Pete Plan Summer 2015 starts June 14

[G-dub]

1. How is Galeere doing? Will he join us again next week?
2. Jack, nice workout. Very controlled, disciplined and long after a heavy load yesterday.
3. I guess there is a good reason for NOT doing UT1 for all the steady pieces. I was a little more tired in the legs this morning. Tomorrow will be a UT2 leg flush only so I can hopefully do something with Thursdays hard distance.
4. I think this one was hardest for me because of the length of the first interval. My major weakness, as I have bored you with, is holding AT pace for as long as I need/want to (or is it faster at AT?) to make a better 4K, 5K, 6K, 30M, 10K, etc. But I guess that is why I am doing the Pete Plan.

[jackarabit]

G-dub writes:

But I guess that is why I am doing the Pete Plan.

Aren't we all! I don't see the weakness. Your 10K @ 2:00 av. Is impressive. Jack

[jackarabit]

Time in zone graph for 10K recovery row of 6-30-15.



Incidentally the "suffer metric" is only a 9.1 on this one but 21+ on the waterfall. I should suffer over twice as much on the intervals as on the UT2 piece but apparently I'm too dumb to notice. However, looked at in the context of accumulated fatigue, the recovery row "feels" harder. Also the CTS in my left wrist and thumb enters the equation around 6k and gets nasty after 8. I was shaking the left and pulling about 60watts with the right at least three times in the 10k. In the HM, I go past the point where I can't tolerate the discomfort to a place where I don't care any longer. Despite all, poor Jack can sure play the tiny fiddle!

[Galeere]

1. How is Galeere doing? Will he join us again next week?

I sincerely hope so. For now I am coughing, sneezing and break into shivers every once in a while.

[jackarabit]

Easy 2k w/ rate 44 bursts at the Y watching my wife do 3x500r2'. 2:37, 2:41, 2:38. Sneaking up on 2:30. Not bad considering she has no fwd lean into gate and no layback at finish. The handle does go forward before the knees break, her usual is 500, 2k, 1k three times a week and she has churned out a 5k daily for 25 days with challenge incentivisation.

Shoukder rotations, leg ext., leg curls, calf raises, Roman chair, hurdler stretches. Jack

[G-dub]

45 minutes, 21 SPM, 2:12, HR cap 70% HRR

[jackarabit]

70% today and a fast five tomorrow?

[PaulG]

After lurking around this thread I've decided to join the clambake. Background: I'm a 59 YO LWT and open water rower of ill repute (see the OTW board and the open water thread). Two years ago I did a PB of 7:11 but the last two years I have been hampered by back injuries primarily caused by low rate L4 type sessions.

For the past two months I have been only doing slow aerobic sessions. My first 8 x500 session averaged 1:56.1 with a fast last of 1:52.9. I have a long way to go to get back to within a zip code of 7:11. I did not intend to make this a life or death session but I think I got a little closer to the devil than I intended. My HR was near max at 161.

My plan is to do one speed interval session, a distance session (8-10 km) and an endurance interval session each week with an at least 12km session on the water on the weekend. The distance and OTW sessions will be strictly aerobic.

Let's see how my back holds out.
Paul

[jackarabit]

Paul, it appears that you are a proficient and winning open water racer. I'm good with "ill reputed" also if that's what keeps your socks up. So welcome to our little band of masochists, PaulG. Fresh blood and the voice of veteran experience. This thread needs both!

Your comments re: L4 and injury interest me. Pete Marston omitted L4 in his homage to Caviston. I wonder if L4 is an unremarked elephant in the room with regard to erging injury?

We are going to lay off the daily grind over the holiday weekend then go at a fourth week of variations on the theme suggested by Greg Smith. Believe Glenn wants to do a least one more 3 wk cycle after this one. 2K test at the end of this month. Jack

[hjs]

Paul, it appears that you are a proficient and winning open water racer. I'm good with "ill reputed" also if that's what keeps your socks up. So welcome to our little band of masochists, PaulG. Fresh blood and the voice of veteran experience. This thread needs both!

Your comments re: L4 and injury interest me. Pete Marston omitted L4 in his homage to Caviston. I wonder if L4 is an unremarked elephant in the room with regard to erging injury?

We are going to lay off the daily grind over the holiday weekend then go at a fourth week of variations on the theme suggested by Greg Smith. Believe Glenn wants to do a least one more 3 wk cycle after this one. 2K test at the end of this month. Jack

The reason being the strange thought that heavyweights where strong enough and did not need L4 work, cause it would be STRENGHTtraining. But at the same they do stuff like max 30/20 ergs, which uses harder strokes then L4.
Weight of a rower says ofcourse nothing about his strenght. Thats one clear error.
Second, L4 has nothing to do with strenghttraining, its very much Aerobic.

But ofcourse, its hard work and tough on the back, but if you can stand it, it will build a very strong base.

[G-dub]

Paul G - welcome. We are just finishing up our first 3 week cycle today. We decided to actually do 4 week cycles to allow a tough but easier gap between the two to recharge and to take in the holiday weekend. We generally do the speed intervals on Saturday as the start of the week (we jumped the gun in Sunday when we started - we couldn't wait for all this fun!). On the coming fourth week, which starts Saturday, I was planning on a reduced program but still in spirit. So I am doing: 3X 750 on 1:30 rest on Saturday. Steady distance Sunday (unless I am too damaged from a party I need to go to). Steady distance Tuesday. 3 X 1500 with 1:30 rest on Tuesday. Wednesday rest. Thursday I'm doing a 5K test. Friday rest and then back at it on week 1 plan of second cycle on Saturday. Today we do hard distance - I'm going for 6K and will basically cap it at 90-95% HRR.

[jackarabit]

jackarabit writes:

Pete Marston omitted L4 in his homage to Caviston. I wonder if L4 is an unremarked elephant in the room with regard to erging injury?

Henry writes:

The reason [for omitting L4 work from Pete Plan?] being the strange thought that heavyweights where strong enough and did not need L4 work, cause it would be STRENGHTtraining.

I wasn't present at the creation of the Michigan plan for woman's crew training. At first examination, it would appear that masters men might be able to handle the work load of college women.

I also don't know all of the back story of the decision to borrow heavily but leave something behind. Pete says he simply didn't have a lot of TIME at LUNCH. Maybe it's just that simple. Marston was "strong enough" to pick and choose and what he chose was fitness maintenance compressed into an hour a day.

I might think that the strictures of intellectual property law could also have influenced the decision. Oddly, Caviston's comments emphasize that Marston left the jewel in the training crown behind. I haven't seen a word from either gentleman on a connection between L4 and injury. Are there any?

Certainly a difference between a barrel of fat and a barrel of iron, Henry. I would know! Perhaps 30' at rate 20 is harder on the core and shoulders than L4. I don't want to refight a partisan war, but confess to curiosity about the genesis of this particular one.

Jack

[Citroen]

You have to note that Pete left the L4 stuff out of his ubiquitous plan so that it would never take longer than 45 minutes to row it. That gave him time to row his own plan during a lunch hour session without disturbing his pointy hair bosses by not having time to shower and change.

[hjs]

I wasn't present at the creation of the Michigan plan for woman's crew training. At first examination, it would appear that masters men might be able to handle the work load of college women.

I also don't know all of the back story of the decision to borrow heavily but leave something behind. Pete says he simply didn't have a lot of TIME at LUNCH. Maybe it's just that simple. Marston was "strong enough" to pick and choose and what he chose was fitness maintenance compressed into an hour a day.

I might think that the strictures of intellectual property law could also have influenced the decision. Oddly, Caviston's comments emphasize that Marston left the jewel in the training crown behind. I haven't seen a word from either gentleman on a connection between L4 and injury. Are there any?

Certainly a difference between a barrel of fat and a barrel of iron, Henry. I would know! Perhaps 30' at rate 20 is harder on the core and shoulders than L4. I don't want to refight a partisan war, but confess to curiosity about the genesis of this particular one.

Jack

Last point first, ofcourse, but being lightweighg or heavyweights says nothing about a fat %, its often just height that is the main difference. A lightweight can be strong. A heavyweight can be weak...

Re time. Should not be a factor. 40/60 min is enough for l4 work.

30/20 is often done at max pace. At rate 20 this would always be beyond L4 paces for the simple reason 4 is not at max.

I think the man reason was, l4 is for most to complex. Just like most things in life most people want it easy.

Another point, if one would really wants to do the wolverine plan, you need a lot of volume and sessions, often 10 x week. For dtudents maybe ok, but with a job or being older proberly to much.

Re injury. L4 is pretty controled, it should be done with some reserve, so therefore don,t think it will cause injurees in itself. If you have weakpoints to begin with it could ofcourse.

I myself don,t like both plans Not everything, but the regid form, with faster stuff from the beginning is not the best if you ask me. I more like a shorter build up to 2k paced work.

[jackarabit]

Henry writes:

Re time. Should not be a factor. 40/60 min is enough for l4 work.

and later:

Another point, if one would really wants to do the wolverine plan, you need a lot of volume and sessions, often 10 x week. For dtudents maybe ok, but with a job or being older proberly to much.

A distinction with an important difference. Thanx Henry.

I love the "no surprises" repetition of PP. Worth noting that the "fast" stuff is, for this beginner, also the short stuff. I had immediate problems with (6th week) Pete Beginner. Couldn't do the speed stuff AND ratchet up distance every week AND recover altho I was able to build base without a plan and on distance increase alone. To me, Lunchtime feels like a more gradual climb in terms of both conditioning and performance (pace) improvement. A climb that I'm ABLE to make keeps me in the game.

Perhaps I've gravitated to a RATE of improvement that suits ME. Old, gray, and several toes over the crumbling edge as I certainly am, I do have the luxury of time to play and maybe I know how to skew the Plan towards a balance of small rewards and self-preservation. I don't see a way to monkey with the goal of L4 but I'll bet the ladies would have liked to!

Slowjac