6:28 2K

[mrfit]

Ranger

Moving toward 150min of each by the end of the month.

The upside down pyramid. I was always curious who did this kind of peaking and why.

Usually it's distance that sharpens into speed but I've heard some athletes will take develop their speed first and then push distance. However that's usually in the Ironman world where you are maximizing fat burning efficiency over events lasting 8 hours. For 2k events where you are burning glycogen like a house of fire, I'm interested to see the effect of working on distance as the progression toward a 2k peak.

For endurance sports, rowing is odd, I think, because it is so rhythmic, repetitive, technical (full-body, sequenced, timed, etc.), and non-weight bearing (i.e., free of gravity).

Because of this, oddly, in rowing, the best marathoner is also the best sprinter, and vice versa.

If your training is balanced, you can read your 2K time right off your FM time (and vice versa).

For many, you can do the same with your 500m time.

500m is usually done at about 2K - 10.

FM is done at 2K + 14.

The 2K is definitional because it combines the two, effectiveness and efficiency.

So, to pull 1:34 at 60 for 2K, I will have to do _both_ 1:24 for 500m and 1:48 pace for a FM.

Piece of cake!

The 60s lwt FM WR is right about 2:00 pace and the 60s lwt WR for 500m is right around 1:30.



The former, then, is 12 seconds per 500m off my target; the latter; six seconds per 500m off my target.

The difference between my targets and the 60s lwt WRs averages around 90 watts.

90 watts is about 2.5 SPI at 36 spm.

The difference between 9.5 SPI at 36 spm and 12 SPI at 36 spm.

6:42 and 6:12?

ranger

Wow!

You will be Killer at 60. Is this season a wash?



AT, FWIW, stands for Anaerobic Threshold. You are free to define it as you wish. It's just the Internet, the garbage scow of real understanding.

[ranger]

AT, FWIW, stands for Anaerobic Threshold. You are free to define it as you wish.

Sure, but AT rowing is well above your anaerobic threshold.

For instance, the interactive plan says that 1:41 pace is top-end AT for a 6:28 2K.

1:47 is top-end UT1.

In sharpening, you do things like 4 x 2K at AT.

You don't do a 60min row at AT.

No one does.

ranger

[ranger]

Is this season a wash?

Absolutely not.

I think I'll pull a pb-level 2K (6:28) in my first race this year.

Then I'll have a month to push my 2K time down from there.

My distance trials in a couple of weeks and sharpening routines during January will tell the strory.

Your racing just reflects your training.

ranger

[mrfit]

You mean to say (I think) is that AT is working "well above" your aerobic threshold (not anaerobic threshold).

[ranger]

You mean to say (I think) is that AT is working "well above" your aerobic threshold (not anaerobic threshold).

Nope.

I mean what I say.

In AT rowing, you push your HR up over your anaerobic threshold--repeatedly, e.g., in 4 x 2K.

This is not comfortable rowing that you can do for extended periods.

For me, it is sharpening.

I only do it once or twice a year for a couple of months, in order to prepare to race.

When Mike Caviston pulled 6:18 and set the 40s lwt 2K WR, he liked to do his 2Ks in a 4 x 2K workout in and around 6:30.

Level 2

A lwt can't do a 6:30 2K under their anaerobic threshold.

ranger

[ranger]

Yea, it was interesting to hear Mike Caviston say that Level 3 rowing in the Wolverine Plan is 2K + 15.

That's top-end UT2--exactly.

According to the Interactive Plan, top-end UT2 is 2K + 15.

Top-end UT2 for a 1:37 2K is 1:52.

Top-end UT2 for a 1:34 2K is 1:49.

I do a little faster than that in my long rows.

In my long rows, I like to do FM pace, which is more middlin' UT1 than top-end UT2.

I'm lovin' 1:46 @ 26 spm, HR in and around 160 bpm.

Relaxing stuff.

Before this winter rowing season is done, I think I'll do it for a FM.

Stroke feels great.

This middlin' UT1 training is the heart of the game of rowing, if you have done your homework and learned to row well at low rates.

The name of the game is EFFICIENCY--mechanical, physiological, and technical.

Just rate 26 spm and let your foundational rowing (for mechanical and technical efficiency) and cross-training (for physiological efficiency) do the rest.

I tell you.

This kind of UT1 rowing is some of the best exercise that has ever been thought up.

_Very_ enjoyable.

Not too slow, not too fast.

Not too hard, not too easy.

Rhythmic, flowing. full-body, non-weight bearing, technically interesting.

It keeps you in _fantastic_ condition, especially if you pair it with an equal amount of cross-training, e.g., on a bike, as I am doing now.

I'll be doing it for the rest of my life--every day.

Do you want to know how you are doing with your rowing?

Rate 26 for 1-2 hours, steady state, just rowing comfortably.

What does the PM4 say most of the time?

2:05?

1:55?

1:45?

That's all you need to know.

Subtract 14 and you have your 2K when you are fully trained (i.e., sharpened up, etc.).

ranger

[eliotsmith]

Do you want to know how you are doing with your rowing?

Rate 26 for 1-2 hours, steady state, just rowing comfortably.

What does the PM4 say most of the time?

2:05?

1:55?

1:45?

That's all you need to know.

Subtract 14 and you have your 2K when you are fully trained (i.e., sharpened up, etc.).

These 2K + x, or FM - x to predict 2K are hardly precise. They may or may not be accurate. Consider the difference between 2K pace and the top-end UT2 pace in the 2000 meter Training Pace Guide you reference. It is not a linear relationship. At 1:30 2K pace, the UT2 pace is 1:44, or 2K + 14. At your numbers, it is 2K+15. At 1:45 2K pace, it is 2K + 16. At 2:00 2K pace, it is 2K + 18. At 2:15 it is 2K + 21.

[eliotsmith]

the Internet, the garbage scow of real understanding.

This is beautiful!

[ranger]

These 2K + x, or FM - x to predict 2K are hardly precise.

Precise?

No one is claiming that.

These are all rules of thumb and approximations.

But useful ones, no?

For example, in my age and weight division, both Mike VB and Rocket Roy do around 1:56 for FM pace and 1:41-1:42 in a 2K.

FM pace for them is 2K + 14/15.

Both do 1:51 for 60min.

2K + 10 or so.

Both do 1:46/1:47 for 5K.

2K + 5.

And so forth.

When I consistently pulled 1:38 for 2K, I pulled 1:48 for 60min.

2K + 10.

I pulled 1:43 for 5K.

2K + 5.

Exactly the same.

ranger

[KevJGK]

Yea, it was interesting to hear Mike Caviston say that Level 3 rowing in the Wolverine Plan is 2K + 15.

That's top-end UT2--exactly.

Fair play; you must be pretty fit at the moment to do UT2 @ 2K+15.

For me 2K is 01:45 & 10K @ UT1 is 2K+22 which even then can drift above AT. To stay within UT2 I would be somewhere around 2K + 26.

[hjs]

Mike Caviston
1k Poster


Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 119
Location: Coronado, CA
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You guys are kidding me, right? This is just a joke. There can’t be a full page of serious discussion about the intensity of Level 3. Are you trying to make the WP look silly? When I read complaints of how complicated the Wolverine Plan is, I wonder what’s the big deal, but if somebody unfamiliar with the program comes along and sees that, it’s no wonder they’ll be confused. I don’t know how many times I’ve written over the years, but surely in the dozens, that the original WP document shouldn’t be taken as the definitive instructions. And many, many times I’ve also addressed questions related to paces. What should paces for each Level be? How should the paces from each Level relate to the other Levels? How should the paces of the different workouts within each Level relate to each other? I’ve given some general guidelines, but I’ve also made crystal clear that they’re just guidelines and if you can’t meet them then do what you need to do to begin training. I’ve talked about the relationship between power and velocity, and I wouldn’t expect anybody to apply some rough calculations for college women to Nik Fleming. I’ve also talked about the clumsiness of terminology that confuses “faster”, “slower”, “higher”, and “lower”. For example, 1:36 is faster than 1:37, but might be called a “lower” split or a “higher” split depending on whether you are referring to numerical position or velocity. But technically velocity (or even more technically, speed) is expressed in meters per second, so “85-90% of 2K” velocity is pretty accurate for Level 3. And understand this – the paces for L1-L4 do not “imply” 2K pace. Starting paces are derived from 2K pace from the previous season, and any predictive power workouts might have as training continues, must be established by individual correlations from past training/test comparisons. So if you haven’t actually done a 2K at a specific pace, you can’t judge the viability of its relationship with a workout.

I think my descriptions of the Plan on the whole are very clear. Unfortunately everything is not always conveniently located where you want it when you want it. I’m sure if one were to keep taking snippets out of context from different time periods, one could eventually prove I kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and that the walrus was Paul.

The WP summarized: Every week, do one Level 1 and one Level 2. Spend the rest of your time doing Level 3 and Level 4, with approximately twice as many Level 4 meters as Level 3 meters. That’s meters, not workouts. Break up the Level 3 and Level 4 meters into whatever number and length of sessions is necessary or convenient, but try to build a Level 3 session up to a distance that requires an hour or more of continuous rowing. Do the workouts in whatever order works best, but don’t do Level 1 and Level 2 on consecutive days. For competitive rowers, I expect the slowest necessary starting paces to be approximately 2K for Level 1, 2K + 8 for Level 2, and 2K + 15 for Level 3 (Level 4 is defined based on Ref Pace).

So what’s so hard about that?





Dangy since you are talking about your "friends" plan a little writing from the man himself.

[ranger]

Yea, it was interesting to hear Mike Caviston say that Level 3 rowing in the Wolverine Plan is 2K + 15.

That's top-end UT2--exactly.

Fair play; you must be pretty fit at the moment to do UT2 @ 2K+15.

For me 2K is 01:45 & 10K @ UT1 is 2K+22 which even then can drift above AT. To stay within UT2 I would be somewhere around 2K + 26.

Yes, I think this UT rowing is the name of the game.

For many, the better they get at it, the better their 2K becomes.

I just do this sort of thing automatically, our of habit.

I was a skater, swimmer, canoeist, and marathon runner for 25 years before I took up rowing.

I estimate that I have been on about 10,000 10K runs, in training and elsewhere.

When I run, my HR is middlin' UT1, steady state.

It is pretty close to that, too, when I bike (skip rope or step), as cross-training for rowing.

ranger

[ranger]

For me 2K is 01:45 & 10K @ UT1 is 2K+22 which even then can drift above AT. To stay within UT2 I would be somewhere around 2K + 26.

Ouch.

In the interactive plan, top-end UT1 is 2K + 10.

UT2 at 2:11?

Hmm.

Needs some work.

ranger

[hjs]

For me 2K is 01:45 & 10K @ UT1 is 2K+22 which even then can drift above AT. To stay within UT2 I would be somewhere around 2K + 26.

Ouch.

In the interactive plan, top-end UT1 is 2K + 10.

UT2 at 2:11?

Hmm.

Needs some work.

ranger

hmm from the interactive plan. put in a 7.00 2k


that gave me this:

Zone Heart Rate HRR% Pace % of 2k power

UT2 - Aerobic Endurance 134 - 141 65 - 70 2:17 - 2:04 45 - 60
UT1 - Intense Aerobic 141 - 155 70 - 80 2:04 - 1:58 60 - 70
AT - Threshold 155 - 161 80 - 85 1:58 - 1:53 70 - 80
TR - Transport 161 - 175 85 - 95 1:53 - 1:43 80 - 105
AN - Max 175 - 182 95 - 100 1:43 - 1:40 105 - 115

ut1 1.58/2.04 so 2k plus 13/19 seconds

[KevJGK]

For me 2K is 01:45 & 10K @ UT1 is 2K+22 which even then can drift above AT. To stay within UT2 I would be somewhere around 2K + 26.

Ouch.

In the interactive plan, top-end UT1 is 2K + 10.

UT2 at 2:11?

Hmm.

Needs some work.

ranger

hmm from the interactive plan. put in a 7.00 2k


that gave me this:

Zone Heart Rate HRR% Pace % of 2k power

UT2 - Aerobic Endurance 134 - 141 65 - 70 2:17 - 2:04 45 - 60
UT1 - Intense Aerobic 141 - 155 70 - 80 2:04 - 1:58 60 - 70
AT - Threshold 155 - 161 80 - 85 1:58 - 1:53 70 - 80
TR - Transport 161 - 175 85 - 95 1:53 - 1:43 80 - 105
AN - Max 175 - 182 95 - 100 1:43 - 1:40 105 - 115

ut1 1.58/2.04 so 2k plus 13/19 seconds

Hi Henry

Yes, I got 01:58-02:04 for UT1 from the IP as well. They just don't build them like that in our family though.