Wolverine Plan Discussion

[[old] tennstrike]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 11 2006, 10:34 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 11 2006, 10:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Today, a full LEVEL 1 Pyramid:</b><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark:<br /><br />Thanks for posting that. Good workout.<br /><br />Seeing the post caused me to go back to my word document of Mike's posts and re-visit the pyramid targets. Ignoring the 250's ("fast as you can") his input was<br /><br />500 about best 8x500<br />750 second slower than 500<br />1K 1/2 second slower than 750<br />750 better than first<br />500 better than first<br /><br />From my previous post on my "abbreviated" pyamid, I should have checked the strategy first. Makes sense though. I'm going to have to create an excel sheet for the distance averaged pace. <br /><br />Regards,<br />Jeff

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-tennstrike+Jan 11 2006, 01:45 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(tennstrike @ Jan 11 2006, 01:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 11 2006, 10:34 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 11 2006, 10:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Today, a full LEVEL 1 Pyramid:</b><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark:<br /><br />Thanks for posting that. Good workout.<br /><br />Seeing the post caused me to go back to my word document of Mike's posts and re-visit the pyramid targets. Ignoring the 250's ("fast as you can") his input was<br /><br />500 about best 8x500<br />750 second slower than 500<br />1K 1/2 second slower than 750<br />750 better than first<br />500 better than first<br /><br />From my previous post on my "abbreviated" pyamid, I should have checked the strategy first. Makes sense though. I'm going to have to create an excel sheet for the distance averaged pace. <br /><br />Regards,<br />Jeff <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I'll e-mail a copy of what I just put together for today, with a brief explanation. I am no Excel guru, so it's primative. You can probably come up with a better implementation than I ...

[[old] Guy_W]

A thank you and three questions. <br /><br />First, the thank you: to Mike for the (continued) time, patience and effort involved in posting his thoughts and responses to questions on the theory, practice and rationale behind training and training plans. I for one have hugely appreciated this over the last 3 years or so.<br /><br />Second, the questions (in sort of reverse order):<br />1. Off season: Post the season’s Goal Event, what sort of guidelines can be recommended for transition to and content of the off-season? Do I drop my Level 1 target pace by, say, 4 seconds immediately? Go on vacation and do nothing for 3 months? Gradually wind down intensity and number of workouts etc? My thoughts: decide what level of fitness I want/need to start training again come August / September, then work out an overall level of “exercise” to basically get me physically and psychologically hungry/keen and motivated to get stuck in again.<br /><br />2. Fast finish: The overall plan is founded upon slow gradual improvements although there is acknowledgement of scope/possibility of pushing harder in the last 6-8 weeks (like the last 300m of a 2k). Are there any views, experience, advice and comments upon the best approach / pitfalls to avoid in this last 6-8 week period? [a relevant question for me now:)]<br /><br />3. Mid season breaks: Thoughts/experiences regarding interruptions to training schedules, work pressures, illness, vacations etc. How to assess appropriate level /intensity to return? [less relevant now but still ...]<br /><br />Best wishes to all,<br />Guy<br /><br />

[[old] adambalogh]

<!--QuoteBegin-ragiarn+Jan 8 2006, 03:32 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Jan 8 2006, 03:32 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin--><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 /> </td></tr></table><br />

[[old] adambalogh]

<!--QuoteBegin-ragiarn+Jan 6 2006, 05:11 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Jan 6 2006, 05:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-goblue+Jan 6 2006, 04:34 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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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 />Hello Ralph<br /><br />I am curious about how you calculated that a 2k race uses 150 calories and why you say that it uses little glycogen. wouldn't the energy system utilized depend on the intensity of the 2k race?<br /><br />i would appreciate clarification on this.<br /><br />thanks<br />

[[old] ragiarn]

<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Hello Ralph<br /><br />I am curious about how you calculated that a 2k race uses 150 calories and why you say that it uses little glycogen.  wouldn't the energy system utilized depend on the intensity of the 2k race?<br /><br />i would appreciate clarification on this.<br /><br />thanks<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The answer is very simple- look at the reading for calories on the monitor- I have consistently seen 65-70 calories / 1000 m rowed. As the intensity increases the calories/minute increases but then the 2k is over in less time so the avg calories expended is in the 65-70 calories. This a rough estimate that the software calculates based on wattage. <br /><br />If a 2K lasts 7 minutes that is > 20 calories/ minute <br /><br />160 calories equals approximately 40 grams of glycogen assuming that you have not used any fat during the 2k- however in reality some fat is also being metabolized even during an all out 2k.<br /><br />40 grams of glycogen represents a mere 10% of all the glycogen in the body. That means that a 2 k uses very little of the total stores of glycogen in the body. Even if 20 % of the 2 K was done anaerobically there is still plenty of glycogen left at the end of a 2K race. <br /><br />These numbers are at best just guestimates but they are in the ball park. <br /><br />Ralph Giarnella MD <br />Southington, CT <br />

[[old] ragiarn]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Fast finish: The overall plan is founded upon slow gradual improvements although there is acknowledgement of scope/possibility of pushing harder in the last 6-8 weeks (like the last 300m of a 2k). Are there any views, experience, advice and comments upon the best approach / pitfalls to avoid in this last 6-8 week period? [a relevant question for me now:)]<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I have a similiar question- we are just 6 weeks away from the Crash-B. At what point do you begin to decrease level 4 sessions and increase the intensity of the workouts? At what point do you begin to taper prior to a big race and what schedule do you recommend?<br /><br />Another question regarding starts of a race. I noticed that the rowing instructor at our Y starts her time trials with 2-3 short burts before a regular stroke. I take long steady strokes. Which is best or does it matter?<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella MD <br />Southington, CT

[[old] raymond botha]

Hi Jeff,<br /><br />Won't you be so kind as to past the link to Mike's article on pacing for the 250-500-750-1k-750-500-250 and 3-2.5-2k pyramids. I was under the impression that all intervals where done at same pace with neg splits. I've been doing the 250 etc. at 1.41.5 at all points and just neg splitting <br /><br />Would appreciate any help there mate .<br /><br />Cheers <br />Ray

[[old] Guy_W]

from an October 22nd Mike Caviston post on this Thread:<br /><br />>>><br />" ... I use the same approach for other Level 1 workouts (5 x 750m and the Pyramid). That is, I negative- or even-split each individual piece. I don’t do the Pyramid often enough to have developed what I believe would be an ideal strategy, but I do it roughly like this:<br />250m) fast as I can<br />500m) about the same as my best 8 x 500m pace<br />750m) about a second slower than that <br />1000m) about another half second slower than that (i.e., the 750m)<br />750m) faster than the first 750m<br />500m) faster than the first 500m<br />250m) fast as I can<br />In the end, my best Pyramid average will end up about half a second slower than my best 8 x 500m average.<br /><br />My strategy for 4 x 2K and 4 x 1K (again, once I have an overall Goal Pace according to my planned progression for the season) is:<br />1st piece: GP + .2<br />2nd piece: GP<br />3rd piece: GP<br />4th piece: GP - .2<br />So if my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 2K was 1:42.0, my target the first piece is 1:42.2; for the second & third, 1:42.0; and for the last, 1:41.8. If my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 1K was 1:35.2, I’d pull the first 1K in 1:35.4; the next two in 1:35.2; and the last one in 1:35.0.<br /><br />I’ve experimented with a number of formats for unbalanced workouts. (The Level 2 workout 3K/2.5K/2K is an unbalanced workout. I also use an alternate Level 3 format, in addition to continuous rowing, of 6K/5K/4K. [Another variation of this that I’ve used with the UM team is 5K/4K/3K.]) For years, athletes have asked for instructions about how to pace these workouts, and the general guidelines “Make the pace a little faster for each piece” didn’t seem to be specific enough. So I’ve come up with this:<br />1st piece: GP + .4<br />2nd piece: GP<br />3rd piece: GP - .6<br />So if my overall Goal Pace for 3K/2.5K/2K was 1:42.4, then I’d pull the 3K in 1:42.8; the 2.5K in 1:42.4, and the 2K in 1:41.8. If my overall GP for 6K/5K/4K was 1:47.2, I’d pull 6K in 1:47.6; 5K in 1:47.2; and 4K in 1:46.6. Incidentally, I find the crossover for Level 2 (4 x 2K vs. 3K/2.5K/2K) is just about perfect. For a good part of the season I alternate the two formats on a weekly basis and reduce the pace by two tenths every week (1:44.0 for 4 x 2K, then 1:43.8 for 3K/2.5K/2K, then 1:43.6 for 4 x 2K, etc.) ... "<br /><br />>>><br />Guy

[[old] raymond botha]

Cheers Guy ,<br /><br />Thanks for the taking the trouble to do that. I've got this interval coming up tomorow so I wanted to get it right . Guess I'm in for a re-read of this thread <br /><br />Ray

[[old] Mike Caviston]

<!--QuoteBegin-Guy_W+Jan 12 2006, 06:27 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Guy_W @ Jan 12 2006, 06:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Off season:  Post the season’s Goal Event, what sort of guidelines can be recommended for transition to and content of the off-season? Do I drop my Level 1 target pace by, say, 4 seconds immediately? Go on vacation and do nothing for 3 months? Gradually wind down intensity and number of workouts etc?  My thoughts: decide what level of fitness I want/need to start training again come August / September, then work out an overall level of “exercise” to basically get me physically and psychologically hungry/keen and motivated to get stuck in again.[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Well, this question will require more time for me to do it complete justice. I’ll try to revisit it more thoroughly as we get to the end of the current indoor season (i.e., CRASH-Bs for me). But the general idea behind off-season training is to get enough physical and psychological rest to be able to come back next season with a renewed sense of purpose, but at the same time to retain enough baseline fitness to be able to build on this year’s training and not simply recover lost ground next year. I reduce overall volume by something like 25-30% and intensity by something like 10% (Watts). I do more cross-training in the off-season (I like to cycle outdoors) and experiment with alternate workouts on the erg. I go back and forth on keeping detailed training records or not and having specific goals for workouts or not. For me, the grass is always greener. If I try training without goals and don’t keep records, I lose motivation to perform the work. If I do have goals (even modest ones), the psychological burden of always having to perform becomes wearing. But I always stay active and I always keep a sense of what shape I’m in currently and where I need to be at the start of the next training cycle.<br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Fast finish:  The overall plan is founded upon slow gradual improvements although there is acknowledgement of scope/possibility of pushing harder in the last 6-8 weeks (like the last 300m of a 2k).  Are there any views, experience, advice and comments upon the best approach / pitfalls to avoid in this last 6-8 week period?  [a relevant question for me now:)] </td></tr></table> <br />Congratulations! It sounds like you’re saying “Woo-hoo! I’m even faster than I thought I would be!” My experience the past couple years has been “Dang! I’m not going to be as fast as I’d hoped I’d be.” My general suggestion is to stick to the basic schedule/format you’ve been using so far, but if the opportunity exists to get faster than planned on some of the key (L1-L2) workouts during the final weeks, then go for it. I try to strike a balance between making my last attempt at a particular workout (e.g., 4 x 1K) the fastest I can possibly perform for the year, and making sure I have a positive experience. It would be okay to miss my final target by a little bit as long as I knew I had performed well overall and had a sense that my overall physiological capacity was about as good as its going to get. I don’t want to crash and burn (e.g., give up halfway through my second 1K). This is more for psychological reasons than anything else. Whatever I do in the last week or two before my most important race, I want to come away with a sense of confidence and to have proven to myself I have the necessary fitness to perform well. The later I get into a season, the less likely I am to really push the pace (that is, really enter the discomfort zone) for an endurance (long L3 or L4) workout. Early in the season I’m more like to be soft on my L1 & L2 goals but firmer on my endurance goals. I shift priorities in the second half and during the last couple weeks before the final race I don’t feel guilty about not increasing or even slightly decreasing the pace for an endurance session, or even stopping a session a little early if I’m feeling particularly beat. I want to prioritize being mentally and physically fresh for the interval sessions. Most years I’ve been able to nail a good 4 x 1K leading into my final race, but one year I was struggling a bit and let myself try a couple extra times in place of other workouts. A couple times I warmed up and did the first piece but I knew I just wasn’t mentally ready for the whole workout (even though there was plenty of evidence I was ready physically), so I finished off with some Level 4 and came back a couple days later to try again. I think I got it on the third try.<br /><br />Simply stated, my view is that you’re not going to make huge physiological gains in the last couple weeks, but be sure to set the right psychological tone. That can make or break the season and determine how much your race benefits from all the hard physical work you’ve put in.<br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Mid season breaks:  Thoughts/experiences regarding interruptions to training schedules, work pressures, illness, vacations etc.  How to assess appropriate level /intensity to return? [less relevant now but still ...] </td></tr></table> <br />Again, I can give more of my thoughts in the future. When my training is interrupted for more than a few days, I go through several of my core workouts using a basic diagnostic format that has worked pretty well for me. Workouts like 8 x 500m or 15 x 3’ have a long history with me. I’ll go into them sort of by feel, doing a thorough warm-up and then doing each piece at what seems to be a challenging but realistic intensity, and based on how I feel at that point, decide whether to decrease, increase, or stay the same. Or I take an endurance session like 60’ L4 or 20K L3 and ease into it one segment (e.g., 10’ or 2K) at a time – again, determining as I go along whether to go faster, slower, or keep cruising at the same pace. At the end of these sessions I figure the average pace and compare it to past weeks in my training to see how I did on other workouts at that time. My general experience is that for every <b>one</b> week my training is interrupted from my normal routine, my progress drops back about <b>three</b> weeks. Note that I’m not talking about <i>no training</i> , I’m talking about irregular or reduced training. But probably most people who don’t train as much as I do to begin with won’t experience quite such a drastic decline (I sort of look at it as, the higher up the mountain you’ve climbed, the farther you have to fall).<br /><br />Happy training, especially those gearing up for Jan-Feb races!<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br /><br /><br />

[[old] thomgreen]

Mike,<br />Thank you for making your plan available to the rowing community. I just did my first Level 4 style work out a couple days ago and was amazed at how fast it felt like the time went. <br /><br />Question: did you ever post the new rate and split tables?<br /><br />Thanks again,<br />Thom

[[old] Thomas]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Jan 15 2006, 02:23 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 15 2006, 02:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My general experience is that for every <b>one</b>  week my training is interrupted from my normal routine, my progress drops back about <b>three</b>  weeks.  Note that I’m not talking about <i>no training</i> , I’m talking about irregular or reduced training.  But probably most people who don’t train as much as I do to begin with won’t experience quite such a drastic decline (I sort of look at it as, the higher up the mountain you’ve climbed, the farther you have to fall). <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I have found the same thing to be the case, unfortunately. Perhaps 10 years ago it was not the case for me, but I have unintentionally found out that it takes weeks to get back to where I left off. From reading various UK diaries, others have found the same to be true, even those that ran, biked, and/or lifted weights while away from the erg, which supports the idea of being sport specific if you want to make improvements in a specific activity.

[[old] arakawa]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Jan 15 2006, 02:23 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 15 2006, 02:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My general experience is that for every <b>one</b>  week my training is interrupted from my normal routine, my progress drops back about <b>three</b>  weeks.  Note that I’m not talking about <i>no training</i> , I’m talking about irregular or reduced training.  But probably most people who don’t train as much as I do to begin with won’t experience quite such a drastic decline (I sort of look at it as, the higher up the mountain you’ve climbed, the farther you have to fall).[right] </td></tr></table><br />My piano instructor used to say that, for every day of practice I skipped, I'd lose a week of progress.

[[old] Mike Caviston]

<!--QuoteBegin-thomgreen+Jan 17 2006, 11:04 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(thomgreen @ Jan 17 2006, 11:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question: did you ever post the new rate and split tables? </td></tr></table><br />Back on page 14, post #204 (Nov. 11). I'm moving it here.<br />[attachmentid=125]<br />Also, just for the heck of it, in case anyone actually cares, here is a list of resources I have consulted over the past several years when formulating my thoughts on <b>interval training</b> . At some point I’ll get around to compiling lists of resources for other training-related topics. <br />[attachmentid=126]<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />