Pete Plan Group - Startup Aug 20th thru 22nd

[JohnAd]

I think I need to give someone my google email address?

PM it to me and I'll add you

[jackarabit]

Can't take credit for the phantom inputting, just the nudging/scolding/lecturing. Does raise the point that was mentioned earlier in the thread. There is no bar to entering or editing entries on someone else's section of the sheet. So look twice when you highlight a block for entry. I'm going to take a screenshot of mine today after completion of the first cycle.

Also wondering if we should be linking to the sheet in the clear? Would that give R/W permission to anyone who followed the link? I don't care who sees my my data but I don't want it altered, overwritten or deleted. It's a chore to get it in there once.

[jackarabit]

In addition to Adam coming in next week, Lindsay Hay will join up on Monday IIRC. For those who may not know, Lindsay is a seasoned erg competitor and is flying round the world Sydney to Boston to do Crash-Bs comp next yr. Fresh meat for the Pete mill and a fresh perspective from an excellent sprinter. Make him welcome!

[Pie Man]

Don't worry about the spreadsheet Jack, John has set it up so that you have to be logged into a google account that has to explicitly given permission to edit. I also think that google uses 'versioning' so if a field is accidentally deleted it should be easy to revert the changes.

[jackarabit]

Thanks Piers for explaining that John's link is read only and callng attention to the reversibility feature in editing. I'll look for that on the menu up top. I know quite a bit about manure spreading; very little about spreadsheet.

[JohnAd]

John has set it up

We have Dean to thank for setting it all up, I'm just holding the fort while he's away as I think that once you're in you can give write permission to others but there a list.

so that you have to be logged into a google account that has to explicitly given permission to edit. I also think that google uses 'versioning' so if a field is accidentally deleted it should be easy to revert the changes.

Yes, I've had to use that myself

At the moment we can't do any useful maths with the paces in google sheets but I'm working on it.

John

[G-dub]

Continued thoughts about pacing - sure to rile up Jack, Paul and Mike:
Then plan describes pacing based on 2/5k PBs such as 4 x 1K = 2k + 1 (which is painfully accurate). But to actually hit that pace and then improve on it each cycle means that your are effectively PBing each session. So in many respects those pace relationships are something to work toward. To launch off with those pace relationships uninformed and then to get discouraged about not hitting them is unfortunate. Many of us at this point should be backed of from the PB pace relationships that the plan (and we) suggests to make it sustainable and to allow for a later peak - assuming a test or race is scheduled. Sure, some don't have current PBs or have exceeded our current ones so there is also a chance that using those relationships have a built in cushion. But anyway, I think it's a bit misleading to give direction based on those ideal relationships. Maybe it's better to let people just row it out based on how they feel (suggesting a perceived exertion) then adjust the next time. In retrospect the plan says that. Maybe its us that force too fast a start to these sessions.

[Pie Man]

Or as Pete puts it

I know everyone is different, but I still want to know what are good times for each of the interval sessions!
Ok, but these are neither targets for the first time you try a session, or even for the longer term.

https://thepeteplan.wordpress.com/the-pete-plan/

Which is something I need to understand. My 2k is soft but my 5k is close to my max which contributed to my waterfall handle down.

[mdpfirrman]

Continued thoughts about pacing - sure to rile up Jack, Paul and Mike:
Then plan describes pacing based on 2/5k PBs such as 4 x 1K = 2k + 1 (which is painfully accurate). But to actually hit that pace and then improve on it each cycle means that your are effectively PBing each session. So in many respects those pace relationships are something to work toward. To launch off with those pace relationships uninformed and then to get discouraged about not hitting them is unfortunate. Many of us at this point should be backed of from the PB pace relationships that the plan (and we) suggests to make it sustainable and to allow for a later peak - assuming a test or race is scheduled. Sure, some don't have current PBs or have exceeded our current ones so there is also a chance that using those relationships have a built in cushion. But anyway, I think it's a bit misleading to give direction based on those ideal relationships. Maybe it's better to let people just row it out based on how they feel (suggesting a perceived exertion) then adjust the next time. In retrospect the plan says that. Maybe its us that force too fast a start to these sessions.

No problem with that at all Glenn. I think all Jack and I have said is that if someone is holding something in the tank, so to speak, then they should push themselves in the last interval - just like Pete recommends. Once that's done, the plan pacing auto corrects itself. If someone really isn't pushing the last interval, then really they are only holding themselves back.

Timed 5K today for me. Maybe someday I'll up the distance but this is hard enough for me directly after lifting. I know walking on to the rower that my HR is already elevated. Today, I didn't warm up on the rower before my lift, so it seemed more manageable with time. I actually took around 4 or 5 minutes off between lifting and rowing. That seemed to help. Still tough though.

19:37 / 1:57.7 / 26 SPM - big improvement over last week struggling just to break 20.

[mdpfirrman]

In addition to Adam coming in next week, Lindsay Hay will join up on Monday IIRC. For those who may not know, Lindsay is a seasoned erg competitor and is flying round the world Sydney to Boston to do Crash-Bs comp next yr. Fresh meat for the Pete mill and a fresh perspective from an excellent sprinter. Make him welcome!

Looking forward to them joining. I'm really looking forward to what Lindsay can do. He's a very strong rower.

[JohnAd]

There is also this from Mike Caviston

So, each week for each workout I have a firm goal pace. The next step is to create a specific plan for achieving the desired workout goal. For a workout like 8 x 500m, a simple method (as described in the original WP document) is to take the average pace from the previous time you completed the workout, and begin the new workout at that pace, bringing it down for the final 2-3 intervals to finish with a new, lower average. Then repeat the format next time you do the same workout. This works fairly well, especially earlier in the season when you’re not exactly sure how hard to push, and you will probably make large gains initially. But I caution against going too hard too often, and someone who pushes too hard too soon in the season will probably plateau early. After the first couple times with this workout in a given season, I settle into choosing a goal pace that is on average 1 tenth of a sec faster per 500m for every week since I last did the workout. If I finish a little ahead of my goal, I’ll readjust my target for next time. So, last week my target for 8 x 500m was 1:33.0; my actual average pace ended up 1:32.8; in two more weeks, when I do the workout again, my target will be 1:32.5. When I do this workout, I take about 3 ½ minutes recovery (most of it active) between pieces. I don’t set a recovery time on the monitor, but keep track manually. I start each interval from a dead stop, with the flywheel nearly motionless, and use the opportunity to practice racing starts. Not to start as fast as I can, but to see how quickly/smoothly I can settle into a desired pace. I also set the 500m with 250m sub-intervals to see if I pace the piece correctly; my goal being to negative- or even-split (not positive-split).

I probably need to not be doing the too hard too soon and ease up a bit as if there are 12 weeks before the competition I'd be more than happy with 1.2 seconds off the sprints.

[gregsmith01748]

Continued thoughts about pacing - sure to rile up Jack, Paul and Mike:
Then plan describes pacing based on 2/5k PBs such as 4 x 1K = 2k + 1 (which is painfully accurate). But to actually hit that pace and then improve on it each cycle means that your are effectively PBing each session. So in many respects those pace relationships are something to work toward. To launch off with those pace relationships uninformed and then to get discouraged about not hitting them is unfortunate. Many of us at this point should be backed of from the PB pace relationships that the plan (and we) suggests to make it sustainable and to allow for a later peak - assuming a test or race is scheduled. Sure, some don't have current PBs or have exceeded our current ones so there is also a chance that using those relationships have a built in cushion. But anyway, I think it's a bit misleading to give direction based on those ideal relationships. Maybe it's better to let people just row it out based on how they feel (suggesting a perceived exertion) then adjust the next time. In retrospect the plan says that. Maybe its us that force too fast a start to these sessions.

A couple of random thoughts on pacing.
- Using 2K and 5K times as a guide to set the pacing of the intervals is only useful under the following circumstances
--> You have a valid, recent 2K and / or 5K time trial. By valid, I mean that you treated it as a real test and went all out. By recent, I mean really recent. This is especially important for folks who have been at this long enough to have gone through numerous training and detraining cycles. If it's more than a month or so old, it isn't likely to be very useful.

- The guideline is only useful for the first time you do the session. After that, the self correcting nature of the pacing guidelines kick in. If you went too fast and had to slow down in later reps, then your session average will be slower next time and you go from there. If your pace was too slow, you will have fuel in the tank for a faster last rep and this will bring down your avg pace for next time.

- In general, I think it is a much better idea to pick conservative targets at first and discover that you can go faster. The danger of doing this is that you will will apparently be making incredible progress as your fitness improves AND you also discover that you can push harder. Once you go through a couple of cycles, you will know your limits very well, and your rate of fitness improvement will also become more asymptotic so it can be brutally tough to make even small improvements.

[jackarabit]

Continued thoughts about pacing - sure to rile up Jack, Paul and Mike: . . . . . . . . But anyway, I think it's a bit misleading to give direction based on those ideal relationships. Maybe it's better to let people just row it out based on how they feel (suggesting a perceived exertion) then adjust the next time. In retrospect the plan says that. Maybe its us that force too fast a start to these sessions.

The words of St. Pete in the FAQ following the Wordpress Author-ized Version for all ye with eyes to see:

Q: [ordinary Joe] I know everyone is different, but I still want to know what are good times for each of the interval sessions?

A: [MArston] Ok, but these are neither targets for the first time you try a session nor even for the longer term.

Excellent observation, Dub. Ain't it great being on the side of the angels? I thought I was also? I admit to the charge of showboating the PBs (replacing old, soft PBs) and demonstrating how I just squeak by doing things we ain't supposed to. I am guilty of teaching by negative example. Man those worms taste good! Can I have more tomorrow.

[G-dub]

The peer pressure nature of this is huge. We all want to please and be rewarded. AND it's also more fun when half of us don't crash and burn and leave the party. I think we all appreciate the need for progressive overload as a way to get better. It is not clear to me that PBIng each session is needed or advisable though (and this isn't a call to be lazy or less manly). I've been inspired by Dan John's weight training ideas and notice that I don't need to a) max out each time and b) push till I drop each time in order to get stronger. Only when it feels right am I adding plates on to push to a new normal. And I'm adding them on bit by bit which is evidence of getting stronger. I also am then taking them off when I need or want to wait for the next push. It seems like this training would work the same way, push when the time is right and you feel good. Don't sweat just getting a good workout in with an appropriate level of exertion, even if it's 90% of what your max effort could/should be, when it isnt there or as a general rule. And by all means, don't feel the need to PB the hard distance session each week just because some are able. Again, these are the day to day musings and mostly rhetorical in case anyone likes to beat this stuff around.

[jackarabit]

I interpret Greg's words as possibly allowing permission to obtain a valid PB baseline early in the period of participation in the plan. Ideally, there should be a 2k test prior to ergtriculation as is the case in the IPP 2k programme.