The Road To Sub 6:10

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 9th, 2005, 11:39 pm

Good move, Pete. Strapless 10mps really helped me sort out where force on the handle (strength) and endurance synch up.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 10th, 2005, 6:34 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't think Pete needs to hear "low spm is better, training longer at a low HR is better, and if you don't do that, don't expect to get better or reach your goals."  </td></tr></table> Janice-- No, he doesn't, because that is not what I suggested. I suggested that he establish a base at low spm, high stroking power, and a low HR before (or at least at the same time as) he rows more quickly, at a higher rate, and at a higher heart rate. Big difference. This is not just my advice. It is also the advice of the Interactive Plan, the WP, etc. Your implied ad hominem argument skirts a very important issue. Almost all authorities on training, especially training for rowing, recommend establishing a strong stroke and a broad CV base at low stroke rates before rowing more quickly, at higher rates and paces, and at higher heart rates. I repeat: I don't think that Pete will get any better unless he establishes a strong stroke and a broader CV base before moving on to rowing at higher rates, paces, and heart rates. It will be interesting to see whether those who know rowing and training (the "authorities") are right about this in Pete's case. I suppose we can only wait and see. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 10th, 2005, 6:41 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think I will stick to 10mps, for a while at least, on these rows now, so that I have a measure of when I'm getting fitter, by the rate and pace increasing with each other. </td></tr></table> Yes, when you row at 10 MPS, the rate and the pace increase together, but you leave out an important issue, so does the stroking power. Good luck with that one! Your statement should read this way: "I think I will stick to 10mps, for a while at least, on these rows now, so that I have a measure of when I'm getting fitter, by the rate, pace, and stroking power increasing with each other." Rowing at 10MPS, at 1:47 you row at 10 SPI. At 1:31 you row at 14 SPI. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 10th, 2005, 6:46 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When I finally gave myself over to a structured program (the Interactive) for the first time I was rewarded with a big improvement in my 2k six months later, and another improvement three months after that.  </td></tr></table> Rick-- You have been following the schedule of rates, paces, and heart rates in Table 5.8, page 5.15 of the Interactive Plan? Is so, nice going. You are one of only a few, it seems. Most of those who use the plan, it seems, follow the heart rate bands and workouts but change the rates and paces. ranger

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » January 10th, 2005, 11:32 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 10 2005, 10:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When I finally gave myself over to a structured program (the Interactive) for the first time I was rewarded with a big improvement in my 2k six months later, and another improvement three months after that.  </td></tr></table> Rick-- You have been following the schedule of rates, paces, and heart rates in Table 5.8, page 5.15 of the Interactive Plan? Is so, nice going. You are one of only a few, it seems. Most of those who use the plan, it seems, follow the heart rate bands and workouts but change the rates and paces. ranger </td></tr></table> Sorry Man, if you go back and read my post you will see that I wrote nothing of the sort. Don't be jumping to such conclusions based on two words in parenthesis. My post, and the subject of the thread, concerned itself with Pete following a structured program. Perhaps I should have left out the parenthesis. There are many structured, progressive programs that are good. I think that Pete will benefit from the one his has chosen to follow. Rick

[old] Janice · Post by **[old] Janice** » January 10th, 2005, 1:29 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 10 2005, 03:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't think Pete needs to hear "low spm is better, training longer at a low HR is better, and if you don't do that, don't expect to get better or reach your goals."  </td></tr></table> Janice-- No, he doesn't, because that is not what I suggested. I suggested that he establish a base at low spm, high stroking power, and a low HR before (or at least at the same time as) he rows more quickly, at a higher rate, and at a higher heart rate. Big difference.  </td></tr></table> Your statement sounds exactly the same to mine. How are these statements different? Someone _aside_ from ranger explain how what I said is different from what he said. Janice: I don't think Pete needs to hear "low spm is better, training longer at a low HR is better ranger: I suggested that he establish a base at low spm, high stroking power, and a low HR

[old] donm79 · Post by **[old] donm79** » January 10th, 2005, 8:11 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Janice @ Jan 10 2005, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 10 2005, 03:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't think Pete needs to hear "low spm is better, training longer at a low HR is better, and if you don't do that, don't expect to get better or reach your goals."  </td></tr></table> Janice-- No, he doesn't, because that is not what I suggested. I suggested that he establish a base at low spm, high stroking power, and a low HR before (or at least at the same time as) he rows more quickly, at a higher rate, and at a higher heart rate. Big difference.  </td></tr></table> Your statement sounds exactly the same to mine. How are these statements different? Someone _aside_ from ranger explain how what I said is different from what he said. Janice: I don't think Pete needs to hear "low spm is better, training longer at a low HR is better ranger: I suggested that he establish a base at low spm, high stroking power, and a low HR  </td></tr></table> Janice makes a good point. But if past experience is any guide it will be lost on ranger.

[old] Alan Maddocks · Post by **[old] Alan Maddocks** » January 11th, 2005, 7:11 am

I think the difference is as follows ..... Janice statement (attributed to Ranger) read "Low spm is better etc. etc." This implies that it is "BETTER THAN high spm. etc." Ranger is right in saying that he did not say this ..... What he is saying is that the low spm. etc. base work is necessary to fully benefit from faster, higher rate rowing. Simple really!!

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 11th, 2005, 8:03 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Alan Maddocks @ Jan 11 2005, 06:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think the difference is as follows ..... Janice statement (attributed to Ranger) read "Low spm is better etc. etc." This implies that it is "BETTER THAN high spm. etc." Ranger is right in saying that he did not say this ..... What he is saying is that the low spm. etc. base work is necessary to fully benefit from faster, higher rate rowing. Simple really!! </td></tr></table> Thanks, Alan. Exactly right. And as I have reiterated, this is not just _my_ advice, either. It is the advice of almost all of the recognized authorities on training for rowing. _Why_ this is good advice is also crystal clear, although if past experience is any guide, it will be lost on many, many rowers in and around this forum who consistently and consciously neglect to establish (and maintain) an adequate training base (CV fitness with a strong, technically efficient stroke, UT2 training, Level 4 rowing) but only row at high rates and paces, as though training and racing were the same. They aren't. The purpose of racing is to take advantage of your training. The purpose of training is to get better. Racing doesn't make you better; training does. And by and large, what you can accomplish in your training depends on the magnitude and quality of your base. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 11th, 2005, 8:12 am

Astoundingly and ironically, the Pete Plan is really just the Wolverine Plan without a base, without the one thing that would make it a good plan for improving your rowing. In the Wolverine Plan, 70% (!) of the rowing is dedicated to the base. The Pete Plan has no base at all. 100% of the rowing is done at high rates and paces. No time or energy is devoted to developing CV fitness with a strong, efficient stroke. ranger

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » January 11th, 2005, 8:27 am

I'm not going to bother getting too involved in the discussions here about the merits of different types of training and different training plans. Yes, the Pete Plan is effectively the Wolverine plan without the level 4 rowing. I still think it is a good and varied training plan, but more suited to either those racing often and wanting to continuously improve (at racing), or those fairly new / fast improving. At the moment I want to try something different though, which is why I'm following the "PaulS plan".

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » January 11th, 2005, 8:40 am

So at the moment Paul has me effectively doing what he posted here sometime ago as "stop the madness phase 2" I think. This has me doing, at the moment, alternate days of 10k, and 2 x 5k with 3mins rest. Yesterday I did the 2 x 5k as follows: 1:49.0 / 18:10.0 / 25spm 1:48.0 / 18:00.3 / 26spm Today 10k: 1:51.0 / 37:00.8 / 26spm Both done at 131 drag, first session on a D, today on a C. From here I do the 2 x 5k tomorrow at 1:48.0 and 1:47.0, each time getting 1sec faster (so 1:47 and 1:46 the time after). The 10k's I will be doing with a HRM from now on with HR restrictions. Will post a bit more later about my initial findings of strapless rowing (and 10mps), and my stroke efficiency and relaxation.

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » January 11th, 2005, 9:41 am

Ok then, some thoughts. It takes a little while to get relaxed when first trying strapless rowing. Initially the biggest problem I had was keeping down to 10mps at this sort of pace (rather than around 10.5 - 11mps). I'm not too worried about this, as I know it was be easier as the paces increase a bit. When I do get relaxed it feels much easier, eg the second 5k yesterday was easier than the first, and the 10k today got easier towards the end. 3mins rest isn't a long time between 2 x 5k's. I find at the moment that it is a strain on my glutes, and need to figure out why - not relaxed enough at the end of the drive I think, and still using glutes and hamstrings a little to stop motion. At times I get the pressure correct on the handle to the end of the drive and it's much better and easier. Will see how I progress over the next few days, and how easy it is to get faster and faster on these 2 x 5k's.

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » January 12th, 2005, 10:12 am

Second 2 x 5k with 3mins rest session completed today. (S10PS) 1:48.0 / 18:00.0 / 28spm 1:47.0 / 17:50.3 / 27spm First one kept exactly 10mps all the way through, second one obviously I must have strayed a little over. Splits (1k) and spm's for the two were: 1st: 1:47.9, 28 / 1:48.1, 28 / 1:48.1, 28 / 1:48.0, 28 / 1:47.9, 28 2nd: 1:47.0, 28 / 1:47.1, 28 / 1:47.0, 27 / 1:47.1, 27 / 1:47.0, 27 On the inbetween day 10k's for now on I will be doing them 8sec slower than the fastest 5k the day before, and will be wearing my HRM, which will be interesting as I've not used it in a long time.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 12th, 2005, 10:47 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 11 2005, 04:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The Pete Plan has no base at all. 100% of the rowing is done at high rates and paces. No time or energy is devoted to developing CV fitness with a strong, efficient stroke. ranger  </td></tr></table> Would you say, then, that Rod Freed has no CV fitness, since he trains daily at race pace.

Concept2 Forum

The Road To Sub 6:10

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training