New Wolverine Plan Thread

[Nosmo]

Of the Level 3s, the 4 x 2k session at 1:39.2 works out to 4% slower than 2k velocity.....

that 4x2K is a level 2. -- No way it would be that fast and a level 3.

....I'm inclined to think that the "~85-90% of 2k velocity" in the OPV at best is poorly expressed.....

Don't think MC would disagree that his plan could be clearer--he is after all
providing the information in his spare time for free.

I've always interpreted the 85-90% as the pace for continuous L3 workouts. They are only guidelines and most useful at the start of the training cycle. Once the program gets underway, previous workouts and ability to recover should dictate the pace of all of the levels.

[NavigationHazard]

On a second look, you're undoubtably right about the 4 x 2k. Apparently MC meant to characterize it as Level 2 in his Comments but inadvertently called it Level 3.

"SUN: Level 3 [sic] (3K/2.5K/2K through mid-December; 4 x 2K for Jan-Feb)"

[Mike Caviston]

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?

[NavigationHazard]

With respect, discussion happens because the devil is in the details. UM women you coached had you on hand for immediate clarification. People looking at the WP on line do not have that luxury. And what may seem crystal clear and simple to you as the plan's author may be clear as mud to a given reader.

No one here is "trying to make the WP look silly" and unduly complicated. At least, I'm not. The present discussion has to do with trying to get a handle on L3 interval workouts. The user-end confusion has to do with the apparent difference between L3 rowing presented as continuous steady-rate rowing of up to 1 hour (or more) and L3 rowing presented as interval workouts that don't appear to top ~15k total work volume. I don't think they're exactly the same thing. That's not a criticism, by the way, it's an observation. And since interval rowing allows one to work at faster paces than continuous rowing, I'd like to be allowed to figure out a relationship.

As for an implied correlation between L1-4 paces and 2k pace, sorry but there is at least one. What's incontrovertably implicit is the factual past 2k used as the initial reference point.

[Citroen]

And what may seem crystal clear and simple to you as the plan's author may be clear as mud to a given reader.

You can say that again.

Just getting started with the WP description is closely aligned to wading through treacle. A lot of folks want a plan they can find on the Internet on a Monday morning and by Monday lunchtime they're rowing the first piece from day one of their new training plan.

I think that's one of the reasons for the proliferation of spreadsheets and other tools to "simplify" the WP. I suspect it's also one reason for the the popularity of Pete's interpretation of the WP (regardless of it's lattitude to the WP, correctness or other merits or demerits). Pete's eponymous plan and the C2 interactive/weightloss plans both, more easily, satisfy that quick start requirement.

[KevJGK]

Just getting started with the WP description is closely aligned to wading through treacle. A lot of folks want a plan they can find on the Internet on a Monday morning and by Monday lunchtime they're rowing the first piece from day one of their new training plan.

It's horses for courses. OTOH a lot of us absolutely love the detail of the WP and thoroughly enjoy the work and study required to get the most out of it.

A few words from MC immediately spring to mind. The choice of formating is my own.

"Remember that the original WP document wasn't intended for public use, but just as a supplement for the athletes I work with at the University of Michigan. So some concepts aren't fully explained. However, many questions that are asked repeatedly are clearly explained in the original plan. So, before you complain about what a crock the Wolverine Plan is, take time to read the damn thing. Read it all. Read it three or four times if you have to. It was never intended to be "Erging For Dummies", so don't expect to be able to skim over it and absorb everything in a couple minutes. I am becoming increasingly fond of the motto, "If you don't have the discipline to READ it, you don't have the discipline to USE it." (If you really suffer from a short attention span and can't make it beyond this sentence, the most important underlying message boils down to "WORK HARD", or if you prefer, "TLAMF".) "

[Nosmo]

As for an implied correlation between L1-4 paces and 2k pace, sorry but there is at least one. What's incontrovertibly implicit is the factual past 2k used as the initial reference point.

Are you just trying to piss MC off? Read what he wrote. The second sentence clarifies the first—it doesn't contradict it:

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.

[NavigationHazard]

I'm not trying to piss anyone off. Where did I write anything about using a WP workout result to predict some future 2k? Read what I posted to begin with. In the "What Training" thread I wrote that a pace result from a WP level 3 interval workout seems to be consonant with other workouts I've been doing.

I'm out of this thread, permanently.

[Mike Caviston]

With respect, discussion happens because the devil is in the details. UM women you coached had you on hand for immediate clarification. People looking at the WP on line do not have that luxury. And what may seem crystal clear and simple to you as the plan's author may be clear as mud to a given reader.

No kidding. I’ve acknowledged that and reminded people any number of times over the past several years not to treat the original document as the definitive source, but to refer instead to the many detailed clarifications I’ve made which are now easily accessible in various locations.

No one here is "trying to make the WP look silly" and unduly complicated. At least, I'm not. The present discussion has to do with trying to get a handle on L3 interval workouts. The user-end confusion has to do with the apparent difference between L3 rowing presented as continuous steady-rate rowing of up to 1 hour (or more) and L3 rowing presented as interval workouts that don't appear to top ~15k total work volume. I don't think they're exactly the same thing. That's not a criticism, by the way, it's an observation. And since interval rowing allows one to work at faster paces than continuous rowing, I'd like to be allowed to figure out a relationship.

So what’s wrong with the following explanation?

“In my experience, there are three workouts which most closely relate to 2K ability. The first/best predictor of my 2K ability is 4 x 1K (Level 1); the next best predictor is 4 x 2K (Level 2); and third is a Level 3 interval workout.

I have referred to Level 3 intervals periodically over the past couple years but here is a chance to clarify and consolidate information. First off, Level 3 intervals (I’ll say L3I for short) are (like 4 x 10’/L4) a supplementary or advanced workout to be done in conjunction with a weekly Continuous Level 3. [As explained previously, one of the cornerstones of a WP program should be a continuous Level 3 of 60’ or more.] Some basic points about L3I:
1) The basic format is a 3:1 work:recovery ratio. I suggest 3’ on/1’ off, 4’ on/1’20” off, or 5’ on/1’40” off. I always used these formats in a team setting so that slower and faster athletes could all stay on the same start/stop schedule. But for my personal workouts I prefer to use distance for the work intervals; the two formats I favor involve either 1250m or 1500m for each work interval (1K might be appropriate for slower athletes). I set the recovery interval as 1/3 of the estimated time for my work interval (since this involves extra math some might prefer to stick to 3’ on/1’ off.) The 1500m interval is actually pretty easy to work with since the recovery interval would be the same as your overall workout GP.
2) The total distance for the L3I work intervals should add up to somewhere between 75-90% of the distance you cover during 60’ of continuous Level 3 rowing. No need to be obsessed with the exact percentage; adjust it to suit your needs and abilities. But that’s a ballpark figure. That would probably mean something like 12-15 x 3’, 8-10 x 1500m, etc.
3) The intensity is roughly (60’ Level 3 Continuous pace) – 3 seconds. E.g., if Level 3 Continuous is 1:51, then L3I is 1:48 (at least to get started). [In Watts, the L3I pace would be about 8% faster than Continuous.] As with other relationships between intensities for different workouts, use it as a rough guide to get started but let the specific workout develop its own history and progress.
4) The recovery can be pretty light, but keep moving. For Level 1 & 2 workouts with higher intensity, the recovery needs to be even more active. For L3I, paddling lightly is fine; just don’t stop entirely.
5) Pacing for each work interval should be continuous or negative split. I prefer to do them with essentially continuous pacing using a small negative split. I prefer to avoid hitting it too hard at the start of each interval, but just settle quickly into my planned Goal Pace.
6) Pacing across the entire workout should also be fairly even with a slight negative split. My format is currently 10 x 1500m (1:45r), so the math is pretty simple when I figure out my strategy. For example, to average 1:46.2 for the entire workout, I do two intervals @ 1:47 and the remaining eight @ 1:46.
7) This workout is deceptively enjoyable in the early stages. It is fun and it is easy to make rapid gains initially. But eventually you cross a threshold and one day you sit down and get blindsided by one of the toughest workouts you can remember doing. I’ve coached athletes who refer to this as the “Level 2 from hell”, because the paces get pretty fast and it just goes on and on. In my training, by the end of the season my L3I pace surpasses my initial Level 2 pace from the start of the season. It might be called “Level 2.5”.
8) I find this to be a very valuable workout but I have become increasingly cautious when it comes to advancing the pace. For years I did this workout on a weekly basis, but now I do it only on alternate weeks (alternating with 6K/5K/4K, which I have mentioned previously).
9) Again, this L3I workout is in addition to my Continuous Level 3. As with the 4 x 10’ (L4) workout, many people look at this and say “Ooh, that looks like fun, I’ll do that instead of the Continuous workout!” The WP already has L1 & L2 for intervals and intensity. Make sure to TCB first with plenty of continuous L3 & L4 training before adding another interval session.”

This is from the Wolverine Plan Discussion thread in the archives of the old forum, which you know exists because you posted on it. This specific passage was linked at the beginning of this current New Wolverine Plan Thread. I hadn’t reviewed the old thread in months, but every time I do I’m reminded of how much work I’ve already put into clarifying and explaining the WP, and how much solid training information is there even for people who don’t intend to follow the WP. There’s no excuse for anyone questioning or criticizing the WP if they haven’t read that material. Ignore the trolls, the morons who feed the trolls, and the people with ADD who go off topic every second post and focus on my answers to just about every question that has yet been asked regarding the WP.

Just getting started with the WP description is closely aligned to wading through treacle. A lot of folks want a plan they can find on the Internet on a Monday morning and by Monday lunchtime they're rowing the first piece from day one of their new training plan.

And your point in saying that here is what, exactly? This is also something I’ve acknowledged and discussed several times over the years. This example of someone complaining is a classic:

Let me explain it to you. I am at work and have breifly had a look at one of your posts about the plan. I dont have time to read through all of it now because I am working here. I was hoping you might be a bit more help ful in guiding me so that I didnt have to waste my time going through every post on this site to put together your program. All I want is the layout for the program. Surely if you have set out a plan then it would be set in some sort of text format without all the mumbo jumbo in between.

To these people, I say tough shit. If it’s too much trouble to figure out the basics of the WP, then find something else. Plenty of qualified (and not so qualified) coaches will custom design you a program for a fee. Part of the effectiveness of the WP is learning and understanding the processes that determine performance, rather than simply following a list of workouts like an automaton. I’ve often referred to the old adage of learning to fish rather than being handed a fish. I’ve also quoted the Zen aphorism, “The obstacle is the path”, and if that goes over your head, then my point is made. The WP was intended for people who take their performance seriously and are more interested in results than simplicity. So if you don’t like the WP then stay away and continue to be a cheerleader for any other plan you like.

[pmacaula]

Wow ! Some zing in this thread lately.

My personal experience seems to mirror much of the discussion above. For some of the WP workouts, extracting them from the whole is tough to do effectively. The more involved WP sessions such as L3 Intervals and L4s (including L4 intervals) seem to demand that you follow the WP structure for all of your workouts or do them very regularly to get the paces right & get the most out of them.

As you point out Mike, the pace relationships between workout types evolve over the course of a number of cycles. Maintaining balance in terms of difficulty requires adjustment from week to week. The less history you have, the rougher the adjustment.

Have been away from following the WP for all of my workouts since last spring. Tried a few 60' L4 sessions this fall - not very satisfying. Last season, I did two 60' L4s/week (along with a 3rd L4 , and one each of L1/L2/L3) and had a very finely tuned sense for what level of effort was required for a given session & a given rate of progress.

As my target now the OTW season, not erg racing, will re-start some time after Christmas as a lead-in to executing the WP on the water.

On the other hand, have been doing a laddered workout at specified paces & rates. As my training partner & I have executed, pace is the primary measure & rate is the second measure (flip of L4 approach) and goals have not been as prescriptive as they are in L4. For example: 12K broken into 6x[1:56@18/1:52@20/1:48@22/1:52@20] - each segment is 500m. Once on target, the game has been to either up the overall avg pace a little bit or lower avg stroke rate a little bit.

It does not have the very finely tuned rate of progression (2 strokes/session in my case) built into L4s in a holistic WP plan.

The reminder is a good one. At least for me, It is difficult to do just part of the WP. It is really the integrated whole that works. The individual workouts are just that.

Cheers. Patrick.

[TomR]

Hi Mike.

Always good to see you post. Appreciate the clarifications, provided with familiar briskness.

Tom

[ErgCalc]

It's not easy to time well for the more complex L4 workouts. Their structure may be rather simple (20 or 30 times 2', 16/18 alternating), but I like the ones most where the length varies a little (pyramids, 6' pieces, etc.). But then, keeping track is a hassle - I find it hard myself. Maybe I'm alone

When I developed my iPhone app, this was one of the first 'features' I wanted the most - a bit more sophisticated timer than the PM3 one.

I'm testing my newest addition, and would love to hear feedback. Here's a screenshot:



As you can see, there are three timers; one counts down the current segment (1:57 to go), the other two count up and down the totals for this workout. The large yellow one in the middle is SPM.

The iPhone vibrates when there are 15 seconds to go in each segment.

Are there any other features I'm overlooking? Things that anyone may find handy when doing workouts like this?

[atklein90]

I just wanted to throw in a simple comment. Mike Caviston...THANK YOU!!! Thank you for taking the time to post your valuable commentary and most importantly, the WP itself. As I stated above, I'm new to this, but find the original WP simple to understand and a great outline for creating a training plan for myself. However, like several of your posts state, I took the time to read it...again and again, as well as most of your additional explanations.

I also took the time to create a document for myself to follow, for several weeks at a time, through a progression to build up to my first 2K test sometime in mid february. Having started this in November, I feel that I've made great progress already using your document and look forward to great gains in the future.

Thanks again!

[Nosmo]

This is a response from the iPhone Erg App Thread:
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=9915
but it seams more appropos here

...
Nosmo - how do you log your L4 workouts in the C2 Logbook. I have a Model C with PM2, so a log card isn't an option. Should I add the whole session and the total distance (e.g 40 minutes, 10K ish) and then just write "WP L4" in the session notes, or break it down somehow?

I stopped using the C2 Logbook and am just using a little spiral notebook to write down my workouts. I find a note book more convenient. No need to log on and I jsut write it down before I come in from the garage where my erg is.
However when I was using it, I just wrote down the total millage and put something like "60' L4 +65" where the +65 means I went 65 meters over the target distance for the whole workout. Now my notebooks will say something like: "149.8 lbs, 40' L4. 3K WU. <19.2> 184, 196, 192, 196, +1, +3, +0, +1 2KCD" the number in <> indicates average strokes. and the final numbers are how far off I am from the targets (I've gotten much better at hitting the number exactly).

This is my off season so I actually haven't been planning things out. Before I start each workout I just look at my notebook and see what I did. If I did 144.5 for my last 5x800m L1 two weeks ago, I'll try to do it at 144.3 this time. Or if last week my 70' L4 was 180, 184,188,192,188,192, 184. This week I'll just increase one (or possibly two) of the sequences by 4 strokes, or even add 10' and drop the 192s to 184s.

I'm not as consistent as I like to be--I've been usually putting in a bike ride and an OTW row each week. The ride and OTW row are sometimes easy and sometimes very hard depending on who I'm with. It seems like it usually takes me 8 to 10 days to go through a complete 6 erg workout cycle rather then a week.


Don't know if I'll do any erg races. There are two in two weeks but I just haven't decided if I want to do it.

Also, I'm currently doing L4s based on the 2K time I want to achieve rather than with my current 2k PB. It's going fine (for the first week!) and I'm hitting the target paces. Would you advise to just keep going?

Well that is really hard to say without know a lot more. How much experience do you have?
You need to avoid over training and increasing too fast. So if your goal is pretty realistic, you feel you have a lot of room for improvement, are starting at low numbered sequences and build up gradually then you will be fine.
If you trained hard last year and have been rowing for several years, are expecting a 20 second improvement or are starting out above 19 spm for a 60' workout than it is a really really bad idea.

[wjschmidt2]

I'm two weeks into the WP and kick'in butt! We'll see if all this low rating pays off. I have always(7 years) erged at high ratings and had some great PBs based off of steady rating of 28 or higher for my workouts. Normally, I would spend 30-60 minutes just cruising at 1:50s to 1:55s and then just shoot for a PB at whatever distance I was up for, for that day. I have a great base of distance erging and running (ultra-marathoning, as well) for years plus over 20+ years of Marine Corps PT to help out as well. (For those that know, 300 on my last PFT)

I have 8 L4s completed in the last two weeks and they feel great! Meaning, I am work'in my butt off and sweat'in more than I ever I did before on the C2. L3s are 60' or about 15.5k, right inline with the ref pace(6:40 2k) at the 80% mark,for me about 1:55ave. Still getting into the L2 and L1s, completed several, and I can say I am using a slower rate since starting the WP. (Forgive my novice Forum posting, English was never my strong point, must be the reason I joined the Corps and married a Filipina)

Hope to give a better report in the next few weeks.

semper fi!

Bill