Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » October 16th, 2005, 12:28 am

The Importance of Pacing For endurance-based activities like rowing (and also cycling, swimming, running etc.), few things affect performance as much as pacing strategy and warm-up. This is confirmed by numerous published research articles as well as years of personal experience. Both are relatively simple and painless ways to gain an edge (as opposed to adding another session to your schedule, say, or unilaterally pulling every workout at a faster split). And yet both concepts are frequently ignored or outright rejected by athletes hoping to maximize performance (an attitude that has puzzled and frustrated me as a coach for years). I’ll discuss proper warm-up (longer and harder than your current method!) at a later date. This is about pacing strategy guidelines for training and racing. “Pacing strategy” refers to the overall approach of regulating intensity over the duration of the session in reference to a goal. Three classic strategies would be even-split (hold the same pace from start to finish), negative-split (build intensity over the duration; finishing pace faster than starting pace), and fly-and-die (starting as fast as you can and holding on as long as possible before fading). Fly-and-die is just not a smart way to approach a race. It is usually employed by athletes who are inexperienced, who don’t have a realistic sense of their current abilities, or who allow themselves to be overwhelmed by the excitement of competition. The physiological consequence is to accelerate the accumulation of fatiguing metabolic byproducts of intense muscular contraction (LACT, NH3, K+, etc.), resulting in severe discomfort and the inability to hold the desired pace. [For amusement, you can sift through some of the stroke data available from such races as BIRC or WIRC and see some of the Big Fades that some people have had to suffer…] Of course, if you look you will find examples of people who start fast and fade and still win their race. That doesn’t prove they raced their fastest race. It just proves their abilities are far enough above their competition that they can win even with a less than optimal strategy. One example that springs to mind is Paul Henderschott, one of the most successful athletes in the history of indoor rowing and someone who exhibits incredible intensity during training and racing. Paul treats a 2K like it’s a 1K, and then hangs on as best he can at the end. When he’s asked my advice about how to knock a couple more seconds off his time, I always tell him to hold back at the start. But he just can’t do it. So he wins CRASH-B by 16 seconds rather than 20. For myself, I know quite well that some of my victories over the past few years have been due as much to good race tactics on my part (and bad tactics by some competitors) as to pure fitness. Now, some coaches will encourage a young/inexperienced athlete to start hard with the hope that they will discover some hidden gear and perform at a level they didn’t think was possible. Unfortunately, a likely result is the athlete will have such an unpleasant experience that they develop a mental block against racing hard, and it may be a long, long time before they reach their true potential. I make it a priority to explore an athlete’s true potential as accurately as possible while training, so they will know what to expect when racing and be able to select a challenging but realistic goal. A general perception among rowers (outdoor as well as indoor) is that it is desirable to establish an early lead to be able to “control the race” – whatever that is supposed to mean. An athlete or crew that expends too much energy in the first 500m may find themselves with a 5-second lead at the half way point, but a smarter, more disciplined and patient crew that has properly conserved its energy will walk through them at some point during the second half of the race. You don’t “control” anything when your legs have turned to jelly, your lungs are scorched, your brain is numb and you still have 1000m to go. Some crews or athletes aren’t mentally tough enough to race effectively from behind, but I think waiting for the right time to explode is exercising real “control”. The even-split approach to racing makes the most sense from a purely mechanical standpoint. Consider the hypothetical example of covering 2000m with an average pace of 1:36 either by holding a steady 1:36 pace for the entire distance, or covering half with a 1:35 pace and half with a 1:37 pace. Either method would result in a 6:24 2K, but because of the cubic relationship between velocity and power, and the proportionately greater energy cost of the 1:35 pace, more total energy is expended with the uneven pace. If an athlete is truly performing at maximum capacity, the less efficient pacing results in a slower time. If you actually calculate the energy difference with this hypothetical example, you might be tempted to say the difference is pretty trivial, but I say even a fraction of a second is significant – when you come out on the losing side of a photo finish. And the greater the variation in pace during the race, the greater the amount of energy lost. So logically it must be concluded that the most effective race strategy would be to hold an even pace from start to finish. But I don’t race that way (unless I am not trying to achieve my maximum performance), because there are other than purely mechanical factors to contend with. There is the practical consideration of how races actually operate. If a race began off the fly (i.e., you could gradually build intensity for a period of time, maybe several minutes, and the clock started as you decided to firm up to race pace), I would definitely go for an even split. But that’s not how races work. Athletes wait for several minutes at the start, outdoors often in cold wet conditions while the aligners and starters work to begin the race (or the race or even two ahead of yours). Indoors, there are always delays as computer systems are brought on-line or dozens of competitors are brought to their starting position. The result is that no matter how thoroughly you warm up, you are probably going to have cooled down considerably by the actual start of your race. In which case, even starting at what should be a reasonable pace relative to your current fitness will probably result in the “fly-and-die” symptoms of accelerated lactate production and early fatigue. So I prefer to start at a pace slower than my overall goal pace. But it’s also important to recognize that any strokes slower than your true potential represent lost time that can never be made up, no matter how fast you row later in the race. So you can’t take it too easy either, and that presents a real quandary. On the one hand, you risk going too hard and burning out too soon, and on the other you risk getting too far behind your optimal pace. It’s a fine line to tread, but with enough training and racing experience as well as a little common sense, I think anyone can create an effective race strategy. I think the optimal pacing strategy for a 2K race is pretty close to: 800m (40%) @ GP +1; 600m (30%) @ GP; 400m (20%) @ GP – 1; and 200m (10%) @ GP – 2. [GP = Goal Pace, so to row 2K in 6:24, row the fist 800m @ 1:37, the next 600m @ 1:36, the next 400m @ 1:35, and the final 200m @ 1:34.] But that is an ideal, and the actual race plan might vary depending on specific circumstances. I always take into account things like how good my warm-up was, and how much I cooled off before the race actually started; what time I think I will need to win (as opposed to how fast I think I can go); how I actually feel in the first 5-600m; etc. Prior to the race, I will have worked out different worst-case and best-case scenarios and corresponding race plans so that I can react depending on the situation. Last year at the European Open, I initially thought based on my training I would be able to pull a 6:24. But once in Amsterdam, I was feeling pretty sluggish (jet lag, I suppose) and by race day I knew I had to be a little more conservative. It was only during the warm-up I finally decided on a target of 6:26, but I had already mentally rehearsed my strategy for that time so often I felt completely comfortable with it. I started out at a 1:38 pace; meanwhile, Per Hansen of Denmark was blasting off at 1:32 or so. But I knew he wasn’t going to hold that (and if he did, there was nothing I could do to catch him), so I stuck to my plan and slowly worked into the lead with about 500m to go. At the CRASH-Bs, I really had to alter my race plan at the last second. I had expected to pull about 6:22, but at the start of the race I got a little carried away and suspended right off my seat and onto the monorail. By the time I got back in place and into the race, I was so far behind the monitor actually said “HAH-hah!” (in the voice of Nelson Muntz). A typical reaction might be to go nuts for 500m or so in an effort to catch up, but I knew that would result in a painful crash and burn. I didn’t panic, and since I had rehearsed so many possible scenarios and strategies it only took a fraction of a second to shift to a race plan that brought me into the lead with only a couple hundred meters to go. I have to say that all things considered it was a pretty satisfying performance. But the only thing that saved me was a knowledge of effective pacing and a solid race plan. Optimal pacing for racing is one thing, but optimal pacing while training is often another. It would be similar if the goal for training was to execute every workout with the fastest time (or greatest distance) possible. But that’s not the goal (or at least, shouldn’t be). The goal is to get progressively faster in a constant and systematic manner over the duration of the training program. A proper strategy for pacing will help you reach your training goals more consistently and in a way that is more likely to be reproducible. Specific pacing strategies can ensure optimal metabolic responses to the workload and make it possible to accomplish a greater amount of work with less likelihood of overtraining or being unable to finish a session. A good pacing strategy can also make workouts more manageable psychologically. The strategies I use help me break long, tough workouts down mentally into increments that I can more easily visualize and work through. [This by now should be seen as an obvious benefit of Level 4 training, but I expand the concept in other ways to other training bands.] Once again I find I have gone on for paragraphs without covering half of my intended topic but I’m afraid I have to stop here. Next time I’ll give specific examples of my pacing guidelines and strategies for workouts of all kinds, from 25K continuous to 8 x 500m or 4 x 1K, and also workouts with unbalanced intervals like 3K/2.5K/2K. The general format is to divide each piece or interval into smaller segments, and have a specific design for negative splitting the workout in a planned and structured way. Sometimes the effect is practically an even split, and sometimes the increase in pace during the workout is pretty extreme. Again, I don’t offer this as the optimal way to execute an individual workout, but (the hallmark of the Wolverine Plan) as a structured format for ensuring consistent improvement over several weeks of training. More details next time. Mike Caviston

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » October 16th, 2005, 12:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 15 2005, 09:28 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The Importance of Pacing Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Mike, Thank you for the really great analysis of pacing. I have seen and heard some of these ideas before, but you have put it all together in a very persuasive package. regards, Bob S.

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » October 20th, 2005, 12:38 pm

With all of the talk about this plan, I expected to see more of a response to the request for how people implement the plan. I guess we're all busy actually rowing to bother writing a bit about it. I'll update where I'm at with using the plan in my first year of rowing. I swam and played water polo in college, and was also in the Army. I had worked as a fitness trainer. But the last half of my 30s rolled round and I was out of shape (240+) and had high cholesterol. In April I went on a low-carb diet and got down to 210. The transition to a "normal" diet took a few weeks, but the added rowing activity was making my body demand healthy food/fuel. I've been rowing since 1998, but only hit the first million meters this January. In June, we moved to a new house that had room for a home gym. (The rower had been either in a closet or a less than ideal location off and on over the years...the best place was on the deck overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Manhattan Beach). So I set up the gym and ordered a Bowflex Ultimate 2. I had been doing about 50k per week since April, but on June 6 I jumped into the Wolverine Plan with a 4x1k at 1:56.2 average pace. (I also bought RowPro on May 17, which fed my quantitative appetite). On July 10, I updated my 6 year old 2k PB to a 7:14.9. The first three levels of the plan were fairly easy to understand, and I'm still grappling with the execution of the Level 4 workouts (I tend to over-stroke some of the sessions). So here's my weekly plan: M: L1 (Alternate between 4x1k, 8x500m, and the pyramid. My current best paces are 1:39.4 for the 500, 1:43.8 for the 1k, and 1:43.6 for the pyramid. I've been improving by at least 1 second each time, but that won't last long). T: Lift in the morning (Legs, Back, Biceps), L4 - 70' (180-184-188-184-180-184-188 was the last set). W: L3 long row. 15k this week, adding 500m each week. 2:01 pace at 10MPS. Th: Lift in the morning (Chest, Shoulders, Triceps), L2 (Alternate between 5x1.5k, 4.2k, and 3k/2.5k/2.0k. Best paces are 1:51.6 for 1.5k, 1:50.8 for 2k, and 1:52.9 for the decending set. I'll be doing the 1.5k tonight with a 1:50 or faster goal). F: Off Sa: Online racing and lifting in the morning. L3 - 15x3' at 2:01 in the evening. Su: Lift in the morning. L4 - 2x40' (Alt 180/184). My L4 reference pace is 1:49. I've been feeling a bit off lately since there's been a lot of late nights getting my company started. I've skipped Saturday night's workout a few too many times. Last week, all I did was Monday night's 4x1k and the Saturday morning racing in addition to the lifting. This week feels much better and I'll probably get all of the workouts in and feel back on track completely next week. Anyway, that's where it stands for now. My CRASH-B goal is 6:40. There's time, but there's also a lot of work to do.

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » October 20th, 2005, 1:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 15 2005, 09:28 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The Importance of Pacing Mike Caviston ... lots of good stuff snipped from here ... I think the optimal pacing strategy for a 2K race is pretty close to: 800m (40%) @ GP +1; 600m (30%) @ GP; 400m (20%) @ GP – 1; and 200m (10%) @ GP – 2. [GP = Goal Pace, so to row 2K in 6:24, row the fist 800m @ 1:37, the next 600m @ 1:36, the next 400m @ 1:35, and the final 200m @ 1:34.] ... lots more good stuff snipped again ... </td></tr></table> Mike, Thanks for that. I've got a race plan for BIRCs now. I just have to find the sensible value for GP. Do you have any advice on finding goal pace?

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » October 20th, 2005, 2:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 16 2005, 12:28 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think the optimal pacing strategy for a 2K race is pretty close to: 800m (40%) @ GP +1; 600m (30%) @ GP; 400m (20%) @ GP – 1; and 200m (10%) @ GP – 2. [GP = Goal Pace, so to row 2K in 6:24, row the fist 800m @ 1:37, the next 600m @ 1:36, the next 400m @ 1:35, and the final 200m @ 1:34.][right] </td></tr></table> If I wanted to execute Mike's strategy while looking at my average pace, I should see: after 800 m: GP + 1 after 1400 m: GP + 0.6 after 1800 m: GP + 0.2 after 2000 m: GP Of course, between 800 m and 2000 m, the average pace will gradually come down. As a matter of fact, your average pace should be: after 100 m: GP + 1 after 200 m: GP + 1 after 300 m: GP + 1 after 400 m: GP + 1 after 500 m: GP + 1 after 600 m: GP + 1 after 700 m: GP + 1 after 800 m: GP + 1 after 900 m: GP + 0.9 after 1000 m: GP + 0.8 after 1100 m: GP + 0.7 after 1200 m: GP + 0.7 after 1300 m: GP + 0.6 after 1400 m: GP + 0.6 after 1500 m: GP + 0.5 after 1600 m: GP + 0.4 after 1700 m: GP + 0.3 after 1800 m: GP + 0.2 after 1900 m: GP + 0.1 after 2000 m: GP I'd probably write this down and tape it onto my monitor (or have someone track it for me) when I do a 2k time trial, so I don't have to remember it all.

[old] Guy_W · Post by **[old] Guy_W** » October 20th, 2005, 2:40 pm

Citroen FWIW suspect i missed the smiley, but taking the "what target GP should I plan for" at face value... and without requesting any more info (which wd probably change things a bit) ... and based upon my experiences (...)plus some (much, 2003?) older Wolverine threads then if you are doing regular wolverine plan weekly level 1 and 2's then... i'd estimate your GP as about = Level 1: 8X500+2.0 pace or 4x1000-about 2 pace (although there are some who can do 4x1k @ GP or less (I'm not one)) or Level2 : 4x2000-about 6 or 7 pace (and i hate 4x2k) any help? Guy PBs: 8x500=1.35.2 av; 4x1k=1.38.4av; 4x2k=1:42.86av (the .04 matters to me!) and 2k=6:27.1 (1:36.8)

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » October 20th, 2005, 3:12 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'>Do you have any advice on finding goal pace? </td></tr></table> Selecting a GP for a race is almost an exact science for me, based on my years of training and my observations on the correlation between various workout scores and 2K performance. The two best indicators for me are 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. I won’t even list the relationships because there is a strong correlation between MY training and MY 2ks, but not necessarily between MY training and YOUR 2Ks. For your first BIRC, just select a pace that results in a final time a second or two faster than your previous best (assuming your general training has gone well). Enjoy the experience that is being part of the pageantry of BIRC. Gain valuable racing experience and keep charting your race results against your standard training pieces. Next season you can be even more scientific. Good luck. Mike Caviston

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » October 20th, 2005, 3:28 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 20 2005, 08:12 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Do you have any advice on finding goal pace? </td></tr></table> Selecting a GP for a race is almost an exact science for me, based on my years of training and my observations on the correlation between various workout scores and 2K performance. The two best indicators for me are 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. I won’t even list the relationships because there is a strong correlation between MY training and MY 2ks, but not necessarily between MY training and YOUR 2Ks. For your first BIRC, just select a pace that results in a final time a second or two faster than your previous best (assuming your general training has gone well). Enjoy the experience that is being part of the pageantry of BIRC. Gain valuable racing experience and keep charting your race results against your standard training pieces. Next season you can be even more scientific. Good luck. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Thanks Mike. I put a very optimistic 7:00 on the form. I suspect a 7:12 may be more realistic. If I PB at BIRCs I'll be very happy. If I go < 7:00 I'd be ecstatic.

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » October 20th, 2005, 7:05 pm

Mike, What do you think of the idea that one can take off at the start with a couple of powerful strokes on the theory that for about 10 secs you can rely on stored ATP and no lactate will build up. I have been advised to do the first four strokes as 3/4, 1/2, 1/2, full, at high spm (I do spm 40) and then coast off this speed, ie. let the pace decay gradually to the target for the early phase of the race. I bring the splits down to about 1:27 at stroke 4 and then coast up to target pace for the first 200m. But if you adopt this strategy invariably the first 500 will be about 2 secs faster than if you row at target pace evenly. Is it really true that there is little or no metabolic cost for the first few strokes? If you look at the pace curves for almost any competitor at the Crash-Bs they are much faster at the start then subsequently. How do you start a race?

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » October 21st, 2005, 6:22 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'>What do you think of the idea that one can take off at the start with a couple of powerful strokes on the theory that for about 10 secs you can rely on stored ATP and no lactate will build up... Is it really true that there is little or no metabolic cost for the first few strokes? </td></tr></table> The idea that there are “free” strokes anywhere in a 2K is a common misconception among the rowing community. Not to be too condescending, but anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of physics and thermodynamics should recognize this is impossible. Starting a race with several intense, sub-race-pace strokes will probably utilize the muscles’ ready supply of phosphagens (ATP & phosphocreatine). Some people figure, what does it matter when I use my phosphagen stores? It’s anaerobic anyway, so I may as well use them at the start of the race to get a good position in the first 500m, rather than use them to sprint at the end. This thinking is incorrect. After a few seconds (when phosphagen stores are depleted) the muscles support intense contractions by rapidly breaking down glycogen into pyruvate. This rapid or “anaerobic” glycolysis results in the release of hydrogen ions (H+) that must be buffered, resulting in the formation of lactate, and the resulting decrease in muscle pH is a contributing factor to fatigue. So far I’m sure everyone is nodding their head saying, “Uh-huh, I know that, so what?” The “so what” is that the rapidity of glycolysis is accelerated by the feed-forward signals resulting from the overly-intense, sub-race-pace strokes that start the race. In other words, if you plan to race at a 1:40 pace and take off at a 1:27 pace, your muscles don’t know that you intend to slow up in a few strokes. They immediately jump into action and rapidly break down glycogen to liberate as much immediate energy as possible, and the signal doesn’t immediately stop when you settle into your planned race pace. The result is a much greater initial rise in lactate. Furthermore, phosphagen compounds help buffer decreasing muscle pH, so it is illadvised to deplete them early. I don’t know about you, but racing for me is tough enough already without dragging the albatross of increased lactate accumulation into the second 500m, so I prefer to start more conservatively. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you look at the pace curves for almost any competitor at the Crash-Bs they are much faster at the start then subsequently. </td></tr></table> To which I can only reply, there are a lot of people at CRASH-B who could be even faster in the long run. At the CRASH-B one year, I heard one of the announcers comment (regarding people starting their races too fast) that being 2 seconds ahead of pace in the first 500m will result in 6 seconds lost in the last 500m. That sounds about right to me. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>How do you start a race? </td></tr></table> With a quick series of firm but not outrageously fast strokes. The initial stroke is somewhere in the 2:00-2:04 range (for a 2K pace in the ballpark of 1:36). I try to reach my planned initial pace (i.e., roughly 2K + 1) by the fourth stroke, and then no faster. I practice this every time I do a race-pace interval (Level 1 or Level 2) when training. Mike Caviston

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 22nd, 2005, 6:54 am

Thanks for the interesting posting Mike! What do you say about the theory that a powerful start may increase the adrenaline secretion which in turn will improve performance? I'm talking about just erging now, not on water where the envrionment may be more psychologically stimulating, because you can see all the other rowers behind you (instead of seeing none).

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » October 22nd, 2005, 9:48 pm

Pacing Continued To reiterate my main points regarding pacing: the goal when racing is to strike a good compromise between maximal mechanical efficiency (even-split) and optimal liberation of metabolic energy (negative-split). I like to create a race plan that involves negative-splitting to a degree, but ideally not too extreme. (I would never purposely begin a race at a pace faster than I expected to finish.) The concept of pacing should also be applied to training sessions with the goal of maximizing the desired training effect for the specific workout. I also apply the concept of pacing to the entire training season. I want to make as many gains as possible before the end of the year, but I don’t want to burn out too quickly (fly-and-die) before my biggest race. Just as it’s easy to imagine, in the adrenaline rush of the first 500m of a race, that you will somehow magically be able to sustain that insane pace till the end – it is also easy to imagine those rapid gains you make early in the season will continue indefinitely. It can be very disheartening to have your training stall with a month to go before the big race (as I well know), and the safeguard is to have a sense of how to pace your fitness over the course of the season. I use the Wolverine Plan to make sure that my progress stays on track to reach my season goals, and that I improve every week but not too fast too soon. For example, if I wanted to row 2K in 6:24 by Feb. 25, 2006 [CRASH-B], 1-2 weeks prior to the race I would want to be able to do a 4 x 2K workout with an average pace of 1:40 or faster, and a 4 x 1K workout with an average pace in the low 1:35s. In August and September I didn’t sit down and try to hammer out scores as hard as I could trying to get to my targets as fast as possible. I know that I can improve my Level 2 paces over the season at a rate of about .2s/500m/week, and my 4 x 1K pace by about .1s/500m/week, so I form my seasonal strategy based on those rates of improvement (i.e., my seasonal training pace). So, 25 weeks out from CRASH-B, I need to be pulling around 1:45 for 4 x 2K; I need to be pulling around 1:37 for 4 x 1K. Each week that I reach my goal, I set the next week’s goal based on the seasonal pace. If I don’t reach my goal, I repeat my attempt at the same pace or even go back to a previous pace if necessary. As I get into the final 6-8 weeks of training, if I think I can make a bigger jump then I’ll probably go for it. But like an actual 2K race, I don’t want to “sprint” too soon and risk stalling just before the finish line. [This all assumes there are no intervening distractions like 2K trials in October, European racing in December, holiday traveling, etc. I’ll need to readjust my “seasonal” pace to account for these interruptions to my overall training focus on CRASH-Bs.] So, each week for each workout I have a firm goal pace. The next step is to create a specific plan for achieving the desired workout goal. For a workout like 8 x 500m, a simple method (as described in the original WP document) is to take the average pace from the previous time you completed the workout, and begin the new workout at that pace, bringing it down for the final 2-3 intervals to finish with a new, lower average. Then repeat the format next time you do the same workout. This works fairly well, especially earlier in the season when you’re not exactly sure how hard to push, and you will probably make large gains initially. But I caution against going too hard too often, and someone who pushes too hard too soon in the season will probably plateau early. After the first couple times with this workout in a given season, I settle into choosing a goal pace that is on average 1 tenth of a sec faster per 500m for every week since I last did the workout. If I finish a little ahead of my goal, I’ll readjust my target for next time. So, last week my target for 8 x 500m was 1:33.0; my actual average pace ended up 1:32.8; in two more weeks, when I do the workout again, my target will be 1:32.5. When I do this workout, I take about 3 ½ minutes recovery (most of it active) between pieces. I don’t set a recovery time on the monitor, but keep track manually. I start each interval from a dead stop, with the flywheel nearly motionless, and use the opportunity to practice racing starts. Not to start as fast as I can, but to see how quickly/smoothly I can settle into a desired pace. I also set the 500m with 250m sub-intervals to see if I pace the piece correctly; my goal being to negative- or even-split (not positive-split). Incidentally, here is an anecdote about the benefits of negative-splitting the individual pieces for this workout. During my coaching years, 8 x 500m was always a popular erg workout, and people were usually pretty jacked to try to get some fast numbers. Without being given specific instructions, the typical strategy for most athletes would be to hammer the first 10-15 strokes as hard as possible, then slowly fade till the end. The final score might be respectable but the technique was not what I was trying to achieve. At some point in the season I would run the workout with some specific guidelines: everyone had to even-split or negative-split each piece; for every piece that had a positive split (no matter how fast it was), they would have to do another until they had 8 pieces that were even- or negative split. I can’t recall anyone ever having to do an extra piece; almost everyone finished significantly faster than they had all season; and most people reported that mentally it was a much more enjoyable experience (and a few people reported that the stress of keeping the pace in check made the experience less enjoyable). [What continues to be puzzling to me is that after that experience, during future workouts without specific guidelines most people reverted back to the fly-and-die approach.] I use the same approach for other Level 1 workouts (5 x 750m and the Pyramid). That is, I negative- or even-split each individual piece. I don’t do the Pyramid often enough to have developed what I believe would be an ideal strategy, but I do it roughly like this: 250m) fast as I can 500m) about the same as my best 8 x 500m pace 750m) about a second slower than that 1000m) about another half second slower than that (i.e., the 750m) 750m) faster than the first 750m 500m) faster than the first 500m 250m) fast as I can In the end, my best Pyramid average will end up about half a second slower than my best 8 x 500m average. My strategy for 4 x 2K and 4 x 1K (again, once I have an overall Goal Pace according to my planned progression for the season) is: 1st piece: GP + .2 2nd piece: GP 3rd piece: GP 4th piece: GP - .2 So if my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 2K was 1:42.0, my target the first piece is 1:42.2; for the second & third, 1:42.0; and for the last, 1:41.8. If my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 1K was 1:35.2, I’d pull the first 1K in 1:35.4; the next two in 1:35.2; and the last one in 1:35.0. I’ve experimented with a number of formats for unbalanced workouts. (The Level 2 workout 3K/2.5K/2K is an unbalanced workout. I also use an alternate Level 3 format, in addition to continuous rowing, of 6K/5K/4K. [Another variation of this that I’ve used with the UM team is 5K/4K/3K.]) For years, athletes have asked for instructions about how to pace these workouts, and the general guidelines “Make the pace a little faster for each piece” didn’t seem to be specific enough. So I’ve come up with this: 1st piece: GP + .4 2nd piece: GP 3rd piece: GP - .6 So if my overall Goal Pace for 3K/2.5K/2K was 1:42.4, then I’d pull the 3K in 1:42.8; the 2.5K in 1:42.4, and the 2K in 1:41.8. If my overall GP for 6K/5K/4K was 1:47.2, I’d pull 6K in 1:47.6; 5K in 1:47.2; and 4K in 1:46.6. Incidentally, I find the crossover for Level 2 (4 x 2K vs. 3K/2.5K/2K) is just about perfect. For a good part of the season I alternate the two formats on a weekly basis and reduce the pace by two tenths every week (1:44.0 for 4 x 2K, then 1:43.8 for 3K/2.5K/2K, then 1:43.6 for 4 x 2K, etc.) Once again I am short on time without entirely completing my objective, so I will have to continue the explanation at another time. The only thing left to explain regarding pacing is the specific formats I use for each individual piece. For anything 1K or longer, I divide each piece into 5 subintervals (e.g., 2K into 5 x 400m) and have a GP for each segment of each individual piece. For example, if I want to do a 2K in 1:42.4, my plan would be 400m @ 1:44, 400m @ 1:43, 400m @ 1:42, 400m @ 1:42, 400m @ 1:41 (I work entirely in whole numbers for the sub-intervals). Like the Level 4 sequences, this may all sound confusing at first but is pretty simple once you get the hang of it. Next time I’ll describe the whole process and give some examples. – Always assuming, of course, anyone has followed me this far. Happy training. Mike Caviston

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » October 23rd, 2005, 9:11 am

Great stuff as always Mike. Even though I know most of what you've written it's good to have it reinforced. The early plateau/early peak problem is one with which I am all too familiar. Knowing the right thing to do doesn't always prevent ambition from making someone get carried away. This problem can get worse with aging. What was reasonable last year may no longer be reasonable this year. But as Toby Keith sings in I Ain't As Good As I Once Was, "Now my body says that you can't do this, Boy. But my pride says, Oh yes you can!" Rick (Too proud for his own good sometimes)

[old] Thomas · Post by **[old] Thomas** » October 28th, 2005, 5:05 am

I really like the Wolverine Plan since it kills the boredom. I had my best 2k, 5k, 6k, and 10k in 2003 from strictly following the Wolverine Plan. The plan provides excellent focus because of the math involved to determine session paces based on your 2k. There is no guessing in what you should be doing.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 29th, 2005, 3:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Oct 23 2005, 06:11 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Great stuff as always Mike. Even though I know most of what you've written it's good to have it reinforced. The early plateau/early peak problem is one with which I am all too familiar. Knowing the right thing to do doesn't always prevent ambition from making someone get carried away. [right] </td></tr></table> Kiss, Kiss, Kiss....

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training