Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Mike--

1:59 @ 19 spm is indeed the Wolverine Plan level 4 target for a 6:44 2K.

1:49 @ 20 spm is the Wolverine Plan level 4 target for a 6:16 2K.

So, you are training yourself to row 6:44.

Good luck with it.

I am training myself to row 6:16.

Wish me luck!

ranger

[hjs]

Mike--

1:59 @ 19 spm is indeed the Wolverine Plan level 4 target for a 6:44 2K.

1:49 @ 20 spm is the Wolverine Plan level 4 target for a 6:16 2K.

So, you are training yourself to row 6:44.

Good luck with it.

I am training myself to row 6:16.

Wish me luck!

ranger

Nonsens again.


L4 work is never a target, those are paces you can do based on the 2k you have done. If you use the wolverineplan you do those paces but during the season increese rowingtime and or rate.
You only increese your l4 paces AFTER you better your 2k. In dangy's case he should alter he paces, up that is, he 2k is slipping

[ranger]

Now that I have gotten the hang of rowing at low drag (118 df.), I am pulling 13 SPI at all rates and paces.

Delighted with this.

For a lightweight of any age, 13 SPI is perfect rowing.

For the next six months, I will do all of my sharpening at 13 SPI, and then I will race at 13 SPI.

That means that I only have to rate 32 spm (10 MPS) to pull 1:34/6:16 for 2K.

13 SPI is a full SPI better than I did at high drag back in 2006, when I pulled 6:29.7 for 2K @ 12 SPI, albeit without preparing for it.

In 2006, I was 55 years old.

I will be 60 years old in five months, January 25, 2011.

The pace and rate I am most comfortable with for background, low rate rowing is 1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI).

So, that's what I will do over the next six months on off days when I am now pushing the rate and pace preparing to race.

ranger

P.S. Pulling at 9 SPI when they race, as most 60s lwts do, they would have to rate 47 spm to row 6:16/1:34 for 2K.

[ranger]

You only increese your l4 paces AFTER you better your 2k.

Sure--if you want to improve your fitness.

But people like Mike VB and I _can't_ improve our fitness.

Our fitness is trained to the max.

We can't get better by improving our fitness.

We can only get faster by becoming more effective and efficient in our rowing, that is, by improving our technique.

Unfortunately for him, Mike C. can only get better by improving his technique, too.

But if his training plan is followed to the letter, it only improves fitness.

So, for the last decade, he has just been getting worse and worse--precipitously.

ranger

[macroth]

Now that I have gotten the hang of rowing at low drag (118 df.), I am pulling 13 SPI at all rates and paces.

Delighted with this.

For a lightweight of any age, 13 SPI is perfect rowing.

For the next six months, I will do all of my sharpening at 13 SPI, and then I will race at 13 SPI.

That means that I only have to rate 32 spm (10 MPS) to pull 1:34/6:16 for 2K.

13 SPI is a full SPI better than I did at high drag back in 2006, when I pulled 6:29.7 for 2K @ 12 SPI, albeit without preparing for it.

In 2006, I was 55 years old.

I will be 60 years old in five months, January 25, 2011.

The pace and rate I am most comfortable with for background, low rate rowing is 1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI).

So, that's what I will do over the next six months on off days when I am now pushing the rate and pace preparing to race.

ranger

Sorry again, how is this post any different from your hundreds of posts over the last months? I see as much "reported training" as ever before (I am now rowing at X SPI which is perfect, I did Y in 200x but I am much better now, I think I will be doing Z, etc.). I thought we were no longer worthy of such detailed, thought-provoking information?

[Carl Watts]

Just pulled a 1:27.7 for the 500M at 34 SPM tonight straight after a 10K "Warmup" at 2:03 pace so I guess that using Ranger math thats a sub 6 minute 2K for me then when I next do one and it's only taken me 8 months instead of 7 years.

Got to be happy with that and I'm not even fully trained yet.

[ranger]

Just pulled a 1:27.7 for the 500M at 34 SPM tonight straight after a 10K "Warmup" at 2:03 pace so I guess that using Ranger math thats a sub 6 minute 2K for me then when I next do one and it's only taken me 8 months instead of 7 years.

Got to be happy with that and I'm not even fully trained yet.

Congrats.

You are indeed making progress.

But all of these things are just relative to what what we are trying to do.

The 40s hwt WR is 5:57.

I am training myself to row 26 seconds under the 60s lwt WR.

26 seconds under the 40s hwt WR is 5:31.

Hmm.

That's pretty fast.

Good luck with it, but I think it will take you more than a few more months to get there.

ranger

[hjs]

You only increese your l4 paces AFTER you better your 2k.

Sure--if you want to improve your fitness.

But people like Mike VB and I _can't_ improve our fitness.

Our fitness is trained to the max.

We can't get better by improving our fitness.

We can only get faster by becoming more effective and efficient in our rowing, that is, by improving our technique.

Unfortunately for him, Mike C. can only get better by improving his technique, too.

But if his training plan is followed to the letter, it only improves fitness.

So, for the last decade, he has just been getting worse and worse--precipitously.

ranger

Training
by [old] Mike Caviston » September 26th, 2005, 3:08 am

<b>NOTES ON LEVEL 4</b> <br />When I put together the Wolverine Plan, the aspect most different from my previous training was the Level 4 training band. Training at lower rates using rhythm & rating pyramids & ladders was certainly not a new concept. I had used such things with my crews on the water for years, but had avoided using them for indoor training. Part of the rationale involved trying to maximize fitness in a limited amount of time (in my early days of involvement with rowing as a coach, we had limited access to ergs and the commitment of the athletes wasn’t as developed as it is today). Watching other coaches run indoor workouts based on shifting ratings sequences, I didn’t like the generally low intensity or lack of accountability these workouts had. Athletes were instructed to pull at specific rates, but were given no clear instructions about pace. Athletes were free to pull harder or not as they chose, and frequently as workouts progressed and ratings got higher, splits would actually get slower. Now, I just can’t abide a training paradigm where someone can shift from 24 to 26spm and go slower in the process. As I set about restructuring my training into what is now the WP, I thought I could take advantage of certain aspects of low rate work as long as I developed standards for consistency. <br /><br />The initial workouts were primarily a matter of trial-and-error as I tried different paces at different rates to see what felt right. I wanted to keep things fairly simple using evenly spaced whole numbers, so I settled on 2:00 @ 16spm, 1:56 @ 18, 1:52 @ 20, and 1:48 @ 22. After I started fooling around with different workouts, different 10-30’ pieces with various 2’/2’/2’ etc. combinations, I added 1:44 @ 24 and 1:40 @ 26 to my list with the idea that I’d eventually use them when I got in better shape. The paces seemed to be appropriate, and there wasn’t really any more science behind them than that. I had no preconceived notion of “power per stroke” or anything like that. During that first year of Level 4 training, my best 2K ended up being 6:24, so I began to think of my 2K pace (1:36) in relation to these low-rate workouts. Later calculations would eventually show that, indeed, the amount of energy (Joules) per stroke for the low-rate work was roughly the same as for my 2K. That may just be a coincidence or it may be the reason those Level 4 paces “felt” right.<br /><br />The next step was to create standard 10’ and 6’ sequences to save time in planning workouts, give me a shorthand to record them with, make it easier to look at different patterns, etc. The first year or two, I experimented with a wide variety of workout formats: 6-10 x 10’ with various recovery periods, depending on intensity; 40-80’ of continuous rowing; and longer pieces with recovery, such as 3-4 x 20’, 30’/20’/10’, etc. I gradually decided the best formats were continuous rows of 40-70’ duration (the exception being 4 x 10’, which I’ll discuss below). When I began working with the Michigan women’s team, I expanded the “Reference Pace” concept to other 2K paces. My most recent update to Level 4 has been the addition of sequences based on odd-numbered stroke rates.<br /><br />I have heard and read a lot of discussion about Level 4 over the past few years, and one of the frustrating things about sharing my plan with the masses is the number of myths & misconceptions that have arisen. Some have persisted despite many attempts on my part to dispel them. Let me try again. <b>Myth #1:</b> “Level 4 is strength training.” It’s not; it’s <b>endurance</b> training. Sure, it requires a certain amount of strength, or “power per stroke”, or whatever you want to call it. Lack of power was one of my original complaints about low-rate rowing as many people performed it; I never saw the benefit of putzing along at paces well over 2:00. But the amount of power required for Level 4 is <i>proportional</i> to established 2K ability; it’s not intended to exceed it. It’s intended to tax endurance, not necessarily strength. A 60’ Level 4 workout may have as many as 1200 strokes, or 1200 consecutive “reps” without pause. What kind of strength program would feature sessions like that? Who would walk into a weight room, pick up a couple dumbbells, and pump out more than a thousand reps? How light would the weight have to be? Would they really expect to get stronger? Amusingly to me, some individuals who have stated that Level 4 uses too much power per stroke also do workouts such as “30r20” which involves maximal power for half an hour at 20spm. This requires far more power per stroke than any Level 4 workout. <b>Myth #2:</b> “Level 4 isn’t appropriate for heavyweights.” The idea here being that since the training was developed by a lightweight and popularized by women, it doesn’t address the needs of big men. This ties into the mistaken belief that Level 4 focuses on strength and power rather than endurance, and heavyweight men already have enough power. This thinking is flawed on two levels. First, enough power relative to whom? Women and lightweight men? Second, as I keep saying BUT APPARENTLY NOT OFTEN ENOUGH, Level 4 is endurance training. So, any heavyweight that wants to improve endurance would benefit from Level 4 workouts. <b>Myth #3:</b> “Rowing at low rates keeps you from reaching higher rates during a 2K race.” Nonsense. Never doing workouts at higher intensity (2K rate and pace) keeps you from optimizing your 2K rate. Which is why the WP includes Level 1 & 2 workouts every week. <b>Myth #4:</b> “Rowing continuously at a steady rate according to the WP Level 4 guidelines gives the same effect as shifting the rate.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some people don’t want the challenge or responsibility of thinking about the different shifts in pace and rate; they want to get into a comfortable groove and just keep one steady rate for the entire workout. That’s still training, and if that’s what they want to do, more power to them. But they are mistaken if they think rowing for 60’ @ a constant 20spm according to WP guidelines is the same as doing the 200 sequence (4’/3’/2’/1’ @ 18/20/22/24) six times in a row. In the first place, due to the relationship between velocity and power, the average watts for the varying rate sequences will be higher than for the steady rate, even though the total number of strokes taken is the same in both scenarios. Secondly, and more importantly, the steady “groove” creates a neurological adaptation that improves efficiency, making it easier to hold a given pace, while disrupting the groove (changing the rate) reduces efficiency. [I came across the concept of <b>perseveration,</b> the persistence of a movement pattern after performing a rhythmic activity for an extended period, while researching efficiency for my Sports Biomechanics class. For example, in triathlons, during the transition from cycle to run, the effect of the cycling cadence persists and disrupts the triathlete’s running economy for about 6’ after getting off the bike. This means that the athlete requires more oxygen to run at a given pace following the cycling leg than running at the same pace without having cycled. This occurs even with the same stride length/frequency and controlling for prior fatigue by having the athlete run before running economy is measured.] The take-home message is that rowing at a given average pace with changing rates is more physically demanding than rowing at the same pace with a constant rate. You can’t use Level 4 predictors or assume Level 4 adaptations just because you can hold a particular pace at a steady rate. The simple proof for me is that I can cover MANY more meters in a given time frame using a constant rate than by using the same average rate with Level 4 sequences.<br /><br />There are several other benefits to Level 4 training besides increased ENDURANCE (did I mention Level 4 was good for endurance?) It gives athletes a chance to work on overall technique as specified by a coach or according to whatever parameters an individual is trying to develop. Low rates = more time between strokes = more opportunity to think & modify. Things like consistency, ratio, suspension & acceleration on the drive, control on the recovery, length, and so on. (BTW, I strongly encourage everyone to row strapless as often as possible and certainly for all Level 4 rowing.) As I discussed in a previous post, the skills required for Level 4 rowing correlate with fast rowing on the erg as well as on the water. Mentally, breaking up long pieces into 1, 2, and 3 minute chunks makes things go by a lot faster. The overall variety using the Level 4 format makes it possible to do 60’ workouts again and again and again without ever doing them the same way twice.<br /><br />Some have asked about different physiological aspects of Level 4. Regarding heart rate, I have no idea, as I never monitor HR while training. I don’t know about lactate, either, but I would bet money that lactate levels after a workout are no higher than resting. I find the relationship between breathing and level 4 very interesting. I am a long-time asthmatic and while I haven’t had a truly serious attack in years, it does occasionally limit my performance or cause me to shorten or alter my workouts. With Level 4’s lower rates, even when my bronchi are constricted, there is time for slower, more deliberate breaths and I find I can get adequate air. Slow, deep breathing is more effective than rapid, shallow breathing at allowing gas exchange (greater alveolar ventilation for given minute ventilation) and I try to maintain a slower, deeper pattern for all workouts. I can’t imagine breathing more than once per stroke! Another interesting observation I’ve had about Level 4 is that it apparently utilizes more muscle glycogen than other workouts. I never “bonk” during other workouts, even 25-30K Level 3s, but I have to be careful with Level 4. (As I will eventually describe, my overall diet is very high in carbohydrates of all kinds).<br /><br />In general, I think Level 4 is a fairly simple concept. Learn your paces, and construct workouts that slowly/gradually increase the number of strokes taken in a given time frame. As a result, more meters will be accumulated and endurance will improve. The hardest step in many cases is choosing an initial Reference Pace (which dictates what paces to pull for various rates). This is the trickiest to discuss because while I have some pretty clear guidelines there are some cases where I don’t have solid advice, and a little trial and error will be required. The Ref Pace is ideally selected based on your best 2K pace from the previous season. If your 2K was 7:00 flat, use a 1:45 Ref Pace, consult the appropriate tables, and base your workouts accordingly. If your 2K pace was in between 2 whole numbers, I would generally recommend rounding down (slower) for anyone new to Level 4 training. But for people who think the training is “hard” (which concept I’ll discuss shortly), I also discourage people form choosing an even slower Ref Pace. If you completed a maximal 2K last year, even if you are out of shape now, you should be able to handle the designated pace (you can start at low volume and at the lower end of the ratings spectrum). You should never, NEVER choose a Ref Pace faster than your 2K. Yet I hear of people doing this again and again. They choose a Ref Pace based on what they want to do or think they will or should do. They invariably burn out and abandon the program before they can realize its benefits. The Ref Pace should be selected based on what you have actually done, not what you hope to do in the future. If training goes well this year, you can increase the pace next year. Some people try to compensate for a lower training volume by using a higher Ref Pace to maximize the intensity, but I strongly discourage this. [The 4 x 10’ workout in the WP is only meant to gradually acclimate users to more intense sequences that will eventually be incorporated into the continuous rows.] Another myth about Level 4 is that it predicts 2K. In fact there is only a modest correlation. The truest predictors of 2k ability are workouts such as 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. Even though my 2K has been slipping for the past couple years, my Level 4 performance has continued to improve (very slightly, but it’s the only training band that has continued to improve since I set my PR four years ago). I try to get people away from the mindset that “If I row Ref Pace X, I will get 2K score Y”. Instead I try to encourage the mindset that “Since I’ve pulled 2K score Y, I should use Ref Pace X”. For a total novice, it will be impossible to choose an appropriate Ref Pace, and I would encourage more informal drills or short workouts trying different Level 4 rates and paces. After a couple months, the newbie could probably do a Level 1 workout like 8 x 500m with a good enough effort to estimate 2K pace and Level 4 Ref Pace. But that’s not going to be an exact science, and will likely require some occasional adjustments. For the non-competitive rower, one strategy is to choose a Ref Pace on a given day based on how you feel. If you feel ambitious, choose a harder pace; if you feel sluggish, choose an easier pace. (I know a few former varsity rowers who break up their stairclimbing and spinning classes with a few erg workouts. They like having a format that gives the workout some structure with the option of taking it easy when they feel like it.) But for athletes training seriously to maximize their 2K speed, it is preferable to work within the framework of one stable Ref Pace for a season.<br /><br />The last thing I’ll address today is the question of how “hard” Level 4 should feel. Many athletes are set on the notion that training must include “easy” or “recovery” days, and they are surprised and alarmed at just how challenging Level 4 can be. I think “hard” is a relative term, but no workout should ever feel “easy”. If it’s easy, it’s not training, because training means pushing yourself to new levels. OTOH, training needs to be realistic, and possible; it rarely needs to be excruciating. The level of effort I am searching for with ALL my workouts is “tough, but doable”. I want to feel tired but not exhausted. I want to feel like if I HAD to, I could’ve gone a little harder – but I’m glad I didn’t have to. And next time I WILL go a little harder, but by then I will have adapted and will be physically and mentally prepared. Now, some days it becomes clear to me pretty early in the workout that I’ve bitten off maybe more than I can chew, and that every stroke is going to be a dogfight. When that happens, I get through it as best I can and then try to set the goal pace more accurately next time. With the Wolverine Plan, I want every workout to be “hard” but not necessarily the same kind of hard. Different training bands have different intensities, durations and other parameters to stress different aspects of our physiology (and psychology). – Having said all that, I wouldn’t worry or quibble if a workout feels “easy” as long as you create a format that systematically has you increasing the intensity. If you can get through a whole season, improving beyond past performances, and it still feels “easy” – more power to you.<br /><br />Next week I’ll go through some guidelines for designing a single Level 4 workout (what sequences in which order, etc.) as well as tips for progressing the intensity level systematically over a training season. I’ll give various examples from my training and explain why I did what I did. If anyone wants to provide some examples of Level 4 workouts they have done, or how they increase volume/intensity during the season, I’ll try to comment (don’t be shy – I’ll even do it in a supportive, non-sarcastic manner [you hope]).<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Mike Caviston


No Mike did set his lifetime PB after using his plan including the l4 not before, so again surprice suprice younare lying again, cause you now this.

[hjs]

Just pulled a 1:27.7 for the 500M at 34 SPM tonight straight after a 10K "Warmup" at 2:03 pace so I guess that using Ranger math thats a sub 6 minute 2K for me then when I next do one and it's only taken me 8 months instead of 7 years.

Got to be happy with that and I'm not even fully trained yet.

Strong work!, if you work on your rating and get that to 40, r 34 is not sprinting, thats just pulling hard.

[ranger]

Carl--

The difference between the standards in the 40s hwts and the 60s lwts is 45 seconds over 2K.

11 seconds per 500m.

So, if I row 1:27.7 for 500m, which I certainly can, it is equivalent to you doing 1:16.7.

Good luck with it.

ranger

[hjs]

Carl--

The difference between the standards in the 40s hwts and the 60s lwts is 45 seconds over 2K.

11 seconds per 500m.

So, if I row 1:27.7 for 500m, which I certainly can, it is equivalent to you doing 1:16.7.

Good luck with it.

ranger

Liar

Carl did row that 500 you will never ever do one and dare to post the result.

[ranger]

Sure.

If MIke C. does a dozen seconds better this year than he did nine years ago when he set the 40s lwt WR at 6:18, I will be _very_ impressed with the results of the Wolverine Plan.

Unfortunately, if he even races at all, I suspect he will miss that by 30 seconds.

Instead of getting a dozen seconds faster, over the last nine years, he has gotten twenty seconds slower.

ranger

[macroth]

Sure.

If MIke C. does a dozen seconds better this year than he did nine years ago when he set the 40s lwt WR at 6:18, I will be _very_ impressed with the results of the Wolverine Plan.

Unfortunately, if he even races at all, I suspect he will miss that by 30 seconds.

Instead of getting a dozen seconds faster, over the last nine years, he has gotten twenty seconds slower.

ranger

More lies from the mentally challenged buttorifice known as Rich Cureton.

If you don't care about the WP, why do you keep referencing L1/2/3/4 paces, for example this very morning at 2:58 a.m.?

Mike--

1:59 @ 19 spm is indeed the Wolverine Plan level 4 target for a 6:44 2K.

1:49 @ 20 spm is the Wolverine Plan level 4 target for a 6:16 2K.

And what you suspect has been far removed from what IS in reality for the last several years, so when you claim that Mike Caviston has slowed down by 20 seconds while implying that you have improved by 12, you're being, as usual, a dishonest POS. Saying that Mike C's current performance would somehow reflect on the value of the WP (and that his improving by 12 seconds would be the only metric of this value) is another reason you're a dishonest POS.

To sum up, you're a dishonest POS. Nothing new under the sun.

Footnote: ranger posting times this morning: 2:18 am, 2: 23, 2:58, 4:19, 4:26, 4:57, 5:08, 5:19. So much for silence!

[mikvan52]

I'd love to see the looks on everyone's faces should ranger have the guts to walk into the training camp Mike Caviston runs for the US military and spout this kind of stuff.
Caviston is clearly a case of someone who has refocused on other priorities than merely jerking a chain in a basement or garage and saying "if".

The only reason RIch talks about him is because he wishes he could be as tough on the erg as Caviston once was.
I witnessed a Caviston Siebach contest at CRASH-Bs...great stuff!.... funny, Cureton wasn't there... there must have been a snow flake floating in the air.

Rich: Do you think Navy Seals don't show up for the job if there's inclement weather?

[ranger]

Mike--
When you are rowing along naturally at 10.8 SPI (e.g., 1:59 @ 19 spm), how much peak force do you get with legs in the first .2 of the your drive? Then how much peak force is added to that when you swing your back? And so, what is the total peak force that you get from your legs and back combined, when they overlap, before the force of your drive starts to fall off as the stronger levers give way to the weaker levers?

ranger