Ranger's training thread

[lancs]

My targets .... 60min @ 1:44.

You'd manage 12 mins at 1:44 pace. At best.

Time to reassess your targets and make them even remotely attainable. You will never, ever, ever come even half way to those targets you state...

[hjs]

Since interest has been expressed regarding the Wolverine Plan, this thread is for occasional posts on that topic in an effort to clarify and expand some of my previous comments. For those who have followed the WP from the beginning, much of this information may be repetitive. For others, it will be more information than you want, so stop now. But hopefully for those interested it will help put things in better perspective. I’ll begin with some background about how and why I developed the plan and what its track record has been.<br /><br /><b>HISTORY OF THE WOLVERINE PLAN</b><br /><br />I began rowing in 1979 and being somewhat of a perfectionist was interested from the beginning in maximizing my performance as a rower. In the earlier days quantification of rowing physiology was a little more dubious than it is today, since ergometers were rare instruments and were available only occasionally for testing, let alone training. We didn’t have anything at Michigan during the time I competed, but during various trips to different boathouses (e.g., Jacksonville, Wisconsin, and MIT) I had a few opportunities to take a crack at tests on either Gamut ergs or the new C2 Model As. When not on the water, the bulk of my training involved running (lots of hills and stairs), lifting, and cycling (during the summer). I shifted from competing to coaching in the early 80s, and became responsible for structuring the training of other athletes. Meanwhile, I continued to train and use myself as a guinea pig when developing team workouts. Three things to consider were availability of equipment (few if any ergs available till the late 80s/early 90s); time (club athletes couldn’t or wouldn’t devote that much of it to training); and effectiveness (given the first two realities, what would provide the greatest results?) The basic training template involved a variety of short sessions centered on intervals or moderately long continuous activities at higher intensity. This might translate as six-seven sessions per week ranging from 40-60 minutes each (including warm-up/cool-down). <br /><br />It’s hard to say precisely how effective the training was. Our program was moderately successful (we didn’t suck outright and we didn’t dominate), but so many other factors besides the training program were involved (such as lack of funds and the various things they buy, like equipment and truly professional coaches). My personal motivation for training at that point was simply to stay in shape and set a good example for the troops. I didn’t have any competitive aspirations. But in 1987 I ended up entering my first indoor race through a series of slightly improbable events. The U of M program was taking a number of athletes to the CRASH-B satellite race in Cincinnati, though originally I wasn’t able to go myself. But my plans changed and at the last minute I decided to go and to enter a race myself. Discovering there was a lightweight category and realizing I wasn’t too far over the limit, I starved for a couple days and ran off the last couple pounds the morning of the event and made the competitive weight. I had no knowledge of or interest in ergometer records at that time, and didn’t really know what I was capable of, but 8:00 flat [for 2500m on a Model B] seemed like a nice round number and at least possible based on some of the workouts I had been doing. I struggled a bit in the 4th 500m, but finished in 8:02. To my surprise, I was informed afterwards that that was the fastest any lightweight so far had ever rowed 2500m – in other words, a world record. I was also informed I won a free plane ticket to Boston and the CRASH-Bs the following week. So I went, but it wasn’t a great performance. I certainly didn’t have the technique of making weight down to a science, so that was stressful. And the event itself required heats as well as a final, so two 2500m races within three hours was a bit more of both a physical and mental challenge than I was prepared for. I got 8:06 in the final, good enough for 5th place, while the winning time was 7:57. So my first world record stood for a whole week. I was 27 years old at the time.<br /><br />Over the next 5 years or so, (having purchased my own erg) I was able to train more consistently and with a view towards maximizing my 2500m performance. Since U of M’s spring break often coincides with the weekend of the CRASH-Bs in February, as a coach I was with the team in Tampa, FL on it’s annual training trip and so unable to return to Boston for another crack at a hammer. But on various attempts over that period I pulled 7:57-8 for 2500m, which if memory serves would have been good enough for either first or second place in the Open Lightweight category during that stretch (though meanwhile the world record had been lowered to about 7:51). But I wasn’t getting any faster and it didn’t seem like I would make any major jumps, so from about the age of 32 I stopped training specifically to get faster on the erg. I still used it frequently, and I still trained hard, but I got more involved in alternate activities and stopped doing test pieces on the erg.<br /><br />But I’m the sort who doesn’t really enjoy training as much without some sort of goal or target to shoot for, and running or cycling generally aren’t as readily quantifiable as the erg. So by the time I was 35 or 36 years old, I was thinking about reorganizing my training towards a specific goal involving rowing. During this time I had continued to refine and tweak the training program I was using for the athletes I was coaching, and also making use of information I was getting since I entered the graduate program in Kinesiology at Michigan (I entered in ’89, got my degree in ’93 and began as a teaching assistant in ’94, eventually becoming a Lecturer in ‘96). I had followed results from the WIRC and was aware of what times were competitive in my age bracket, and also in the next (over 40). So I had some specific times to shoot for and just needed a specific plan of attack for achieving my goals. And so began what would eventually be called the Wolverine Plan.<br /><br />Much of the new plan simply incorporated workouts I had been doing for years. I <i>invented</i> 8 x 500m (and its Level 1 variations like 4 x 1K and the 250/500/750/1000/750/500/250 pyramid). We were doing them at Michigan the first week the Model B (and the metric PM1) was released. [If anybody else independently invented those workouts, they are Alfred Russel Wallace while I am Charles Darwin.] I hadn’t done much 4 x 2K (or a similar workout, 5 x 5’), but both were popular with other coaches at Michigan and I had some experience with them so I decided to create the workout category that would eventually be called Level 2. Long, continuous (Level 3) rows had been a staple of my erging workouts and were easy to incorporate. The one workout category that was considerably different from anything I’d done before was the category that would be called Level 4. I’ll talk about that more in a future post. Some aspects that distinguish the WP from other training programs designed for rowing include limiting cross- training, and no real periodization (all types of workouts in similar proportions year-round; no “endurance” phase followed by a “sharpening” phase.) Another characteristic of the WP, which I will discuss more later, is a strong emphasis on mental discipline. My rationale being that I couldn’t realistically train with much more volume, or intensityr, so I had to be even smarter and more productive with the time I had. I created a system, started recording and analyzing scores, experimented with different formats of similar workouts, tried to find the optimum order of different types of workouts, determined how hard I could work and how long I’d need to recover from various workouts, noted how much improvement for various workouts was realistic during a training season, etc., etc. This began in the fall-winter of 1997-1998. I was 36 years old, and in that first training season of the WP my fastest 2K was 6:26. The next year saw 6:24, then 6:21, then 6:20, and finally, in February 2002, during my 40th year on Earth, I set a lifetime PR (and WR in my age group) of 6:18.<br /><br />Any discussion about whether the Wolverine Plan is an effective training program would begin with my own results. Obviously, I’ve been pretty successful (3 hammers and a 2nd at CRASH-B, as well as gold medals at 2 European IRCs and 1 BIRC.) Besides a record and championships won, what impresses me most about my accomplishments (if I can be excused for such an immodest comment) is the fact that I was the fastest I’ve ever been in my life at 40 years old. Bear in mind that I wasn’t some inactive couch potato that finally saw the light, or even some successful athlete coming to rowing from a different sport. I had been training specifically, relentlessly, and successfully for rowing since I was 18 years old. But the WP was effective enough so that even with my background, I was able to keep improving up to the start of my fourth decade. For reference, other senior/master athletes are faster than me relative to the Open standards; Eskild Ebbesen comes to mind as does Lisa Schlenker. Last year at 40 Lisa won the Open Lightweight category at WIRC (my record-setting time in 2002 would have placed 11th in the Open) – but well off her record pace of a few years ago.<br /><br />So the WP has been (and continues to be) successful for me. But so what, I’m just one person, what does that prove? One person might win a championship in spite of their training, not because of it (though in my case you’d have to ignore my careful records of training for the pre- and post-WP years). Has anyone else benefited from the WP? I’ve certainly heard from a number of relative beginners, via e-mail or in person at various indoor events, who have told me they’ve benefited from the Wolverine Plan. But, beginners are pretty easy to help. What about experienced and competitive athletes? You could start by talking to some of my former USIRT teammates such as Joan Van Blom, Luanne Mills, and Mary Perrot (all multiple hammer winners). Also Nancii Bernard, who placed 2nd in 2004 and first in 2005 in the women’s senior category. Michigan alum and former Olympian Steve Warner was coached by me when he got his first CRASH-B medal as a UM freshman (second as a J18LW); Steve went on to win a couple hammers and many more medals in Boston.<br /><br />The greatest opportunity to evaluate the Wolverine Plan would be the 4 seasons I spent as conditioning coach for the U of M women’s team. Women’s rowing became a varsity sport at Michigan in 1996. The test of success of a women’s program is how well it does at the NCAA championship. In its first four years of existence, the women placed 5th as a team at the NCAA championship three straight years (failing to be selected for the regatta in its first year). That is certainly not a record to be ashamed of. But the Michigan head coach, looking to shake things up and get an edge, brought me aboard before the 2000-2001 season to design the overall training plan for the team, to oversee indoor training, and to help the coaches coordinate outdoor training more effectively. Prior to my involvement, the team had trained as many college programs do, with a variety of demanding and grueling workouts but without any particular structure or plan for systematic improvement. Some of the features that I would eventually discourage or eliminate included lots of cross training (track sprinting or Indian-file runs were popular); training paces based on heart rates; and competitive workouts (athletes seated next to one another with the simple goal of beating the other, rather than following a personal season-long progression). Initially, the new program was simply called The Training Plan; it wasn’t till I eventually began posting on this forum and referred to the program that I had to give it a specific name. But whatever it was called, evidence that it worked came pretty quickly and decisively. (A rowing team is the closest thing there is to an actual laboratory for testing training. I’ve worked with hundreds of athletes over the years, with opportunities to try new things, subtle variations, and compare with previous results.) In collegiate rowing each athlete is tested periodically during the season for 6K and 2K performance, and over a four year period lots of data becomes available for individuals as well as team averages and trends. In my first year with the team, every single athlete in the program (with one exception) set PRs at both 6K and 2K. Some did so by quite large amounts, and interestingly some of the biggest gainers had already been the fastest athletes on the team. Two examples were particularly striking. That year Kate Johnson was a senior. Kate was a three-time All-American (and won silver in last year’s Olympic 8) and had entered UM as the most-recruited high school rower in the country. She was extremely talented and among the most dedicated athletes I’ve ever met. But despite all her desire and hard work she hadn’t really improved her 2K time in her three years at Michigan. But by the end of her senior year she had dropped 8 seconds, down to 6:49. Another senior, Bernadette Marten (eventual national team member and gold medal winner in the 8 at the 2002 World Championships, along with Johnson and Michigan alum Kate MacKenzie) also made a big jump. Bernadette had transferred to Michigan from another program and her best 2K to date had been 6:59. By year’s end she had a school-record 6:40. A 19-second drop by a woman who is already sub-7 is pretty dramatic. What benefited these two hard-working athletes most was the structure and organization of the new training plan. <br /><br />Overall, many athletes set new standards for erging at Michigan following the introduction of the Wolverine Plan. As you enter the team’s erg room, practically the first thing you see is a large board that records the names and times of the fastest twenty 2K erg scores in the history of the program. After the program’s eighth year, 17 of the top score had been recorded in the 4-year period since the introduction of the WP. Still, for a college rowing program of Michigan’s stature, the only real measure of success is at the national championship. Did the fast erg scores translate into races won? Many factors contribute to the success of a crew on the water, and it’s hard to say that any one factor was dominant. But Michigan had the same equipment, the same coaches, and probably a tougher schedule (more women’s programs are getting faster every year) – and still managed to finish better than ever before (2nd as a team in 2001). We slipped to 8th in 2002, but that is deceiving, as all teams were separated by small margins and Michigan was actually closer to first on points than in the years when they finished 5th. In 2003 we finished 4th and in 2004 3rd. During those four years, the only teams to score more points than Michigan at the NCAA championship were Brown and Washington. <br /><br />Maybe it was just a coincidence that the team took it up a notch the year I started working with them. Maybe they just had good athletes who worked hard and the training program wasn’t much of a factor. Last year I was let go by the UM women’s program midway through the year. I won’t go into specifics, except to say that the head coach wanted to get back to being more hands-on with the team (it had been an unprecedented move for a head coach to let someone else have so much input in those areas where I was involved), and the athletes had become increasingly dissatisfied with the structure and inflexibility of the WP (they had forgotten what the WP says about negotiating the price of success). They changed the focus of their training more towards variety and what they thought of as stimulation, and away from pre-determined paces or set goals. I doubt if they were satisfied with the ultimate results (lowest finishes ever at the Big 10, Central Regional, and NCAA regattas). Last year’s team probably never had enough depth to be a serious championship contender, but there were high hopes for the first varsity 8. Michigan’s 1V had finished 2nd in the country in 2003 and 3rd in 2004, and five athletes in the 2005 1V had rowed in both those boats, while a sixth had rowed for part of 1 year. So it was a very successful and experienced crew, and beat a number of ranked crews early in the year, but struggled at the end and finished 9th at NCAAs. The major problems I saw with Michigan’s fitness at the end of last season was that they peaked too early, and several experienced athletes failed to improve their erg scores or in some cases finished slower than the year before (many younger athletes did improve, but as I’ve said that’s less impressive when evaluating a training program). Time will tell whether last year was just an aberration, and I wish this year’s team all the success in the world. But I’d be lying if I said I thought their current training was as effective as it can be. <br /><br />Many people who read the forums have heard of the Wolverine Plan but proportionally few really understand it. I have read accounts from or have corresponded with several people who thought they were following the WP but were not (based on faulty second-hand accounts, or by not reading the available information carefully enough). Some people have taken a perverse pleasure in deliberately misrepresenting the WP or my subsequent comments, no matter how many times I correct them. I’ll provide some generic examples in the future. Still other people are happy to rip off the WP and promote its workouts and principles as their own. Well, I don’t have a copyright, so I guess I can’t complain, and the important thing is that people who want it get help with their training. The WP clearly isn’t for everybody, and maybe not for many at all. It takes a lot of physical and mental toughness, and more dedication and discipline than even many so-called serious athletes are willing to invest. Some people think it is very complicated, but it’s actually very simple once you learn the terminology and a few basic rules. It boils down to gradual, systematic progression over time. You don’t have to be fast to start using it, but if you stick with it long enough, you’ll be fast before you’re finished with it.<br /><br />

Mike Caviston

[ranger]

In my everyday rowing OTW, 23 spm is a comfortable rate, and at 7 SPI, 23 spm is 10 MPS (2:10).

It is fun to row along, stroking as the zeros pop up on the speed coach, as PaulS recommends.

2:10 @ 23 spm is quality stuff for a Veteran/60s rower.

At last year's Head of the Charles, only three Veteran rowers--jim Dietz, Bob Spousta, and Jack Meyer--pulled better than 2:10 pace.

Everyone else was 2:13 pace or slower.

ranger

[ranger]

My targets .... 60min @ 1:44.

You'd manage 12 mins at 1:44 pace. At best.

Time to reassess your targets and make them even remotely attainable. You will never, ever, ever come even half way to those targets you state...

I have a month and a half to give it a go.

Heart rates that I am seeing at the moment are _very_ encouraging.

I am just working at it as hard as I can.

We'll just have to see where I am "come September."

ranger

[lancs]

We'll just have to see where I am "come September."

Ah. Of course. The Fall. That magical time of year...

[ranger]

You'd manage 12 mins at 1:44 pace. At best.

1:44 is my 6K pb from back in 2003.

I think I am quite a bit better than that now.

Physiologically, I can row for an hour with my HR at 170 bpm, ramping up to 185 bpm over the last 1K.

Compared to this, in the distance rowing I have been doing lately at low drag with good technique, I have been training so far with only moderate HRs, 155-165 bpm.

So, I still have quite a bit of leeway to ramp up the intensity of this distance rowing over the next month and a half.

ranger

[lancs]

I think I am quite a bit better than that now.

I think you're not.

And until you row something without breaks, you'll never know.

You do realise you've promised distance trials results for the last 4 years or so. Why should we expect this year to be any different?

[ranger]

Why should we expect this year to be any different?

(1) I haven't been doing low rate rowing. i have been doing rowing at 24-26 spm, preparing for distance trials.

(2) I am rowing at low drag (123 df.).

(3) A am doing my distance rowing at 12 SPI.

(4) I am rowing at full slide with relaxed shoulders at the catch.

(5) OTW, I am five seconds per 500m faster this year than last.

(6) I am also rowing a lot at 24-26 spm OTW.

(7) BIRC 2010 is my last chance to take a slap at the 55s lwt WR. There is no longer any possibility for delay, so there is no longer any reason to put off full sharpening and race preparation, even if I wanted to.

ranger

[jliddil]

(7) BIRC 2010 is my last chance to take a slap at the 55s lwt WR. There is no longer any possibility for delay, so there is no longer any reason to put off full sharpening and race preparation, even if I wanted to.

ranger

Race Preparation and Actually Racing are two completely different things

[snowleopard]

Why should we expect this year to be any different?

(1) I haven't been doing low rate rowing. i have been doing rowing at 24-26 spm, preparing for distance trials.

(2) I am rowing at low drag (123 df.).

(3) A am doing my distance rowing at 12 SPI.

(4) I am rowing at full slide with relaxed shoulders at the catch.

(5) OTW, I am five seconds per 500m faster this year than last.

(6) I am also rowing a lot at 24-26 spm OTW.

(7) BIRC 2010 is my last chance to take a slap at the 55s lwt WR. There is no longer any possibility for delay, so there is no longer any reason to put off full sharpening and race preparation, even if I wanted to.

Yep, same old crock o' sh@t. Why should we expect this year to be any different?

[Flipper21]

Concept 2 embarrass themselves yet again.

How can you let a bereft individual spout unsubstantaiated rubbish on a respectable evidence based forum?????????????

Get your act together C2 before its too late.

ANTI- ranger posts

[whp4]

You'd manage 12 mins at 1:44 pace. At best.

1:44 is my 6K pb from back in 2003.

I think I am quite a bit better than that now.

You think, but cannot demonstrate. Your 2k SB in 2003 was below 6:30. It has been years since you've seen the south side of 6:40.

Physiologically, I can row for an hour with my HR at 170 bpm, ramping up to 185 bpm over the last 1K.

And when did you last do that? 2003?

Compared to this, in the distance rowing I have been doing lately at low drag with good technique, I have been training so far with only moderate HRs, 155-165 bpm.

Right, because you have gone neither far nor fast in an uninterrupted piece.

[Carl Watts]

Concept 2 embarrass themselves yet again.

How can you let a bereft individual spout unsubstantaiated rubbish on a respectable evidence based forum?????????????

Get your act together C2 before its too late.

ANTI- ranger posts

Yes I agree, anyone who keeps spouting rubbish without backing it up with verified distance/times to the C2 ranking system should be canned.I know you have the "Right of free speech" thing in the USA but this is getting rediculous. This forum should only contain substantiated and accurate information of benefit to those reading it or it gets DELETED.

[jliddil]

I know you have the "Right of free speech" thing in the USA but this is getting rediculous. This forum should only contain substantiated and accurate information of benefit to those reading it or it gets DELETED.

But this is a commercial forum and you have to agree to the following before you sign up. So you have given up certain rights by agree to this. So argue as some may C2 is ultimately in control of what appears here. As George Carlin said "If you don't like the weather , Move. As I've said before I think ti would be wise for C2 to remove Ranger for the standpoint of marketing and public image. They are a company that promotes full inclusion and things like adaptive rowing. You might think ranger would take C2 view that the let him have his own private little world as a privilege, since every other internet forum has banned him. The likes of him would be forced to go to alt.flame.wars in the usenet days.
****************************************************************************

Concept2 Forum - Registration

By accessing “Concept2 Forum” (hereinafter “we”, “us”, “our”, “Concept2 Forum”, “http://www.c2forum.com”), you agree to be legally bound by the following terms. If you do not agree to be legally bound by all of the following terms then please do not access and/or use “Concept2 Forum”. We may change these at any time and we’ll do our utmost in informing you, though it would be prudent to review this regularly yourself as your continued usage of “Concept2 Forum” after changes mean you agree to be legally bound by these terms as they are updated and/or amended.

Our forums are powered by phpBB (hereinafter “they”, “them”, “their”, “phpBB software”, “www.phpbb.com”, “phpBB Group”, “phpBB Teams”) which is a bulletin board solution released under the “General Public License” (hereinafter “GPL”) and can be downloaded from www.phpbb.com. The phpBB software only facilitates internet based discussions, the phpBB Group are not responsible for what we allow and/or disallow as permissible content and/or conduct. For further information about phpBB, please see: http://www.phpbb.com/.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Concept2 Forum” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “Concept2 Forum” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither “Concept2 Forum” nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

[JohnBove]

Concept 2 embarrass themselves yet again.

How can you let a bereft individual spout unsubstantaiated rubbish on a respectable evidence based forum?????????????

Get your act together C2 before its too late.

ANTI- ranger posts

Yes I agree, anyone who keeps spouting rubbish without backing it up with verified distance/times to the C2 ranking system should be canned.I know you have the "Right of free speech" thing in the USA but this is getting rediculous. This forum should only contain substantiated and accurate information of benefit to those reading it or it gets DELETED.

Do, please, pull the plug on this offensive, self-adoring twat. It is indeed embarrassing to C2 to let this jerk's lying and preening go on and on and on and on and on ...