Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » November 25th, 2005, 2:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Nov 25 2005, 12:44 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Regarding the LEVEL 4 sequences with 16 SPM sections ... I've had a rough time slowing down the stroke enough to get to 16 SPM, keep the proper pace, AND keep the handle moving constantly. I chalk this up to poor form that needs to get better, as well as more controlled power within that improved stroke. I can slow it down (the stroke that is), keep the handle moving, but not get the proper time (and every other possible permutation and combination of the 3 variables in the equation). I have a bit of a "hitch" between the recovery slide and the catch.<br /><br />18+ SPM is no problem to make smooth, on pace, and on rate (until I'm really weary that is).<br /><br />Someone out there might have some insight on specific practice exercises/workouts that might help with this.[right] </td></tr></table><br />During my warmups and active recovery pieces, I make sure to keep my stroke rates at or below 16 SPM, sometimes averaging as low as 13 SPM. What I do is put two breaths into the recovery portion of my stroke, and concentrate on moving myself towards the catch slowly so I'm not stopping in the catch position while breathing. When I start my active recovery piece immediately after a really fast Level 1 interval (e.g. the last 250 m of a pyramid), my stroke rate sometimes ends up being 16 or 17 SPM even when I breathe twice on the recovery (and once during the drive) because I need to breathe so much.<br /><br />Anyway, the point of all this really slow rate warmup or recovery is that, when I actually get to my work pieces, 16 SPM feels like either the right stroke rate (since I've been doing it for several minutes) or even too fast.<br /><br />I believe the WP calls for active recovery to be done at stroke rates of 16-18 SPM. Mike also recently elaborated on his warmup routines, where certain portions are done at stroke rates of 14-16 SPM. I'm guessing these really low stroke rates help you to get used to the idea of having a smooth and continuous stroke while keeping the stroke rate really low.<br /><br />I ended up actually understroking my last Level 4 60' continuous (17.9 SPM average) by 11 strokes (out of about 1100 total). Be advised - I don' think the WP endorses understroking any more than it endorses overstroking. Anyway, I attribute my ability to keep my stroke rates down to acclimatizing myself to low stroke rates during warmups and recoveries.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » November 25th, 2005, 6:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 25 2005, 09:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now here comes the most important question I have concerning the WP program. How to perform the 16 spm... <br />The 18 spm is easier than the 16 spm because the flywheel does not slow down as much and it is easier to get a higher pace due to decreased inertia of the flywheel. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Dr. Giarnella, thanks for the kind words. I think you have touched on two different issues both related to rowing at 16spm. One issue is how to maintain good technique while slowing everything down to the appropriate speed. I’ve talked about that a few times and I see others have good advice as well. Another issue is how to deal with the heavy flywheel that has lost so much rotational inertia, and I think this is an important skill component many people overlook. OTW (On The Water) rowers deal with issues like matching the speed of the oar to the speed of the boat. The same issues apply on the erg when matching the speed of the handle to the speed of the flywheel. Clearly, at high rates when the flywheel doesn’t have as much time to decelerate between strokes, handle speed at the beginning of the drive needs to be pretty quick to be able to catch up to the flywheel. And as the flywheel accelerates during the drive the handle needs to accelerate as well, or the rower will stop doing work on the flywheel. But at low rates when the flywheel has considerably slowed down, the absolute rate of handle speed at the beginning of the drive doesn’t need to be so fast. In fact, if it’s too fast, the flywheel will feel much heavier! So at low rates, at the very beginning of the drive, don’t move the handle quite so quickly. This may sound contradictory to standard advice, but it’s not. At the beginning of the drive, you want to <i>begin applying</i> force to the handle as soon as possible. But the absolute amount of force, or rate of handle speed, needs to be in proportion to the flywheel – which begins its period of acceleration from a relatively slow rotational velocity. Hope that helps. For me, rowing at 16spm is always easier than 18, 18 is easier than 20, and so on. Best of luck with your training.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br /><br />

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » November 25th, 2005, 8:35 pm

I appreciate the constructive suggestions by all concerning the 16 spm rate. <br /><br />If I understand the process correctly the idea is that the entire sequencing of the stroke (catch-pull-recover) should be the same irrespective of stroke rate. For each stroke rate the sequence is the same but all elements are either done at a slower rate or faster rate to match the timing. <br /><br />This seems to make more sense than what I have been doing up to now. I plan on concentrating this weekend on Level 4 workouts, instead of progressing through the other levels, in an effort to get this stroke sequence perfected. <br /><br />It is all about learning the proper recruitment and neurological sequencing correctly so that when the rate is increased the proper recruitment and sequencing will follow naturally.<br /><br />I have no other choice but to do level 4 this weekend. I strained some intercostal muscles on Wednesday (probably due to poor stroke technique) so I will have to take it easy for a couple of days while I recuperate. <br /><br />Again thanks for the advice. I will post my progress over the coming weeks. Perhaps others can learn from my efforts as well.<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella MD <br />Southington, CT

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » November 26th, 2005, 11:21 am

I think I got it!!!!. After reading the posts by Mike et al. I put in about 2 hours on the ERG this morning experimenting with my stroke mechanics. After putting in 18k I think I finally got the hang of the stroke. I followed the advice to keep the handle moving at all times.(well most of the time). I found that slowing down the handle at the beginning of the drive put less strain and the fly wheel felt lighter. Whereas I was using a low drag yesterday to ease the strain on my ribs today I was found I had trouble getting a good feel for the drive until I raised the drag to 168 and to my surprise there was almost no strain on my ribs and by the end of the session I was able to pull significantly higher wattage (I like to use watts instead of AV/500 for my training) at 16 spm with almost no strain. My ribs felt better at the end of 18k than they did in the beginning. Prior to this I obviously was trying to accelerate the flywheel too quickly and the excessive strain caused my injury. The injury occurred during a L4 workout and not during the Level 1 when I pulled my PB times the previous day . <br /><br />Now for the question I was pondering while experimenting with my stroke. What is the proper ratio of time in the stroke cycle between drive and recovery? Initially I was trying to keep the drive and recovery times roughly equal but that did not feel right. At the end I settled on a recovery time that was roughly twice as long as the drive. I would appreciate any input. <br /><br />I plan on going to the Y again this afternoon for another Level 4 session in an attempt to reinforce this mornings experience. I will likewise plan to spend time tomorrow doing the same. I think it is important for me to get the proper stroke mechanics straightened out before proceeding with the other levels. <br /><br />Ralph Giarnella (call me Doc)

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » November 26th, 2005, 2:34 pm

While I am in the asking mode, I have another question regarding the stroke rate- <br /><br /> I am 5'6" (vertically challenged) with an inseam of 29". Obviously my drive travel and my recovery travel are both going to much shorter than some one who is 6' plus. How is this going to affect my stroke rate? <br /><br />I realize that to compensate for a shorter stroke I will have to increase my stroke rate but the real question is to what degree? <br /><br />And how does this affect my 16 spm rate. With the same rate of acceleration as someone taller I will finish my drive sooner than someone taller therefore my recovery rate will have to be longer than the recovery rate of a taller rower. A 16 spm takes 3.75 sec/stroke. If my stroke rate takes (for the sake of discussion) 1.5 sec and a taller rower with the same rate of acceleration takes 1.75 sec my recovery rate has to be 2.25 sec vs his 2.0 rate. <br /><br /> Perhaps I need to use a 17 spm to equal his 16 spm. (A 17 spm takes 3.53 sec). Any Ideas or am I totally off base with this train of thought.<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » November 26th, 2005, 3:09 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 26 2005, 10:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now for the question I was pondering while experimenting with my stroke. What is the proper ratio of time in the stroke cycle between drive and recovery? Initially I was trying to keep the drive and recovery times roughly equal but that did not feel right. At the end I settled on a recovery time that was roughly twice as long as the drive. I would appreciate any input.[right] </td></tr></table><br />Doc -<br /><br />Although I can't find anything right now that will support my next statement, I believe a one-to-two ratio of drive to recovery is recommended for most people. In other words, your recovery should take twice as much time as your drive.<br /><br />I want to say that rowing strapless also helps enforce a good ratio (and a more efficient stroke), but I know almost nothing about rowing strapless (the last time I did it, I almost fell off the erg).

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » November 26th, 2005, 3:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 26 2005, 01:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I realize that to compensate for a shorter stroke I will have to increase my stroke rate but the real question is to what degree?[right] </td></tr></table><br />Respectfully, I disagree. You can maintain the same pace (i.e. time per 500m) as a taller person with a longer stroke by increasing the force applied to the handle (while maintaining the same stroke rate).<br /><br />In the Level 4 section of his WP document, Mike Caviston writes<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>...the primary physiological benefit is to develop not only endurance, but also strength and power per stroke... by learning to produce a given power output at lower ratings, it should be possible to eventually produce the same power output using a higher rating, creating a decreased perception of effort. In plain English, that means that even though you are performing the same amount of work on the oar, it feels easier and you are more likely to hold the pace longer. </td></tr></table><br />I interpret this as meaning you learn to put out a certain amount of energy X per stroke when rowing at a low stroke rate during a Level 4 workout. Then, during a race, when your stroke rate is allowed to go much higher, you put out the same amount of energy X per stroke but you have more strokes per minute, resulting in a higher power output and thus higher speed. If you put out X joules per stroke at 16 SPM, you put out the same X joules per stroke at 32 SPM, but you have twice the power output (and a 26% increase in speed). <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 26 2005, 01:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>And how does this affect my 16 spm rate. With the same rate of acceleration as someone taller I will finish my drive sooner than someone taller therefore my recovery rate will have to be longer than the recovery rate of a taller rower. A 16 spm takes 3.75 sec/stroke. If my stroke rate takes (for the sake of discussion) 1.5 sec and a taller rower with the same rate of acceleration takes 1.75 sec my recovery rate has to be 2.25 sec vs his 2.0 rate. <br /><br />Perhaps I need to use a 17 spm to equal his 16 spm. (A 17 spm takes 3.53 sec). Any Ideas or am I totally off base with this train of thought.[right] </td></tr></table><br />I haven't searched through the WP literature to find out if Mike addresses your question specifically. However, from my past readings, I do not recall any mention of Level 4 stroke rate allowances based on height.<br /><br />If I may be allowed to offer my opinion, I would say that you should make no adjustments to stroke rates based on height. The WP was originally written for the University of Michigan's women's rowing team (as opposed to men's rowing team), and women are, on average, five inches shorter than men. Furthermore, if you increase your stroke rate to try to get a faster pace for a particular Level 4 workout, you're diminishing one of the effect that Mike sought - to develop strength and power per stroke.

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » November 26th, 2005, 3:38 pm

<br /><br />Thanks for the input. I have been trying Strapless during my warm ups and cooldown and while it felt awkward at first, I am quickly becoming accustomed to rowing strapless. However I am still not sure what the advantage is. I had seen this recommendation not only in this discussion but in others as well. I am always willing to try something new if will help might training. <br /><br />Thnanks again<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Doc -<br /><br />Although I can't find anything right now that will support my next statement, I believe a one-to-two ratio of drive to recovery is recommended for most people. In other words, your recovery should take twice as much time as your drive.<br /><br />I want to say that rowing strapless also helps enforce a good ratio (and a more efficient stroke), but I know almost nothing about rowing strapless (the last time I did it, I almost fell off the erg). </td></tr></table>

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » November 27th, 2005, 11:21 am

I just finished planning my L4 workout for today. I have decided on the following format:<br /><br /> 10-12' warm up - 2x42'- 6-8 minute cool down <br />I will stick to the shorter continuous workouts until I can get a better rhythm for the changing stroke rates. I find that as the workout gets longer I tend to become distracted and lose my rhythm. Perhaps it is due to a lack of oxygen to the brain cells, not enough sugar for the brain or just as some of my patients call it Old Timer's disease (Alzheimers). I have done 30-20-10 , or 30-18-12 with 6' sequences. I feel that if I cannot get the continuous row in I will break it down for now and at least get the proper volume in. As time goes on I will increase the first sequence and shorten or eliminate the 3rd sequence. Eventually I should be able to get the goal of 60' continous L4.<br /><br />17-19-21 stroke rate: I am still having trouble hitting the rhythm consistently for the 16 spm. I will continue to work on the 16 spm during warm up and cool down. Once I can hit 16 spm consistently I will incorporate it into my workout. Another consideration is that 17 spm feels more natural for now- perhaps because of my shorter arms and legs (remembar at 5'6" I am vertically challenged when it comes to rowing and basketball).<br /><br />Splits: 3' splits- The longer splits give me more time to get into the rhythm of the stroke before I have to change again. I have set up a spread sheet program to be able to calculate my estimated distance goals for each 3' stroke sequence based on my calculated distance per stroke rate. I used Mike's level 4 distance chart and pace chart, as they relate to my most recent 2K, to arrive at the appropriate goals for 3' splits at the various rates. I simply broke down Mike's tables to 1' splits and the multiplied by 3. In this manner I can set goals for 3' sequences, 9' sequences and 42' sequences etc.<br /><br />This leads me to a question for Mike. I noted that in your table based on your distance for the different sequences (168-172-176 etc) the distance per stroke decreases sequentially by a factor of -.25 m/stroke. Example: 1:27 2k pace-- 168 is 16.63 dps whereas 204 is 14.59 dps. Is this by design or by observtion? Does this mean that as the the stroke rate increases the drive distance is shortened more than the recovery time? The change in ratio holds true in the other paces I have checked. The 2:00 pace for example changes in a similiar rate throughout the sequences.<br /><br />Before looking at your sequences I was under the impression that the distance per stroke should remain the same as the stroke rate increases. Is this unrealistic? I realize that the power curve is not a straight line as the pace intensifies. Is this fact reflected in the decreasing dps as the pace increases?<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 28th, 2005, 5:19 pm

One comment, and one question, for the Wolverine "Team" ...<br /><br />Comment: Doing the 16 SPM work the way Mike explained now makes total sense after trying it for an entire L4 workout ... the whole aspect of accelerating during the stroke, and starting (relatively) slow to be (in my words) somewhat "in synch" with the flywheel, and then increasing power worked well for me. I could keep the handle moving, albeit slowly but at about the same speed, the entire stroke. And, the stroke seemed easier than rates greater than 16, when previously it actually seemed harder (because it likely was!). It also made staying on pace and rate much easier than my previous bad form manner of pulling 16 SPM (with the delay or "hitch"). Thanks to Mike, and all who commented on similar aspects of the 16 SPM stroke. I've got to try this with higher stroke rates as well ... it seemed like less exertion for same resulting work, as I believe Mike was communicating (if I read his post correctly).<br /><br />Question: Regarding L4 workouts. Better to do one 60' L4, or 2 x 40' L4s (perhaps AM and PM)? I'd love to work up to two 60' L4s in a day, but that's not in the cards for me right now. I do feel I could do two 40' pieces, but would not want to sacrifice the benefit if one continuous 60' piece would be better than 2 x 40' L4 pieces.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />Thanks -- Mark

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 28th, 2005, 6:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 11 2005, 04:50 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I <i>invented</i> 8 x 500m </td></tr></table><br /><br />I did this workout in 1962! <br /><br />Others did it long before me. This workout and similar have been around at least through two turns of the century! <br /><br />What is really funny is that Caviston used to criticise my ideas and now I see he has adopted several of them in his "Wolverine Plan", for example using progressive pace through the reps. <br /><br />What will Mike Caviston "invent" next??? <br /><br /><br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 28th, 2005, 6:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 28 2005, 02:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 11 2005, 04:50 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I <i>invented</i> 8 x 500m </td></tr></table><br /><br />I did this workout in 1962! <br /><br />Others did it long before me. This workout and similar have been around at least through two turns of the century! <br /><br />What is really funny is that Caviston used to criticise my ideas and now I see he has adopted several of them in his "Wolverine Plan", for example using progressive pace through the reps. <br /><br />What will Mike Caviston "invent" next??? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><i>overhead rack squats? The Internet?</i> Hard to imagine, as it seems you must have invented the Erg nearly 20 years prior to it's introduction. (along with barefoot running, no doubt.) <br /><br />Anyway, it's pretty obvious that most everything has been done at sometime in the past (I'm talking about Rowing here), but assembling it into something useful for a lot of individuals is where the real skill is. It's obvious that Mike has been able to accomplish this.

[old] tennstrike · Post by **[old] tennstrike** » November 29th, 2005, 11:55 am

Mark: Did my first planned L4 last night as 176 180 176 180. Overstroked by 12 and overmetered by 9. Never really got down to 16. Afterwards, I used my recovery time to try at 14 and think I finally found something that will work. A little extra pull at the end. My trouble was not being able to hit 2:22 at 16. That slow, it wanted to be 2:30, and I wound up going 17 to hit my pace. Funny though, at 22 I had problems holding it down to 2:08. Wanted to be 2:04 or so. But it was a great workout. Time flew and I only got lost once. Just kept going and was 30 seconds beyond my switch.<br /><br />Doc: Anyone who can erg continuously for 2 hours doesn't need my newbie two cents, but to get 16 to work, use the charts to find your pace at 14 and try that 14 spm pace for ten minutes or so. <br /><br />Anyone: I found this thread because I felt like I was getting burned out after five months and wanted a more structured plan than the one I'd cobbled together. My question concerns my most intensive day of my five. It started as three 4' pieces and I'd worked down from an initial start of 2:05 to 1:52. When I got down to the 1:52 pace, I found I simply could not stay with it for the last piece. Maybe I moved too quickly. I'd struggle with the second to keep it below 1:53 and the third was just really tough. I'd even occasionally just settle for something under 2:00. Anyway instead of going back, I switched to a 4' then 3' then 3' then 2'. I've done this for two weeks. Instead of feeling lousy at the end, I feel pretty good and I didn't have to go backwards. My most recent paces were 1:51.8, 1:51.5, 151.4 for the 4' and subsequent 3' pieces. For the last, I decided to turn it into a 500 m and pulled 1:43.8. My previous best had been 1:48.5. Question: Should I stay with this or go back to 3 - 4' pieces at something like 1:52.7. (Another day is 3 - 6' pieces now at 1:54.8)<br /><br />

[old] tennstrike · Post by **[old] tennstrike** » November 29th, 2005, 2:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Nov 28 2005, 04:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br /><br />Question: Regarding L4 workouts. Better to do one 60' L4, or 2 x 40' L4s (perhaps AM and PM)? I'd love to work up to two 60' L4s in a day, but that's not in the cards for me right now. I do feel I could do two 40' pieces, but would not want to sacrifice the benefit if one continuous 60' piece would be better than 2 x 40' L4 pieces.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />Thanks -- Mark <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark: I don't know which post of Mike's this is from because I've pasted them into a Word document. But I think the answer is one 60' because:<br />"How long? Probably somewhere between 60-90’ of continual activation. So I recommend at least one 60’ session per week – meaning 60’ of continuous, uninterrupted rowing."

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » November 29th, 2005, 4:26 pm

Trying to deal with a few recent and not-so-recent questions re: the WP –<br /><br />How I arrived at the specific paces for different rates in the Level 4 progressions has been previously explained. Pace is the variable being manipulated. Other variables like work performed in Joules/stroke, or distance covered in meters/stroke, are just artifacts. No conscious attempt has been made to either manipulate those variables or hold them constant. For simplicity, the paces increase linearly but the other variables do not necessarily increase in the same proportions. So it is not surprising that from time to time someone might perceive that the pace for a given stroke rate is “out of whack”. In this case the choices are to either ignore the slight discrepancies (my preference), or recalculate stroke rates and/or goal paces using fractions rather than whole numbers.<br /><br />A good technical focus with Level 4 workouts is to develop and maintain optimal length for the stroke. Then attempt to maintain this length as rates increase (even beyond the upper limits of L4 workouts into L3, L2, and L1). Personally, I think I’ve made some progress this year hanging onto my full length at higher rates. Like most people, when it comes to the last couple hundred meters of a Level 1 piece I’ll pretty much do whatever is necessary to hang onto my split. But I try not to get too short and too ugly and to work on expanding the upper rating limit for good technique as my fitness improves. (This is one application of ErgMonitor that I would definitely like to have available if I could train in the proximity of a computer.) Training needs to prioritize long-term steady gains over short-term performance.<br /><br />The Wolverine Plan and the pace recommendations for the various training bands, including the L4 Ref paces, are based on previous 2K performance. There is no need to make any adjustments for height, weight, age, gender, religion, whether your belly button is an “innie” or an “outie”, etc.<br /><br />A general rule of thumb for ratio is to spend more time on the recovery than on the drive. A recovery:drive ratio of 2:1 is commonly recommended. That’s pretty good for the middle rates. Low rates (in the teens) will probably require even more time on the recovery (unless you have an outrageously slow drive); at rates of 40 or more the ratio will be about 1:1. I think the key thing to focus on is to be “relaxed” at any rate – though I don’t feel like discussing the definition of “relaxed” at the moment. But recognize it is possible to be rushed with a 2:1 recovery:drive ratio, and relaxed with a 1:1 ratio. It depends on how technically sound you are.<br /><br />I am occasionally asked about how drag factor affects the Wolverine Plan. There are so many variable in training that I prefer to keep DF constant during all workouts so I don’t have to worry about even more permutations than already exist considering possible variations in rate and pace. I use a drag of 120-122 for everything I do on the erg, from warm-up to 2K. (Why? I don’t know, it just seems to work best.) Still, in my experience a wide range of drag factors (say, from 105-165) seem to have little if any effect on my performance, at least in the short term. For example, I’ve performed workouts where the lever shakes loose in the middle of 25K and drops down to the bottom, radically reducing the drag. Or I’m in a rush to get started and jump on an erg (I train in either a campus fitness facility or the rowing team’s indoor facility, and can go for more than a month without sitting on the same machine twice) and forget to check the drag. Later I remember and find the drag was much higher than I normally use. Within a pretty wide range of light to heavy DFs I seem to be able to make some sort of neurological adjustment so that the workout really doesn’t feel any different and I have no trouble achieving the paces I had planned. Now, what the long-term effect of using a lower or higher drag might be, I can’t say. There may well be some rationale for changing drag for different workouts. What I am saying is that I haven’t personally seen any evidence along those lines so far, and don’t plan to spend the necessary time to systematically investigate the effects of different drags.<br /><br />Regarding the question about 2 x 40’ vs. 60’ Level 4 workouts in a program, I’d go with the 60’ for the continuity – unless your Level 3 workout also meets or exceeds 60’. <br /><br />As for this question:<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(tennstrike @ Nov 29 2005, 11:55 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Anyone: I found this thread because I felt like I was getting burned out after five months and wanted a more structured plan than the one I'd cobbled together. My question concerns my most intensive day of my five. It started as three 4' pieces and I'd worked down from an initial start of 2:05 to 1:52. When I got down to the 1:52 pace, I found I simply could not stay with it for the last piece. Maybe I moved too quickly. I'd struggle with the second to keep it below 1:53 and the third was just really tough. I'd even occasionally just settle for something under 2:00. Anyway instead of going back, I switched to a 4' then 3' then 3' then 2'. I've done this for two weeks. Instead of feeling lousy at the end, I feel pretty good and I didn't have to go backwards. My most recent paces were 1:51.8, 1:51.5, 151.4 for the 4' and subsequent 3' pieces. For the last, I decided to turn it into a 500 m and pulled 1:43.8. My previous best had been 1:48.5. Question: Should I stay with this or go back to 3 - 4' pieces at something like 1:52.7. (Another day is 3 - 6' pieces now at 1:54.8) <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I can’t tell from your description what type of workout you are describing or what training effect you are trying to achieve. If you want to invent your own workouts, or incorporate workouts from some other training plan, you run the risk of throwing your training out of balance (if you are trying to progress according to the guidelines of the WP).<br /><br />Happy training,<br /><br />Mike Caviston