Pete Plan Group - Startup Aug 20th thru 22nd

[turboskiff]

Pete trains exactly same way and i did get
down to 5 x 1250m/4'r @ 1:52.8 ave sub max effort too in the past so i know what to do buddy

Paul

G-dub is right. This is not a negative split as we understand it:

6:37.4 @ 1550m @ 2:08.1/24
6:37.1 @ 1550m @ 2:08.0/24
6:36.5 @ 1550m @ 2:07.9/24

2:08.1 to 2:07.9 difference is just 1 watt. So really the same pace. What is the difference? Maybe three good strokes in the last 100m.

2:08 - 2:07 - 2:06 is negative split and better training.

Strong finish maybe but at these paces only 10 watts from first to last.

[JohnAd]

Lindsay, excellent very impressive stuff at 8.5 PE

Paul, good to see you chipping away at those times but kind of a agree with the others that there might be bigger gains expected.

Rohan, another great PB, very nice pacing to your plan, are there any distances left for next week?

Ben, that looks like perfect pacing to me.

On the SS pacing, I've kind of given up with the PP minimum stroke rate and am also going mostly on feel for effort and seem to be settling down around 2:06 - 7 with rate 20-21. Looking at my heart rate graphs 2:06 might be slightly too much for an hour but seems OK for 10k and I think if I'm going shorter than an hour then I might as well go a touch faster.

PP 3.2.3 4x2000m
Last 1:52.1 r26
Target 1:51.5
01:51.4 r27
01:51.3 r27
01:51.3 r27
01:50.5 r27
Avg 1:51.2 r27
MHR 175

Got 4 sets of practice of my 2k race plan, albeit at around 80% power, have been playing with a spreadsheet to give me what I want the average pace and expected time to be at each 200m for a given target time and it seems to help me settle and not go out too fast.

[G-dub]

Excellent work John. Still bringing it down. Awesome.

Paul, this is the last post I will do with you. You can't even see I wasn't giving you advice. More than anything I was acknowledging your progress and giving you a friendly push. That's all.

[jackarabit]

Pete 3.2.2
Low aerobic SS
8k/1'R/4k
Pace target: 2kPB (2:04.4) + 25"
Df 118

Gramps setting himself up for the 1609. Between this ticker saver and the Solgar shake, I might just have enuf juice to get thru it. (NOTE: my UT2 threshold is 131bpm)

[mudgeg]

PP Beginners Week 7 Day 2

7 x 500m. Based it on my 6 x 500m from last week. Started 1 sec faster ( 1:54 as opposed to 1:55) and then tried to increase by 1 sec on every interval. So here are the actuals for less than 14 minutes of pain. Target pace in brackets.

1. 1:54.0 (1:54.0)
2. 1:52.9 (1:53.0)
3. 1:51.9 (1:52.0)
4. 1:50.9 (1:51.0)
5. 1:49.9 (1:50.0)
6. 1:48.9 (1:49.0)
7. 1:48.1 (1:48.0)

Very dissapointed I just missed my seventh interval target by 1 tenth of a second. My only excuse is that I was getting tired and my brain just wasn't functioning, consequently I timed my final burst just too late. I would have got there with another couple of strokes I'm sure.

One issue is that I have started to think about is where improvement will come from. I am a big man not fat but big, and I should be able to generate more power I think. My maximum output on interval 7 was 277w and a stroke rate of around 32. I think my technique is reasonable, so to get more speed should I be concentrating on power and leg drive or rating higher on my stroke rate?

[hjs]

PP Beginners Week 7 Day 2

7 x 500m. Based it on my 6 x 500m from last week. Started 1 sec faster ( 1:54 as opposed to 1:55) and then tried to increase by 1 sec on every interval. So here are the actuals for less than 14 minutes of pain. Target pace in brackets.

1. 1:54.0 (1:54.0)
2. 1:52.9 (1:53.0)
3. 1:51.9 (1:52.0)
4. 1:50.9 (1:51.0)
5. 1:49.9 (1:50.0)
6. 1:48.9 (1:49.0)
7. 1:48.1 (1:48.0)

Very dissapointed I just missed my seventh interval target by 1 tenth of a second. My only excuse is that I was getting tired and my brain just wasn't functioning, consequently I timed my final burst just too late. I would have got there with another couple of strokes I'm sure.

One issue is that I have started to think about is where improvement will come from. I am a big man not fat but big, and I should be able to generate more power I think. My maximum output on interval 7 was 277w and a stroke rate of around 32. I think my technique is reasonable, so to get more speed should I be concentrating on power and leg drive or rating higher on my stroke rate?

Gordon, for a rower you are certainly not a big man. Not tall and not very heavy.

Rate 32 is plenty for this pace, extra pace will come from more fitness. 1/10 is less then nothing, if you can worry about that, you have lots of room.

[jackarabit]

Turboskiff, Could you undertake to increase our understanding of your understanding of [proper] negative splitting referencing these recent examples? Is flat pacing and last fastest acceptable/proper? Thanks.

Paul:

6:37.4 @ 1550m @ 2:08.1/24
6:37.1 @ 1550m @ 2:08.0/24
6:36.5 @ 1550m @ 2:07.9/24
6:28.5 @ 1550m @ 2:05.3/25


John:

PP 3.2.3 4x2000m
Last 1:52.1 r26
Target 1:51.5
01:51.4 r27
01:51.3 r27
01:51.3 r27
01:50.5 r27
Avg 1:51.2 r27


Lindsay:

5x 1500/5'r @1:49.0
sr28 df130 270w
1:48.9
1:49.4
1:49.2
1:49.2
1:48.6


Gordon:

500m. Based it on my 6 x 500m from last week. Started 1 sec faster ( 1:54 as opposed to 1:55) and then tried to increase by 1 sec on every interval. So here are the actuals for less than 14 minutes of pain. Target pace in brackets.

1. 1:54.0 (1:54.0)
2. 1:52.9 (1:53.0)
3. 1:51.9 (1:52.0)
4. 1:50.9 (1:51.0)
5. 1:49.9 (1:50.0)
6. 1:48.9 (1:49.0)
7. 1:48.1 (1:48

[turboskiff]

Turboskiff, Could you undertake to increase our understanding of your understanding of [proper] negative splitting referencing these recent examples? Do we accept that flat pacing of intervals acceptable? Thanks.

jr thanks.

Flat pacing is of course acceptable and demanding if the level is chosen correctly.

My point was Paul says he is negative splitting but really not (and some might say negative split is really for continuous rows).

Reducing by 1/10th per second per interval, 1 watt across three intervals is not a negative split.

As I say the only difference is just a few strokes so really no increase in pace at all - flat pacing.

Think about it how can you time your effort across 1500m and be 1/10 faster on three intervals unless some silly increase in last few strokes?

If you say negative split then make it mean something. Or just row flat then hard last.

[mdpfirrman]

Let's not get sidetracked. Glenn meant no harm Paul. It's Paul's plan, let him work it how he wants please. But Paul, all Glenn (and others) meant is they felt you have more in you, but that's your call - you know your body better than anyone. You've been progressing nicely. You're obviously doing something right.

But also guys, realize Paul told us all he had gotten out of shape and for him to be putting himself out there and working with us is fantastic too. We challenged him to join in and he's certainly done that with both feet, so for that he needs commended. You don't get out of shape quickly and you can't get back to peak form overnight either.

No harm, keep it all positive from all sides. Thanks guys!

[Litewait]

BPP Week 8.3 DF107

36:35.6 8,000m 2:17.2 135 764 23
7:20.7 1,600m 2:17.7 134 761 23
7:20.7 3,200m 2:17.7 134 761 23
7:22.3 4,800m 2:18.2 133 757 23
7:22.3 6,400m 2:18.2 133 757 24
7:09.6 8,000m 2:14.2 145 798 25

Target 2:18, still protecting against HD in the last 2000m, probably should have not been so pessimistic.

[G-dub]

Sorry for the self indulgence that follows:

The waterfall paced at 1:52.9 last week messed up my target pacing in a very uncomfortable way. According to the book, the 4 x 2 should be .5 seconds faster. my last 4 x 2 was at 1:53.8 - a pace that I recall feeling great about! Anyway, damn near high centered this one half way through the last but hung on. Just ran out of time at the end to pull it back. Proud actually to have hung on to it - I would have bailed last summer. Was running at that usual 185 for quite awhile on it.

[Galeere]

Great work there Glenn, congrats!

[mdpfirrman]

Glenn, I'd rest up a bit and just kill that 7 minute mark. If you recall, Rohan's numbers were all low to mid 7:30s on that workout before he did his sub 7. You're ready now for it.

Gordon - nice intervals actually. Don't worry. Your power will come.

Tim - nice work on the SS.

[jackarabit]

It appears that "we" must be very fastidious with our definitions. I just happened to notice that John's row, referenced by me but not taken to task by Turboskiff, shares in common with Paul's a pacing which, magnitude of increment aside, is commonly described in the ordinary vernacular as negative in opposition to positive. Gordon's uniform 1" per split reductions are more dramatic but share the same vector of polarity as Paul's and John's. If we to are hone our razors to a fine edge, it follows that flat pacing must yield a split average and cumulative elapsed time which are each precisely identical one interval to the next. However, gradations no doubt exist. With the aid of qualifying adverbs, we can create characterizations such as essentially flat, nominally negative and the like. But we are rowers not lawyers. We have enuf trouble getting along without guest lecturers who attempt to choose who is in the right and who in the wrong concerning so insignificant a matter. In future, I advise all visitors and casual commentators to say your piece from a position of security atop your own two feet!

[G-dub]

Galeere, my young friend. Thank you.

Mike, my almost young friend, that dang Rohan had some stones that week before his vacation that I wish he would share. But I think I'm getting closer. If I can stay in John's draft for awhile longer maybe it will happen.