Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » January 6th, 2006, 7:52 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 5 2006, 04:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I’m sorry Fred, that’s just not good enough (wink, wink, wink, wink)!<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I get that a lot from my wife, do you know her? hmmmmm.........

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 6th, 2006, 8:41 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Jan 6 2006, 07:52 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(Mike Caviston @ Jan 5 2006, 04:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I’m sorry Fred, that’s just not good enough (wink, wink, wink, wink)!<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I get that a lot from my wife, do you know her? hmmmmm......... <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Fred:<br /><br />I believe we must be related ... through marriage ... sounds like my wife is your wife's twin ...<br /><br />-- Mark

[old] goblue · Post by **[old] goblue** » January 6th, 2006, 4:34 pm

Hi, I've got a question, don't know if this is the right place for it or not, but all the discussion of rowing as it compares to cycling has me thinking...<br /><br />When Lance Armstrong was recovering from cancer, he and his coach Chris Carmichael made a conscious decision to train Lance's body to cycle at a higher cadence than his competitors could. It was a break with conventional thinking. The reasoning behind this move was this: by turning a smaller gear at a higher rate, most of the burden of Lance's work would be placed on his aerobic system instead of on his musculature. By doing this they 'saved' Lance's muscles, keeping them fresh for a final sprint or a breakaway. Compare this to Lance's arch-rival Jan Ullrich, and most other cyclists, notorious for turning huge gears at a low cadences and for finishing behing Lance. You could see this training in action on the long climbs- as the cyclists began to suffer on the steep grades, they would begin to come out of their saddles in order to generate more power. Lance, on the other hand, would shift to a smaller gear and increase cadence.<br /><br />My question is this: does this approach to cycling have any relevance to rowing? In other words, what would happen if someone did SS/Level 4 work at a 24-28, but still within target HR? Could you train your body to work at higher stroke ratings, and by doing so handle more effort throught the aerobic system, 'saving' the muscles for a sprint/move?

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » January 6th, 2006, 5:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(goblue @ Jan 6 2006, 04:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi, I've got a question, don't know if this is the right place for it or not, but all the discussion of rowing as it compares to cycling has me thinking...<br /><br />When Lance Armstrong was recovering from cancer, he and his coach Chris Carmichael made a conscious decision to train Lance's body to cycle at a higher cadence than his competitors could. It was a break with conventional thinking. The reasoning behind this move was this: by turning a smaller gear at a higher rate, most of the burden of Lance's work would be placed on his aerobic system instead of on his musculature. By doing this they 'saved' Lance's muscles, keeping them fresh for a final sprint or a breakaway. Compare this to Lance's arch-rival Jan Ullrich, and most other cyclists, notorious for turning huge gears at a low cadences and for finishing behing Lance. You could see this training in action on the long climbs- as the cyclists began to suffer on the steep grades, they would begin to come out of their saddles in order to generate more power. Lance, on the other hand, would shift to a smaller gear and increase cadence.<br /><br />My question is this: does this approach to cycling have any relevance to rowing? In other words, what would happen if someone did SS/Level 4 work at a 24-28, but still within target HR? Could you train your body to work at higher stroke ratings, and by doing so handle more effort throught the aerobic system, 'saving' the muscles for a sprint/move? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />What works for cycling is not applicable to rowing. What cyclists are doing when they are using smaller gears and cycling at a higher cadence is shifting the work from the type IIa, glycogen using fibers to the type I fat burning fibers. Glycogen is available in a limited supply in the muscles. It is important for high intensity work. If you use it up at the bottom of the hill it will not be available at the top of the hill. The type I fibers use primarily fat as a source of energy which even in thin thinnest athlete is available in abundance. <br /><br />Lance also learned to use smaller gears and a higher cadence because it is easier to accelerate when using a smaller gear. A higher cadence is less efficient when it comes to total calorie consumption but is very efficient when it comes to glycogen sparing. <br /><br />In rowing, a 2K race uses up very little glycogen, so glycogen sparing is not an issue. A 2 K race requires approximately 150 calories. A single day in the Tour De France requires a minimum of 3500- to a maximum of 10,000 calories. Your body cannot store 10,000 calories in the form of Glycogen. <br /><br />In rowing the point of diminishing returns comes somewhere between 32spm-36 spm. By training at the lower spm you recruit more fibers, type I and typII to produce more work per stroke and increase your distance per stroke. If you can then perform the same work per stroke but at a higher rate you will end up with a higher work rate per minute. <br /><br />There is a certain amount of energy expended in moving your body back and forth which is separate from the energy transfered to the ergometer. As you increase your spm there is more work done just moving you body and this is waisted energy. It is more efficient trying to produce the same work at a lower spm than at a higher spm.<br /><br />In cycling the higher cadence also burns up extra energy but it is at the expense of the type I fibers. In cycling there is also a point of diminishing returns which is a cadence above 100. Sprinters in cycling can reach cadences of up to 130+ in the highest gears producing wattage outputs in the 1600 watt range- However the sprint only lasts about 10-20 seconds. <br /><br />Whereas a faster cadence is more efficient use of the available energy in cycling in rowing you need to get the most power possible into the oar or erg in the shortest possible time. <br /><br />Ralph Giarnella <br />Southington, CT

[old] tennstrike · Post by **[old] tennstrike** » January 6th, 2006, 9:03 pm

Did my Level 1 workout tonight as a pyramid of 3,500 meters. Did not have a 1K time, so thought I'd shoot at Mark's and aimed for 1:48.<br /><br />500 1:51.9<br />750 1:51.8<br />1K 1:47.9 (3:35.9 with splits of 1:48.8 and 147.1)<br />750 1:51.7<br />500 1:51.3<br /><br />Very happy with my progress on the WP. <br /><br />Thanks Mike.<br /><br />Jeff

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 6th, 2006, 10:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(goblue @ Jan 6 2006, 12:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>does this approach to cycling have any relevance to rowing?[right] </td></tr></table><br />Yes, Chris Carmichael's approach has relevance to rowing, and works for rowing in exactly the same manner as it does for cycling. Carmichael had Armstrong do "muscle tension" intervals a couple of times a week in pre season, where he would cycle uphill in a high gear at 50-55 rpm for 10:00... cycle very easily for 20:00 or so in between... and repeat this 3 or 4 times. This is from memory so I would need to check to verify the exact rpm and time for recovery. <br /><br />Much more often than this, CC had LA keep the cadence high, at least 88 rpm or higher, again going uphill, and for much longer periods of time. Then he would increase the rate and intensity for the last 500 meters.<br /><br />The slow cadence training was not new with Carmichael.<br /><br />Olympic Champion, three time World Champion and twelve time national champion Connie Carpenter details the same type of training in her book "Training for Cycling", Perigee Books, 1992 as follows:<br /><br />"One specific power building exercise is to go out and shift into a big gear so that you are pedaling slowly, 30 to 40 spms, while sitting rock still in your saddle. Don't even use your arms, but rest your wrists on the handle bars. Ride like this for several minutes. In essense this is a form of weight trainning but is cycling specific. Andy Hampsten prefers this type of training. It was suggested to him by Massimo Testa" of Italy." Hampston was an excellent climber and known for spinning up hills at high rates.<br /><br />It's no secret that the top lightweight rowers, Eskild Ebbesen, Elia Luini et all, spin along in their 2k's at high ratings.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » January 7th, 2006, 8:52 pm

This is just another general reminder for anyone relatively new to the Wolverine Plan. I get at least a couple requests per week via e-mail or PM from people looking for more info about the WP. First of all the original Wolverine Plan document (the one I wrote for the University of Michigan women’s team) can be found <a href='http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm' target='_blank'>HERE</a>. That document was never intended to be fully comprehensive, and while it explains a great deal it doesn’t make clear every aspect of training with the WP. <b>This thread</b> contains my most recent and comprehensive attempts to clarify the WP (and it is still a work in progress). Anyone interested in the WP should read all my comments here from front to back at least a couple of times. So far that means over 70 pages of print in a Word format, so that will take some work, but that’s the way it is.<br /><br />Some people contact me and say, “No, no – I just want a simple one paragraph summary” or “Just give me a schedule of workouts to do”. If you’re looking for something that basic, you need to look elsewhere. There is a Chinese proverb that says "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." I’m trying to teach people how to fish. If I were a nutritionist, I would be trying to educate people about carbs and fats and vitamins and minerals, and people would be saying “Knock off the mumbo-jumbo! Just tell me what to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.”<br /><br />So – either roll up your sleeves and get to work digesting all the nuances of the WP, or move on to some other simpler plan. I get paid the same amount either way (that is, nada). <br /><br />Mike Caviston <br />

[old] Fast Forward · Post by **[old] Fast Forward** » January 8th, 2006, 2:10 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Jan 6 2006, 02:11 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(goblue @ Jan 6 2006, 04:34 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi, I've got a question, don't know if this is the right place for it or not, but all the discussion of rowing as it compares to cycling has me thinking...<br /><br />When Lance Armstrong was recovering from cancer, he and his coach Chris Carmichael made a conscious decision to train Lance's body to cycle at a higher cadence than his competitors could. It was a break with conventional thinking. The reasoning behind this move was this: by turning a smaller gear at a higher rate, most of the burden of Lance's work would be placed on his aerobic system instead of on his musculature. By doing this they 'saved' Lance's muscles, keeping them fresh for a final sprint or a breakaway. Compare this to Lance's arch-rival Jan Ullrich, and most other cyclists, notorious for turning huge gears at a low cadences and for finishing behing Lance. You could see this training in action on the long climbs- as the cyclists began to suffer on the steep grades, they would begin to come out of their saddles in order to generate more power. Lance, on the other hand, would shift to a smaller gear and increase cadence.<br /><br />My question is this: does this approach to cycling have any relevance to rowing? In other words, what would happen if someone did SS/Level 4 work at a 24-28, but still within target HR? Could you train your body to work at higher stroke ratings, and by doing so handle more effort throught the aerobic system, 'saving' the muscles for a sprint/move? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />What works for cycling is not applicable to rowing. What cyclists are doing when they are using smaller gears and cycling at a higher cadence is shifting the work from the type IIa, glycogen using fibers to the type I fat burning fibers. Glycogen is available in a limited supply in the muscles. It is important for high intensity work. If you use it up at the bottom of the hill it will not be available at the top of the hill. The type I fibers use primarily fat as a source of energy which even in thin thinnest athlete is available in abundance. <br /><br />Lance also learned to use smaller gears and a higher cadence because it is easier to accelerate when using a smaller gear. A higher cadence is less efficient when it comes to total calorie consumption but is very efficient when it comes to glycogen sparing. <br /><br />In rowing, a 2K race uses up very little glycogen, so glycogen sparing is not an issue. A 2 K race requires approximately 150 calories. A single day in the Tour De France requires a minimum of 3500- to a maximum of 10,000 calories. Your body cannot store 10,000 calories in the form of Glycogen. <br /><br />In rowing the point of diminishing returns comes somewhere between 32spm-36 spm. By training at the lower spm you recruit more fibers, type I and typII to produce more work per stroke and increase your distance per stroke. If you can then perform the same work per stroke but at a higher rate you will end up with a higher work rate per minute. <br /><br />There is a certain amount of energy expended in moving your body back and forth which is separate from the energy transfered to the ergometer. As you increase your spm there is more work done just moving you body and this is waisted energy. It is more efficient trying to produce the same work at a lower spm than at a higher spm.<br /><br />In cycling the higher cadence also burns up extra energy but it is at the expense of the type I fibers. In cycling there is also a point of diminishing returns which is a cadence above 100. Sprinters in cycling can reach cadences of up to 130+ in the highest gears producing wattage outputs in the 1600 watt range- However the sprint only lasts about 10-20 seconds. <br /><br />Whereas a faster cadence is more efficient use of the available energy in cycling in rowing you need to get the most power possible into the oar or erg in the shortest possible time. <br /><br />Ralph Giarnella <br />Southington, CT <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />If you're going to compare cycling cadence and rowing stroke rate it might behoove you to look at similar duration events. So, in cycling, you might look at the cadence of 4K pursuit riders or prologue stage rides (which can be very close to the 2K rowing duration) if you want to compare with 2K rowing events. (This might be complicated by fact that pursuit riders use a fixed gear and the prologue riders using a range of gears). For these events, the cycling cadence remains high--70-100 rpm. I'm not sure why the cycling cadence is still much higher than the rowing stroke rate. <br /><br />Ralph, I'd love to see some proof of your statement that "In rowing the point of diminishing returns comes somewhere between 32spm-36 spm." and "By training at the lower spm you recruit more fibers, type I and typII to produce more work per stroke and increase your distance per stroke." <br /><br />I ask because it seems like this statement is a underlying principle of many training plans. I ask too because, this morning, it felt very unnatural to row at 18 and 20 spm. I would think the "specificity principle of training" would suggest a higher spm. BTW, I am also a cyclist, and riding at a cadence of 100 feels just as unnatural. <br /><br />t.<br /><br />

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » January 8th, 2006, 3:32 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'><br />If you're going to compare cycling cadence and rowing stroke rate it might behoove you to look at similar duration events. So, in cycling, you might look at the cadence of 4K pursuit riders or prologue stage rides (which can be very close to the 2K rowing duration) if you want to compare with 2K rowing events. (This might be complicated by fact that pursuit riders use a fixed gear and the prologue riders using a range of gears). For these events, the cycling cadence remains high--70-100 rpm. I'm not sure why the cycling cadence is still much higher than the rowing stroke rate. <br /><br />Ralph, I'd love to see some proof of your statement that "In rowing the point of diminishing returns comes somewhere between 32spm-36 spm." and "By training at the lower spm you recruit more fibers, type I and typII to produce more work per stroke and increase your distance per stroke." <br /><br />I ask because it seems like this statement is a underlying principle of many training plans. I ask too because, this morning, it felt very unnatural to row at 18 and 20 spm. I would think the "specificity principle of training" would suggest a higher spm. BTW, I am also a cyclist, and riding at a cadence of 100 feels just as unnatural. <br /><br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The statement that the point of diminishing returns is somewhere between 32-36 spm is really based on my own observations and not necessarily on any scientific study. However if you analyze the various components of a full stroke you will be better able to understand the rationale behind my statement.<br /><br />The stroke obviously consists of 2 major components the drive and the recovery. In general the ratio of recovery to drive is about 2:1. At 20 spm the entire stroke would take 3 seconds so that would be 1 second for the drive and 2 seconds for the recovery. <br /><br />For illustration purpose lets assume that the distance per stroke a 20 spm is 12 meters- during the drive you will cover about 4 meters +/- ( have not done the math) and during the recovery you will cover about 8 m. <br /><br />At 30 spm each stroke will take 2 seconds- If you maintain a 2:1 ratio then the drive will take .66 seconds and the driver 1.34 seconds. Assuming the drive covers the same 4 m the recovery which is no shorter by a third will cover less than 8 m and this is because the next drive occurs before the boat (or the fan) has slowed down and therefore covered the same distance as above. <br />However there is a good chance that your drive may continue to take close to 1 sec but that the increased spm is at the expense of the recovery.<br /><br />You may argue that well during the recovery the fan or boat is going faster however if you do some calculations as to your dps is at 20 spm and your dps is at 30spm you will see that in fact your dps is less the more spm- at least is for me and when I did the calculations on the tables provided by Mike Caviston I found the same discrepancy as the spm increased the dps decreased. <br /><br />Also note that the shorter the recovery time the less time there is for delivery of oxygen to the muscles and the less time there is for the muscles to recover from the previous effort and the sooner you will begin to increase the lactate levels in your muscles.<br /><br />At 40 spm each stroke takes 1.5 seconds. At this point most are at a 1:1 ratio that is the drive will take about .75 sec and the recovery takes .75 sec. There is considerably less distance covered during recovery. There is also considerably less time for the drive as well but most importantly there considerably less time for your muscles to recover before the next stroke. So that lactate builds up even faster and the faster it rises the closer you are to having your muscles shut down. <br /><br />I find that once I get my spm above 32 spm my dps begins to drop dramatically. <br />Last year when I trained for the Crash B I was training at a spm in the 32-42 range. I was able to maintain a high stroke rate because I had very low dps. My time was just barely under 8 minutes for 2K.<br /><br />This year after training at the very low spm my dps at 18-20 is around 12+ m and at 32 m it is around 8+ meters and my time for 2k is considerably faster at a lower spm. During a recent 1k time trial my pace for the 4th 200 m at 32 spm was faster than my pace for the last 200 m at 36 spm and my dps for the last 200 m was considerably less as well. <br /><br />There is definitely a trade off of pace for distance and the big question is where is the point of diminishing returns. I asked that question in an earlier post but there were no takers. I base my conclusions on my personal experience and from analysis of Mike Cavistons tables<br /><br /><b> Example: Pace 1:50 168 s/10' D 2207m DPS 13 m 220/10' D 2402m DPS 11 m </b><br /><br />I will explain the rationale behind the higher cadence in cycling in another post. Suffice it to say that most find it very difficult to keep a high cadence unless there is a conscious effort at training in that range just as it is difficult to maintain a low spm unless there is a conscious effort to train at that range. <br /><br />Ralph Giarnella <br />Southington, CT <br />

[old] Thomas · Post by **[old] Thomas** » January 9th, 2006, 4:36 pm

I like the Wolverine Plan because I can measure my progess through pace-performance as opposed to a training plan based on heart rate, which I think is ambiguous. I think a training plan based on heart rate sets a person up for disappointment in the world of indoor rowing. <br /><br />But, I think the heart rate measurements can supplement pace-performance training as a motivational tool. A good example is using a heart rate monitor during a 12k at a set pace. If I am consistently doing 12k's at around a 1:50 pace (1.156*2k-pace) in my training over a particular month, a heart rate monitor would probably show that my heart is progressively not having to work as hard to achieve a 1:50 average pace.

[old] Thomas · Post by **[old] Thomas** » January 9th, 2006, 4:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 7 2006, 04:52 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This is just another general reminder for anyone relatively new to the Wolverine Plan. I get at least a couple requests per week via e-mail or PM from people looking for more info about the WP. First of all the original Wolverine Plan document (the one I wrote for the University of Michigan women’s team) can be found <a href='http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm' target='_blank'>HERE</a>. That document was never intended to be fully comprehensive, and while it explains a great deal it doesn’t make clear every aspect of training with the WP. <b>This thread</b> contains my most recent and comprehensive attempts to clarify the WP (and it is still a work in progress). Anyone interested in the WP should read all my comments here from front to back at least a couple of times. So far that means over 70 pages of print in a Word format, so that will take some work, but that’s the way it is.<br /><br />Some people contact me and say, “No, no – I just want a simple one paragraph summary” or “Just give me a schedule of workouts to do”. If you’re looking for something that basic, you need to look elsewhere. There is a Chinese proverb that says "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." I’m trying to teach people how to fish. If I were a nutritionist, I would be trying to educate people about carbs and fats and vitamins and minerals, and people would be saying “Knock off the mumbo-jumbo! Just tell me what to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.”<br /><br />So – either roll up your sleeves and get to work digesting all the nuances of the WP, or move on to some other simpler plan. I get paid the same amount either way (that is, nada). <br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Hi Mike,<br /><br />This is really a nice compliment on behalf of those person's who email you with those type of requests. Your success has shown the way. More than likely these people don't have the time to learn it but do want to set a side the time to do it.<br /><br />Later,<br />Thomas

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 9th, 2006, 5:23 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Jan 8 2006, 10:10 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm not sure why the cycling cadence is still much higher than the rowing stroke rate. </td></tr></table><br />Cycling and running have much more extensive histories and are far more competitive than is rowing, whereas rowing clings to archaic beliefs. Even though Eskild Ebbesen, Elia Luini and others have gone quietly along smashing world records at 41 to 43 strokes per minute, the old guard still doesn't get it.<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'>I would think the "specificity principle of training" would suggest a higher spm. </td></tr></table><br />Yes, it certainly does.<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'>I am also a cyclist, and riding at a cadence of 100 feels just as unnatural. </td></tr></table><br />One of my favorite sessions cycling was a series of 1 mile climbs up a 6 to 8% slope, then riding easy, spin surging down, riding easy, and repeating this 5 or 6 times. I had every furlong marked and would check my watch and pace constantly on the way. Also during this I experimented with different gearing and cadence. <br /><br />What I found is that the fastest and easiest times came when I was spinning up the hill in the range of 96 to 102 rpm, with the higher part of this range being easier and faster. My cadence would start to bog down at 96 rpm and below, and time (pace) could be lost very quickly. I was measuring these in tenths so it was very easy to tell the differences. Going at ratings above 110 were pushing the limits of my coordination, though with more practice perhaps they would have continued to become easier and faster as well.<br /><br />This session had a *huge* carryover to other types of hill climbs, where I could usually bury riders who were faster than me on the flats. I loved climbing hills -- the main problem being that I didn't like riding downhill at all. There was guy who rode with us in training who scorched down hairpin turns, sliding across the road sideways with one foot down around each of them, fortunately with no traffic coming along, and took part in off road races where he'd come down at 60 mph between trees. I prefer going up.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » January 9th, 2006, 5:43 pm

QUOTE(Fast Forward @ Jan 8 2006, 10:10 AM)<br />I'm not sure why the cycling cadence is still much higher than the rowing stroke rate. <br /><br /><br />In rowing you have a recovery, this has to be done but costs energie. You have to pull you body up and you have to move the oars. In cycling you always push with one leg. Completely differant. Cycling is much more smoothly in conversing the power on the paddels. There is no "deadpoint" suchas in rowing.

[old] Thomas · Post by **[old] Thomas** » January 10th, 2006, 4:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Jan 9 2006, 12:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I like the Wolverine Plan because I can measure my progess through pace-performance as opposed to a training plan based on heart rate, which I think is ambiguous. I think a training plan based on heart rate sets a person up for disappointment in the world of indoor rowing. <br /><br />But, I think the heart rate measurements can supplement pace-performance training as a motivational tool. A good example is using a heart rate monitor during a 12k at a set pace. If I am consistently doing 12k's at around a 1:50 pace (1.156*2k-pace) in my training over a particular month, a heart rate monitor would probably show that my heart is progressively not having to work as hard to achieve a 1:50 average pace. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I was thinking about this yesterday during a 12k that I had planned to pace at 1:50. The last few 12k's I have paced at 1:49.5. I can usually tell after the first 2k how the rest of the piece is going to feel. I was worried that a 5 x 1500m with 5-minutes rest session I had done the day before, with an overall average of 1:40.6, and the weight training may put my 1:50 goal pace in jeopardy. The result was a 1:49.3 at 26 spm. <br /><br />My heart rate was probably in the 170's during the second half yet, I continuted to drive with focus on the 1:50 pace. I think if I focused on the heart rate instead of the pace, the piece would have been significantly slower and I would not have been properly tested. <br /><br />I have not really been a fan of long distance training. I was really happy to see that the Wolverine Plan outlined a Level 3 pace of 1.156*2k-pace. Basically, if I do just that then I can be pleased with the session and I don't have to figure out if I got pushed or not.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 11th, 2006, 11:34 am

<b>Today, a full LEVEL 1 Pyramid:</b><br /><br />(with 2K w/u, recovery equal to each distance, 2K c/d)<br /><br />1:38.4....250<br />1:48.9....500<br />1:51.1....750<br />1:51.5....1000<br />1:50.8....750<br />1:48.9....500<br />1:39.2....250<br /><br />DISTANCE AVERAGED PACE: 1:49.06 (target plan under 1:50.0 average)<br /><br />Last time (25 NOV 05) DISTANCE AVERAGED PACE: 1:50.74<br /><br />IMPROVEMENT: -1.68 seconds on 500M pace<br /><br />COMMENTS: This was well below my target pace for the workout, but it still felt relatively easy, with the ability to pick it up a bit toward the end of each piece. Pleased with this workout as I've been doing much more distance and not very much speed work at all over the past few weeks. Hoping this gives me a good indication that sub-7:20.0 is within reach in Cincinnati on 29 January.