Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 27th, 2005, 10:01 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 28 2005, 01:52 AM)</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(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 /> </td></tr></table><br />Mike,<br /><br />What would you advocate, as far as training is concerned, for the other 26 weeks of the year?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Francois

[old] anthonys · Post by **[old] anthonys** » December 27th, 2005, 10:12 pm

<br />What would you advocate, as far as training is concerned, for the other 26 weeks of the year?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Francois<br /><br />How 'bout "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" <br /><br />tony

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 10:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(anthonys @ Dec 27 2005, 06:12 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What would you advocate, as far as training is concerned, for the other 26 weeks of the year?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />Francois<br /><br />How 'bout "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" <br /><br />tony <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike would never advocate drugs....

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 27th, 2005, 10:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 27 2005, 10:01 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What would you advocate, as far as training is concerned, for the other 26 weeks of the year? </td></tr></table><br />Already been there, talked about that to an extent. Essentially, just a kinder, gentler version of the 26 weeks in-season. This is one of the many topics I hope to eventually discuss further.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br /><br />

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 27th, 2005, 10:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 27 2005, 10:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mike would never advocate drugs.... </td></tr></table><br />Certainly not! I’d be willing to take up the slack with sex, but it turns out that the ladies aren’t clamoring for middle-aged erg freaks as much as I might hope. But I’m <i>all over</i> that rock ‘n’ roll…<br />

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 28th, 2005, 12:38 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Dec 28 2005, 01:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm doing my long L3 row tonight of 17k @ 2:00. It's nice to not have to worry about the intensity tonight. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This is where, IMHO, there is some misunderstanding regarding L3 intensity. The L3 should be done at a challenging pace; they are <i>not</i> recovery workouts. 2K pace x 1.156, was suggested as a starting point, but the pace should get faster as endurance improves. <br />I am currently doing them at 2K + 10, and progressively increasing the pace every week, and I find them challenging! <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Francois

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » December 28th, 2005, 1:38 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 28 2005, 12:38 AM)</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(bmoore @ Dec 28 2005, 01:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm doing my long L3 row tonight of 17k @ 2:00. It's nice to not have to worry about the intensity tonight. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This is where, IMHO, there is some misunderstanding regarding L3 intensity. The L3 should be done at a challenging pace; they are <i>not</i> recovery workouts. 2K pace x 1.156, was suggested as a starting point, but the pace should get faster as endurance improves. <br />I am currently doing them at 2K + 10, and progressively increasing the pace every week, and I find them challenging! <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Francois <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />OK, so it's still intense, but it's much different than the L1 interval session. The mental game of maintaining a pace is still tough when fatigue sets in and there's still a long way to go. By no means did I mean this was a recovery pace for me.<br /><br />[Note: I did 16.5k last week at 2:00.6, so I wanted to bump the pace. Guess what. I waited too long at night and we had a big meal, so half way through this I had to stop a bit. It was off and on to finish with a 2:05.1 average pace. But, at least I finished it. Next week, I'll stick with the 2:01 pace for this workout and make sure I start by 9:30PM, not 10:30.]<br /><br />Finally, I understood the guideline for the long L3 workout was to maintain the pace and keep increasing the distance each week. (I got greedy on the pace, sorry). If we keep increasing the pace for Levels 1, 2, and 4 each week, then I think it makes sense to maintain the pace for Level 3 workouts. (Note, Level 4 pace increases would come with moving up the progressions, not changing the reference pace).

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 28th, 2005, 10:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 27 2005, 10:52 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(PaulS @ Dec 27 2005, 10:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mike would never advocate drugs.... </td></tr></table><br />Certainly not! I’d be willing to take up the slack with sex, but it turns out that the ladies aren’t clamoring for middle-aged erg freaks as much as I might hope. But I’m <i>all over</i> that rock ‘n’ roll… <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I feel your pain Mike, and to top it, I've never held a WR, so it's even worse for me!<br /><br />

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 28th, 2005, 11:12 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Dec 28 2005, 05:38 AM)</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(FrancoisA @ Dec 28 2005, 12:38 AM)</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(bmoore @ Dec 28 2005, 01:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm doing my long L3 row tonight of 17k @ 2:00. It's nice to not have to worry about the intensity tonight. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This is where, IMHO, there is some misunderstanding regarding L3 intensity. The L3 should be done at a challenging pace; they are <i>not</i> recovery workouts. 2K pace x 1.156, was suggested as a starting point, but the pace should get faster as endurance improves. <br />I am currently doing them at 2K + 10, and progressively increasing the pace every week, and I find them challenging! <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Francois <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />OK, so it's still intense, but it's much different than the L1 interval session. The mental game of maintaining a pace is still tough when fatigue sets in and there's still a long way to go. By no means did I mean this was a recovery pace for me.<br /><br />[Note: I did 16.5k last week at 2:00.6, so I wanted to bump the pace. Guess what. I waited too long at night and we had a big meal, so half way through this I had to stop a bit. It was off and on to finish with a 2:05.1 average pace. But, at least I finished it. Next week, I'll stick with the 2:01 pace for this workout and make sure I start by 9:30PM, not 10:30.]<br /><br />Finally, I understood the guideline for the long L3 workout was to maintain the pace and keep increasing the distance each week. (I got greedy on the pace, sorry). If we keep increasing the pace for Levels 1, 2, and 4 each week, then I think it makes sense to maintain the pace for Level 3 workouts. (Note, Level 4 pace increases would come with moving up the progressions, not changing the reference pace). <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Hi Bill,<br /><br />My above remarks were not meant as a criticism of your training in particular, but of an observation of the fact that, for some of us, there is a wide gap between the paces at Level 2 and Level 3.<br /><br />For instance, my level 1 covers paces from 1:39 to 1:43, my L2 is at 1:47 to 1:49, L3 is 1:52 to 1:54 and L4 is at an average of 2:00 (with variations from 1:54 to 2:06). So the full spectrum of paces is covered, and the gap between L2 and L3 is not wider that between the other levels.<br /><br />Instead of a 16k at 2:01, I would suggest that you could occasionally do 3 x 4k with 1:00 rest at 1:58 or faster. It could also be 4 x 3k with 0:45 rest, a 6 x 2k with 0:30 rest, etc. The idea is to get a little rest so that your pace is faster than your 16k L3, but not too long, so that your HR stays elevated.<br />Also, those intervals don't need to be exactly at the same pace; one could, for instance, do 6 x 2K with 0:30 rest, descending 1 to 3 and 4 to 6. That is, you could do the first 2K at 2:00, the second at 1:58.5, the 3rd at 1:57 and repeat for the other 3 x 2K. This adds some variety and does wonder to your endurance.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Francois

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 28th, 2005, 5:34 pm

I found this post on another thread and, to be helpful, decided to paraphrase it here too.<br /><br />To encourage myself to exercise more self discipline, which can help build character as well as physical fitness, I resolve to:<br /><br />1) use the ignore feature on Mark Putika and Citroen's incoherent postings (as I have for some time) ... but also ...<br /><br />2) to ignore even those snips of their postings that get copied into others' replies to his postings ... and ...<br /><br />3) regardless of all this, to NEVER respond to any of their postings, whinings, begging for attention (even from Mike ) or personal messages unless they are rational, respectful, pleasant, and supportive of others and rowing and when they mention Mike's name.<br /><br /><b><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:purple'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Now, like kicking any habit, a support group is a necessity. Who's in?</span></span></span></b><br /><br />We should also agree to remind one another if there are any slips, using personal messages to chastise in private (and adulate in public). However, please send your personal message, insults, whinings, begging etc to Mark Putika as he will appreciate them more than I would. <br /><br />Instead of waiting, this is starting immediately.<br /><br />My thought is if we do this, and everyone abides by these rules, this will be a better forum for all ... including Mark Putika and Citroen, even though they are psycho wackos and will never get the point of this anyway! In other words, lets find a way to pull the weeds from our garden ourselves!<br /><br />I feel this is a sensible option to fix the problem, while still being kind. N'est pas?<br /><br />-- Mark<br /><br />Yes it was really Mark who wrote that and not me as I wouldn't waste my time doing such nonsensical (_ RAP. <br /><br />Happy New Year! <br /><br /><br />

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » December 28th, 2005, 6:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 28 2005, 09:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>1) use the ignore feature on Mark Putika and Citroen's incoherent postings (as I have for some time) ... but also ...<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Woo hoo! Result. I'm being ignored by the TROLL. I can be as rude as I like about John Troll Rupp.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 28th, 2005, 7:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Dec 28 2005, 02:47 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(John Rupp @ Dec 28 2005, 09:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>1) use the ignore feature on Mark Putika and Citroen's incoherent postings (as I have for some time) ... but also ...<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Woo hoo! Result. I'm being ignored by the TROLL. I can be as rude as I like about John Troll Rupp. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Careful Citroen, he mentioned only ignoring your "incoherent postings", and those seem fairly rare.

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » December 28th, 2005, 7:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 28 2005, 11:12 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Bill,<br /><br />My above remarks were not meant as a criticism of your training in particular, but of an observation of the fact that, for some of us, there is a wide gap between the paces at Level 2 and Level 3.<br /><br />For instance, my level 1 covers paces from 1:39 to 1:43, my L2 is at 1:47 to 1:49, L3 is 1:52 to 1:54 and L4 is at an average of 2:00 (with variations from 1:54 to 2:06). So the full spectrum of paces is covered, and the gap between L2 and L3 is not wider that between the other levels.<br /><br />Instead of a 16k at 2:01, I would suggest that you could occasionally do 3 x 4k with 1:00 rest at 1:58 or faster. It could also be 4 x 3k with 0:45 rest, a 6 x 2k with 0:30 rest, etc. The idea is to get a little rest so that your pace is faster than your 16k L3, but not too long, so that your HR stays elevated.<br />Also, those intervals don't need to be exactly at the same pace; one could, for instance, do 6 x 2K with 0:30 rest, descending 1 to 3 and 4 to 6. That is, you could do the first 2K at 2:00, the second at 1:58.5, the 3rd at 1:57 and repeat for the other 3 x 2K. This adds some variety and does wonder to your endurance.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Francois <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm with you on this one. My L1 times are the same as yours, but they drop off after that. It's the same as when I swam in college. (I was a sprinter then and also played water polo). The 16k at 2:01 isn't a problem for me, and I'm looking to extend that workout each week.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 28th, 2005, 7:21 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Dec 28 2005, 02:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Woo hoo! Result. I'm being ignored by the TROLL. I can be as rude as I like about John Troll Rupp. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br /><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>IGNORE CITROEN THE TROLL!</span></span><br />

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 28th, 2005, 7:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Dec 28 2005, 01:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Finally, I understood the guideline for the long L3 workout was to maintain the pace and keep increasing the distance each week. </td></tr></table><br />Not necessarily. This has always been a little ambiguous. You could fix the distance and gradually increase pace, OR keep pace constant and gradually extend the distance, OR do a combination of both. Whatever feels more comfortable. I tend to do a little of both. I tend to start at some distance (e.g., 16-20K depending on my overall fitness when I start a training cycle), work the pace down by about 1 sec/500m over several weeks, add another 1K to the distance @ the same pace, work the pace down another second or so over several more weeks, add another 1K, etc. My general recommendation would be to work the distance up to at least an hour (which might be 12K for some folk and 17K for others). Someone who can’t fit so much volume into their training might limit their L3 row to the 10K/40’ range, but I would then hope that there is a 60’ L4 in the weekly schedule. In other words, to repeat a previous recommendation, I suggest at least one 60’ <i>continuous</i> endurance session per week.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Dec 28 2005, 11:12 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Instead of a 16k at 2:01, I would suggest that you could occasionally do 3 x 4k with 1:00 rest at 1:58 or faster. It could also be 4 x 3k with 0:45 rest, a 6 x 2k with 0:30 rest, etc. The idea is to get a little rest so that your pace is faster than your 16k L3, but not too long, so that your HR stays elevated. </td></tr></table><br />If someone is only doing a single L3 row per week, I would suggest keeping it continuous (see previous comments for a complete explanation). Breaking a distance down into 3-4 segments with short rest breaks is also good training; in fact I do something similar with my 2nd weekly L3 workout. But if I were only doing one, I’d keep it continuous.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training