Wolverine Plan-

[mpukita]

If during 6 months of training you spend more than 10 minutes at 26spm in L4 workouts, you are doing something seriously wrong anyway.

Only true WP devotees would really understand the humor in this comment!

[ragiarn]

Mike wrote:

I’ve calculated all the paces in Watts just to make things more challenging and to keep from having to see slower paces than I’m used to. To keep the math simple, I set 16spm @ 50% of 2K Watts and increased Watts by 3% for every spm (so 17spm = 53% of 2K Watts, 18spm = 56%, etc.) The actual difference in intensity compared to calculations using pace (seconds/500m) is negligible.

I have been using the WP with watts instead of time to rate my workouts. I personally found using Watts easier for me to follow while rowing

Coincidently for the last several weeks I have set up my own system based on the WP rate and pace tables for level 4 workouts.

In order to find appropriate watt pace calculations I had to make a few assumptions.

The most important assumption was that the reference pace in the far left column of the WP pace chart for level 4 workouts was at 32 spm. I then calculated the stroke to power index- SPI for that pace.

Example:
I have a spreadsheet with a formula for calculating watts from pace and all I have to do is enter the pace and it automatically calculates the appropriate wattage.


For the sake of simplicity I will illustrate using 320 watts which is a pace of 1:43 or a 2 k of 6:52.

320 watts at 32 spm = SPI of 10

Percentages illustrated are rounded out for simplicity:
16 spm x SPI 10=160 = 50%of 320
17 spm=170 = 53% of 320
18 spm=180 = 56% of 320
19 spm=190 = 59% of 320
20 spm=200 = 62.5% of 320
21 spm=210 = 66% of 320
22 spm=220 = 69% of 320
23 spm=230 = 72% of 320
24 spm=240 = 75% of 320
25 spm=250 = 78% of 320
26 spm=260 = 81% of 220

The numbers don’t exactly correspond to pace on the the tables laid out by Mike in his pace charts but I find the system a little easier to follow and calculate for myself.

Perhaps others can find this useful as well.
Ralph Giarnella MD

[hjs]

HJS:
What your are proposing would fit better the values of Table 2 but there are still some discrepancies at higher spm.

In the graph below, you have in red the percentages of 2K Watts from Table 2 (ref. pace 1:36), in green is what you are proposing, and in blue is the 3% increment per spm that Mike mentioned.

It was just a quick remark and not the solution I see

[Francois]

When developing the original WP L4 tables, I recognized the paces at higher rates were out of proportion regarding power requirement, but ignored the discrepancy in favor of keeping the format as simple as possible (all paces as whole numbers and a standard reduction per rate increment). If the power requirements using Watts vs. Pace don’t agree at 26spm, so what? If during 6 months of training you spend more than 10 minutes at 26spm in L4 workouts, you are doing something seriously wrong anyway.

Mike,

If you were to redesign table 2 using Watts instead of pace, would you use a linear progression as stroke rate increases, much like what you or Ralph are using this year ?
The reason I am asking is that, in my case, doing 1:55 @ 22 spm instead of 1:54, and doing 1:51 @ 24 spm instead of 1:49 would make a difference. What I find hard when doing sequences like 184 and 200 is not just the minute spent at 22 or 24 spm but also the first minute of the sequence that follows. It would be less demanding at the slower paces and it would make it easier to progress to higher sequences. Would we loose anything in terms of training effect ?

Thanks

Francois

[Mike Caviston]

Francois,

I think I would keep the progression linear when using Watts, just to Keep It Simple (Stupid). The discrepancy between Watts and Pace may be noticeable at 22spm, certainly at 24spm, but I think one can adjust either way. As you suggest, it may alter the actual sequences (and specific order of sequences) one might select just to make the workout “feel” right. Most of Level 4 training should be in the 16-22 range anyway, and I don’t think the variations at the higher rates would have a significant impact on the training effect. I’ve never claimed that the current L4 (Pace) tables have the magic proportions regarding intensity, though they must be in the right neighborhood. A critical part of L4 training is being consistent – learning to hit the desired rates quickly, easily, & consistently, and applying the same force per stroke for any given rate. The exact amount of force used is probably not critical, as long as it’s not too much or too little. Following the L4 progression of gradually adding strokes per session allows a gradual, measured application of the training stimulus. It also promotes the skills and concentration required to work efficiently (OTW as well as on the erg), and breaks up the monotony of long sessions. At least, it does for me. Best wishes,

Mike Caviston

[nharrigan]

Completed my first L4 intervals yesterday. I didn't do these last year, so this was a new experience.

4x10' w/ 3:20r

202
204
208
204

Average pace about 1:53.5
They are harder than I thought they would be. Especially the day after an L2.
The higher stroke rating in the last intervals were very challenging. I had to dig in to hit my paces.

If I understand the plan correctly, I'm to add one stroke per each 10min. piece each week. In 20 weeks (just before the Crash-Bs) that will add 20 strokes to a 22+ spm average! It's going to be an interesting autumn.

Cheers,

Neil

[Francois]

Did a 5K time trial tonight as part of the 4K CTC for September, which resulted in a time of 17:33.8, a 14 seconds improvement over what I did last May.

Here are the splits and stroke rates:
1000m 1:47.7 @ 29
2000m 1:46.5 @ 28
3000m 1:45.5 @ 28
4000m 1:44.7 @ 29
5000m 1:42.4 @ 30

Not the ideal pacing, but I was aiming for 17:39.9. The last 4K were done at an average pace of 1:44.8, which is exactly the average pace for the 4 x 1K L1 workout I did two weeks ago!

I am indebted to Mike for his Wolverine Plan, which made those improvements possible. Thanks!

Francois

[nharrigan]

Francois-

That's a great 5k time. Looks like you had something left for the last 1k.
Nice job.

Neil

[hjs]

17:33.8, a 14 seconds improvement over what I did last May.

Here are the splits and stroke rates:
1000m 1:47.7 @ 29
2000m 1:46.5 @ 28
3000m 1:45.5 @ 28
4000m 1:44.7 @ 29
5000m 1:42.4 @ 30


Francois

great row. and much left so not a max. effort. Very promissing.

[Francois]

Thanks Neil and HJS!

You are right, there was probably too much left for the last K. I have to work on the psychological aspect of racing; I tend to delay the pain as much as possible for the last K. Even though the first K was the slowest, I found it harder than the 2nd and the 3rd. The last 500m, on the other hand, was done under 1:40 and was extremely painful!

I felt very good for several hours afterwards. It must have been all those endorphins that had been secreted!

For the remainder of the week, I'll be doing L4 and L3; much easier than time trials!

Happy training everyone!

Francois

[nharrigan]

Starboard or Port?

I was curious if those who follow Wolverine plan tend to come from one side over the other.

I'm a starboard, though I haven't rowed OTW in ages.

BTW- L4 intervals yesterday 200 210 200^ 210^. The ^ intervals are nasty.

L3 12 k tonight. My favorite!

Thanks,

Neil

[Bob S.]

Starboard or Port?

I was curious if those who follow Wolverine plan tend to come from one side over the other.

Neil

How about sweeps or sculls? First things first!

Or even more basic: OTW, OTE, or both?

Also, the initial question can be expanded to include those who do both port and starboard. And don't leave out sweep rowers who occasionally take a turn at the sculls and vice versa.

Bob S.

[polaco]

Hi, I follow the Wolverine Plan, row OTW and OTE, basicly sweep port side, and this year focused on learning to scull .

[ancho]

I row ote/otw aprox 50%
Otw, in this order, I sweep starboard, scull, and if necessary also sweep port (my coach says I'm worse on satrboard than on port, but only to tease me )