The most effective 2k plan

[cflrules]

Hey all, looking for some advice and feedback from your experiences.

I'm getting back into serious rowing after a few years. My PB in the 2k is 6:58, and I'm hoping to get back there. My original training and cardio was from doing Crossfit, but I have since gave that up as my knees and shoulders can't take it any longer! Also, we have an indoor championship in our province in February, so the goal is to compete in it. That gives me about 6 months to train.

There is quite a few programs online for the 2k training (Pete plan, Ultimate 2k etc). Do any of you have something that worked well?

Thanks in advance!

[Dangerscouse]

Welcome to the forum. I'd say that the Pete Plan is ideal especially if you've got six months training.

My only advice is, be cautious in your starting paces and don't let your ego get in the way. Continual improvement and incremental gains are a very valuable part of the process.

[Elizabeth]

Pete's Plan is solid.

Do you have more details about the Ultimate 2k Plan? I am not familiar with it.

[KeithT]

I too got started into rowing from CF - I used to be a CF Athlete that did some extra rowing to a Rower who does some CF workouts. I have had some good success with rowing but I don't follow a specific plan. However, I would say I structure my workouts closer to the Pete Plan with the breakout of intensity and the ratio of easier days to an Intense interval day. I still do weights or CF at least twice a week and it works for me. I hear you on CF and knees - I had many different injuries, issues, surgeries with it as it is hard on the body especially for and older athlete like me.

[Mike Caviston]

I'd say that the Pete Plan is ideal especially if you've got six months training.

Pete's Plan is solid

I would say I structure my workouts closer to the Pete Plan

If it is the most effective plan, why don't any of you follow it?

[Dangerscouse]

I'd say that the Pete Plan is ideal especially if you've got six months training.

Pete's Plan is solid

I would say I structure my workouts closer to the Pete Plan

If it is the most effective plan, why don't any of you follow it?

I am doing at the moment, but I'm not doing it for a 2k TT as I'm just not inclined to test it. I've had to adjust some sessions recently as my lower back is aggravated.

I know that Keith and Elizabeth have both followed it in the past

[Tony Cook]

I’ve never done the Pete Plan - as I had more than 45-60mins a day to train I thought why not do the ‘proper’ plan - Wolverine.
The first plan I followed was the C2 interactive - 16 weeks 6 sessions a week. I liked that because it was 8ish weeks of building cardio with lots of UT work. Then 8 weeks of sharpening.
I dropped 20 seconds over the 16 weeks 6:57 to 6:37.
I then had a month of ‘cruising’. Trying different things, TTing longer distances.
I then found another race 3 months ahead and decided to go Wolverine. I don’t know how much I would have slowed over that month, I’m guessing maybe 4 seconds. After the WP set I got down to 6:31 - so I think I chipped 10 seconds off using that.

[KeithT]

I'd say that the Pete Plan is ideal especially if you've got six months training.

Pete's Plan is solid

I would say I structure my workouts closer to the Pete Plan

If it is the most effective plan, why don't any of you follow it?

I can't quite dedicate the time to it right now and keep up with weights and such. However, as stated, I do a lot the workouts and follow a couple SS sessions with one medium and one hard interval.

[Mike Caviston]

I am doing at the moment, but I'm not doing it for a 2k TT as I'm just not inclined to test it.

If you say so. The workouts you post don't match up with the Pete Plan I know. If you haven't used it to improve your 2K, why do you offer it as the most effective 2K plan?

I can't quite dedicate the time to it right now and keep up with weights and such. However, as stated, I do a lot the workouts and follow a couple SS sessions with one medium and one hard interval.

Same question: If you haven't used it to improve your 2K, why do you offer it as the most effective 2K plan? Why is "a couple SS sessions with one medium and one hard interval" unique to the Pete Plan?

[Elizabeth]

Hey Mike. This is one of many threads where the subject (Most Effective 2k Plan) and actual question (does anyone have a 2k plan that's worked well for them) aren't perfectly aligned.

I don't think that there is one "most effective" plan, since so much depends on both where the individual's strengths and weaknesses are, their current level of fitness, time they can devote to it, etc. I've run many cycles of Pete's Plan, and it did improve my 2k. OP brought it up, and seems like a reasonable fit for where he currently is and what he is looking for. You're right that a lot of the elements are not unique to Pete's Plan, and I think I recall that the speed work in particular was adapted from your Wolverine Plan. I was asking about the Ultimate 2k Plan in part because my cursory Google search was giving results that lacked a lot of the PP/WP elements that make them successful, but I didn't know if I was looking at the same thing that OP was.

I am not currently running Pete's Plan for a variety of reasons, none of which seem applicable to OP. But I am happy to go into details if he is curious.

[Mike Caviston]

I've run many cycles of Pete's Plan, and it did improve my 2k... I am not currently running Pete's Plan for a variety of reasons

So, you made some progress following the Pete Plan, then made further progress by using a different methodology.

I think I recall that the speed work in particular was [adapted] from your Wolverine Plan.

The word you are looking for is "copied". For example, there is no such thing as the "Pete Plan Pyramid".

[aussie nick]

I followed Pete's Plan for about 6 months and made continued improvements to my 2k along with all my other distances. I was only rowing 4x a week and did the two intervals, 1 hard distance and 1 steady state along with two weights sessions

I did it as I started taking rowing seriously so it is understandable that my times improved and I'm sure Mike's plan and other plans would also have helped. Who would have guessed that a structured approach to training as I moved from beginner to intermediate would result in success?! For example, earlier in the year I followed a 5 week RowAlong plan that resulted in me beating my 1k pr.

I enjoyed Pete's Plan because it gave me the opportunity to beat my previous times and chart my progress regularly...as I'm sure other plans do.
I stopped doing it after my 2021 competition season was over and while I've flirted with it since, I've never quite managed to get back onto it.

So...I can't say it's the most effective and I am sure that most structured plans would also be effective...perhaps more, perhaps less...but I enjoyed it and would recommend it.

[dabatey]

Just in case any newbies reading don't know. {At least this is how it seems to me]

'Pete' basically pinched Mike Caviston's Wolverine Plan and reduced it. He ditched the bits (L4 workouts) that he didn't really understand and didn't like doing, and replaced these with steady state. He simplified the interval sessions into a rote. Also he ditched all the elements of pacing (over a workout, and over a season) as described by Mike C (From my take, pacing is a huge part of the Wolverine Plan).

So I guess Mike C is a bit peeved at all the kudos given to the PP when it's a shadow of the Wolverine.

On the PP side, the Wolverine Plan takes a shedload of reading to understand properly and even then some bits are not properly explained (my take after searching extensively). So it's much easier for everyone to direct a newbie towards the easily explained Pete Plan (as the info is contained in a single website) rather than say 'take hours googling and searching Wolverine Plan and reading old forum posts and you'll eventually possibly work it out.

I have no doubt if Mike C ever brought all the Wolverine Plan info into a single useable document it would be the rowing plan that everyone was always directed towards rather than the Pete Plan.

[Dangerscouse]

I am doing at the moment, but I'm not doing it for a 2k TT as I'm just not inclined to test it.

If you say so. The workouts you post don't match up with the Pete Plan I know. If you haven't used it to improve your 2K, why do you offer it as the most effective 2K plan?

I have done all of the Pete Plan sessions up until June 23rd when I aggravated my back. The longer distances are just what I enjoy doing so they are longer than recommended but he also says you can go for longer if you're inclined. As I mentioned I've gone off plan recently as I'm not convinced it's a good idea at the moment to be chasing specific targets.

I've seen enough people improve their 2k using the Pete Plan to know it's effective. I have also seen enough improvements in my form and fitness to know that if I wanted to I could tailor it to improving my 2k. I just choose not to as it's not that important to me, and it never has been.

My recommendation of the Pete Plan isn't an exclusive recommendation, but it's one that I've got experience of, is simple enough to be manageable with a busy job / life and has been proven to work.

[iain]

'Pete' basically pinched Mike Caviston's Wolverine Plan and reduced it. He ditched the bits (L4 workouts) that he didn't really understand and didn't like doing, and replaced these with steady state. He simplified the interval sessions into a rote. Also he ditched all the elements of pacing (over a workout, and over a season) as described by Mike C (From my take, pacing is a huge part of the Wolverine Plan).

I think it may have been more than that as Pete was doing the WP shortly before. I think some of the bits omitted were later changes that MC believed improved it.

I would recommend WP for anyone already pretty fit who wishes to program 6 months or more of dedicated training, particularly for a 2k. Pete's Plan is a deliberately less prescriptive approach to try and fit in what he liked from WP in his lunch hour. MC (at least at that time) would not have liked the use of "WP" for this bastardised version and so it was not referred to as such and became recognised in its own right. Pete didn't try to claim it as his own, the name was adopted by others copying his approach. Personally as the original was a compromise for Pete, I feel that it is appropriate for people to adapt elements of this as they see fit. I for one use most of the interval workouts and adopt a similar pacing strategy. But this is less than half of my rowing so it is not the "Pete Plan" per se.