Pete's Plan Spreadsheet

[Valdus]

I am looking for a clear concise spreadsheet for the Pete's Plan. Does anyone have a link?

[MPx]

Ummm - No! Which Pete Plan is it you want? Beginner? 2k? 5k? You'll have seen Pete's blog site which contans all of the plans
https://thepeteplan.wordpress.com/5k-training/

The 5k plan is set out very similarly to a std spreadsheet. The others are similar but slightly less detailed. I'm guessing you're looking for something else...but I'm not sure what that might look like.

[Valdus]

I am talking about something on google sheets. I did the Beginner years ago (boy did it work for me) and I find myself an intermediate.

So I am thinking the 5k?

[MPx]

All plans can be effective for everyone as they're generally progressive with repeat cycles of the same workouts. I found PPs 3 week cycle too short for me to have time to adapt so made up my own extra similar pieces and cycle over 6 weeks instead. Although PPs named Beginner/2k/5k they can all be effective for everyone from newbie to erging god - as indeed Pete was in his prime and still is in age group! The 2k and 5k are focussed as the names suggest so decide what you're aiming to test. Most other plans are aimed at 2k but they all work and you'll get improvements across the board by following them diligently. Sorry cant help with the spreadsheet.

[Dangerscouse]

Although PPs named Beginner/2k/5k they can all be effective for everyone from newbie to erging god - as indeed Pete was in his prime and still is in age group! The 2k and 5k are focussed as the names suggest so decide what you're aiming to test. Most other plans are aimed at 2k but they all work and you'll get improvements across the board by following them diligently. Sorry cant help with the spreadsheet.

Agreed. IIRC I saw someone about four years ago drop their 2k to 6:22 from 6:40ish following the PP. It might not have been exactly those numbers but they were very close to them as I was amazed how much progress they'd made.

Progressive overload is all that really matters for the body to repair a little bit better than the last time. As long as this is periodised you should improve, until you reach your ultimate potential. What that is remains to be proven.

[Mike Caviston]

Although PPs named Beginner/2k/5k they can all be effective for everyone from newbie to erging god - as indeed Pete was in his prime and still is in age group!

I’m curious about how one is designated an “erging god”. Is it based on objective performance, or merely hyperbole?

IIRC I saw someone about four years ago drop their 2k to 6:22 from 6:40ish following the PP. It might not have been exactly those numbers but they were very close to them as I was amazed how much progress they'd made.

Speaking of hyperbole...

[MPx]

Although PPs named Beginner/2k/5k they can all be effective for everyone from newbie to erging god - as indeed Pete was in his prime and still is in age group!

I’m curious about how one is designated an “erging god”. Is it based on objective performance, or merely hyperbole?

Ha! My text so definition is according to me - and given my lowly status its not quite as tough to achieve as some might imagine! I know you only really count proven race winners Mike - but that seems a bit harsh to me. Its also more than pure performance. No one has done a better training plan than your WP so that alone would put you in EG category even if you didn't erg so strongly yourself - which of course you do. There's a few on here who are very experienced and generous with their knowledge and encouragement - as well as impressive scores - that counts. There's a few top of the world class athletes (like Elizabeth and Justin) who just make me smile at what they can score versus what the rest of us aspire to. So its a wide definition with loads of room for argument, but I'd be surprised if we didn't all pick from the same sub-group if asked who our EGs are.

[Dangerscouse]

Speaking of hyperbole...

I'm also curious. How have you surmised that this is hyperbole? Or is at an objective statement based on actual knowledge that it's incorrect?

[Mike Caviston]

I'm also curious. How have you surmised that this is hyperbole? Or is at an objective statement based on actual knowledge that it's incorrect?

Do you have anything more substantial than "If I Recall Correctly" and approximate times? A name, a race where the performance occurred, how the training was documented? You made the claim, so you should have actual knowledge that it is correct.

[iain]

I'm also curious. How have you surmised that this is hyperbole? Or is at an objective statement based on actual knowledge that it's incorrect?

Do you have anything more substantial than "If I Recall Correctly" and approximate times? A name, a race where the performance occurred, how the training was documented? You made the claim, so you should have actual knowledge that it is correct.

Mike, while it would add credibility for extra proof, unless in a very closely controlled program doubts would always remain. So called adherents to PP vary on their actual workouts. I have seen some incorporate Level 4 workouts to essentially transitioning closer to the WP and certainly many exceed the 1 hour sessions that characterise the initial PP. Also we will never know the capability of the rower at the start. Many are physically capable of a significantly faster pace than they have achieved and so much of the improvement could have been from taxing themselves enough to gain the confidence required to really reach their peak. As a result any report short of a controlled study will always leave uncertainty. While it is good to be sceptical, I think we shouldn't judge everyone by the worst offenders!

[Dangerscouse]

Do you have anything more substantial than "If I Recall Correctly" and approximate times? A name, a race where the performance occurred, how the training was documented? You made the claim, so you should have actual knowledge that it is correct.

Wow, you really do take things seriously, dont you? Sometimes in life, but all the time, a recollection is simply enough. I'm not stating a claim to make someone pay money for something, so how is it even the slightest bit important that there's verifiable evidence to confirm my recollection?

If someone can make progress through believing something is possible without hard facts, it's still progress

[alex9026]

Just my $0.02 worth, which can be dismissed I could care less....I followed the lunch hour plan pretty much to the letter a year ago. I went 6:31 prior to starting the plan, after 4 months or so of my own unstructured approach to training. Granted I was a good club level runner a few years back, so my starting point was probably half decent once I found some base fitness again.

I ran two full cycles following an enforced absence due to an operation. I stopped midway through a third cycle having just gone 6:24. All my training then was logged in the "what training have you done today" thread which has since closed/been archived. I may have still gone 6:24 continuing to do my own thing, like I have been in recent months. As Iain states, many people are capable of going faster, they just need a little confidence in pushing themselves. I've been guilty of that my whole athletic life, on a track as a teen to the Erg now. That's not going to change at 35...

Mike, I appreciate this forum and your training plans were around a long time before I strapped in to an Erg. I wouldn't even know where to start in learning and understanding the WP. There is a lot of archived stuff out there which isn't an easy read. I'll make a solid assumption most people just want something easy to access and follow...

To the OP, for a straightforward structure and approach to training with a sensible manner of progression, you can't go far wrong with the lunch hour plan. I do my workouts on Ergzone which will save the workout so it's an easy point of reference when you come round to complete it again.

[nick rockliff]

I'm also curious. How have you surmised that this is hyperbole? Or is at an objective statement based on actual knowledge that it's incorrect?

Do you have anything more substantial than "If I Recall Correctly" and approximate times? A name, a race where the performance occurred, how the training was documented? You made the claim, so you should have actual knowledge that it is correct.

Why always so hostile and negative?

[iain]

I'm also curious. How have you surmised that this is hyperbole? Or is at an objective statement based on actual knowledge that it's incorrect?

Do you have anything more substantial than "If I Recall Correctly" and approximate times? A name, a race where the performance occurred, how the training was documented? You made the claim, so you should have actual knowledge that it is correct.

Why always so hostile and negative?

I wonder whether the times quoted were reminiscent of a troll formerly of this parish who was obsessed with Mike's 2k WR and reported many times without evidence?

[nick rockliff]

Do you have anything more substantial than "If I Recall Correctly" and approximate times? A name, a race where the performance occurred, how the training was documented? You made the claim, so you should have actual knowledge that it is correct.

Why always so hostile and negative?

I wonder whether the times quoted were reminiscent of a troll formerly of this parish who was obsessed with Mike's 2k WR and reported many times without evidence?

Presume you mean Ranger?