Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 7th, 2005, 12:00 pm

Today Level 1 @ 8 x 500 (I really look forward to this workout ... it's the most fun I have with the Plan) Planned average pace: 1:50.55 Actual average pace: 1:50.11 (every piece negative split) Improvement in average pace has gone like this: 01OCT to 28OCT: pace improvement 4.32 sec. on the average 28OCT to 07NOV: pace improvement 2.34 sec. on the average 07NOV to 07DEC: pace improvement 1.23 sec. on average (all done exactly the same ... with 500M active recovery between pieces) Commentary: These are the first 3 times I have done the 8 x 500 L1 workout, so the larger improvement between the first two attempts was really my settling into a pace that was work, but not impossible. I think I'm now getting there, but I did use Mike's recommendation on how much to try to improve based on the number of weeks between the attempts (if you've read his posts here, you understand what I mean). I probably could have done this workout faster, but I keep hearing "baby steps, baby steps" every time my Type A starts to take hold. Heck, I've got the rest of my life! I also have 3 years before I hit the bottom of the next age group! Next attempt will certainly be for an average under 1:50, which will be a major mental accomplishment (seeing 1:49.X for every interval), and, assuming success, a big motivator. I'd be very interested in results from others just starting the WP and how you've settled into your L2 (and L2 for that matter) pacing. Thanks!

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 7th, 2005, 1:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 7 2005, 11:46 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Dec 6 2005, 08:55 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PS: Mark, per quanto reguarda Giovanni, sonno d’accordo! Universita Di Pisa, Scuola Medica 1971. </td></tr></table> Bravo Ralph! Lei e americano o italiano? Forse un americano ... ma ha studiato in Italia? (excuse my spelling ... I speak Italian about 99% better than spell!) I am an Italophile, although 100% Russian (Mom & Dad). Just bought a tiny apartment over there in a beach town on the Adriatic (Fano) as a small step toward preparing for retirement. I'm 47 and my wife is 51 -- she's more ready to pack it in than I. She's been working since 16 ... without a break ... except for maternity leave ... even working through university at night. She's tired, and I don't blame her! </td></tr></table> Actually I am born and raised in the good Ol'Usa but studied and lived in Pisa for 5 years- a great 5 years at that- I met my wife there (she is also from the USA-Perry Ohio to be exact). I was able to understand how well other people live. I am soon to be 65 and have no plans of retiring. I enjoy what I do too much. I just cut my hours and take long weekends of from time to time. I might come over to visit you when you move. Good excuse to go back to Italy. Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 7th, 2005, 2:07 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Dec 7 2005, 01:12 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 7 2005, 11:46 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Dec 6 2005, 08:55 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PS: Mark, per quanto reguarda Giovanni, sonno d’accordo! Universita Di Pisa, Scuola Medica 1971. </td></tr></table> Bravo Ralph! Lei e americano o italiano? Forse un americano ... ma ha studiato in Italia? (excuse my spelling ... I speak Italian about 99% better than spell!) I am an Italophile, although 100% Russian (Mom & Dad). Just bought a tiny apartment over there in a beach town on the Adriatic (Fano) as a small step toward preparing for retirement. I'm 47 and my wife is 51 -- she's more ready to pack it in than I. She's been working since 16 ... without a break ... except for maternity leave ... even working through university at night. She's tired, and I don't blame her! </td></tr></table> Actually I am born and raised in the good Ol'Usa but studied and lived in Pisa for 5 years- a great 5 years at that- I met my wife there (she is also from the USA-Perry Ohio to be exact). I was able to understand how well other people live. I am soon to be 65 and have no plans of retiring. I enjoy what I do too much. I just cut my hours and take long weekends of from time to time. I might come over to visit you when you move. Good excuse to go back to Italy. Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT </td></tr></table> And you'd be most welcome Ralph ...

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 7th, 2005, 3:15 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 7 2005, 04:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Today Level 1 @ 8 x 500 (I really look forward to this workout ... it's the most fun I have with the Plan) Planned average pace: 1:50.55 Actual average pace: 1:50.11 (every piece negative split) Improvement in average pace has gone like this: 01OCT to 28OCT: pace improvement 4.32 sec. on the average 28OCT to 07NOV: pace improvement 2.34 sec. on the average 07NOV to 07DEC: pace improvement 1.23 sec. on average (all done exactly the same ... with 500M active recovery between pieces) Commentary: These are the first 3 times I have done the 8 x 500 L1 workout, so the larger improvement between the first two attempts was really my settling into a pace that was work, but not impossible. I think I'm now getting there, but I did use Mike's recommendation on how much to try to improve based on the number of weeks between the attempts (if you've read his posts here, you understand what I mean). I probably could have done this workout faster, but I keep hearing "baby steps, baby steps" every time my Type A starts to take hold. Heck, I've got the rest of my life! I also have 3 years before I hit the bottom of the next age group! Next attempt will certainly be for an average under 1:50, which will be a major mental accomplishment (seeing 1:49.X for every interval), and, assuming success, a big motivator. I'd be very interested in results from others just starting the WP and how you've settled into your L2 (and L2 for that matter) pacing. Thanks! </td></tr></table> Congratulations Mark for your improvements! You are also quite special to find the L1 the best part of the plan For me, it is just the opposite; my preferences go like this: L4 > L3 > L2 > L1 The L1 hurts so much that I need to be mentally prepared to go through the pain. The last time I did them, I average 1:39.5, which is very close to the fastest pace I can hold for three consecutive strokes (1:36). Maybe that is why they hurt so much! L2 are easier, and the last time I did them, I average 1:47.9 L3 are a bit puzzling since I do them at L4 pace at 22 spm (1:56 for me). Mike mentioned that they should be done at 24-28 spm and that we should let the stroke develop naturally. The L4 dps feels so natural now that even my warm up, recovery and cool down are done at L4 pace (16 to 20 spm). What L3 pace and spm are you using, and how are they related to L4 ? We will hit the next age group at about the same time, and since we are both LW, it is going to be interesting how things will evolve! Cheers!

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 7th, 2005, 4:38 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 7 2005, 03:15 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 7 2005, 04:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Today Level 1 @ 8 x 500 (I really look forward to this workout ... it's the most fun I have with the Plan) Planned average pace: 1:50.55 Actual average pace: 1:50.11 (every piece negative split) Improvement in average pace has gone like this: 01OCT to 28OCT: pace improvement 4.32 sec. on the average 28OCT to 07NOV: pace improvement 2.34 sec. on the average 07NOV to 07DEC: pace improvement 1.23 sec. on average (all done exactly the same ... with 500M active recovery between pieces) Commentary: These are the first 3 times I have done the 8 x 500 L1 workout, so the larger improvement between the first two attempts was really my settling into a pace that was work, but not impossible. I think I'm now getting there, but I did use Mike's recommendation on how much to try to improve based on the number of weeks between the attempts (if you've read his posts here, you understand what I mean). I probably could have done this workout faster, but I keep hearing "baby steps, baby steps" every time my Type A starts to take hold. Heck, I've got the rest of my life! I also have 3 years before I hit the bottom of the next age group! Next attempt will certainly be for an average under 1:50, which will be a major mental accomplishment (seeing 1:49.X for every interval), and, assuming success, a big motivator. I'd be very interested in results from others just starting the WP and how you've settled into your L2 (and L2 for that matter) pacing. Thanks! </td></tr></table> Congratulations Mark for your improvements! You are also quite special to find the L1 the best part of the plan For me, it is just the opposite; my preferences go like this: L4 > L3 > L2 > L1 The L1 hurts so much that I need to be mentally prepared to go through the pain. The last time I did them, I average 1:39.5, which is very close to the fastest pace I can hold for three consecutive strokes (1:36). Maybe that is why they hurt so much! L2 are easier, and the last time I did them, I average 1:47.9 L3 are a bit puzzling since I do them at L4 pace at 22 spm (1:56 for me). Mike mentioned that they should be done at 24-28 spm and that we should let the stroke develop naturally. The L4 dps feels so natural now that even my warm up, recovery and cool down are done at L4 pace (16 to 20 spm). What L3 pace and spm are you using, and how are they related to L4 ? We will hit the next age group at about the same time, and since we are both LW, it is going to be interesting how things will evolve! Cheers! </td></tr></table> Francois: Maybe I like the L1s because I'm not yet pushing them as I should??? You have not much to worry about in terms of competition (with your times) from me. You might get a stiff neck looking for me in the rear-view mirror! (Actually, not quite true when rowing, ehh? I'd be the one with the stiff neck looking behind me for you!) Maybe when we reach 80 together I'll be able to give you a race! Regards -- Mark

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 7th, 2005, 4:46 pm

As I read the new posts (and re-read the old ones) here on this thread, I get feelings of both sadness and pleasure. Pleasure because there are people who are taking the WP seriously and getting some benefit from it. But sadness because it is clear I will never be able to express myself completely and address all the issues I’d like to address as thoroughly as I’d like. I began this thread a couple months ago with a bare-bones outline of what I’d like to cover but as the weeks go by I meander a bit or get tugged off to discuss some unanticipated (but completely valid) topic. Some good questions I pretty much have to ignore just to stay on some sort of linear track. The subject of Exercise Physiology is not just my profession, it is my passion. I voraciously collect all the published research I can on all topics even peripherally related to any aspect of athletes and performance. Other commitments (and my lack of typing skills) make it impossible for me to do more than occasionally go into much detail when it comes to discussing the WP, however. I need to keep my primary focus on explaining how to actually do the training before I can completely outline my physiological rationale. Still I am extremely interested in the physiology! But I generally tend to look at a workout as a “black box” – effort goes in, and results come out, and I don’t necessarily have to know what goes on in-between. The more I know – the better I understand the physiological processes involved – the better I should be at designing workouts and getting the very results I want. But I observe many people obsessing about details that aren’t that relevant, or coming up with interpretations that actually obscure the pertinent details. There is currently a discussion on the UK forum about the use of heart rate in determining training intensity and the boundaries of different training bands. I just have to roll my eyes. Actually, one season I think it might be interesting to gather my HR data and look at long-term trends once sufficient information has been gathered (as if I don’t tinker with enough data already). But I would never alter the pace of a given workout based on HR response. I’ve already explained why to some extent. A couple other ExPhys topics that raise my hackles are “muscle fiber type” (just not relevant to training) and “anaerobic threshold” (there’s no such thing). Please don’t ask me to explain, since it’s not directly relevant to the WP. Maybe someday when I’ve covered other topics more completely. On the other hand, I hope in the near future to continue to discuss the physiological relevance of intensity in driving physiological adaptations to training. Also some of the various factors implicated in muscular fatigue during a 2K (“lactate” is a gross oversimplification). BTW, I have looked at Stephen Seiler’s website a couple times. He is a respected authority and provides a lot of valuable information. But we don’t agree on every point. The past few seasons while coaching at U of M, athletes would sometimes question the purpose of a workout (a good thing, if done at the right time) and respond to my explanation with “But Seiler says…” (or, “But Hagerman says…”) In my introductory Kinesiology course, I have a lecture that talks about where we get information (textbooks, the internet, various experts, hearsay, etc.) and what to do if we get conflicting information from two established, respected authorities. My recommendation is to trace each person’s argument back to its roots and see who has the firmest ground based on logic and especially on the amount of well-controlled, fully documented scientific research. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I am fascinated by Exercise Physiology and I hope to see more discussion related to the WP. I just want to make clear that I probably can’t personally commit to a full-scale scientific analysis of the WP at this time. Mike Caviston

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » December 7th, 2005, 5:06 pm

Mike, To balance things out there are undoubtedly athletes around the world who are telling their coaches "....But Caviston says......" Vive la difference. It keeps the journey interesting. Rick

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 7th, 2005, 5:13 pm

When it comes to athletes and training, the grass is always greener. If you’re doing X, they want to do Y, and if you give in and do Y, they want to go back to doing X or maybe try Z instead. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Dec 7 2005, 05:06 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To balance things out there are undoubtedly athletes around the world who are telling their coaches "....But Caviston says......" </td></tr></table> I’d sure like to hear about one. It would brighten up my day! Mike

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 7th, 2005, 5:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 7 2005, 08:38 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You have not much to worry about in terms of competition (with your times) from me. You might get a stiff neck looking for me in the rear-view mirror! </td></tr></table> Mark, you are fast improving while my improvements are microscopic! Regarding the L3 pace and spm, do you find it hard to deviate from the high spi done during L4 training? Mike mentioned that he does his L4 at 16 mps and his L3 at almost 11 mps; that is a drop of almost 5 mps.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 7th, 2005, 5:16 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 7 2005, 03:15 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> What L3 pace and spm are you using, and how are they related to L4 ? </td></tr></table> Francois: My L3 pace is usually around 2:08, and my goal is to add distance every L3 workout while keeping the pace in that range (about 500M/workout). My next L3 will be a 13.5K continuous. At some point, I'll take the pace up and leave the distance where it is -- maybe when I get to 15K continuous? SPM is typically 23-24. I also want to add some variety to the L3s as well -- like the 15 x 3' (or whatever it is that Mike recommends, I may have it wrong from memory). My L4 average pace is now down to about 2:18 (as I've progressed through the sequences), using an average SPM across the 60' of about 17-18. I started from the rock bottom on the chart, and have added the recommended 4 - 8 strokes every workout. I've missed or shortened a few L4s for various reasons, so I've not progressed as fast on these as I should have (lower back tightness, etc.). I don't add the strokes until I do the full 60' workout at the goal. If I don't get it in, I repeat it next workout. I'm going to add a few more L4s into the mix to see if I can get back on track. Remember, my reference pace is 1:54.0, which I would guess is significantly slower than yours. I'm just getting started. So, I do let the stroke rate find a natural level with the L3s, but I will say that the SPM has come down from 26 in just a couple of months. Probably as a result of the L4 work and the power/stroke they appear to help build. -- Mark

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 7th, 2005, 5:16 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 7 2005, 01:13 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When it comes to athletes and training, the grass is always greener. If you’re doing X, they want to do Y, and if you give in and do Y, they want to go back to doing X or maybe try Z instead. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Dec 7 2005, 05:06 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To balance things out there are undoubtedly athletes around the world who are telling their coaches "....But Caviston says......" </td></tr></table> I’d sure like to hear about one. It would brighten up my day! Mike </td></tr></table> Ranger says that very thing quite often... Sorry Mike, I couldn't help it, you can smack me at CRASH-B's...

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 7th, 2005, 5:35 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 7 2005, 08:46 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The subject of Exercise Physiology is not just my profession, it is my passion. I voraciously collect all the published research I can on all topics even peripherally related to any aspect of athletes and performance. [right] </td></tr></table> Mike, as was suggested already, you should write a book about training. I am sure it would be very successfull. I have benefited considerably from your all posts. The training principles you have exposed are applicable to other sports. As an example, I followed your pre race warm up suggestions at a swim meet two weeks ago, and it made a huge difference (my 400m free dropped 10 sec. to 4:55)! My son and daughter are also erging and they are following the Wolverine Plan. Thanks a lot Mike! Regards, Francois

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 8th, 2005, 4:14 pm

In case anyone missed it, somebody in another thread posted a link to some information about the “anaerobic threshold” and lactate testing <a href='http://www.roble.net/marquis/coaching/billat.html' target='_blank'>HERE</a>. This outlines many of my objections (I have a few others). It brings to mind one of my major philosophies regarding training. I’m sure I’ve explained this to some extent but it’s good to repeat & clarify. When I train, I’m not training to increase my aerobic capacity, or raise my lactate threshold, or lower my resting heart rate, or improve my muscular strength or endurance, or increase my capillary or mitochondrial density, or enhance my lipid metabolism, or do anything except lower my 2K time. Lowering my 2K is my focus and everything else is secondary, a consequence or byproduct or symptom of training, not a goal. There are no medals for greatest VO2 max or most mmol of lactate (though it might be fun to watch that competition!) There is only performance as measured by the C2 monitor. So all of my training is centered around the monitor’s display. Pace is the relevant variable. Some people focus on one factor (e.g., VO2 max or TLACT) and gear training towards maximizing that variable. Performance is much more complex and integrates multiple variables, some of which are known and some which aren’t. The exact connection or relative importance of each variable isn’t perfectly clear. Focusing exclusively on one variable may potentially be detrimental to another critical variable, although this might not be immediately obvious. I am interested in improving my performance on workouts that have been shown to positively affect my 2K time. I don’t have to worry about what percentage of the workout is aerobic vs. anaerobic or what my HR response is or how much lactate I’m producing or which muscle fibers are being activated. My performance as measured by pace for the various workouts is the best and most accurate information available to insure steady progress without overtraining. Anything else would just provide incomplete or conflicting or misleading information. Mike Caviston

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » December 9th, 2005, 11:18 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 7 2005, 03:46 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Anyway, I just wanted to say that I am fascinated by Exercise Physiology and I hope to see more discussion related to the WP. I just want to make clear that I probably can’t personally commit to a full-scale scientific analysis of the WP at this time. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> If you do have the time please elaborate on intensity as the crucial variable. Also how we should balance volume, rest and intensity. I know that the Wolverine Plan already makes the prescriptions but it is always good to know the rationale behind it. From your previous posts I gathered that it is not crucial to limit resting time (at L1, 4 times 1K), rather make sure you don't lose your warmup and are able to hit the pace target. Or maybe I did not understand this right. Another question would be why we do the 1K four times at 2K pace. How would this compare to a workout of 2 times 1K at 2K pace - 2 which is at a higher intensity.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » December 9th, 2005, 9:30 pm

I just did my first 60 minute L4 workout. Finally I have found a way to do this successfully! I have had several frustrating workouts where I forgot which segment I was in and screwed up what stroke rate I was supposed to be doing, etc., so that the results were way off what I was aiming for. I found what I had to do was list out the segments so that I knew what number of minutes left on the monitor clock I was to stay at each stroke rate and that solved the problem. I did 176, 188, 176, 188, 176, 188. My used 1:52 as my reference pace even though my 2k pb pace is actually 1:57, but still ended 277 meters over. However, I was perfect on the number of strokes. Basically this means I was doing this workout at a reference pace of 148.5 or so--about 9 seconds faster than I can do a 2K. I was really excited about being perfect on the number of strokes, that's a first! I know I'm not doing this plan at all perfectly--my level 1 workouts are at 1:54--1:55; level 4 is coming out as if I was using 1:48.5 as a reference; level 3s I've been doing at around 2:05. I am not sure how to figure out what reference pace that goes with but if I worked things out correctly before I'm supposed to be doing level 3 around 2:14 or something (if basing it on a 1:57 2K pace). Basically I'm hopelessly out of balance as far as the long distance stuff vs. the sprints. But it seems to me that doing the L4s at the higher paces will make me a lot stronger so that my sprints will improve? I can't see any sense in doing the L4s and L3s at what the charts say I should be doing--it's not a work out and I don't see how it will help me improve. So I am just doing my best at each kind of workout, and trying not to be bothered that my sprint workouts aren't as fast as they should be. I wish I had started this program before I got so screwed up!!!

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training