.
Oh, the "S10PS" stands for "Strapless, 10 meters Per Stroke", another
simple training notion that I'm sure the scientific folks will have a
fit over. [;o)
Yes, the RP file I sent you was done S10PS, or at least close, since
it was more by feel than anything else.
- Paul Smith
PaulS
>
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of the tit
Hmmm......
- Paul Smith
Ewoud Dronkert
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of the tit
You more of an ass-man?
Neil Wallace
> "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:<c1kkmb$1k2elm$1...@ID-220898.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c07ac95a.0402...@posting.google.com...
>> snip
>>> You shouldn't have "snipped" my bit: Clearly you need to work on
>>> strength (Power), though you are not particularly out of balance.
>>
>> As I am sure Paul knows full well, strength and power are different.
>
> But quite well tied together. Or have you found a way to increase
> sustained power without a corresponding increase in strength?
>
Simple - use the same force just increase stroke length or stroke rate.
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > The fact that he hit your target figure after attempting a pace that was
> > too ambitious on the day merely highlights the error of your philosophy.
>
> That's not what I did, and you know it.
What are you going on about? I commented on the 'facts' as you reported
them.
You cannot claim that your rule stands when the subject, clearly, only hit
your number because he failed to achieve his own personal target that was too
ambitious (as shown by the inevitable result).
If you have to claim geriatric results, anomalies, sporting and/or coaching
errors and every coincidence you can find to justify your claims, that's up
to you, but I have asked you to justify your statements with published or
publishable data. You haven't done that (and I recall others requesting that
you justify your claims with figures and supporting evidence on other topics,
and you ignored that, too).
> Paul's Law was in plain sight prior to that performance. Even CV says that
> "digging a hole too deep will make it impossible to get out", I could have
> suggested the proper depth hole and a strategy for digging. [:o)
Obviously you do not understand CV. It is, obviously a concept too far.
As for digging holes, that is something you must have a great deal of
practice at...
> > So, bring on your secret Prof and lets debate the issues on this ng with
> > him. We have become accustomed over here to 'expert witnesses' (cot-death
> > cases, Hutton, Professor of Law who accepts lies as evidence), so expect
> > lively scrutiny.
>
> I don't have his permission to bring him into this discussion,
Don't be ridiculous. You've brought him into the discussion - now get him to
comment directly for himself. He can give himself that permission, surely?
Makes me wonder whether you are trying to protect him or yourself.
> but he directs the training of his Universities Crew and they are quite
> successful.
And, I'm sure, he would welcome any opportunity to make them more successful.
> He does not throw a fit whe I reference Paul's Law,
Obviously, he knows the reaction he would get from you if he dared to
challenge it...
> but when I described what was going on here we both had a good laugh.
So, ask him on to this group to explain himself - he can then see for himself
what is going on here. Then we can all have a good laugh.
> > That is bound to challenge the treasured orthodoxies of your mystery
> > Prof.
> >
> > (Wouldn't he just hate it if his lab was consigned to the history books
> > because we could all get by without the invasive, inaccurate and
> > irrelevant testing which currently substitutes for science and which he,
> > no doubt, supports because it keeps him in a job?)
> >
> > Allan Bennett Not a fan of hanging
>
>
> You must be in great fear of being found out for manipulated statistical
> results of your own,
I have no fears.
I will not be found out.
I have not manipulated any results, statistical or otherwise.
It is offensive of you to suggest such a thing and you should apologise and
retract that statement.
> as you are a classic example of transferrance when attacking me,
Ah, yes: amateur psychology now.
Can we get back to the topic - starting with some answers from you, perhaps?
> and anyone else who even remotely supports my "Law".
There is no law. A law is a general principal deduced from facts or an
invariable sequence of events in nature. You have not proven anything
scientifically or otherwise. You have produced no evidence or any facts of
substance. There is nothing to qualify your statements as a law.
> i.e. You accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing, as some form of
> preemptive strike. Get help, it's transparent.
Yes, that's it. Accuse opponents of mental illness. A good ploy, but a sure
sign that you have lost the argument.
Now, as you have no medical evidence (and probably no medical qualification)
and no supporting corroborative opinions upon which any sensible diagnosis of
my mental condition, can I suggest you cease any such attempt to divert
attention away from your failure to answer the questions put to you - and
just answer the challenges with sensible responses?
> Seriously, all the best in your work, and good luck.
Ah. Sickeningly patronising comments. I think I can cope with everything
else, but not that!
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of luck
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c07ac95a.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > snip
> > > You shouldn't have "snipped" my bit: Clearly you need to work on
> > > strength (Power), though you are not particularly out of balance.
> >
> > As I am sure Paul knows full well, strength and power are different.
>
> But quite well tied together.
Not necessarily. The two important components of power can be trained
independently.
> Or have you found a way to increase sustained power without a corresponding
> increase in strength?
Absolutely.
> "Trading rate for pace" is a term I often use for those that have hit
> their strength (power) peak,
erm - do you mean strength peak, or power peak...?
> and the only thing they can do to get a faster pace on the Erg is reduce
> the demominator in the Joules/Sec equation that gives Avg Watts/stroke.
>
> For example, a 2:00 pace at a SR=20 and a 2:00 pace at SR=30 are very
> different things.
So, what is the difference in power output of each performance, then?
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of trade-offs
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:c1g99r$1ib062$1...@ID-220898.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Have you ever tried applying "Paul's law" to lightweight females, or 70
> > Year old men?
> >
>
> I'll reply to my own post then..
>
> Three people near the top of the rankings (so trained individuals) on the
> C2 site, chosen from different age groups.
>
> G Benton 30yo HWT M
> 500m time 1:16.7 (775W)
> 2000m time 5:51.4 (516W - i.e. 67% of 500m power)
> Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
> 1:26.7 so2K prediction 5:46.8 (or 537W - 69% of 500m power)
So, not "5", then...
Of course, the point is being missed, here. PS's approach is to determine
the pace of, say, 2000m from, say, a 500m time. In that case, GB would
attempt 1:26.7s splits and either succeed and get a magnificent "5", or blow
up. If GB could complete the 2k at the pre-determined pace, there is no way
of knowing whether he could have gone faster - so it is pointless. (I
presume that going faster is the ultimate objective).
> S Speechley 50yo LWT F
> 500m time 1:46.9 (287W)
> 2000m time 7:53.5 (210W - i.e. 73% of 500m power)
> Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
> 1:56.9 so 2K prediction 7:47.6 (or 219W - 76% of 500m power)
So, not "5", then...
Of course, the point is being missed, here. PS's approach is to determine
the pace of, say, 2000m from, say, a 500m time. In that case, SS would
attempt 1:56.9s splits and either succeed and get a magnificent "5",or blow
up. If SS could complete the 2k at the pre-determined pace, there is no way
of knowing whether she could have gone faster - so it is pointless. (I
presume that going faster is the ultimate objective).
> Robin Foster 87yo HWT M
> 500m time 2:09.3 (162W)
> 2000m time 9:19.3 (128W - i.e. 79% of 500m power)
> Paul's law (double the distance add 5) would have predicted 2k splits of
> 2:19.3 so 2K prediction of 9:17.2 (or 129W - 79% of 500m power)
So, not "5", then...
But the closest yet! Just 2 seconds out on a 2k. So PS's magic very nearly
works... on an 87-year old.
> So Paul's law is in the right ball park (+/- 5 seconds) for these Athletes.
>
> But a 500m test is obviously much less of a test of anaerobic fitness for
> the slower athlete.
Absolutely. That's what I have been saying, and why "5" cannot be used
universally - either for different distances, or between athletes. Athletes
are physiologically different - that's why some runners are good at 100m,
others specialise in 800 / 1500m and yet others on 26.2 miles. If the formula
is used to pre-determine a pace for a longer distance, it is *likely* to mean
a blow-up or an un-taxing cruise - and may coincidentally be "5" on
occasions.
Probably an acceptable approach in the US, but in the UK we need better
coaching than that for all standards of athletes and coaches...
> Much better to do, say, a 45 second sprint and an 8 minute test, you'd get
> correlation across the board with the Watts, I'd wager.
Let's see the results of that test when you have them...
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of ball parks
--
PaulS
Okay, so Grow taller, or take extra strokes? Something strikes me as
diminishing returns on the later.
Good luck however on the rack.
- Paul Smith
PaulS
"Strength is different tha power", yeah, yeah, and holding a 100Kg
barbell at your waist is not "work" (not according to me, but others
would say so), so you just go ahead and hold it there for a few hours.
Cut the pedantic crap! Say something meaningful or useful.
I'm done with you, you already have said you care nothing for facts
anyway.
>
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of the "snipped" bits
>
> --
Based on other things you are "not a fan of", have your bits been
snipped?
- Paul Smith
Alex Krupp
> formula will suit all, but different coaches train their athletes
> differently, so it is hardly surprising that each coach can come up with a
> magic formula that reflects their brilliance, is it?
In general I think the French method of predicting your 2k split, which
seems similar to Paul's Law, is wildly innacurate. According to that I
should be a good 8 seconds slower than I am. However, here are a couple
predictors I have come across recently based on multiple 500m efforts.
The quick and dirty:
6 x 500m, 1 min rest.
Drop the fastest, drop the slowest, the average of the middle four is
your 2k split.
The tried and true:
8 x 500m, 1min 45sec after each with an 8 min rest after the first
four. Average all 8 pieces and your 2k split is your average split plus
1 to 1.5 seconds per 500m.
PaulS
>
> It is offensive of you to suggest such a thing and you should apologise and
> retract that statement.
And now you are what, a comedian? That is funny, demanding an apology
from the person you have been insulting, without cause. I can think
of at least one English expression that would fit well here, it has
the same initials as "Good Show!".
> Ah, yes: amateur psychology now.
>
> > Seriously, all the best in your work, and good luck.
>
> Ah. Sickeningly patronising comments. I think I can cope with everything
> else, but not that!
>
> Allan Bennett
> Not a fan of luck
>
> --
You should be a fan of luck, you are going to need all you can get. I
know, everyone is an "amateur" except for Dr. Bennett!
Remember, you are the one accusing me of lying about a discussion, or
even the existence of the Physiology Prof., how can I trust anything
you say when I know the truth and you are wrong in your blatant
slander of what I have posted. Sorry that you need to place your guilt
on me, but there really is no reason to continue this discussion;
Other than to have some fun with you, and trust me, you have enough
stress in your life without that.
Seriously, all the best in your work, and good luck in obtaining some
grants. I look forward to seeing your name in all the journals of
Physiology one day as the "Father of Critical Velocity".
- Paul Smith
Tim Granger
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ant26225...@freeserve.co.uk>...
<snipped>
Please, you two, cut it out. It has ceased to even be amusing.
Tim
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> "Strength is different tha power", yeah, yeah, and holding a 100Kg
> barbell at your waist is not "work" (not according to me, but others
> would say so), so you just go ahead and hold it there for a few hours.
What's that got to do with it? (FTR, no work is being done on the bar -
similarly, no work is being done to further the debate because PS refuses to
answer the simple challenges to his ideas).
> Cut the pedantic crap! Say something meaningful or useful.
Good advice - have you /ever/ tried it?
>
> I'm done with you, you already have said you care nothing for facts
> anyway.
I have never said anything of the sort. That's just your peculiar way of
taking s single statement out-of-context for the purpose of an unjustified
personal attack whilst deflecting attention away from the issues.
So, present us with the 'facts' that I have asked you for.
> >
> > Allan Bennett
> > Not a fan of the "snipped" bits
> >
> > --
>
> Based on other things you are "not a fan of", have your bits been
> snipped?
More abuse - no substance.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of tha
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > It is offensive of you to suggest such a thing and you should apologise
> > and retract that statement.
>
> And now you are what, a comedian? That is funny, demanding an apology from
> the person you have been insulting, without cause.
Let's get it straight, shall we? PS is the one who resorts to ad hominem
comments and verbal abuse. Allan Bennett has not insulted PS, even though he
has 'good cause'.
PS has offered some protocols for predicting split times for which he has
produced no sound or logical evidence which will stand up to scrutiny.
A number of challenges (based upon current, known and accepted physiological
facts and principles) have been made to PS. He has failed to comment on
those, and has failed to answer questions relating to his hypothesis.
PS has evaded the questions with personal attacks.
PS has accused Allan Bennett of manipulating statistical results - which is
quite untrue and he has produced no evidence whatsoever for the claim. It is
invented. It is a downright lie.
PS has asserted that Allan Bennett is suffering from some (unspecified and
undocumented) mental illness - without any medical qualification or
supporting evidence.
In the meantime he has failed to address the topic and refused to answer the
questions put to him.
> I can think of at least one English expression that would fit well here, it
> has the same initials as "Good Show!".
And GS to you, too!
>
> > Ah, yes: amateur psychology now.
> >
> > > Seriously, all the best in your work, and good luck.
> >
> > Ah. Sickeningly patronising comments. I think I can cope with
> > everything else, but not that!
> >
> > Allan Bennett Not a fan of luck
> >
> > --
>
> You should be a fan of luck, you are going to need all you can get. I
> know, everyone is an "amateur" except for Dr. Bennett!
>
> Remember, you are the one accusing me of lying about a discussion,
I have never done such a thing.
Are you living in some sort of fantasy world?
> or even the existence of the Physiology Prof.,
I have suggested that it would be a good idea for him to come on to this ng
and speak for himself... how can that be accusing you of 'lying' about his
existence?
> how can I trust anything you say when I know the truth and you are wrong in
> your blatant slander of what I have posted.
Oh dear, I can't slander what you have posted...
And I have done no such thing - I only seek the truth. I have challenged
what you postulate because it does not stand up to scrutiny.
If you disagree with the challenges, produce some evidence - not this
wishy-washy sob-story about being an innocent victim.
> Sorry that you need to place your guilt on me, but there really is no
> reason to continue this discussion; Other than to have some fun with you,
> and trust me, you have enough stress in your life without that.
You know nothing about me and my life - but nice of you to admit that you are
having some fun.
Is that what you are doing with your unsubstantiated claims as well?
> Seriously, all the best in your work, and good luck in obtaining some
> grants. I look forward to seeing your name in all the journals of
> Physiology one day as the "Father of Critical Velocity".
Of course, that put-down is misplaced. If you are not interested in
well-established, scientifically accepted and useful coaching advancements
(which is what the Critical Power concept is), that's up to you.
But you don't insult me with such jibes - you insult the established and
highly regarded scientists who have proposed the concept and are continuing
to work on the topic on your behalf. I have merely been the messenger.
If you have any sensible challenges against Critical Power, let's hear them
and have a sensible debate on it.
Now, how about you return to justifying the "5" stuff?
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of asparagus tips
--
David Gillbe
> Not a fan of asparagus tips
What's wrong with Asparagus?
Allan Bennett
Ewoud Dronkert
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:35:10 +0000, Allan Bennett wrote:
>>> Allan Bennett
>>> Not a fan of the tit
>
> Allan Bennett
Enough already!
PaulS
The French Protocol has more to do with race strategy than with
prediction, and Paul's Law has to do with fitness balance and
indication of training focus. I made no claims at all regarding
"predition", however Dr. Bennett seems to have hung his hat on his
misunderstanding of that, among other things.
Erg on,
Paul Smith
PS - Nice "quick and dirties", I've hear another that went something
like "13 times your 200M time". [;o)
Allan Bennett
> news:<2004022621573175249%example@ex amplecom>...
> and Paul's Law has to do with fitness balance and indication of training
> focus.
So, let's see the justification of that. So far, all we have are words like
that which mean absolutely nothing. And the whole point of challenging your
proposal is that it CANNOT take any account of 'fitness balance' or 'training
focus'. I have tried to get you to address just those points, and you have
failed to comment.
> I made no claims at all regarding "predition",
What you did was state that your fixed "5" would be the pace to suggest for
someone (whom you don't know and of whom you have no knowledge of
physiological attributes or status) based upon a single 500m time.
Please detail how you consider that your proposal takes account of 'fitness
balance' or 'training focus'.
> however Dr. Bennett seems to have hung his hat on his misunderstanding of
> that,
Allan Bennett has neither hung his hat on anything, nor has he any
misunderstanding of anything. I will leave that up to you.
> among other things.
No other 'things'.
Might be a good idea for you to justify *your* claims rather than make up
things about others...
No personal comments on PS - just about what he writes.
Some justification? Some answers?
"Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."
(Solon, the Lawmaker of Athens, d. 559 BC)
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of hat-wearers
--
Ed
(http://home.hia.no/~stephens/eliteerg.htm) that shows some previous
US test results. It seems to me that Paul's Law works fairly well.
I haven't followed the entire thread, but perhaps those who do not
adhere to the "Law" have areas "opportunities" to work on :-) My
suggestion is Instead of "dissing" the messenger, work on these areas
and improve the erg scores.
Ed
PaulS
> In article <c07ac95a.04022...@posting.google.com>, PaulS
> <URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Alex Krupp <exa...@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2004022621573175249%example@ex amplecom>...
>
> > and Paul's Law has to do with fitness balance and indication of training
> > focus.
>
> So, let's see the justification of that. So far, all we have are words like
> that which mean absolutely nothing. And the whole point of challenging your
> proposal is that it CANNOT take any account of 'fitness balance' or 'training
> focus'. I have tried to get you to address just those points, and you have
> failed to comment.
Okay Dr. Bennett, since you have failed to look closely enough to
figure it out for yourself I will attempt to make it clear for you.
Paul's Law Clarified:
Paul's Law: Double (or halve) the distance or time for an Erg test and
Add (or subtract) 5 seconds from the pace to determine a target pace.
(Yes, I'm completely aware that when the distance or time becomes
extremely short the Law Breaks down, use standard distances starting
at 500M and continuing to 100Km or times from 60 sec to 24hr and there
are no problems.)
Starting from any single test piece result these targets could be
plotted to form a smooth curve.
Deviation from the plot of these targets will indicate where an
athlete should focus their training.
Example 1: A rower has a 500M time of 1:24 and a 2K of 6:36 (1:39).
Since the 500M time would indicate a 1:34 pace for the 2K, but this
was not achievable, this rower needs to work on endurance. Short
interval training would be a silly place for them to waste time.
Example 2: An 8k time of 29:20.0 (1:50), and a 2K of 7:00.0 (1:45).
Though unusual, this athlete has excellent endurance but needs
strength training so they will be able to increase power output. They
likely have a 500M time in the 1:40 range due to the strength
deficiency. Hour long rows at 70% HR would not help them improve their
2K performance.
Example 3: A 1K of 2:39.8 (1:19.9) and a 2K of 5:39.6 (1:24.9). This
athlete is well balanced for Strength and Endurance and can train with
a mixed workout schedule to increase on both scales simultaneously, or
choose to move themselves out of balance, and reestablish balance
again after making measurable progress in one area. This might be
done for motivational reasons since balanced progress is generally
slow and is difficult to notice, whereas focusing in one area can lead
to fairly quick improvement that athletes like to see.
A Control on the "tests" I would like to demand from the athletes is
to maintain equal Drive:Recovery ratios for every target pace, i.e. no
trading of rate for pace (diminishing returns). However that tends to
be a bit too strict for many athletes attempting personal best
performances, but has not proved too problematic.
The standard test distances that I am concerned with are 2K and 6K, if
there were going to be a prediction made for a target pace it could be
done two ways, coming down from a known 6K or going up from a known
2K.
6K target = Known 2K Pace + 7.5 sec (5 + 2.5)
2K target = Known 6K Pace - 8.3 sec (5 + 3 1/3)
The 0.8sec in 500M pace could be considered the "error level", the
direction that the athlete exceeds the estimated pace indicates the
direction that their training should be focused.
Two tests, customized direction for training focus, quite efficient.
Now if you would like to discuss how to go about getting various
training effects, I'd be happy to help you out, but from reading some
of your other posts you seem to have your gray matter well sorted in
that area.
Clear now?
- Paul Smith
Allan Bennett
Actually, I don't think either of these will necessarily increase power.
Power is force x velocity, so if the force is kept constant, there would have
to be an increase in stroke speed (essentially of muscle contraction) for
there to be increased power. A longer stroke will not achieve that; stroke
rate will, in itself, not achieve that unless the speed of the water phase of
the stroke is specifically raised.
As said before, the two components of power can be trained individually -
and, yes, there are ways to increase sustained power without a corresponding
increase in strength.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of correspondence
--
Allan Bennett
> "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
>
> More interesting is to take the same folks and apply the Critical
> Velocity formulas offered.
>
> GB - CV=5.461, ADC=81.179
> SS - CV=4.092, ADC=62.602
> RF - CV=3.488, ADC=48.953
>
> What does that tell us, Dr. Bennett?
Assuming (incorrectly in this case) that the figures are based upon test
procedures and conditions:
GB can maintain a steady state pace of 5.5m/s. In practice this works out
at just below VO2max, and some way above LT. It is therefore a suitable pace
for threshold-boosting.
His ADC (distance covered anaerobically) is 81.2m.
The next time he tests, he will be able to assess some of the changes brought
about by his training - a big benefit over raw times, IYAM.
Similarly with the others.
However: if the pace of one or both of the pieces was pre-set by some
simple, arbitrary formula, very little could be determined from the figures
at all...
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of assumptions
--
Neil Wallace
> >
> > Simple - use the same force just increase stroke length or stroke rate.
>
> Actually, I don't think either of these will necessarily increase power.
> Power is force x velocity, so if the force is kept constant, there would
have
> to be an increase in stroke speed (essentially of muscle contraction) for
> there to be increased power. A longer stroke will not achieve that;
stroke
> rate will, in itself, not achieve that unless the speed of the water phase
of
> the stroke is specifically raised.
Hi Allan,
Power is force x velocity.
Or, put another way, force x distance/time.
I said constant force, leaving distance and time as the 2 variables.
If you decrease the time per stroke (i.e. up the stroke rate), you increase
power.
If you increase the length per stroke (i.e. stroke length), you increase
power.
Agree?
Neil
not a fan of getting so OT
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> "Allan Bennett" <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ant02080...@freeserve.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Simple - use the same force just increase stroke length or stroke rate.
> >
> > Actually, I don't think either of these will necessarily increase power.
> > Power is force x velocity, so if the force is kept constant, there would
> have
> > to be an increase in stroke speed (essentially of muscle contraction) for
> > there to be increased power. A longer stroke will not achieve that;
> stroke
> > rate will, in itself, not achieve that unless the speed of the water
> > phase
> of
> > the stroke is specifically raised.
>
> Hi Allan,
>
> Power is force x velocity. Or, put another way, force x distance/time.
>
> I said constant force, leaving distance and time as the 2 variables.
>
> If you decrease the time per stroke (i.e. up the stroke rate), you increase
> power.
True - but only if the water-phase is performed at increased speed. Stroke
rate being the number of strokes per unit time, not the speed at which the
blade is moved. Air-time can be adjusted, and so, too, can the stroke
length. Neither of these in themselves will affect the power applied during
a stroke.
> If you increase the length per stroke (i.e. stroke length), you increase
> power.
No. The amount of work done in a single stroke will be increased, but power
is not changed. Force is the same, velocity is the same. As Power =
work/time, the additional time factor for the longer stroke identifies the
relationship.
> Agree?
...ish.
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of force-feeding
--
Ewoud Dronkert
>> If you increase the length per stroke (i.e. stroke length),
>> you increase power.
>
> No.
Yes (assuming Neil meant increasing the stroke length while maintaining
the stroke rate, thus increasing the velocity).
Neil Wallace
> Neither of these in themselves will affect
> the power applied during a stroke.
>
So that's where we have confusion.
I was referring to Paul's "sustained power", not your "power applied during
a stroke".
though stroke length is applicable in either situation of course, all other
things being equal.
Allan Bennett
No. Increasing stroke length also increases the time in proportion. The
power equation, therefore, does not change...
Power = force x distance/time
= force (the same) x dx/tx
The amount of work done per unit time is the same with a short stroke or long
stroke, if force remains unchanged.
If the distance the blade travels is doubled, so will be the time... velocity
remains the same (not to be confused with boat speed, of course).
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of DTs
--
Ewoud Dronkert
> No.
You are not following. *If the rating remains the same* and the stroke
length increases that can only mean the speed goes up. Same time, longer
distance.
Carl Douglas
>
>If you increase the length per stroke (i.e. stroke length), you increase
>power.
Provided, of course, that also you shorten your recovery time, so that
your percentage of time in water increases. Which is, of course
perfectly feasible.
After all, rates don't rise because the blade "goes through" faster, but
because you get onto the next stroke quicker.
And just to head off the doubters:
If you pull 20% harder (i.e. do 20% more work per stroke), the boat goes
only 6% faster. If stroke/recovery ratio was 45:55, then the 6%
increase in boat speed reduces stroke time from 45 to 42.5, so unless
you shorten recovery time the rate can rise by only 100/97.5, which
would take a rate of 30 /minute to only 30.77 /minute.
That means you can't significantly raise rate by increasing pressure.
So rate rises are only accomplished by reducing recovery time.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
O. Korol
> After all, rates don't rise because the blade "goes through" faster, but
> because you get onto the next stroke quicker.
>
> And just to head off the doubters:
> If you pull 20% harder (i.e. do 20% more work per stroke), the boat goes
> only 6% faster. If stroke/recovery ratio was 45:55, then the 6%
> increase in boat speed reduces stroke time from 45 to 42.5, so unless
> you shorten recovery time the rate can rise by only 100/97.5, which
> would take a rate of 30 /minute to only 30.77 /minute.
> That means you can't significantly raise rate by increasing pressure.
> So rate rises are only accomplished by reducing recovery time.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
Carl is onto something. This Kleshnev's article has relevant
experimental data:
http://www.rowingqld.asn.au/Documents/Bio200303.pdf
To summarize the article's figures, experimental data suggest that an
increase in stroke rating up to 32 spm is accomplished mostly by
reducing the recovery time. As an 8+ goes from 16 to 32 spm, the
recovery time decreases by whooping 55%, while drive time decreases
only by 15%. (Both drive and recovery time for an 8+ decrease in a
roughly linear fashion in this range.)
But recovery time seems to bottom out around 32 spm, so further
increase in rating is accomplished solely by decreasing the drive
time. An 8+ seems to be able to decrease the drive time after 32 at
the same rate as before 32, so an 8% decrease in the drive time will
bring the rating up to 40.
If Kleshnev's data is to be trusted, Carl's estimation is correct--but
limited to moderate ratings. At higher ratings, Carl's good idea
is... still a good idea, but it appears that rowers cannot (don't
want?) lower the recovery time past a certain limit. Can they be
coached past it or are there compelling physical reasons to stay above
the limit?
Neil Wallace
snip
> But recovery time seems to bottom out around 32 spm, so further
> increase in rating is accomplished solely by decreasing the drive
> time. An 8+ seems to be able to decrease the drive time after 32 at
> the same rate as before 32, so an 8% decrease in the drive time will
> bring the rating up to 40.
>
by shortening up??
PaulS
> In article <c07ac95a.04022...@posting.google.com>, PaulS
> <URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:<c1iq3f$1j79cg $1...@ID-220898.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> >
> > More interesting is to take the same folks and apply the Critical
> > Velocity formulas offered.
> >
> > GB - CV=5.461, ADC=81.179
> > SS - CV=4.092, ADC=62.602
> > RF - CV=3.488, ADC=48.953
> >
> > What does that tell us, Dr. Bennett?
>
> Assuming (incorrectly in this case) that the figures are based upon test
> procedures and conditions:
So without those controls, it means nothing, thought so.
>
> GB can maintain a steady state pace of 5.5m/s. In practice this works out
> at just below VO2max, and some way above LT. It is therefore a suitable pace
> for threshold-boosting.
>
> His ADC (distance covered anaerobically) is 81.2m.
I need a bit more clarity on the 81.2m covered anaerobically, are
these real meters or a subjective metric?
I see what you are getting at with the CV term now, but GB will not
maintain a steady state pace of 5.5m/s (1:31/500M) for very long (10
minutes perhaps). Maybe a differnce in terminology, but I would use
the term steady state in association with a 30-40 minute workout.
Though holding a steady maximum pace for 2 minutes could be called
that also, however that seems sloppy.
"Test Procedures and conditions" would always be nice, but that's not
the world we deal in when working out in nature with many
non-controlled variables. I'd love to specify the exact conditions
under which athletes will perform, and have taken part in just such
testing procedures myself, but it's just not practical for the vast
majority of club or college rowing programs.
- Paul Smith