Wolverine Plan Discussion

[[old] Mike Caviston]

<b>The Myth of Lactate Tolerance</b> <br />Interval training is very integral to the Wolverine Plan. The Level 1 (sub-2K pace) workouts are the most critical and everything else is designed to support these workouts by developing the necessary endurance, speed, strength, technique, etc. Periodically when training is discussed there is debate about the format of interval programs. I have previously discussed the thinking behind the format of Level 1 workouts (e.g., <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... =2054&st=0' target='_blank'>HERE</a>). A subject that has been perpetually debated is the recovery interval between work periods (e.g., 8 x 500m). My preference is to take enough recovery time, and utilize <b>active recovery</b> , to promote as complete recuperation as possible between work intervals. <i>Intensity</i> is the most important of the many training variables, and training should be structured to protect intensity as much as possible. All things considered, I think more rather than less recovery is preferred. Still, there are some practical considerations and recovery must be limited to a reasonable period. Many people train within a defined time limit (such as their lunch hour). I used to run team workouts within time limits – e.g., 60’ max for one group before the next group arrives. Recovery can’t go on forever. For me the most practical consideration is that if I spend <b>too</b> much time on recovery, I begin to lose my warm-up, and the next interval is proportionately harder. (For 8 x 500m, even after a thorough warm-up, the first interval usually feels pretty difficult and the second one feels significantly easier. With too much time off between intervals, they <b>all</b> feel like the first one.) <br /><br />Another school of thought regarding interval training is to keep the recovery period relatively short. Some people apparently feel that shorter recovery periods are more <i>macho</i> , and longer recovery is for wimps. This actually cracks me up, because adequate recovery means you go <i>faster</i> during the work intervals, which hurts <i>more</i> . Part of the so-called “logic” of shorter recovery intervals is to increase the lactate load and force the body to improve its “lactate tolerance”. “Lactate tolerance” is a fallacy, and I will explain why.<br /><br />Ideally, training for an event such as 2K will result in improved energy production (via both aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways) as well as increased resistance to fatigue. Briefly stated, the stimulus for increased energy production comes from systematically increasing the training intensity across the various training bands. Following a training paradigm that hinders increased intensity is counterproductive to the goal of enhancing energy production. Meanwhile, “lactate tolerance” is not being enhanced either. The body deals with reduced pH, or neutralizes excess acid, with a combination of bicarbonate, phosphate, and protein chemical buffers (including hemoglobin). I know of no compelling scientific evidence to suggest that training has any effect on the body’s buffering systems. I have at hand a half dozen of the leading Exercise Physiology texts that all say the same thing. For example, from McArdle, Katch, and Katch: “It is tempting to speculate that anaerobic training has a positive effect on the body’s capacity for acid-base regulation, perhaps through the enhancement of chemical buffers or the alkaline reserve. However, it has never been shown that buffering capacity becomes enhanced through exercise training.” Before anyone starts posting links to different web sites that talk about improved “lactate tolerance”, take some time to investigate what if any scientific evidence is offered. For example, a physiological variable like <i>aerobic capacity</i> (VO2 max) is well-defined, easily measured in a laboratory, results are reproducible, normal values exist for untrained and well-trained individuals, standardized units exist for expressing those values, there is an established relationship between training intensity/duration and increased VO2 max, there are other measurable physiological correlates to explain the enhanced aerobic capacity (e.g., increased stroke volume and mitochondrial density), and so on, and so on. Try finding such information for “lactate tolerance”. If you want to defend it as a viable training objective, then you must 1) give it a clear clinical definition; 2) describe how it is measured in a laboratory; 3) provide pre-training and post-training values, in proper units; and 4) give examples of research investigations that have clearly shown a training effect on “lactate tolerance”.<br /><br />The Lactate Threshold, on the other hand, can be measured, is affected by training, and has been shown to correlate highly with endurance performance. [There is some subjectivity in determining exactly where the TLACT occurs, and many people confuse the TLACT with the so-called “anaerobic threshold”, which is another fallacy that I won’t go into now.] Improving the TLACT is accomplished with LSD-style training to stimulate such changes as increased mitochondrial and capillary density in the skeletal muscles, resulting in a greater ability to remove lactate from the muscle and dispose of it elsewhere. A buzzword in the training literature is <i>monocarboxylate transporters</i> (MCTs), which transport lactate across the muscle sarcolemma. Endurance training increases MCTs, making it easier for lactate to leave the muscle and enter the circulation, where it can be transported to oxidative muscle fibers or organs such as the heart, liver, or kidneys for removal. Note that improving the Lactate Threshold is <b>not </b> improving “lactate tolerance” – it is enhancing the <b>removal</b> of lactate from the muscle so the muscle doesn’t have to tolerate it! Since high lactate values are associated with conditions that are known to increase fatigue and reduce intensity, removing lactate allows the muscle fibers to continue working at a higher intensity for a longer time.<br /><br />Balanced training incorporates both high-intensity interval training to enhance energy production, and low/moderate intensity sessions of longer duration to enhance endurance (i.e., the ability to resist fatigue). In the Wolverine Plan, the intent is to use greater endurance to allow a sustained higher intensity and more rapid recovery during interval sessions. To facilitate more rapid/complete recovery, I utilize <b>active recovery</b> . This is distinct from passive recovery. The idea is to engage in enough work to stimulate greater circulation, so that excess lactate (and other fatiguing metabolic byproducts) will be removed and disposed of more quickly and efficiently. The correct intensity maximizes waste disposal without producing any more fatiguing agents. Research using different recovery protocols suggests that optimal recovery intensity is around 40% of VO2 max. Since several studies indicate that 2K pace is just about equal to VO2 max for many individuals, it is interesting that the Recovery Paces listed in the WP Level 4 tables are just about 40% of 2K pace (in Watts). I initially determined the Rec Pace by feel, but there appears to be some scientific support for why it “feels” right.<br /><br />Soon I will revisit my guidelines for recovery for the different WP interval workouts. I’ve covered this before, but I’ll try to be even more clear and explicit. <br /><br />Mike Caviston

[[old] H_2O]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Dec 1 2005, 05:26 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 1 2005, 05:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Myth of Lactate Tolerance...</b> <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks.<br />

[[old] TomR/the elder]

Mike--<br /><br />All those facts in a single post. Is that allowed?<br /><br />Tom

[[old] Dickie]

Tom<br /><br />If the number of facts bothers you too much, you can always even things out by re-reading posts from John Rupp.

[[old] Polaco]

<b>Changing paces after a new PB</b><br /><br />Right now, my Level 4 sessions for 60 min. are 178-180-184-184-180-178 and it's quite tough for me.... <br /><br />Last Saturday during an e-row race I've made a quite significant improvement over my 2k going from 6:43.5 to 6:34.4. Yes, I'm very happy but....... do I have to change automatically my paces and change from 16spm @2:06 to 16spm @2:02???? I'ts going to be really hard...... Have any of you found yourself in this situation??<br /><br />Any advice will be very wellcome<br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Polaco+Dec 4 2005, 06:44 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Polaco @ Dec 4 2005, 06:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Changing paces after a new PB</b><br /><br />Right now, my Level 4 sessions for 60 min. are  178-180-184-184-180-178 and it's quite tough for me.... <br /><br />Last Saturday during an e-row race I've made a quite significant improvement over my 2k going from 6:43.5 to 6:34.4. Yes, I'm very happy but....... do I have to change automatically my paces and change from 16spm @2:06 to 16spm @2:02????  I'ts going to be really hard...... Have any of you found yourself in this situation??<br /><br />Any advice will be very wellcome <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I've read through the WP a few times, so this is based only on what I recall, you would stay with the same 2k reference pace for a given season and then when that season is over and you have (hopefully) produced a new 2k PB, you would use that as the reference pace when beginning your training for the next season. Yes, it will be "hard", was there something about "progress being easy" in the WP?

[[old] Polaco]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Dec 4 2005, 10:19 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 4 2005, 10:19 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, it will be "hard", was there something about "progress being easy" in the WP?  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Certainly not , thanks for the advice!!

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-Polaco+Dec 4 2005, 10:44 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Polaco @ Dec 4 2005, 10:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Changing paces after a new PB</b><br /><br />Right now, my Level 4 sessions for 60 min. are  178-180-184-184-180-178 and it's quite tough for me.... <br /><br />Last Saturday during an e-row race I've made a quite significant improvement over my 2k going from 6:43.5 to 6:34.4. Yes, I'm very happy but....... do I have to change automatically my paces and change from 16spm @2:06 to 16spm @2:02????  I'ts going to be really hard...... Have any of you found yourself in this situation??<br /><br />Any advice will be very wellcome <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />From the WP:<br /><br />"As with all the workouts in the Plan, its okay to exceed your goals if it comes naturally, but don’t feel obligated to force the pace beyond the goal. Baby steps, baby steps. If this is your first year on varsity and you are following the Plan for the first time, your rate of improvement will probably be greater than that of a senior. <b><span style='color:blue'>If you reach a point where your totals are exceeding the goal of the next 2K pace on the Pace Chart, you will be reassigned a new 2K pace for reference. Otherwise, you will probably keep the same 2K reference pace you use at the start of the season, even if your actual 2K PR improves (as it will!) during winter testing. </span></b>But this will depend on the circumstances of the individual."<br /><br />

[[old] Polaco]

Thanks Mark, you are beginning to be an authority in WP

[[old] dougsurf]

<!--QuoteBegin-Polaco+Dec 4 2005, 07:44 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Polaco @ Dec 4 2005, 07:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Changing paces after a new PB</b><br /><br />Right now, my Level 4 sessions for 60 min. are  178-180-184-184-180-178 and it's quite tough for me.... <br /><br />Last Saturday during an e-row race I've made a quite significant improvement over my 2k going from 6:43.5 to 6:34.4. Yes, I'm very happy but....... do I have to change automatically my paces and change from 16spm @2:06 to 16spm @2:02????  I'ts going to be really hard...... Have any of you found yourself in this situation??<br /><br />Any advice will be very wellcome <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Polaco,<br /><br />From the PaceVsRate table, 2:02 would apply to you if your 2K were a solid 6:32. It may sound like nitpicking to some, but I would hit that mark first before graduating other levels beyond it, and meanwhile feel more than adequate graduating to "only" 2:04 on the Level 4 16spm. <br /><br />I'm new at Wolverine, but I don't think the core principle of gradual progression means that you fix paces across the board only once per year. I like its toning down of the whole periodization theory in favor of steady ongoing growth. Something like 0.1 split seconds per week on average, if I recall correctly. Between now and my next competition, I will not be doing any trials, but will regard my 4x1Ks as my 2K trials, and adjust everything across the board to line up with them, whenever they improve. Anything sound wrong with that, to anyone?<br />

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-dougsurf+Dec 4 2005, 07:08 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Dec 4 2005, 07:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Polaco+Dec 4 2005, 07:44 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Polaco @ Dec 4 2005, 07:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Changing paces after a new PB</b><br /><br />Right now, my Level 4 sessions for 60 min. are  178-180-184-184-180-178 and it's quite tough for me.... <br /><br />Last Saturday during an e-row race I've made a quite significant improvement over my 2k going from 6:43.5 to 6:34.4. Yes, I'm very happy but....... do I have to change automatically my paces and change from 16spm @2:06 to 16spm @2:02????   I'ts going to be really hard...... Have any of you found yourself in this situation??<br /><br />Any advice will be very wellcome <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Polaco,<br /><br />From the PaceVsRate table, 2:02 would apply to you if your 2K were a solid 6:32. It may sound like nitpicking to some, but I would hit that mark first before graduating other levels beyond it, and meanwhile feel more than adequate graduating to "only" 2:04 on the Level 4 16spm. <br /><br />I'm new at Wolverine, but I don't think the core principle of gradual progression means that you fix paces across the board only once per year. I like its toning down of the whole periodization theory in favor of steady ongoing growth. Something like 0.1 split seconds per week on average, if I recall correctly. Between now and my next competition, I will not be doing any trials, but will regard my 4x1Ks as my 2K trials, and adjust everything across the board to line up with them, whenever they improve. Anything sound wrong with that, to anyone? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Doug:<br /><br />I'm certainly not an expert on the plan, but here's another perspective:<br /><br />I *think* Mike would say that if you wanted to move up your reference pace during the season for reasons mentioned above, you'd likely go back "down" the table in terms of the sequences, to get actual work performed during an L4 workout (for the current level of fitness & performance) in line with all of the new paces (faster pace + less distance = similar work). Otherwise, too much of an increase in performance at one time which is contrary to slow, solid progression ("baby steps, baby steps"). <br /><br />The only thing I don't understand is when Mike says: <br /><br />"If you reach a point where your totals are exceeding the goal of the next 2K pace on the Pace Chart, you will be reassigned a new 2K pace for reference."<br /><br />I'm not sure how this could happen, unless you did not stick to the rates and paces for the plan but rather "pushed" them.<br /><br />Unless one is "off the chart" (no more sequences to add to add more meters for a workout), I believe Mike would say keep the same reference pace and keep going.<br /><br />Regards -- Mark

[[old] Mike Caviston]

Remember that the WP was originally designed for people with an established 2K history. That means people who have already undergone some period of structured training and have on record a 2K score that represents their best effort to date. These people should begin a season of WP training with a Level 4 Ref Pace based on the best 2K from the previous training cycle, and I also have ballpark starting recommendations for the other (L1-L3) training levels. For true novices (those without a training history based on 2K performance), figuring out exactly where to begin and how quickly to proceed is a little trickier, as I have discussed previously. I think beginners are definitely better off beginning their training with some sort of structured format (as opposed to randomly jumping from one workout to the next without any thought of cause and effect or planning for the future). Perhaps for some beginners the Wolverine Plan requires too much structure; that will be for each individual to decide. I think a beginner’s initial focus with the WP should be to learn the formats, master the basic skills required (i.e., consistent stroke rates and paces; negative splitting; etc.), and establish a baseline from which to proceed towards more serious and goal-oriented training in the future. And of course, gradually improve fitness. I can never stress enough that the WP is designed to provide slow steady improvement for a long time. It is definitely <b>not</b> a “get fast overnight – instant result or your money back!” type of training plan. Also remember that beginners don’t necessarily need the WP to improve their erg scores; just sitting down on that sucker a few times a week is enough to get the job done. You’ll pretty much get faster in spite of yourself. But once the honeymoon is over, and your times stop improving even though it seems like you’re sweating and puffing even more than ever – then you will appreciate the structure of a well-balanced training plan.<br /><br />To repeat a piece of advice I’ve given to beginners before: don’t become too obsessed with rapid improvement and with getting it all right now. Take the long view. Just enjoy the ride for a while and develop good habits to use when the going starts to get a little tougher. Specifically for Level 4 workouts, if you can follow your current Ref Pace without hitting the 20spm-average before the end of the season, then just stick with what you’ve been doing. Next year plan to start with a faster Ref Pace based on your best 2K this year, and spend some time in the off-season getting comfortable with doing some sequences using the faster Ref Pace so you can begin your next competitive training period as smoothly as possible.<br /><br />And one other point for people following a certain rate of progression over the course of a season. There should be a certain amount of proportion between intensities for the different levels (L1-L4). But the proportions won’t always be exact, and sometimes the paces for one Level will be a little out of phase with the others. I always have a final pace in mind for the end of the season (i.e., the paces I want to achieve for each Level within 1-2 weeks of CRASH-Bs). If I get ahead in one area I ease up a bit (currently my strategy regarding Level 4), and if I’ve fallen behind in one area for whatever reason I map out a rate of improvement that is a little more aggressive just for that Level (currently my strategy for Level 2). But don’t over think the relationship between Levels. In the short term I treat each Level (and each workout) independently and just work on gradually improving my paces for each Level from one week to the next.<br /><br />Let me know if I’m making myself clearer or just more confusing. Happy training.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[[old] Mike Caviston]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Dec 4 2005, 07:46 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 4 2005, 07:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only thing I don't understand is when Mike says: <br />"If you reach a point where your totals are exceeding the goal of the next 2K pace on the Pace Chart, you will be reassigned a new 2K pace for reference."<br /> </td></tr></table><br />This was in reference to the specific situation where a rower moves from the novice to the varsity level and really begins to bloom as an athlete as a result of maturity, greater training volume, the inspiration of training with older/more experienced teammates, forming more ambitious personal goals, etc. – they were improving so rapidly they would rack up large totals even while trying to hold back. Giving them a new Ref Pace didn’t really change the way they did the workouts, it just brought their goals more in line with their abilities. As I’ve said again and again and again – setting Ref Paces for beginners is not an exact science.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Delilah+Nov 29 2005, 02:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 29 2005, 02:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?<br />D.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Nov 29 2005, 11:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 29 2005, 11:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unrestricted rate rowing develops your endurance more quickly and more thoroughly. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-Delilah+Nov 30 2005, 12:55 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 30 2005, 12:55 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On what evidence do you base this rather bold assertion?[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />With an unrestricted rating, you row faster, and faster for longer, thus developing more quickly and thoroughly, reaching stages of fitness that you would never reach with low ratings.

[[old] mpukita]

Coach Rupp:<br /><br />Please go back to your own thread.<br /><br />-- Mark