Using projected splits without getting stuck on the number

I want a projected split to give me somewhere to start. But once I’m on the ergo, I don’t want to spend the session trying to prove the calculator right.

If you’ve got a good maximum-effort result, you can use it to estimate what you might manage over another distance. That’s useful. More useful than picking a number because it looks about right, anyway.

The basic idea is that you can hold a quicker pace over a shorter distance. The projection follows a logarithmic curve, which sounds a bit much for deciding how hard to row. It means the change depends on how much longer the distance is relative to where you started. Adding distance to a short sprint makes a bigger difference to the projected split than adding the same distance to an already long row.

You can see those estimates in the Yamsquad projected splits tool. But the result you put in needs to fit what you’re asking it.

A comfortable steady row doesn’t tell you what you could do flat out. There’s nothing wrong with that row. Actually, that’s worth keeping separate, because otherwise you end up making the steady work harder just so the number looks more useful afterwards. Leave the steady row alone. Use a proper maximum effort for the projection.

Then I’d keep the programme as it is and look at the estimate alongside the next relevant session. No need to change the training straight away.

Say you’re preparing for a longer test and you’ve got longer intervals coming up. You’re working hard, but can you still row properly? Can you finish the piece without feeling as though you’ve used everything you had, with plenty of the session left?

That’s where I’d check whether the projected effort is repeatable. Or rather, whether it’s appropriate for the session. Being able to force your way through it doesn’t necessarily tell you that.

If you’re hanging on early, ease off enough to get the stroke back under control. Let yourself row properly, then see whether you can repeat that effort in the next piece. The calculator hasn’t watched the first one. You have rather more information at that point.

One difficult session doesn’t settle much. It doesn’t make the original result a fluke, either. Sleep and nutrition can affect how you perform, and so can the training you’ve been doing and where your head is that day.

A pattern is more useful. If relevant training keeps coming more comfortably than the projection suggests, your longer-distance performance may be stronger than the shorter result indicates. If you repeatedly struggle, endurance could be something to look at. Could be. Neither tells you everything on its own.

You can also work backwards with the pace predictor, using a longer maximum effort to estimate a shorter performance. If that estimate is well ahead of what you’ve actually managed, producing power or handling the higher intensity might deserve some attention.

These are general relationships, though. With more sprint power, you may find the longer projections ambitious, whereas someone with stronger endurance could look at the same estimate and actually go quicker. The number doesn’t know which sort of rower you are.

So if I’m struggling early in those longer pieces, I’d back off enough to find an effort I can repeat. The projected split can stay on the screen. I don’t have to keep rowing at it.