Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 26th, 2005, 8:20 pm

Why Interval Training? The heart of the Wolverine Plan is the sub-2k paced Level 1 workouts. These, along with Level 2 workouts, are performed using the interval format – i.e., with periods of high-intensity work separated by periods of low/moderate intensity recovery. The interval format can be manipulated (length & intensity of work & recovery intervals) to target specific aspects of physiology (alactic, glycolytic or aerobic energy pathways). I am a big fan of interval training because it allows us to simultaneously increase intensity and reduce fatigue relative to the same amount of work performed using a continuous format. I might be able to do a continuous 4000m at roughly 350W. Breaking the total into 1000m intervals with appropriate recovery, I might average over 400W and by doing the work in 500m increments I might average more than 450W for the same total distance. When training to maximize performance of 2K, the major effects we are looking for are to improve energy production (aerobic + anaerobic) as well as increase resistance to fatigue (i.e., improve endurance). When prescribing a training program, the primary variables to manipulate are frequency, intensity, and duration . (For the purposes of this discussion, let’s ignore other factors that will specifically impact rowing, like stroke rate and drag factor.) Frequency refers to number of sessions per week. Intensity refers to pace (measured in sec/500m or Watts on the erg, but quantified during other activities using such markers as velocity, %VO2 max, or heart rate) Duration represents total training volume (which I would express in meters but in some training programs might be represented by total time spent training). A single workout can be quantified by a combination of intensity and duration. Some workouts will be designed to primarily improve endurance, and these will consist of fairly long rows (40-90’) at an intensity sustainable for those durations. For these workouts a higher intensity is preferable to a lower intensity but the intensity must be low enough to allow prolonged, continuous muscle activation that will stimulate the peripheral adaptations associated with greater endurance. Other workouts will feature short periods of work to allow much greater intensity. What I want to stress here is the importance of intensity in triggering training effects associated with greater energy production. Intensity can never be discussed in complete isolation from duration. For example, doing 30 seconds @ 650W would be pretty intense, but the period isn’t long enough to stimulate any significant adaptations (or nobody would be able to use lack of time as an excuse for not being in top shape). So when designing a workout to maximize intensity, for full training effect there will be some minimal duration that must be exceeded. Promoting intensity is the key to eliciting a maximal training response. There are other considerations, and a smart athlete will look at the intensity of a given workout in the context of the total training load, the amount of recovery between truly intense sessions, the appropriate intensity for a given point in the season, the ability to maintain proper technique, etc. But in general the goal is to maximize intensity (or at least increase intensity relative to previous performances) for the necessary duration. In the case of 2K, the appropriate duration for a race-pace workout (i.e., Level 1 in the WP) is approximately 150-250% of race distance, or 3-5K of total work at race pace or faster. The work periods should consist of intervals of 250-1000m. Shorter intervals or fewer total meters will require higher intensity; longer intervals or more total meters require lower intensity, relatively speaking (but intensity must still be at least race pace). In the WP, I avoid doing more than a few intervals less than 500m in length. An occasional all-out 250m is fun and a chance to push the upper limits, but these rely more on the alactic (phosphocreatine) pathway and less on the rapid glycolytic pathway, and have less application to 2K performance. It is an ego boost to fly through 16 x 250m @ 2K – 5, but someone who relies only on this distance for 2K speed work is in for a rude awakening when they get into the second 500m of an actual race. On the other hand, using distances greater than 1K @ 2K pace provide a great training stimulus, but are difficult if not impossible to sustain for more than one interval, and will probably leave you too fatigued to finish a workout at the desired pace even if the remaining intervals are considerably shorter. I have experimented with sessions that incorporate a 1250m piece into the format, but experience has led me to set 1K as the upper distance limit for Level 1 intervals. Combining all the Level 1 formats I use in the general proportions that I use them, the average length of Level 1 intervals in my own training is roughly 650m. After the work interval, recovery periods should be adequate to allow maintenance of intensity for the entire session. It is practical to keep the recovery intervals from being longer than necessary, but once intensity is compromised the maximum benefit of the workout is lost. I have discussed recovery (active vs. passive, etc.) at some length, but as a reminder my rule of thumb is recover long enough to maintain intensity, but not so long as to begin cooling down. There are many types of studies on performance that highlight the importance of maintaining proper intensity to stimulate optimal results. For example, the current model for altitude training is “Live High, Train Low” (LHTL). Athletes only need to spend a couple hours a day at higher altitudes to stimulate the adaptations that may positively affect endurance performance (e.g., increased hematocrit). But training at high altitude results in lower training intensity (less oxygen = less aerobic energy) and if continued long enough results in poorer overall performance despite the hypoxic adaptations. (Believe what you want, but the Coloradans who spend most of their time in the mountains before coming down to race at sea level are at a disadvantage to the rest of us.) The reverse of high altitude training is Very Low Altitude Training – simulated by allowing athletes to artificially breath air that consists of say, 60% O2 (vs. the normal 21%). This allows more O2 to be dissolved in the plasma and delivered to the muscles during training, and results in greater training intensities relative to breathing normal air. Athletes that perform VLAT (this has been studies in laboratories using cyclists) are able to perform better under normoxic conditions (21% O2) vs. doing the same training (total volume, interval formats, etc.) while breathing normal air. Simply stated, greater training intensity results in better performance. Many people misinterpret the “value” of ergogenic aids like EPO, creatine, and anabolic steroids. (Personally, I don’t condone the use of any supplements, legal or otherwise.) But the reason these treatments can have a major impact in some cases is not that the athlete uses them just before a race and is magically transformed. Those pro cyclists that abuse EPO (and hope to beat their drug tests) don’t just sit home on their butts all year. They put in the miles just like everyone else. But they are able to work harder than without drugs and so stimulate greater training effects. The reason interval training is such a valuable training tool is that it allows us to “cheat” in such a way that we can work harder than we could using other formats – thereby increasing overall training effects on the various energy pathways. The workouts in the Wolverine Plan are designed to favor a requisite amount of quality, high-intensity training. The specific formats I created were greatly influenced by the work of Edward L. Fox, a professor and researcher at Ohio State University in the 60s-70s. Fox provided a lot of useful information regarding interval training and provided many examples of workouts for athletes concentrating on performance in various distances in running and swimming. I adapted some of Fox’s examples to a rowing format based on competing at 2000m. I also gave consideration to practicality in some cases, such as whether the workout would fit into a given time frame or how simple it would be to run for a group of athletes (i.e., team training). To review my guidelines for Level 1 workouts (nothing new here but maybe consolidated and clarified for everyone’s benefit): Warm up thoroughly (see previous discussions). Limit Level 1 sessions to once per week, but include them year-round. At the beginning of a training cycle, the Level 1 8 x 500m pace will be roughly the previous year’s best 2K (perhaps even a little faster but I would suggest no more than one second). The idea is to begin to build speed but only in proportion to overall fitness and to build at a rate that will be sustainable until the season’s final race. Various Level 1 formats include 8 x 500m, 5 x 750m, 4 x 1K, and Pyramid (250m/500m/750m/1K/750m/500m/250m). I rotate among the different formats but make sure to include 4 x 1K every second or third week. This is the most physically and mentally demanding format, but in my opinion, also the most effective. It is the single workout that best predicts for me how fast I can pull a 2K. The general pacing strategy is to even- or negative-split each individual interval, as well as all intervals across the entire workout. (More elaborate pacing guidelines have previously been explained.) The general rule of thumb for recovery is to allow 5 minutes total time (work + recovery) for each 500m of work. For example, do 8 x 500m on 5’ centers: start the piece, finish the piece, perform recovery, and start the second piece 5’ after starting the first (i.e., the entire workout can be completed within 40’). Use 10’ centers for 4 x 1K; do the math yourself to figure out the Pyramid. Actually, I’m not that strict about time when training on my own; I developed the firm time limits for use with group workouts. My procedure is to finish a piece, catch my breath for a moment and record my scores, perform active recovery for the same distance as the previous work interval (just hit “ReRow” on the PM3), take another moment to set the work interval and get mentally prepped, and take off again. If there’s a little variation in recovery time from one piece to the next or one workout to the next, so be it. My first priority is to hit my target splits, and as I get faster and in better shape, I may need even more recovery to keep getting faster. I let the recovery period extend to as much as 2 ½ times as long as the work period if necessary. Standing vs. running starts: It is possible to set the PM2 or PM3 for a work distance and a recovery time. The advantage is that you get a clearly defined recovery period and may avoid wasting time dilly-dallying between intervals while futzing with your footstraps or your towel, trying to squeeze out a few more seconds to get psyched up to go again. I don’t think the extra time taken is necessarily reducing the training benefit, but psychologically you do have to get ready to meet deadlines. Races start with or without you, ready or not. With a set recovery time, you can also use the running start to accelerate into the piece (i.e., build up the momentum of the flywheel before the work period begins). If done properly, this can be a good way to settle immediately into your desired pace and practice holding a nice even split for the duration. If abused, you can use a running start to get the flywheel spinning so fast that your initial pace as the work period begins is artificially and drastically reduced, giving you credit for a faster time than you could achieve from a standing start. Even that is okay as long as you are consistent and aren’t fooling yourself with your fast numbers. (With the PM3, it is much harder to “cheat” the start than with the PM2.) Using a standing start means letting the flywheel come close to a halt before beginning the work interval, as at the start of a race. (The flywheel doesn’t have to come to an absolute standstill; just allow 10-15 seconds to let it slow down considerably so that it feels heavy on the pickup.) No set recovery time is entered into the monitor; just start each piece when you are ready. Standing starts give you a chance to practice racing starts, which many people overlook during training and which may come back to bite them during the Big Race. I like to practice getting a solid but smooth start, and to settle into my goal pace as quickly and efficiently as possible. – So anyway, standing vs. running starts each have their merit, but having experimented with each I prefer to do as many standing starts as possible. Relationship between paces for different workouts: As I try to keep stressing, don’t give too much thought to the pace of one workout vs. another. Be aware of the relationships, but don’t obsess. Over the course of the season, work to maximize your performance for each workout and by the end of the year chances are things will have fallen into harmony. In general, the pace for 8 x 500m will be about 2K – 3. The pace for the Pyramid (overall average) will be about a half second slower than 8 x 500m. The pace for 5 x 750m will be about 1.5 sec slower than 8 x 500m. The pace for 4 x 1K will be about 3 seconds slower than 8 x 500m (or about the same as 2K). These are generalizations, and a certain amount of variation from person to person is normal. Stroke rates: previously discussed. Alternate formats: There’s no particular reason why workouts have to be formatted by distance (500m increments, etc.) Time would work just as well. Mentally I just prefer watching meters count down rather than seconds (and I think a scientific poll would find the majority of athletes feel the same). But if you wanted to construct a workout based on time, you could do it using the general guidelines explained above: total time approximately 150-250% of 2K time; each interval roughly 25-50% of 2K time; work-recovery ratio approximately 1 to 2.5. While I haven’t done it much in recent years, one format I used to do regularly is 15 x 1’ work/1’ recovery. This tends to violate some of the guidelines I’ve already given (short intervals, short recovery – no time for active recovery) but if your 2K pace is faster than 1:52.5 you end up doing more than 4K total and all in 29 minutes. The short work intervals are balanced by the short recovery intervals and the overall pace will be pretty similar to 8 x 500m. Done at max capacity, the workout can be a real mindf—k as the work minutes take about half an hour while the recovery minutes go by in the blink of an eye. The only problem is you really have to do it a few times to figure out what pace to use for your best performance, and as I’ve explained I don’t think too much short interval work is that useful for 2K. Level 2 workouts: These are longer in duration than Level 1 workouts and so must be performed at slower paces, yet they are still rather intense and all things considered are at least as mentally tough as Level 1. The formats described in the WP include 4 x 2K, 3K/2.5K/2K, and 5 x 1500m. Depending on the format and time of year, pace during these workouts may be 90% or more of 2K Watts. A rough estimate of 4 x 2K pace at the start of a training cycle would be 2K + 8. Pace for 3K/2.5K/2K will be pretty similar to 4 x 2K, though maybe half a second slower. Pace for 5 x 1500m is a half to a full second faster than 4 x 2K. A general rule of thumb for 4 x 2K is to allow 15’ (work + recovery) for each interval. Start the second piece 15’ after starting the first one. Or, simply allow 6-8’ recovery after each interval for all formats (a little more for a longer piece and a little less for shorter). Use about 5’ of active recovery and the remaining time spent paddling or stretching. Whew – I think I just burned off my Christmas calories while typing this! Happy training, Mike Caviston

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 26th, 2005, 10:57 pm

... today ... LEVEL 1 with 4 x 1,000. Yikes! Target average: 1:50.35. Last average (17NOV05): 1:52.5. Target improvement: -2.15 seconds on average. Today's average (actual): 1:53.08. RESULTS: Not good! What was I thinking? My target was 1:50.5 / 1:50.4 / 1:50.3 / 1:50.2 I did: 1:50.4 / 1:51.7 / 1:54.3 / 1:55.9 I blew up after #1. It was all uphill from there. This was too large of an improvement to go for, obviously. I have also had a bad couple of weeks of training due to travel. Average meters off by 50% or more. Then, when I looked at my 1K PB, done on 12NOV05, it is 3:36.2 (or 1:48.1). Probably should have cranked up the pace on #1, set a new PB, and called it a day for the L1 ... and turned it into an L3 or L4 day. Felt guilty for poor performance on the L1, so did a 5K (L3 pace) piece this evening. I believe I've found the limits of my current training (or it was just a bad day). No simple answers here, eh? I'd be very interested in everyone's perspective on how fast training benefits can fall off (and to what extent) when one's training gets impaired in some way (intentionally or unintentionally). -- Mark

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 27th, 2005, 12:26 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 02:57 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'd be very interested in everyone's perspective on how fast training benefits can fall off (and to what extent) when one's training gets impaired in some way (intentionally or unintentionally). -- Mark </td></tr></table> Hi Mark, Don't be discouraged by this little setback. Tell yourself that you are in this erging activity for the long run. From my perspective, the first thing one loses when training gets impaired, is speed. Endurance takes much longer to acquire and much longer to lose, and for me, is much more valuable. Why? Because, the more endurance I have, the better I feel. On the other hand, I find little correlation between my well-being and speed improvements at short events (i.e less than 3 minutes). If I were you, I would concentrate for the next 2 or 3 weeks on good L4 and L3 workouts with only one L2 session per week. Just my 2 cents! Cheers, Francois

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » December 27th, 2005, 12:33 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 27 2005, 12:26 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 27 2005, 02:57 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'd be very interested in everyone's perspective on how fast training benefits can fall off (and to what extent) when one's training gets impaired in some way (intentionally or unintentionally). -- Mark </td></tr></table> Hi Mark, Don't be discouraged by this little setback. Tell yourself that you are in this erging activity for the long run. From my perspective, the first thing one loses when training gets impaired, is speed. Endurance takes much longer to acquire and much longer to lose, and for me, is much more valuable. Why? Because, the more endurance I have, the better I feel. On the other hand, I find little correlation between my well-being and speed improvements at short events (i.e less than 3 minutes). If I were you, I would concentrate for the next 2 or 3 weeks on good L4 and L3 workouts with only one L2 session per week. Just my 2 cents! Cheers, Francois </td></tr></table> Mike, I agree with Francois. Based on your 2k times you should be able to easily break 19.30 for the 5k and go under 40.00 for the 10k. Might be time to do some more endurance work. Good Luck, Chris

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » December 27th, 2005, 6:09 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 03:57 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>... today ... LEVEL 1 with 4 x 1,000. Yikes! Target average: 1:50.35. Last average (17NOV05): 1:52.5. Target improvement: -2.15 seconds on average. Today's average (actual): 1:53.08. RESULTS: Not good! What was I thinking? My target was 1:50.5 / 1:50.4 / 1:50.3 / 1:50.2 I did: 1:50.4 / 1:51.7 / 1:54.3 / 1:55.9 I'd be very interested in everyone's perspective on how fast training benefits can fall off (and to what extent) when one's training gets impaired in some way (intentionally or unintentionally). -- Mark </td></tr></table> Hi mark, For hard training (level 1 for you) you have to be 100% fit and ready, if you are not then you have to be realistic and don's ask yourself to perform something imposseble. For me a very important factor is the way I feel. Althoug I do have a trainingplan and pace for my worksouts are is never 100% strickt. I adjust if a feel not good enough. Just keep on training , 2 steps forward and sometimes 1 back

[old] raymond botha · Post by **[old] raymond botha** » December 27th, 2005, 7:41 am

Hi Mark, I think we made the same mistake , hit LT too soon. I did an 8x500 @ 1:39.4 which I felt I could hold for the distance. At the 5 rep I tried to neg split and hit LT , downhill from there. I find I perform better starting conservative and neg spliting from there . Heres an example. 1:39.3 Should have started @ 1:40 1:39.3 1:39.2 1:39.1 1:38.7 Hit LT (burn) 1:39.3 1:39.2 Was all out here 1:41.7 Included a spell @ 2.00 ! and a last pitch @ 1.36 for last 15 strokes Ave 1:39.5 *** Not much of an improvement considering the faster start ! Ave HR 167 Ave SPM 31 Perceived effort 11/10 * DF 105 Now check a more gradual (conservative split) 1:41.5 1:41.4 1:40.2 1:40.5 1:40.2 1:39.4 1:39.4 1:36.5 Ave 1:39.9 *** Ave HR 167 Ave SPM 31 Peceived effort 8/10 * DF 135 Point here Mark is you talk about gains tailing off, I found it hard to pull @ 1:39 stoke let alone hold it for 500m on a lower DF! Which makes me think a more conservative neg splitting is a better way for me. You'll do better next time , amazing how the body remembers these days Good luck Ray

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 27th, 2005, 8:03 am

Thanks all! Intuitively, it does seem like I need to do more L3 and L4 work to build my aerobic base. I probably also need to start adding some HMs to my training. My longest (continuous) rows are 60' L4 sessions and some 12K L3 sessions. Cheers!

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » December 27th, 2005, 12:03 pm

Mark-- You say your results were "not good.' I say they look "predictable." A 2 second/500 M improvement is an ENORMOUS jump. It's no surprise you blew up. Do the level 1's every week, or every other week. Go for small improvements--less than half a second/500. Endurance work always helps, but you're not suddenly going to go lots faster unless you train to go faster. Be realistic about what you've prepared yourself to accomplish when you sit down on the machine. Tom

[old] Fast Forward · Post by **[old] Fast Forward** » December 27th, 2005, 1:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 26 2005, 05:20 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why Interval Training? The heart of the Wolverine Plan is the sub-2k paced Level 1 workouts. ... Limit Level 1 sessions to once per week, but include them year-round... Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> This is the first place I have encountered someone who advocates high intensity (race pace or higher) workouts all year 'round. While I personally like the idea myself (I find it more interesting to do an intense interval workout than long, slow ones), I'm curious why you believe this to be the right approach.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 1:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Dec 27 2005, 09:36 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(Mike Caviston @ Dec 26 2005, 05:20 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why Interval Training? The heart of the Wolverine Plan is the sub-2k paced Level 1 workouts. ... Limit Level 1 sessions to once per week, but include them year-round... Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> This is the first place I have encountered someone who advocates high intensity (race pace or higher) workouts all year 'round. While I personally like the idea myself (I find it more interesting to do an intense interval workout than long, slow ones), I'm curious why you believe this to be the right approach. </td></tr></table> I certainly can't speak for Mike, but 1 interval session/week out of 6+ weekly sessions would be hard to classify as "excessive", and would also keep addaptive value of those intervals high. It seems to fit in nicely with the overall plan that is steady progress throughout the "cycleless year". Plus, as some have mentioned, "going real fast is fun"

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » December 27th, 2005, 2:02 pm

Peter Coe, the father and trainer of distance runner Seb Coe, wrote, "Middle-distance racing is about endurance and speed together. . . .One of our maxims has been that if speed is important never venture very far away from it." (p. 181, "Better Training for Distance Runners," Human Kinetics.) Coe and co-author David Martin include race pace workouts year-round in their training plan, although the proportion of speed work increases as racing season approaches. Tom

[old] Fast Forward · Post by **[old] Fast Forward** » December 27th, 2005, 2:26 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 27 2005, 10:52 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(Fast Forward @ Dec 27 2005, 09:36 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(Mike Caviston @ Dec 26 2005, 05:20 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why Interval Training? The heart of the Wolverine Plan is the sub-2k paced Level 1 workouts. ... Limit Level 1 sessions to once per week, but include them year-round... Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> This is the first place I have encountered someone who advocates high intensity (race pace or higher) workouts all year 'round. While I personally like the idea myself (I find it more interesting to do an intense interval workout than long, slow ones), I'm curious why you believe this to be the right approach. </td></tr></table> I certainly can't speak for Mike, but 1 interval session/week out of 6+ weekly sessions would be hard to classify as "excessive", and would also keep addaptive value of those intervals high. It seems to fit in nicely with the overall plan that is steady progress throughout the "cycleless year". Plus, as some have mentioned, "going real fast is fun" </td></tr></table> I don't know if "excessive" is the right word. It's certainly not mine. I think the issue many coaches and physiologists have with a year-round intensity approach is two-fold: 1) you can get many of the benefits of this intensity in a relatively short period of time, and 2) to sustain that kind of intensity training all year round would take a psychological if not physical toll. If I remember correctly, Stephen Seiler (rower and physiologist) would argue that you can get the benefits of higher intensity workouts in as little as 4-6 weeks. Other folks suggest longer, but not year-round. Even Mike, in one of his posts, described how, given his limited available time to train one year, got the bulk of his improvement in just weeks (and his whole training program was only 26-weeks).

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 27th, 2005, 3:22 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'>I don't know if "excessive" is the right word. It's certainly not mine. I think the issue many coaches and physiologists have with a year-round intensity approach is two-fold: 1) you can get many of the benefits of this intensity in a relatively short period of time, and 2) to sustain that kind of intensity training all year round would take a psychological if not physical toll. If I remember correctly, Stephen Seiler (rower and physiologist) would argue that you can get the benefits of higher intensity workouts in as little as 4-6 weeks. Other folks suggest longer, but not year-round. Even Mike, in one of his posts, described how, given his limited available time to train one year, got the bulk of his improvement in just weeks (and his whole training program was only 26-weeks). </td></tr></table> I think that it is important not to take Mike's statements out of context. If you follow Mike's description of the WP program from the beginning to end the philosophy and the rationale of the various aspects of the program become clear. Mike does not advocate the same maximum intensity from the beginning of the season to the end of the season but rather a graduated intensity throughout the training season. The level 1 sessions, which should only compromise 3-4% of total meters for the week, should be "performed at intensities of 95-105% of competitive 2K pace". The distances of these L 1 intervals are a maximum 1000 m. He recommends that in the beginning of the season to set a pace that allows an individual to complete all the intervals within the set with the first interval being the slowest and the last being the fastest. Each successive attempt at the same interval set should be a little faster than the previous interval attempt. In this manner you are increasing your ability to sustain the higher intensity over time. If all goes well by the end of the training session you set a new PB 2k. In my opinion 26 weeks is a very long time for a preseason training session. Any longer and there will not be much time left for the competitive season. Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT

[old] Fast Forward · Post by **[old] Fast Forward** » December 27th, 2005, 4:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Dec 27 2005, 12:22 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</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't know if "excessive" is the right word. It's certainly not mine. I think the issue many coaches and physiologists have with a year-round intensity approach is two-fold: 1) you can get many of the benefits of this intensity in a relatively short period of time, and 2) to sustain that kind of intensity training all year round would take a psychological if not physical toll. If I remember correctly, Stephen Seiler (rower and physiologist) would argue that you can get the benefits of higher intensity workouts in as little as 4-6 weeks. Other folks suggest longer, but not year-round. Even Mike, in one of his posts, described how, given his limited available time to train one year, got the bulk of his improvement in just weeks (and his whole training program was only 26-weeks). </td></tr></table> I think that it is important not to take Mike's statements out of context. </td></tr></table> I think Mike is fairly consistent in saying that Level 1 intensity is the heart of the WP, and whatever you do, you don't sacrifice intensity. But, let's use his post as context. He says: "At the beginning of a training cycle, the Level 1 8 x 500m pace will be roughly the previous year’s best 2K (perhaps even a little faster but I would suggest no more than one second)." That's a high intensity workout. Period. My point is that there are few folks that advocate that level of intensity "year round". I appreciate and understand your comments about the workouts comprising only a small amount of total workout time, and how there is a graduated approach to the intensity, but the fact remains that this approach is rare--in my experience--in the world of training and racing. Not that it is wrong. I applaud a different, well-considered approach. I'd like to know more about the reasons for year-round level 1 training.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 27th, 2005, 4:23 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Dec 27 2005, 12:03 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mark-- You say your results were "not good.' I say they look "predictable." A 2 second/500 M improvement is an ENORMOUS jump. It's no surprise you blew up. Do the level 1's every week, or every other week. Go for small improvements--less than half a second/500. Endurance work always helps, but you're not suddenly going to go lots faster unless you train to go faster. Be realistic about what you've prepared yourself to accomplish when you sit down on the machine. Tom </td></tr></table> Tom: Thanks for the feedback! Yes, you're right, but I have just recently started with the Wolverine Plan and started very conservatively. I've been trying to creep up on my training limit for workouts such as this (4 x 1000) because I've only done it - now - 3 times. Based on my 2K best, 7:26.1 (1:51.5), I ought to be able to do the 4 x 1000 in this pace -1 (or so), meaning 1:50.5. That's what I elected to shoot for, and why. While it was a big improvement to target, my last 4 x 1000 (done a bit more than a month ago) at the average of 1:52.5 was a challenge, but not a world record effort. This had been an improvement of -1.3 seconds in pace from the 4 x 1000 before it. I probably should have shot for a 1:51.5 yesterday, to be safe. Now I can recalibrate, back off a bit, and give it another go in a month or so, as that's what it takes me to work through the three different interval combinations for L1 in my 6 or 7 workout per week implementation of the WP. I very much appreciate the reinforcement of the importance of the L1 and L2 speed work, as well as the small steps for improvement. I'm sticking with the Plan. Regards -- Mark