Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 11th, 2005, 6:27 pm

In my view, pace is the criterion for judging performance (including the effectiveness of training), and stroke rate is one of the variables that affect pace (other variables include amount of force applied per stroke and length of stroke). There should always be a pretty strong (negative) correlation between rate & pace – as rate increases, pace should drop (i.e., get faster). But I don’t think the correlation will be perfect, or the same correlation will hold true for every person. During Level 4 workouts, the relationship between rate & pace is intended to be very strict. Even so, even I fudge the relationship just a bit from time to time. On a good day if I get into a groove and I’m just naturally pulling a little faster than intended for a given rate, I don’t fight it too much. I just don’t make a point of striving to go faster than the intended pace. (If the pace starts to slip a little bit, I fight to make sure I’m not going slower than my intended pace). For Level 1-3 workouts, I am aware of rate as it relates to pace, and I want the rates to be within certain limits, but I don’t let rate drive the workouts. Here is a table I put together to give the athletes I’ve worked with a frame of reference for Level 1-3 workouts (they always ask, What rate? What rate?). I call them “Suggested Rates”. They all happen to be in the ballpark of 10 meters/stroke. Pace : Rate : 2:15-2:11 22-23 2:10-2:06 23-24 2:05-2:01 24-25 2:00-1:56 25-26 1:55-1:52 26-27 1:51-1:48 27-28 1:47-1:44 28-29 1:43-1:41 29-30 1:40-1:38 30-31 1:37-1:35 31-32 1:34-1:32 32-33 1:31-1:29 33-34 This is just a guideline, and there may be numerous exceptions. For example, in my own training, my Recovery/Warm-up Pace is 2:14, and according to the above table the suggested rate is 22-23. Nuts to that! At that slow a pace, that rate seems wildly out of control; I use about 15spm. When I am rowing Level 3 workouts in the 1:51-1:48 range, my rate is 24-25spm (slower than the suggested 27-28). That works out to a little over 11mps. That sort of thing doesn’t bother me. It’s good to have a bit of a power reserve. For Level 2 work, my paces/rates work out to 10mps almost exactly. I don’t choose the rate to fit that number; it just works out naturally. For Level 1 work, at the slower end of the spectrum, I also row just about 10mps. But as I approach my top-end speed, the relationship breaks down, and to hit the fastest paces I use for various L1 formats, I have to jack the rate up to about 9mps or I couldn’t hit the paces. I need to hit those paces to continue developing my top-end speed, so I don’t artificially restrict the rate. What I find, after several weeks in a given training season, is that as my top-end speed improves, the rates I use at what used to be my top-end speed fall more in line with the 10mps model. Back in August to hit 1:34-1:33 would require rates of 35-36; now I can do it in 33-34. Right now, to do 250m @ 1:30 requires at least 38spm; that’s okay. When monitoring others’ training, the warning sign I look for is people with exceptionally high ratings for a given pace during L3, L2, or low-end L1 work – especially earlier in the season. There needs to be room to grow into faster rates as the season advances, so I encourage them to take the rate down a bit and focus on developing the necessary power per stroke. Occasionally, people with excellent power per stroke need to be encouraged to get the rate up higher to push their top-end speed. When an athlete reaches a plateau in Level 1 training, rather than being limited by strength, they may just be limited by the ability to handle the mechanics of rowing at very high rates. Once they master that, they will be better able to apply the proper force. In these cases (contrary to the general WP paradigm of strength preceding rate), I don’t worry too much if the top-end paces drop a little bit before improving again. When considering the optimal rate for maximum speed, there are many things to ponder – probably more than have occurred to me. Up to a point, a higher rate should mean more speed if the athlete has developed the necessary technique and fitness. A greater cadence means less time for the flywheel to decelerate between strokes and less energy to accelerate it back up to the required rotational velocity. OTOH, it takes energy to reverse the body’s momentum at the front and back end of every stroke, so doing it more times per minute (and with ever-increasing velocity) requires more energy. Each person (or, for OTW crews, each boat) has to experiment a bit to find what works best. Another variable (especially over longer distances than 2K) is how much work we perceive is being done – as opposed to the amount of work actually being done! For me personally, I find that a stroke rate that is probably a little lower than would be mechanically most efficient actually feels easier (more relaxed, more time to breath, etc.) and seems to improve my endurance. A couple years ago I wrote a post about some of my insights into efficiency and cadence based on research done with professional cyclists. I’ll dig into my archives and see if I can find it. Mike Caviston

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » December 11th, 2005, 7:07 pm

Thanks, Mike. So, I think what I should be doing, is yes, go ahead and up my rate on the Level 1 workouts from 26-27 to say 27-28 and see if that brings me down from 1:54 to something faster than 1:51. If it does, than that's good, because I'll be doing a harder Level 1, but still keeping the 10mps or thereabouts. If it doesn't get me about 3 seconds per 500 faster, than all I'm doing is weakening the drive, and I should stay at 26 until I can speed it up and still get the same 10mps. I have not done very much work at faster rates at all, though I know that my 3 year old 2K pb of 7:48 (stop sniggering!!!) was unrestricted because when I did it I had only been rowing about a month and didn't even really know what rate was. I printed out that chart. Thanks again.

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 11th, 2005, 8:56 pm

Did a 2K time trial this afternoon. I followed Mike's recommendations regarding proper warm up and pacing. I was aiming to simply break 7:00 and ended up with a time of 6:55.7 My splits were as follow: 500m 1:45.9 @ 29 spm 1000m 1.44.9 @ 29 spm 1500m 1:43.7 @ 30 spm 2000m 1:41.3 @ 31 spm The last 200m were done at close to 1:38, so there is room for improvement. The pacing Mike suggested made a huge difference. It is far less stressful both physically and psychologically to concentrate on 400m segments and to start at GP+2. I think I could have gone about 4 sec faster, but next time I will aim for a 2 sec improvement; baby steps... Now, regarding L4, I am currently doing 50 min of 200 and 204 sequences at ref pace of 1:43. I think I might alternate L4 sessions consisting of sequences in the 180 range at a ref pace of 1:42 (or 1:41) with my current L4 sessions at 1:43. What do you think? Eventually, when Mike has the time, it would be interesting to have his views on strength training. I am particularly lacking in that department! Cheers, Francois

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 12th, 2005, 12:11 pm

TODAY'S WORKOUT ... 1K warm up 2:25 pace 60' - L4 - 176,180,176,180,176,180 1K cool down 2:20 pace ... over by 23M or about 2 strokes. I was very happy with this ... especially since I only started to notice a tight lower back during the last 8 minutes. QUESTION: My latest 2K PB is 7:26.1 -- or 1:51.5 pace. I have seen Mike write about his desire, when preparing for a race, to do his 4 x 2K workout at race pace +4, and his 4 x 1000 at race pace -1, prior to racing. If he can do this, my sense is that he feels he's prepared and in the condition he'd like to be to accomplish his race objective. My last 4 x 2000 workout was done at 2:02.6 pace. My last 4 x 1000 workout was done at 1:52.5 pace. I built the following table of pace +4 and pace -1 for the corresponding workouts: 7:40 pace: 1:55.00 4 x 2000 = 1:59.00 4 x 1000 = 1:54.00 7:35 pace: 1:53.75 4 x 2000 = 1:57.75 4 x 1000 = 1:52.75 7:30 pace: 1:52.50 4 x 2000 = 1:56.50 4 x 1000 = 1:51.50 7:26.1 (4 x 2000 would be 1:55.5) (4 x 1000 would be 1:50.5) 7:25 pace: 1:51.25 4 x 2000 = 1:55.25 4 x 1000 = 1:50.25 7:20 pace: 1:50.00 4 x 2000 = 1:54.00 4 x 1000 = 1:49.00 It seems my L1 & L2 workout paces are still well below (slower than) my PB or race pace at this time. Since I'm relatively new to the WP, I've been tying to conservatively settle into the proper paces for the different levels without blowing up. Looking at this, it would seem to me that I could ratchet up the pace of my L1 and L2 workouts to get more in line with the +4/-1 projections. To get in line with the "formula", I'd need to take 7.1 seconds off my 4 x 2K pace, which is a bunch. For the 4 x 1K, it's 2 seconds, which is not so bad, although not much better. And this would only get these workouts in line with my current 2K best, not a pace for improving on this (to, let's say, something under 7:20 by 1/29/06). I know everyone is different, and that the +4/-1 may not work for me, but I'm trying to make sure I maximize the benefit of the plan, while still taking an incremental progress approach to avoid quick gains and then a sharp plateau -- or worse yet, injury. I'd be very interested in your comments on this as you've been through this (if you have), and how your PBs/SBs correlate to these two workouts. I'd also be interested in your perspective on whether it would make sense to speed up the pace of these workouts at a more rapid rate than Mike suggests, due to the fact that I'm new to this game and improvements come fast and furious early in one's training history. Thanks ... and sorry for another long post. Regards -- Mark

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » December 12th, 2005, 1:10 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 12 2005, 11:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My last 4 x 1000 workout was done at 1:52.5 pace. 7:26.1 (2 x 2000 would be 1:55.5) (4 x 1000 would be 1:50.5) To get in line with the "formula", I'd need to take 7.1 seconds off my 4 x 2K pace, which is a bunch. For the 4 x 1K, it's 5 seconds, which is also huge. </td></tr></table> Mark, if you aim for -1 for the 4x1k you need "only" to drop 3 secs not 5. Or did I not understand? I'm not following the WP, but from what I read: the 4x1k is as hard or harder than a 2k, I think you will just have to suffer! Good Luck!!!! Cheers, Holm

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 12th, 2005, 1:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(holm188 @ Dec 12 2005, 01:10 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 12 2005, 11:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My last 4 x 1000 workout was done at 1:52.5 pace. 7:26.1 (2 x 2000 would be 1:55.5) (4 x 1000 would be 1:50.5) To get in line with the "formula", I'd need to take 7.1 seconds off my 4 x 2K pace, which is a bunch. For the 4 x 1K, it's 5 seconds, which is also huge. </td></tr></table> Mark, if you aim for -1 for the 4x1k you need "only" to drop 3 secs not 5. Or did I not understand? I'm not following the WP, but from what I read: the 4x1k is as hard or harder than a 2k, I think you will just have to suffer! Good Luck!!!! Cheers, Holm </td></tr></table> Holm: My math error ... good catch. Fixed it with a quick edit. So you'd say give it a try and see what happens? I have a 4 x 2000 scheduled for tomorrow and I need to settle on a target pace for that. I may just go for it, and see what transpires. -- Mark

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » December 12th, 2005, 1:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 13 2005, 12:14 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So you'd say give it a try and see what happens? I have a 4 x 2000 scheduled for tomorrow and I need to settle on a target pace for that. </td></tr></table> Mark, I don't want to seem to give better recommendations than Mike or others who are actually following the WP. But if you have a 4x2k tomorrow, then your last one is probably 2-3 weeks old and given your recent fast improvements a 4x2k well below 2:00 split average is possible, I think. I would go for 1:58 for the first and then see from there: If I feel good enough I would drop a second for the 2nd 2k then another for the 3rd and then see what's left. This is just what I would do and as I said I do not follow the WP (I do the 8x500, 4x1k, 5x1.5 and 4x2k plus the pyramids according to the Pete plan). Good luck, Holm

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 12th, 2005, 2:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 12 2005, 04:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>QUESTION: My latest 2K PB is 7:26.1 -- or 1:51.5 pace. I have seen Mike write about his desire, when preparing for a race, to do his 4 x 2K workout at race pace +4, and his 4 x 1000 at race pace -1, prior to racing. If he can do this, my sense is that he feels he's prepared and in the condition he'd like to be to accomplish his race objective. My last 4 x 2000 workout was done at 2:02.6 pace. My last 4 x 1000 workout was done at 1:52.5 pace. I built the following table of pace +4 and pace -1 for the corresponding workouts: 7:26.1 (4 x 2000 would be 1:55.5) (4 x 1000 would be 1:50.5) I'd be very interested in your comments on this as you've been through this (if you have), and how your PBs/SBs correlate to these two workouts. I'd also be interested in your perspective on whether it would make sense to speed up the pace of these workouts at a more rapid rate than Mike suggests, due to the fact that I'm new to this game and improvements come fast and furious early in one's training history. </td></tr></table> Mark, I think you have to put more intensity in your L1 and L2 ( and L3) training! You have to "embrace the pain", as our swim coach keeps telling us when we do quality workouts! My reference pace of 1:43 is quite in line with my current racing ability. Currently, the 4 x 1000 are at done at ref pace, and the 4 x 2000 at ref pace + 5. L3 is at ref pace + 12. I sometimes do 10 x 1000m with 30 sec rest at ref pace + 6. This is very hard, but it does wonder to your endurance, especially if you are interested in racing the 5k or 10k. Hope this help. Francois

[old] tennstrike · Post by **[old] tennstrike** » December 12th, 2005, 2:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 12 2005, 11:11 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My last 4 x 2000 workout was done at 2:02.6 pace. My last 4 x 1000 workout was done at 1:52.5 pace. I built the following table of pace +4 and pace -1 for the corresponding workouts: 7:40 pace: 1:55.00 4 x 2000 = 1:59.00 4 x 1000 = 1:54.00 7:35 pace: 1:53.75 4 x 2000 = 1:57.75 4 x 1000 = 1:52.75 </td></tr></table> Mark: First, you and I are on the same reference pace, 1:54. Unfortunately for me, you are moving much faster and are now down to 7:26 which is, of course, a different reference pace. The first time I did the X x 2000 I figured I'd start at 1:58.5. (I am only doing 3) I did 1:58.0 1:57.8 and 1:57.5 and on each piece, I'd followed Mike's racing advice on 1200 meters, then 600 meters then 200 meters. I was able to pull 1:48 or slightly better for the last 500 meters of each. This is today's workout so we'll see if it works again. I think you'd find taking 4 seconds off your 2:02 would be a good workout and fun. I do my 3 x 1000 at 1:53.5 target so the 5 seconds from your table is what I arrived at also. I don't know what you are using for a drag factor. I started on what turns out to be 152 (before I knew how to measure it, this was just 5 on my erg). From Mike's previous SPM vs. Pace, his numbers are almost exactly what I can do. The problem is I simply can't row any faster than 30 with perhaps occasionally the display showing 31.

[old] nharrigan · Post by **[old] nharrigan** » December 12th, 2005, 2:51 pm

Question about Level 1 pacing Are all the level 1 intervals done at the same pace or are the 4x1k's a bit slower than the 8x500. I've reread all of the posts on this thread, but haven't been able to determine if there is any variation. I'm planning on a 4x1k tomorrow and was wondering if I will have to row as hard as the 8x500 that I did last week. Thanks for your help. Neil

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 12th, 2005, 3:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 12 2005, 12:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I know everyone is different, and that the +4/-1 may not work for me, but I'm trying to make sure I maximize the benefit of the plan, while still taking an incremental progress approach to avoid quick gains and then a sharp plateau -- or worse yet, injury. </td></tr></table> I always hesitate to give correlations between workout paces or to project 2K paces from any given workout. People tend to take me too literally or focus only on the numbers I give while ignoring all the qualifying statements that go along with them. For me personally, over the past five years or so, my 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K results have very accurately predicted my 2K ability. Part of the reason is that my training is pretty consistent (in terms of workload, intensity, balance of speed vs. endurance, etc.) I have the experience and discipline to give nearly the same level of effort most of the time. Not everyone has reached that level in their training, and for them workout results might not predict 2K performance quite as accurately – though I would always encourage anyone to look at their recent training history when planning a 2K strategy. Furthermore, the correlations between 4 x 1K/2K workouts and a 2K race are probably skewed by my experience with the formats and my overall endurance base. For the majority of people, even those pretty well-trained, a more reasonable 2K correlation for 4 x 2K is + 5, and 4 x 1K = 2K. That is, take your best 4 x 2K pace and subtract 5 seconds to determine your likely 2K. Your best 4 x 1K pace will be pretty close to your 2K pace. A standard deviation for both these relationships is probably something like half a second. Regarding the decision about whether or not to push the workout pace a little harder as racing season approaches – it depends on a few factors, and each individual has to weigh the options. Beginners do improve more rapidly, and if things are going well and you feel like you can up the intensity and sustain a higher level for the rest of the season, then you should probably go for it. OTOH, people without a certain amount of experience are sometimes a little optimistic when it comes to assessing how long they can sustain a certain level of effort. One thing to consider is how much you are prioritizing results this year . If there’s no tomorrow, then I guess I’d rather try and fail than look back later and wonder “what if”. Mike Caviston

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 12th, 2005, 3:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(nharrigan @ Dec 12 2005, 06:51 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Question about Level 1 pacing Are all the level 1 intervals done at the same pace or are the 4x1k's a bit slower than the 8x500. I've reread all of the posts on this thread, but haven't been able to determine if there is any variation. I'm planning on a 4x1k tomorrow and was wondering if I will have to row as hard as the 8x500 that I did last week. Thanks for your help. Neil </td></tr></table> Neil, You will have to row as hard, but you should be slower at the 4 x 1000m. If that is not the case, then you didn't do the 8 x 500m hard enough! I am about 3 sec slower on the 1000m compared to the 500m. Regards Francois

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 12th, 2005, 3:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 12 2005, 03:13 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 12 2005, 12:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I know everyone is different, and that the +4/-1 may not work for me, but I'm trying to make sure I maximize the benefit of the plan, while still taking an incremental progress approach to avoid quick gains and then a sharp plateau -- or worse yet, injury. </td></tr></table> I always hesitate to give correlations between workout paces or to project 2K paces from any given workout. People tend to take me too literally or focus only on the numbers I give while ignoring all the qualifying statements that go along with them. For me personally, over the past five years or so, my 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K results have very accurately predicted my 2K ability. Part of the reason is that my training is pretty consistent (in terms of workload, intensity, balance of speed vs. endurance, etc.) I have the experience and discipline to give nearly the same level of effort most of the time. Not everyone has reached that level in their training, and for them workout results might not predict 2K performance quite as accurately – though I would always encourage anyone to look at their recent training history when planning a 2K strategy. Furthermore, the correlations between 4 x 1K/2K workouts and a 2K race are probably skewed by my experience with the formats and my overall endurance base. For the majority of people, even those pretty well-trained, a more reasonable 2K correlation for 4 x 2K is + 5, and 4 x 1K = 2K. That is, take your best 4 x 2K pace and subtract 5 seconds to determine your likely 2K. Your best 4 x 1K pace will be pretty close to your 2K pace. A standard deviation for both these relationships is probably something like half a second. Regarding the decision about whether or not to push the workout pace a little harder as racing season approaches – it depends on a few factors, and each individual has to weigh the options. Beginners do improve more rapidly, and if things are going well and you feel like you can up the intensity and sustain a higher level for the rest of the season, then you should probably go for it. OTOH, people without a certain amount of experience are sometimes a little optimistic when it comes to assessing how long they can sustain a certain level of effort. One thing to consider is how much you are prioritizing results this year . If there’s no tomorrow, then I guess I’d rather try and fail than look back later and wonder “what if”. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Thanks Mike. You've encapsulated the nagging question for me ... how hard to push for this year vs. steady improvement for the long term. With a 7:26.1 PB, and a target to go under 7:20.0 this season, I don't feel like I'm pushing myself that hard that this would be foolish. On the other hand, looking at my PBs going up in distance, it's clear I have lots of work to do on continuing to build my aerobic base ... so that base may be the governing factor here -- not my L1 and L2 paces. It's all a very delicate balancing act, isn't it? It might be best to "split the difference" and see what happens. Regards -- Mark

[old] nharrigan · Post by **[old] nharrigan** » December 12th, 2005, 5:00 pm

Thanks Francois. That helps a lot. Is your typical 1k pace faster than your 2k PB pace? Thanks, Neil

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 12th, 2005, 5:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(nharrigan @ Dec 12 2005, 09:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Is your typical 1k pace faster than your 2k PB pace? </td></tr></table> No, it is about the same.

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training