Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » November 7th, 2005, 5:24 pm

So it sounds like good advice for Level 4 newbies is to concentrate first on getting the desired rates on command, and paces will eventually fall into place. While this may be difficult at first, practice is key, and it shouldn’t take more than a couple sessions before some improvement occurs. When I have a little more time next week I plan to revisit the topics of warm-up and active recovery. But my workout this morning was 4 x 1K, and since that workout has recently been mentioned, let me make a few observations. (I said quite a bit about this a few months ago on another thread. <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... =2054&st=0' target='_blank'>Previous Comments</a>) 4 x 1K is both the toughest and most valuable workout I do to prepare for 2Ks. For the fall I have been doing it only every third week (in January I plan to start doing it every alternate week). Last week I did a 2K trial instead of a Level 1 workout, so it had been four weeks since I last did 4 x 1K. I was plenty nervous before hand, but the workout went well. Even though I shouldn’t have been surprised based on the overall progress of my training, it’s always good to see the general progress confirmed with good execution of a tough workout. The results (including my sub-interval pacing format): 1st piece GP: 1:35.4 [actual time & pace: 3:10.4 (1:35.2)] 200m GP: 1:37 [actual pace: 1:37.0] 400m GP: 1:36 [actual: 1:35.8] 600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8] 800m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8] 1000m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8] 2nd piece GP: 1:35.2 [3:10.1 (1:35.1)] 200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8] 400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8] 600m GP: 1:35 [1:35.0] 800m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8] 1000m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0] 3rd piece GP: 1:35.2 [3:10.0 (1:35.0)] 200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8] 400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8] 600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8] 800m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8] 1000m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0] 4th piece GP: 1:35.0 [3:09.7 (1:34.9)] 200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8] 400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8] 600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8] 800m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0] 1000m GP: 1:33 [1:33.0] So I beat my overall goal for the workout by .2 seconds, which is pretty rare for me (I generally either get the goal exactly or sometimes go .1 sec under), but my goal was a little conservative. Splitting each 1K into 200m segments makes things go by a lot quicker since each segment only lasts about 38 seconds so I’m constantly reaching another milestone and I have plenty to think about in the meantime trying to hold my pace and rate objective for each segment. My final 200m @ 1:33 wasn’t pretty (became short & rushed), but every other segment went smoothly. Several weeks ago when my overall GP was 1:36-ish, the 1:34 pace wasn’t very pretty. Now I’m handling it pretty well, and the hope is I will eventually have good technique @ 1:33 as well. This is probably a good opportunity to remind everyone (as the discussion shifts around between different WP training Levels) that all Levels are integral to the overall Plan and all need to be addressed with equal concern for detail. Happy training. Mike Caviston

[old] Guy_W · Post by **[old] Guy_W** » November 7th, 2005, 5:58 pm

experimenting with -ve splits: 1. +ve: last 4x1k and 4x2k sessions. Attempted with detailed plan and -ve split targets for each piece and each 1/5th segment within each piece (a la Mike C's recent notes, pretty significant and formal -ve splitting). Great results, psychological breakthrough, never done these workouts with so little pain! Almost left looking forward to next week/fortnight (in case of 4x1k). 2. -ve: never minded 8x500 anywhere near as much as those above. Always used to start at last time's pace and see if could go faster last 2 or 3. Practicaly a quote! Anyway, curious me felt that last week's 4x1k was so cool that I'd see what 8x500@X was like doing X+0.6/X+0.2/4xX/X-0.2/X-0.6 and each 500 split into 5 segments. Each segment done a la 4x1k type pacing. eg. X+2/X+1/X/X/X-1.............I think I discovered something already known by some........ I couldn't cope after 4 intervals, and whilst "near death" / "no way 8" is a familiar experience at 3/4/5 intervals I was really dying/feeling faint/dizzy etc. Managed to start 5th but binned the extreme -ve splitting and did much flatter (target X+0.5/X/X/X/X-0.5) interval. Survived, managed 6th/7th and 8th all faster. 2. ctd However, and this is a first time in 4 years of recording HBs and intervals, whilst each interval's pace increased 3/4/5/6/7/8th, max 2 HBs were achieved at 3rd and 4th intervals when still doing "X+2/.../X-1" type splits. Yes, 100m is short and upping pace every 20 secs is harsh but I was surprised how seriously hard this seemed, especially after my positive experieces with this pacing, even on 4x1k. Could argue down to warm up but I'd done a hard 12 mins before each session and even so the striking thing for me is that I've never gone faster for less HB stress in an interval session before. Provisional lesson: 500m at 4secs pace spread really does cause high stress/demands. Oh well, live and learn (the hard way) (and not confusing high stress with "bad" or "low stress" with optimal pacing) Guy

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 7th, 2005, 5:59 pm

Mike: Great explanation. It seems to me -- King Newbie -- that the way the plan is structured (or your explanations here) you take into account the psychological aspects of training ... splitting up the 1Ks into 200M segments, negative micro-splits (200M), etc. etc. This is similar (with respect to the head) to the rate and pace breakdowns of the L4 workouts. It appears you feel it's important to have something technical to focus on, or is this just a byproduct of the plan? I'd also be interested in your perspective on the differential recommendations in terms of pace for 8x500, 4x1000, and the pyramid of 250/500/750/1K/750/500/250. Or should they be the same since the average distance covered is same or similar? I do see in the plan that it's recommended to start at 2K reference pace, and then "let it develop". Should one just start to slowly drive the pace up with every repeat of the specific workout? Any advice on how much each time or how to determine "next step"? I also see that I need to focus the active recovery on being low SPM (16-18) at the target recovery rate rather than higher SPM at 2:30 pace. I now realize, after reading this again and again, that this is trying to achieve, during active recovery, perhaps a conditioning of the body and mind for a "more power per stroke" advance in performance -- consistent training for consistent performance (even during recovery). Cool stuff. -- Mark

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » November 7th, 2005, 11:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Nov 7 2005, 05:16 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'd be interested in the corelation between the 8x500 and 4x1000 times of others. [right] </td></tr></table> I have 4.4 seconds between my 4x1k and 8x500m sessions. 4 seconds was recommended to me a few months ago, and it seems to have held true. I've done both of these workouts several times now, and have established these workouts on their own, so I can now crank them down individually instead of comparing them. Get more aggressive on your 500m sets. I'm off to do mine with a 1:38 goal pace.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 7th, 2005, 11:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(bmoore @ Nov 7 2005, 11:33 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 @ Nov 7 2005, 05:16 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'd be interested in the corelation between the 8x500 and 4x1000 times of others. [right] </td></tr></table> I have 4.4 seconds between my 4x1k and 8x500m sessions. 4 seconds was recommended to me a few months ago, and it seems to have held true. I've done both of these workouts several times now, and have established these workouts on their own, so I can now crank them down individually instead of comparing them. Get more aggressive on your 500m sets. I'm off to do mine with a 1:38 goal pace. </td></tr></table> Bill: Thanks. I'm convinced I need to do as you've suggested. Regards -- Mark

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 7th, 2005, 11:38 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Surely if you have set out a plan then it would be set in some sort of text format without all the mumbo jumbo in between. </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Too long.............got bored after the first paragraph of the 2nd post. Ive heard of a post mortem on training, but there is a limit </td></tr></table> I find these comments very helpful.

[old] Will · Post by **[old] Will** » November 8th, 2005, 7:01 am

John, go back to your own thread!

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » November 8th, 2005, 9:12 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Will @ Nov 8 2005, 07:01 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>John, go back to your own thread! </td></tr></table> Please don't feed the animals. They'll get used to human presence and begin to harass other unsuspecting humans.

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » November 8th, 2005, 11:38 am

Confessions of a Wolverine Plan Newbie Day 2: Level 4 / 40' = 176/180/176/180 Today's piece was a 40' Level 4 workout, made up of the following 10' sequences:<ul><li>176 = 2'/2'/2'/2'/2' @ 16/18/20/18/16 SPM --> 2288 m</li><li>180 = 4'/3'/2'/1' @ 16/18/20/22 SPM --> 2305 m</li><li>176 = 2'/2'/2'/2'/2' @ 16/18/20/18/16 SPM --> 2288 m</li><li>180 = 4'/3'/2'/1' @ 16/18/20/22 SPM --> 2305 m</li></ul><ul><li>16 SPM @ 2:15 --> 13.9 mps</li><li>18 SPM @ 2:10 --> 12.8 mps</li><li>20 SPM @ 2:06 --> 11.9 mps</li><li>22 SPM @ 2:01 --> 11.3 mps</li></ul>Actual distances & stroke counts:<ul><li>1st 10' = 2292 m / 174 strokes (+4 m / -2 strokes)</li><li>2nd 10' = 2314 m / 180 strokes (+9 m / +0 strokes)</li><li>3rd 10' = 2305 m / 180 strokes (+17 m / +4 strokes)</li><li>4th 10' = 2315 m / 182 strokes (+10 m / +2 strokes)</li></ul>Observations:<ul><li>There's a lot to plan and remember for a Level 4 workout. I typed it all up and printed it out, and put the piece of paper on a clipboard resting on a standing fan next to the erg. The default 8-point font at a distance of about six feet was a bit too small for me to read while rowing, even at 16 SPM. I'm going to swing by my local Staples and get one of those document holders that people put on their computer displays, so I can have the information physically closer, and use a larger font.</li><li>There's a lot to think about during a Level 4 workout. I knew going in that I would need to pay fairly close attention to the monitor, so I didn't bother to put a DVD in the player (which I usually do with any workout over 20 minutes long), opting instead for the iPod. I couldn't concentrate on what I was supposed to be doing, in terms of stroke rate and pace, with the music in the background, so I took the earphones out after about 3 minutes. Of the four 10' sequences I pulled today, only the first one was understroked. It must've been the few seconds it took to remove the iPod without throwing it.</li><li>After reading the various comments on how one might actually maintain stroke rate and pace during a Level 4 workout, especially in a workout whose size is defined by time duration as opposed to meters, I thought I'd set my PM2 to report meters covered so far - after all, average pace is not too informative for a Level 4 workout that changes pace throughout. Since I know the stroke rate and the pace for each sub-sequence, I can compute the meters per stroke (mps), then watch the meters covered climbing. For example, if I'm in the middle of a 16 SPM sub-sequence at 2:15, I need to get 13.9 mps. If the last digit of the meters covered is a 7 at my last catch, my next catch is when the last digit of the meters covered is a 1. I found it easier to fine tune the timing of my next catch when I watch numbers that tick over nearly four times a second (2:15 per 500 m = 3.7 meters per second) as opposed to a number that ticks over only once a second (the seconds digit of the remaining time) or "using the Force" and hoping that I had the right stroke rate. I ended up watching the last digit of the meters covered on the recovery (not enough attention left to look at the other digits), looking at the instantaneous pace through the drive, and the instantaneous stroke rate as I started the recovery. I still need to work on tightening up my stroke rate and pace. Until I added up the strokes in the post-mortem, I actually thought I understroked all four 10' sequences, because I saw instantaneous stroke rates that were lower than my target more often than I saw stroke rates that were higher.</li><li>The 40' of this Level 4 workout went by really fast, despite having no TV and no music to row to. I was so engrossed during the entire stroke (catch, drive, and recovery) trying to keep my stroke rate and pace on target that I rarely had time to look at the time elapsed. I had to remind myself from time to time to look at that, so I'll know when I need to change my stroke rate and pace. I think I actually did my first 2' sub-sequence for nearly 3' before I realized I was supposed to have picked up the pace. That probably also contributed to my understroking the first 10' sequence.</li><li>Compared to yesterday's Level 1 workout, today's Level 4 workout didn't seem as tiring - I certainly didn't fall off the erg panting when I was done like I did yesterday. I had the energy but not the time for a cool down (meeting at work first thing). Towards the end, I was thinking, I could hold this pace forever. But I remembered that one of the goals of Level 4 is to build up endurance gradually and in a sustainable fashion. I also remembered that I have a Level 2 5x1500 tomorrow.</li></ul>The next time I do a 40' Level 4 (scheduled for one week from today), I think I'll add four strokes to the third sequence to make it a 176/180/180/180.

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » November 8th, 2005, 1:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(arakawa @ Nov 8 2005, 11:38 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Confessions of a Wolverine Plan Newbie Day 2: Level 4 / 40' = 176/180/176/180 [/list]The next time I do a 40' Level 4 (scheduled for one week from today), I think I'll add four strokes to the third sequence to make it a 176/180/180/180. </td></tr></table> Based on a previous post by Mike about some of my LVL4 progressions you would do better to add the 4 strokes to one of the 180 intervals. A better training effect is had with a 176/180/184/176 than a 176/180/180/180 ... even though the total number of strokes is the same. To overly simplify what Mike said about this ... mixing it up more makes your muscles adapt better. See Mike's previous posts for a lot of good information based on science ... I'm just a hack about this. JimR

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » November 9th, 2005, 1:49 am

I did my second Level 4 workout today, 168/176/176/188. At first I had the erg on slides, but since it takes me a few strokes to get going nicely on slides without whacking into the ends, I stopped & put the erg on the floor andstarted over. The way I've been keeping track of the work out is with a white board that is about 36" x 24" --you can write big enough to read it. I list the intervals, numbered, like this 1) 2/16(48)2:26 meaning, 2 minutes, 16 spm (set metronome for 48), pace 2:26. I don't think reading off a computer printout would be very helpful. I ended up doing all the intervals at faster paces and a few more strokes per intervale than I should have: 1st 10' +47 m, +6 strokes 2nd 10' +83 m, +4 strokes 3rd 10' +37 m, +0 strokes 4th 10', +85 m, +4 strokes so it ended up being 14 strokes and 252 meters high. The pace was faster on every interval than it was supposed to be by 3--7 seconds/500 m. (the only one that was any where near close was the first one, which was only 1 second too fast). I think my ref. pace of 1:57 is too slow as I appear to be doing the workout as though my ref. pace is 1:54 or so. Should I fix this by going with the faster ref. pace, or by lengthening the workout to 60', or by increasing the number of strokes? I am sort of confused. Does anyone understand what you should do in this situation?

[old] Guy_W · Post by **[old] Guy_W** » November 9th, 2005, 8:53 am

Carla If I were you I would change my ref pace to 1:55 or 1:56. From what you said earlier about 1:57 2k pace and 2:00 30' pace it appears your 2k pace is relatively weak anyway. It doesn't sound like you are getting a great deal of endurance strain/gain from the 1:57 pieces (if you'd kept to pace!). I (believe that I) recall, perhaps in original WP document, that Mike (whilst generally reluctant to advise shifting reference paces), would consider doing this if an athlete consistently met not only the metre targets for current ref pace but also those for the next ref pace up. You seem to be an (extreme) example of this. I am in a slightly less extreme position where my actual level 4 metres are approx those for the 1 sec faster ref pace. I am monitoring it and speeding up my planned progression in terms of average stroke/sequences (eg. weekly x.4 -> x.6 average instead of planned 0.1 weekly increase) in the meantime. This is an option for you too although you are so far ahead of target metres that (as I say, "if i were you") I would try a faster ref pace. Guy

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » November 9th, 2005, 9:48 am

Carla, I'd lengthen the workout first. Overstroking also makes the workouts easier. Move up to 60 minutes and don't overstroke. I'd then start moving up the progressions. I've been doing 3x 184/188 to get my 60' in. Masa, I use a small yellow sticky note. It looks like this: <table width='95%' cellspacing='1' cellpadding='3' border='0' align='center'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>CODE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='code'><div>16 - 2:14 18 - 2:09 20 - 2:05 22 - 2:00 176 - 2-2-2-2-2 180 - 4-3-2-1 184 - 3-3-3-1 188 - 2-2-2-2-2</div></td></tr></table> I know that the 180 & 184 simply goes up the above paces (16-22). Above the 2s on the 176 & 188, I pencil in the rate. This gives me all of the elements I need for the workout in one small sheet. I use lots of sticky notes for various pacing for other workouts, but this one for L4 workouts pretty much stays put. I'm getting close to 192, but I think I can remember it's the same as a 188 but starts with the 20.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 9th, 2005, 9:59 am

Friends: I'm interested in comments on my schedule, as opposed to the intricacies of the WP, as I feel I'm finally starting to understand them (the fine details of pacing, rate, etc.) well enough to "self coach" (for now!). Like many, I have a wife, family, and I run my own business, so I cannot predict when life's priorities will not allow me to train. I started rowing May 6, 05, with a goal of going sub-7 by the end of this season (April 30, 2006). My 2K time now is 7:38.2 done a few weeks ago on my own -- not in a race. I had some gas left at the end (lots actually), so I am comfortable that 7:38 is easily repeatable or could be bettered right now. I've started on the WP with the thought that some structure and methodology to my training is better than none, or some haphazard mish mash. I've developed a plan that goes: L1 - avg. 4K training meters per w/o L4 - avg. 12K+ t/m per w/o L3 - avg. 12K t/m per w/o L4 L2 - avg. 8K t/m per w/o L4 L3 L4 ... over eight days, and then repeats. This is roughly equal to the ratios of the workouts suggested in the plan, although not exact. Meters percentage over these eight workouts, which total 84K meters if my math is correct, break down as: L1 - 5% (3% to 4%) L2 - 10% (6% to 8%) L3 - 29% (22% to 25%) L4 - 57% (65% to 70%) (some rounding error) ... where the plan suggests the percentages in parentheses. In reality, the L4 workouts are probably a few percentage points higher than this since 12K is the minimum I get in for most of the L4s I've done thus far. So, I'm close to the percentages the plan and Mike recommend, but not spot on. I used this combination because it's easy to remember if I'm on the road, and it's an easy ratio of: 1:1:2:4 in a simple sequence that appears to give me the rest I need between the faster, more taxing, L1 and L2 workouts. I rest when I feel like I need it -- listening to my body as best I can, which has become easier as I've gotten older -- or the day before a race when I want to be totally fresh. Or, when priorities dictate an "unplanned rest day". Rest is usually 1 day a week or one day every two weeks. I've started at the bottom rung of each workout in terms of suggested times, and am slowly moving interval times up by 2 sec. pace each time I repeat them, to soon, hopefully, get to my training limit, which I don't feel I've reached yet (i.e. I could work harder right now), and I'm also moving stroke counts up in the L4 workouts. If I cannot get in one of the planned workouts, I just do the workout, in this sequence, the next possible day I can. If I have a day when I can row for 20 or 30 minutes, but cannot complete the scheduled w/o, I do what I can (maybe a 5K or a 30 minute piece) and pick up with the plan where I left off -- always keeping the sequence regardless of the "stop gap" workout. I'd be interested in your comments on this approach, and any suggestion you'd have on improving it, knowing the constraints and goal. Thanks! Regards -- Mark

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » November 9th, 2005, 10:11 am

Maybe Mike can help on this one? Both arguments as to what I should do seem to make sense. I was 252 meters over and a total of 14 strokes over. The meters were supposed to be 8459 in 708 strokes, av. 12 mps, and what I did was 8711 in 722 strokes, which also averages 12 mps, so I wasn't just trading rate for pace and making it easier, I don't think...? I still don't know how I got in 14 extra strokes in the 40 minutes, because I was using a metrenome and driving consistently on the accented beat. I computed the strokes by using "recall" when I was done, and doubling the average spm given by the PM for each 2 minute interval. 8 of the overstrokes are accounted for by my 16's ending up being 17's, 4 by 20's that ended up being 21's, and two by an 18 that was really a 19. I have to say, the 40 minutes really seems short, with all this cogitating going on!

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training