Wolverine Plan Discussion

[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'><b>QUOTE</b></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.<br /><br />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><br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />The level 1 sessions, which should only compromise<b> 3-4% of total meters for the week</b>, should be <b>"performed at intensities of 95-105% of competitive 2K pace"</b>. <br /><br />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 <b>all the intervals within the set </b> 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. <br /><br />If all goes well by the end of the training session you set a new PB 2k. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella<br />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'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Dec 27 2005, 12:22 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</b></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.<br /><br />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><br /><br />I think that it is important not to take Mike's statements out of context. <br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)."<br /><br />That's a high intensity workout. Period. My point is that there are few folks that advocate that level of intensity "year round".<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I'd like to know more about the reasons for year-round level 1 training.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />

[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'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Dec 27 2005, 12:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mark--<br /><br />You say your results were "not good.' I say they look "predictable." <br /><br />A 2 second/500 M improvement is an ENORMOUS jump. It's no surprise you blew up. <br /><br />Do the level 1's every week, or every other week. Go for small improvements--less than half a second/500. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Tom:<br /><br />Thanks for the feedback!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I very much appreciate the reinforcement of the importance of the L1 and L2 speed work, as well as the small steps for improvement.<br /><br />I'm sticking with the Plan.<br /><br />Regards -- Mark

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 27th, 2005, 4:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Dec 27 2005, 01:36 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 @ Dec 26 2005, 05:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><b>Why Interval Training?</b> <br />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...<br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />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. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I am very much not an expert, and certainly would not speak for Mike, but because the Plan suggests a very balanced mix of speed and distance, with many more meters being devoted to aerobic work (L3) and "aerobic power per stroke" work (L4), there is, in my opinion, very little chance of burning out from too much speed work. Doing an L1 every week or two allows one to stay sharp, while not burning out ... and seems, to me, to be a smart way of protecting the gains one has made which we all know can evaporate quickly with poor, little, or no training.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 4:47 pm

Mark,<br /><br />Maybe if you ask Ranger, he can help you out with it.

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » December 27th, 2005, 4:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 08:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thanks all!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Cheers! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark, start bumping up your 12k by 500m each week. That will build to your long workout each week.<br /><br />I too am struggling to get back to training, but it feels like I just need to re-establish my 3 week cycle of L1 & L2 times. The 4x1k gave me the biggest fall off, but last night the 8x500 came in 4 seconds from my best a few weeks ago. I needed the confidence to finish it, but I now know what I can do for next time.<br /><br />I'm guessing I'm missing about 1 second of pace per week of slacking off. Getting back to it hurts more because I know I've done better, and have had a hard time knowing how hard to go.<br /><br />Suffering with you...

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 5:06 pm

It's nice that you guys can suffer together!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 5:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 4 2005, 05:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You take one pace, and replace it with another one. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Polaco @ Dec 5 2005, 12:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thanks for your explanations, I will try to adjust my paces to my new 2k times and see what happens, it's going to be hard but this is the point, isn't it?<br /><br />Apart of this I want to thank you very much for your advice to all the people at the forum[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />You are quite welcome, Polaco!

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » December 27th, 2005, 6:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 04:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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. [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think you have this backwards. The 2k should be faster than the 4x1k.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 6:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Dec 27 2005, 02:30 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(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 04:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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. [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think you have this backwards. The 2k should be faster than the 4x1k. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The 4 x 1k will be close to 2k pace.<br /><br />But if you don't like my version, here is Mikes most recent posting on it:<br />"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."

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 27th, 2005, 7:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Dec 27 2005, 06:30 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(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 04:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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. [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think you have this backwards. The 2k should be faster than the 4x1k. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Ummm, I don't think so ... from Mike's pacing post (or at least <u>one </u>of them that I cut and pasted into my WP file):<br /><br /><b>"For example, if I wanted to row 2K in 6:24 (1:36 pace) 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 (+4.0), and a 4 x 1K workout with an average pace in the low 1:35s (-1.0)."</b><br /><br />Or did I, as usual, miss something?

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » December 27th, 2005, 9:12 pm

The trick is to train at the right pace for you, which as Paul says will be "close" to 2k pace. You know the right pace when you can do 4x1k (or whatever) at consistent to slightly negative splits and finish w/ a near-death experience. Then in a week or 2, you overcome your dread of what's ahead of you, and you do it again, going slightly faster. <br /><br />Presumably you do some 2k tests along the way to determine how your 2k relates to your interval sessions, so you know how to pace yourself during a race. I've never done 2k at a faster pace than my 4x1k. Mike is different (and a lot faster). But I'm not getting my chain wrapped around the axle about whether I'm faster in a particular interval training session or during a race. <br /><br />The point is to do the workouts, whatever they may be, according to a plan, trying to go faster every comparable session. Then you race. Lots of guys beat you. If you've stuck w/ the plan, you beat a few guys. <br /><br />Then you go home and start over.<br /><br />Tom<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 27th, 2005, 9:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 27 2005, 07:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Or did I, as usual, miss something?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Mark – you missed this:<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 12 2005, 03:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Furthermore, the correlations between 4 x 1K/2K workouts and a 2K race are probably skewed by my experience with the formats and my overall endurance base. For the majority of people, even those pretty well-trained, a more reasonable 2K correlation for 4 x 2K is + 5, and 4 x 1K = 2K. </td></tr></table><br />This illustrates pretty conveniently the relationship between training for endurance and training for speed using the Wolverine Plan. The core, the most important aspect of training, is high-intensity Level 1 work. This develops the power to support a fast 2K in competition. But greater endurance results in less fatigue for a given power output – not only during a race (very important) but also during training (extremely important!) The basic approach with WP training is to do L1 & L2 every week, and fit in as much L3 & L4 work as necessary to achieve your ultimate goal. The actual amount of L3/L4 work will depend on whether your goal is to set a world record vs. just maintain some semblance of health & fitness. I fit a lot of endurance work into my training; currently my long weekly row is 25K continuous (i.e., __without__breaks). This gives me the endurance to go hard for 1K, recover more completely afterward, and go hard again for 1Ks 2, 3 and 4. The greater intensity for 4 x 1K in turn develops greater speed for my 2K. That’s why the WP is all about intensity – how to maximize it and keep increasing it – even though the actual amount of high-intensity work is proportionately only a couple percent of the total training volume. <br /><br />Hang in there with your training. When I get a chance, I have some more observations about handling time off/training interruptions.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » December 27th, 2005, 9:34 pm

Mark,<br /><br />I must have had it backwards, but I thought it was that way. As you know, I don't have the personal experience to correlate the performance between the workouts and the races. Plus, like you, I'm in (or was) in a significant improvement phase, so every few weeks the potential paces kept dropping.<br /><br />I am also interested in Mike's observations on time off/interruptions. The new baby in November was expected, and I was way too optimistic in my ability to keep training and do everything else.<br /><br />I'm doing my long L3 row tonight of 17k @ 2:00. It's nice to not have to worry about the intensity tonight.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 27th, 2005, 9:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Dec 27 2005, 01:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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><br />Please start by reviewing the past 30-something pages of this thread.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Dec 27 2005, 02:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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. </td></tr></table><br />1) My concern is rapid gains that plateau too soon. Rather than kill myself for six weeks, I work pretty hard steadily for 26, and ultimately reach a higher peak.<br />2) Psychological toll? Abso-freakin’-lutely. My advice again and again and again is to start at a challenging but realistic point and progress <i>slowly</i> and <i>steadily</i> for the duration. Still, the risk of burning out early is real. This ain’t no sissy plan.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Dec 27 2005, 04:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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)."<br />That's a high intensity workout. Period. My point is that there are few folks that advocate that level of intensity "year round". </td></tr></table><br />I’m not sure what your personal experience with 8 x 500m has been, but for me and many other people, 8 x 500m @ 2K pace (with adequate recovery between pieces) is not too demanding. It’s actually pretty enjoyable. Not at all the same as pushing 2K – 4, or doing 4 x 1K @ 2K – 1. My plan is to not <i>really</i> push the limits until 6-8 weeks before the peak competition. But doing Level 1 workouts for the entire season will leave me in position to be even faster for those final 6-8 weeks than otherwise. I’ve described thoroughly my strategy of mapping out my pace for increasing Level 1 intensity gradually over the course of a season and keeping the intensity within the context of overall fitness.<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'>I'd like to know more about the reasons for year-round level 1 training. </td></tr></table> <br />Because it results in faster 2K times than <b>not</b> doing Level 1 training year-round!<br /><br />Thanks very much for your comments.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />