Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » January 4th, 2006, 6:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 4 2006, 02:03 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I’ve done 2, 3, and 4-day rides across Michigan, but one day I want to go cross country (specifically, Portland, ME to Portland, OR). That will require some specific training. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Mike, I would disagree with that. When I took up bike touring (solo, self-supported) a decade ago, I just started out easy and let the trip do the training. I did the same thing on a long backpack in Europe (Arles to Finisterra, about 1 kilomile, in the year 2000). I set relatively easy goals for the first few day and just let the body harden up. It is different, of course, if you have a limited time to do a certain distance goal and have to be in condition to meet a tight schedule. It would also be different if you are with a group that is fast-paced. I didn't have either of those constrains, so I could just do my own thing. regards, Bob S. P.S. I just wanted to add my thanks for the warmup article. You had announced earlier that you were planning on posting it. I was looking forward to it and was pleased when you came through.

[old] nharrigan · Post by **[old] nharrigan** » January 4th, 2006, 7:23 pm

Ralph- Your advice is much appreciated. Sounds like more than few rowers also cycle. Or is it cyclist who row? I will give your workouts a try after the crash-bs. Those hill repeats sound tough with the increasing gearing. Thanks. Mike-Thanks for all your advice. The L4 stuff has really made a big difference in my rowing. It's great that these topics are available. As for your cross country trek, I have to agree with Bob S., that you would have no trouble with it. The summer after college, I went from Montreal to Seattle with some friends. We didn't train specifically for the ride. We eased into it and after a week even 100 miles a day seemed pretty easy- especially when you've got all day. Back to the WP and sorry for the digression. Regards, Neil

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » January 4th, 2006, 7:53 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'>No, I had a dismal L4 yesterday ... started out as a 60' piece but the 5 x 1,500M L2 the day before, with an easy 5K @ 20SPM afterwards, was just too much work for my lower back in one day. After 30' I had to stop the L4 and go stretch ... just tightness in the lower back, no injury or anything like that ... it's a fatigue thing for me. Anyway, it ended up being a 180/188/180 and over by 42M (probably because I was pacing a bit faster ... rather than slower ... than target). I'm anal about getting in daily meters, so I probably overdo it more than I should at my level of fitness. I should probably take a day off now and again, or go really easy as I will today as a recovery day. How about you? -- Mark </td></tr></table> Misery loves company so it is comforting to hear that I am not only one having problems.- Up until two weeks ago I was going along just fine with the program. I had the level 4 workouts finally figured out, the meters were piling up at record numbers when I realized that I was beginning to reach the point of possibly overtraining. I tried cutting back a little but it was too late- I got hit with a viral illness which made it all but impossible to workout for almost a week. Fortunately the bug hit just before the Holiday weekend so I was able to get plenty of rest. I was able to get back into the swing of things last week after the Holiday and had 2 excellent training sessions (Level 4 and 3). However last Thursday after I had done my level 3 session in the am with a total of 17k, the rowing instructor asked if I would participate in a 4x1k relay team competition in the afternoon. I couldn't turn down a challenge. After a good warm up of about 4K I was ready and volunteered to go last. I wanted the 3 ladies to go first- I wasn't being chivalrous- I just wanted to be sure I knew what times the other participants had. After all I could not let 3 women beat my time. The instructor was the third rower and put in a blistering pace. I started strong and had successively faster 200 m splits going at a higher pace than my previous best- the last 200 meters my form began to deteriorate from fatigue and I managed to have a split just slightly slower than the 4th 200 meter split. I beat my previous best 1k of 2 weeks ago by 2.3sec. and my best 1K from 1 month ago by 10 sec, but most importantly for my ego I beat the instructor by 5 seconds. However I paid for the effort for next several days- I must have pulled a muscle because I had to take several days off again because of my back. It is a recurrence of an injury I sustained last year when I was training for the Crash-B. Today I was able to gingerly start my rowing again. I did a 7 k warm up with slowly increasing intensity with plenty of stretching every 2 k. I did not push the workout today. My back feels better today and hopefully tomorrow I can back to doing a full level 4 workout. I have to keep reminding myself that I will be 65 next week and that I should stop trying to impress the young ladies. Probably the only one I impressed was myself. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I’ve done 2, 3, and 4-day rides across Michigan, but one day I want to go cross country (specifically, Portland, ME to Portland, OR). That will require some specific training. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Mike I would suggest that the cross country bike ride should be from Portland OR to Portlan Me- the prevailing winds are West to East and the hardest part of the trip is in the West with the Rocky Mountains. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Should I be concerned that nobody seems to remember how much time I have spent talking about warm-up? That kind of affects my motivation to continue expanding my comments on the WP. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Mike I think most of us appreciate the work you have done on this forum. I have personally archived, disected and outlined each and every one of your posts. Perhaps someone should compile a list of FAQ with your answers so that when a question is asked that has been previously answered the person can be sent to the Wolverine FAQ. Ralph Giarnella MD Southington, CT

[old] Mark Keating · Post by **[old] Mark Keating** » January 4th, 2006, 10:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Jan 4 2006, 06:53 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mike I think most of us appreciate the work you have done on this forum. </td></tr></table> I agree - completely. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Perhaps someone should compile a list of FAQ with your answers so that when a question is asked that has been previously answered the person can be sent to the Wolverine FAQ. </td></tr></table> Excellent idea Ralph! FAQ #1 - Am I working hard enough if I can complete a 40' L4 session without breaking a sweat? How often, if ever do I adjust my reference pace? Thanks, Mark

[old] raymond botha · Post by **[old] raymond botha** » January 5th, 2006, 3:35 am

Mark, I was beggining to think I was the only one that found the handle "heavy" the day after an interval. I've come to the conclusion that a "slow" row where the target pace for the 60 min might drop from 2:00 to 2:02.5 after an interval day is the way to go for me. It certianly puts the joy back into training and each subsequent 1sec slower /500m feels like an enormous relief. I've had to adjust my thinking from going fast to going far , relatively speaking. Too much intensity too often has proved counter productive for me I have to admit. The outcome of this adjusted thinking is a more interval focused training, thats where I satisfy my urge to push hard. This new year I may look to getting a latic acid tester which would improve my intuition of how hard I can push on a given day. Its been a long road getting to this conclusion. I'm trading perceived effort for intelligent structured training. Its amazing how much difference training to a plan has already made ! Regards Ray

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » January 5th, 2006, 5:59 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Jan 4 2006, 11:38 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(hjs @ Jan 4 2006, 12:16 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(cbrock @ Jan 4 2006, 01:03 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(FrancoisA)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Basically, I did all my running inside on a treadmill when it was warm outside. The treadmill was in the basement, the air conditioning was on, I had a big fan in front of the treadmill and I was running in my usual sexy underwear. I had no trouble running 5k at a 3:30 pace in those conditions. The problem happened on race day. It was a sunny, 90 deg F and very humid day, with no wind at all. After 2K at a 3:30 pace I started to feel very hot and thought I would just explode and die. I was gasping for air and my heart rate was at max. I ended up "running" at a 4:00 pace and barely made it under 19:00. Francois </td></tr></table> Just a note Francois. Running is quite different than rowing. I know that in rowing people do not row very much faster in races than they can produce at home. Don't know why. Perhaps there is no adrenalin effect as in running. I do not know of any runner who trains for a 5k event at their 5k race pace. Running races produces far superior times than what you can acheive in training. I averaged 3.39k pace for my two fastest marathons. I would not have been able to run even 5k at this pace in training. You may be tearing yourself apart even trying to get close to your race pace. I would suggest that if you are capable of running 5k in training at 3.30 pace you should be able to run close to 3.10 pace in a race. Regards, Chris </td></tr></table> hello Chris, being a former Track and field man, I don,t agree. In both running and erging I go a bit faster in racing but not that much. And you not being able to run a 5 k in your marathonpace is very strange. A wel trained person can easely run a half marathon in his full marathon pace. reg. hjs </td></tr></table> I agree with hjs. When I am doing a quality workout, I can get close to racing pace, whether in swimming, biking running or erging. It should be easy to run a 5k at marathon pace. When you averaged 3:39 per km for your marathon (2:34), you should, in theory, have been able to race a 5k at about 3:14 pace, according to my running books. Regarding the adrenaline effect, I think it is at play in all races, and it has to be kept under control as it is a double-edged sword. The great advantage on the erg is that you always know your pace. In running, you only get a first glimpse at it at the first km marker (or even worse, at the first mile), which is too late if you started too fast. Francois </td></tr></table> Francois, I probably did not make it clear what I was trying to say. If you are training for a specific running race distance, then obviuosly you need to train faster than your race pace in an attempt to reach your goals. You break up the distance in order to achieve this pace. For example if you are trying to get a good 5k time then you would do a lot of 400m or 1K intervals at faster than race pace. You would not simply just run 5k in training as hard as you can every time in an effort to get close to your optimium pace or time. This is where I think rowing is quite different than running. People seem to be able to row as well in training for 2k as they can in a race environment. I would doubt that any world record holder in running events has ever broken their record in training. Conversely a number of rowers have done exactly that. They have posted faster times in training at home by themselves. Hope this makes it a bit clearer. Regards, Chris PS: My best 5k RACE was 16:15. What I said was that I struggled to train over 5k at my MARATHON pace. Too many people in running train too close to their racing pace over longer distances and either break down or never achieve their optimum results.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » January 5th, 2006, 6:51 am

Francois, I probably did not make it clear what I was trying to say. If you are training for a specific running race distance, then obviuosly you need to train faster than your race pace in an attempt to reach your goals. You break up the distance in order to achieve this pace. For example if you are trying to get a good 5k time then you would do a lot of 400m or 1K intervals at faster than race pace. You would not simply just run 5k in training as hard as you can every time in an effort to get close to your optimium pace or time. This is where I think rowing is quite different than running. People seem to be able to row as well in training for 2k as they can in a race environment. I would doubt that any world record holder in running events has ever broken their record in training. Conversely a number of rowers have done exactly that. They have posted faster times in training at home by themselves. Hope this makes it a bit clearer. Regards, Chris PS: My best 5k RACE was 16:15. What I said was that I struggled to train over 5k at my MARATHON pace. Too many people in running train too close to their racing pace over longer distances and either break down or never achieve their optimum results. [/quote] The reason ergers row sometimes at best in training/at home is maybe due to the fact that races are mostly just 2 K, so the other distances simply have to be done during training. Another thing is that erging is for toprowers not a priority, it's just a form of training, they don't race must at all, some of them never do, they just train.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 5th, 2006, 9:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(raymond botha @ Jan 5 2006, 03:35 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mark, I was beggining to think I was the only one that found the handle "heavy" the day after an interval. I've come to the conclusion that a "slow" row where the target pace for the 60 min might drop from 2:00 to 2:02.5 after an interval day is the way to go for me. It certianly puts the joy back into training and each subsequent 1sec slower /500m feels like an enormous relief. I've had to adjust my thinking from going fast to going far , relatively speaking. Too much intensity too often has proved counter productive for me I have to admit. The outcome of this adjusted thinking is a more interval focused training, thats where I satisfy my urge to push hard. This new year I may look to getting a latic acid tester which would improve my intuition of how hard I can push on a given day. Its been a long road getting to this conclusion. I'm trading perceived effort for intelligent structured training. Its amazing how much difference training to a plan has already made ! Regards Ray </td></tr></table> Ray: I think there is something to the fact that my body is 47 but my mind is still in high school or university. I certainly don't feel 47 (or 37 for that matter). I have been a guy for whom rest is taken when I'm falling asleep. I agree with you that the day after an interval workout is probably a good day for us to back off a bit. I was doing an L4 after any L1 or L2, thinking it was an "easy" workout. Now I'm at the point where the L4s are getting challenging, so perhaps it's best to just do an hour "recovery" row at lower pace and work on perfecting technique (or something). I guess there is a fine line between dogging it, and doing a slow row to allow one's body to recover from a significant amount of work. Or, maybe I just need more aerobic base building so the interval sessions are not as taxing and recovery comes faster. There are no easy answers are there? That's what makes it fun! Cheers ... Mark

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » January 5th, 2006, 10:48 am

As an older guy who continues to tinker w/ the balance between intensity, duration, and frequency of workouts, I offer a couple of observations: Perhaps you are pushing too hard in the interval sessions. Intervals are part of an overall plan, and if you perform them in a fashion that causes other parts of the plan to go wonky, them perhaps you're doing the intervals at too high an intensity, for too long, or too frequently. If the level 4 workouts are too tough, perhaps the remedy is simply to back down the intensity while still performing a level 4. This could be done either by taking down the pace or going to a less demanding progression. If you're following the Wolverine Plan, follow the plan. (I don't follow the plan. I try to incorporate the basic concepts while doing rate-capped longer rows and Wolverine-based intervals.) Younger athletes recover more quickly than older guys, and hence can do more work. Any plan has to include appropriate recovery for the particular individual, probably in the form both of rest and less-demanding workouts. Finally, I'd suggest that doing lots of training on the erg at race paces will do you in. The reason people set records at home on the erg is because that's the only place you can race for most distances. Relative newcomers to the erg will have the heady experience of setting new PBs regularly, but eventually, they too get to the point where PBs are rare, or perhaps as in my case, a thing of the past. Tom

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 5th, 2006, 12:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Jan 5 2006, 10:48 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As an older guy who continues to tinker w/ the balance between intensity, duration, and frequency of workouts, I offer a couple of observations: Perhaps you are pushing too hard in the interval sessions. Intervals are part of an overall plan, and if you perform them in a fashion that causes other parts of the plan to go wonky, them perhaps you're doing the intervals at too high an intensity, for too long, or too frequently. If the level 4 workouts are too tough, perhaps the remedy is simply to back down the intensity while still performing a level 4. This could be done either by taking down the pace or going to a less demanding progression. If you're following the Wolverine Plan, follow the plan. (I don't follow the plan. I try to incorporate the basic concepts while doing rate-capped longer rows and Wolverine-based intervals.) Younger athletes recover more quickly than older guys, and hence can do more work. Any plan has to include appropriate recovery for the particular individual, probably in the form both of rest and less-demanding workouts. Finally, I'd suggest that doing lots of training on the erg at race paces will do you in. The reason people set records at home on the erg is because that's the only place you can race for most distances. Relative newcomers to the erg will have the heady experience of setting new PBs regularly, but eventually, they too get to the point where PBs are rare, or perhaps as in my case, a thing of the past. Tom </td></tr></table> Tom: I didn't mean to impy the L4s were too tough, they're just not "recovery rows" as one would think of a day when one just "puts in" meters to warm up and loosen up after a hard workout day. I've been following the Plan pretty closely, using the proper reference pace, not changing it but "moving up the chart", etc. I don't feel doing one L1 workout every other week, and one L2 workout every other week (during the weeks when I don't do an L1) is too much speed training. I'd propose that without the L1 and L2 workouts, it would be very hard to improve one's 2K time if one is focused on that (as I am). My error, being a newbie, was getting to the right pace with the L1 and L2 workouts ... I started too conservatively and the workouts were not much of an effort. I then started knocking seconds off of the paces for these workouts, and still felt I had not reached what I refer to as my "current training limit". Then, I did this with a 4x1000 over the holidays and "hit the wall" (so to speak). That's OK, because I feel I am now where I need to be with that workout, and I know what safe target pace to shoot for. It will also help me validate the paces for the other L1 workouts -- at least within some reasonable range ... and I guess could be extrapolated to suggest what paces might be "my wall" for L2 workouts as well. I believe the error I made was coming up with paces for these using just 500M pace times rather than watts. When Mike says something like "90% of reference pace" I took the seconds for my reference pace, and divided by .9. I haven't gone through the math, but I believe that 90% of the energy (watts) level would give a faster pace than what I calculated. Maybe I'm off base here, but I think this was my error. Therefore, all of my initial paces were too slow, except for L4s, which are hard to mess up because of the tables. I'd be interested in comments on whether the watts issue is truly where I messed up from those that have this down cold. Thanks! Regards -- Mark

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » January 5th, 2006, 1:14 pm

Mark-- I've always understood the reference pace to be in seconds not watts. So if you're doing your level 1 4x1k at 1.53/500, a comparable level 2 would be at 2.02/500. (113x1.08). Things don't always work out so neatly in practice. Tom

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » January 5th, 2006, 1:23 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 5 2006, 09:59 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Francois, I probably did not make it clear what I was trying to say. If you are training for a specific running race distance, then obviuosly you need to train faster than your race pace in an attempt to reach your goals. You break up the distance in order to achieve this pace. For example if you are trying to get a good 5k time then you would do a lot of 400m or 1K intervals at faster than race pace. You would not simply just run 5k in training as hard as you can every time in an effort to get close to your optimium pace or time. This is where I think rowing is quite different than running. People seem to be able to row as well in training for 2k as they can in a race environment. I would doubt that any world record holder in running events has ever broken their record in training. Conversely a number of rowers have done exactly that. They have posted faster times in training at home by themselves. Hope this makes it a bit clearer. Regards, Chris PS: My best 5k RACE was 16:15. What I said was that I struggled to train over 5k at my MARATHON pace. Too many people in running train too close to their racing pace over longer distances and either break down or never achieve their optimum results. </td></tr></table> Chris, I completely agree with what you've just written. BTW, your best 5K is consistent with your best marathon. Both are very good! Last Summer, I was following the training plan in the book "Daniels' Running Formula" by Jack Daniels, which has a lot of similarities with the WP, and the training plan in Joe Friel's "The Triathlete's Training Bible". So every four weeks was a recovery week where volume and intensity was almost cut in half. At the end of that recovery week I would do a minor race or a time trial. I have done recently 17:50 for a 5K race, and 18:13 for the 5k run portion, including transition, of a triathlon; that is after a 750m swim and 20k bike! I usually perform well after an extensive warm-up! My best 5k is 16:32, done in less than optimal conditions, and that was 20 years ago! At that time I was completely ignorant of training principles. I would just run at "anaerobic threshold" pace for 6 to 8 miles every day and would usualy sprint the last mile. No intervals, no weekly long run, etc! Now that I know a lot more, I no longer have the VO2 max and recovery capacities that I had. Oh well, such is life, I guess! Cheers, Francois

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » January 5th, 2006, 3:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 4 2006, 03:47 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Yep, just me being a smartypants. I didn’t think I was being so subtle, though I refuse to use any lame “smilies” to telegraph my intent. Should I be concerned that nobody seems to remember how much time I have spent talking about warm-up? That kind of affects my motivation to continue expanding my comments on the WP. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Hi Mike It wasn't subtle, given that you pointed directly at the post on warmups. I must admit that while I have read everything you have posted at least twice, I do not remember it all and have to refer back constantly, I have more than one Word doc where I copy all your posts for easy reference and searching. You should not be offended as we are only human and most try hard to assimilate the data and not be repetitive. I have noticed from time to time that when a repetitive question is asked, one of the members who follow your posts will help direct the questioner to the answer. Maybe you could let us be your teachers aids. I think that rather than being concerned about whether people remember what you post you should be concerned with the fact that this thread has the highest ratio of page views to posts, almost 50 to 1, and since I tend to believe that most viewers like myseld view once for a set of new posts there are probably many times that 50 who view. At the risk of being labelled a "Caviston Groupie", I would like to extend my thanks to you for your time and effort, I am sure it is appreciated by many others as well. Fred

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » January 5th, 2006, 4:55 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dickie @ Jan 5 2006, 03:39 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> You should not be offended as we are only human and most try hard to assimilate the data and not be repetitive. </td></tr></table> I’m sorry Fred, that’s just not good enough (wink, wink, wink, wink)! <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I have noticed from time to time that when a repetitive question is asked, one of the members who follow your posts will help direct the questioner to the answer. Maybe you could let us be your teachers aids. </td></tr></table> That’s usually my first approach. And I like to use others’ explanations as a sounding board. I can see what points I need to clarify or expand, and sometimes others explain things more clearly than I have. Mike Caviston

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » January 5th, 2006, 5:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 5 2006, 12:37 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'd be interested in comments on whether the watts issue is truly where I messed up from those that have this down cold. </td></tr></table> Nobody has this down cold. I (and many others) am often inconsistent when expressing intensity as time or Watts, and often when I try to simplify things I end up making them more confusing. Let’s try it again. The term “Reference Pace” or “Ref Pace” refers specifically to a person’s best 2K pace from the most recent training/racing season. For Level 4 training, one needs to take the average pace from last season’s best 2K and round to the nearest whole number; when in doubt, it’s probably best to be conservative and round to the slower pace. For example, if last year’s best 2K was 7:10.0, the 500m pace is 1:47.5, which would be rounded to 1:48. Then consult the WP L4 tables for the appropriate whole-number paces for various stroke rates when performing the different L4 10’ or 6’ sequences. (The issue of selecting a Ref Pace without having performed a 2K, or if someone is clearly more fit than their previous best 2K, is tricky. I have discussed this extensively in the past and have nothing new to add at this point.) For Level 4, calculate all paces as time and don’t start messing around with Watts or things start to get pretty complicated (unless you want to start doing stroke rates or Goal Paces in decimals rather than whole numbers). The appropriate starting point for Level 4 regarding stroke rate is roughly an average of 18spm (+/- .2) For the other WP Levels (L1-L3), at the beginning of a new training cycle there is a need to select appropriate paces for the various workouts. I have made suggestions for minimum (slowest acceptable) paces when starting a new cycle, assuming a certain amount of baseline fitness has been maintained in the off-season. (Off-season training is a topic I need to address more completely in the future.) In this case the “Ref Pace” can be the previous year’s best 2K pace extended to tenths of a second (e.g., 1:47.5 from the example above). This will help create a frame of reference for where to begin training. The assumption is that one doesn’t want to waste time starting at too slow a pace, nor risk burning out too soon by selecting too fast a pace. My recommendations provide a ballpark compromise. Here are some specific recommendations: 8 x 500m (L1) starting pace is 2K pace • “2K pace” means last year’s best 2K pace • Some might not find this challenging enough, and may begin a little faster, but no more than 2K – 1 4 x 1K starting pace is roughly 2K + 3 • It may also be determined by multiplying 2K pace by 1.03 (e.g., 1:47.5 * 1.03) • It may also be determined as 90% of 2K power in Watts • Note that all of these methods don’t coincide exactly and they’re all just ballpark figures anyway 4 x 2K starting pace is roughly 2K + 8 • It may also be determined by multiplying 2K pace by 1.08 • It may also be determined as 78% of 2K power in Watts • Corresponding pace for 3K/2.5K/2K is a little slower and for 5 x 1500m, a little faster 60’+ Continuous (L3) starting pace is roughly 2K + 15 • Or 2K * 1.16 • Or 2K Watts * .64 • This recommendation means that ideally someone begins a training cycle with enough endurance to row continuously for a distance that will correspond to 60’ or more at the designated pace Inevitably, this will lead to the question, “What if I can’t do the minimum suggested pace?” As I see it, you then have three choices: 1) Do it anyway 2) Quit rowing altogether; you’re hopeless 3) Do what you can do, and build from there I recommend the third option. And of course, the reverse question, “What if I can go faster?” Well, in general, good for you. You’re starting at a faster point which will hopefully translate into a faster endpoint when the season concludes. But just remember the general recommendations about not getting too greedy or biting off more than you can chew. Just like the first couple hundred meters of a 2K seem pretty easy even when the pace is fast, reality sets in pretty quickly. Setting too fast a tone early often results in peaking early or burning out before the season is completed. Also use good judgment about how rapidly you increase the pace from one workout to the next. Early in the season, especially for a beginner, it is probably alright to make bigger jumps than an experienced athlete might make or than the same beginner might make later in the year. But I recommend that after a period of 3-6 weeks, limit the rate of progress to no more than .2 sec/500m per week for any of the WP training Levels. Maintain slow, steady, consistent progress for the bulk of the training season. Perhaps with 2-4 weeks to go before the end of the season (i.e., your big race for the year) push the intensity across the various training Levels a little harder if you think you can. Beginners especially shouldn’t worry too much about getting their absolute best performance in the first year, because such a thing just isn’t possible. Your goal should be to have a good experience in your first year, to gain valuable practice, and to come back next year hungry and prepared with the wisdom to perform even better. If you plan well, you can continue that cycle (do good this year, learn more, do better next year) for many years. Mike Caviston