Pete Plan Group - Startup Aug 20th thru 22nd

[Litewait]

BPP Week 12.2 4 x 1500m r3'

25:57.5 6,000m 2:09.7 160 850 27
6:26.6 1,500m 2:08.8 164 864 28 147
6:26.5 1,500m 2:08.8 164 864 28 157
6:26.5 1,500m 2:08.8 164 864 28 161
6:37.8 1,500m 2:12.6 150 816 27 160

Did this on Sunday optional and did a 2:06 on the last interval. Legs completed wasted at last 750m I don't know that I could have even stood up at that point, WTF. I'll punish myself on the 8000m tomorrow I guess.

[Kxthor911]

Reading some of the comments relates to what I have been thinking. Does it ever get easier? I have been rowing since May and here lately it seems like every row is just tough. I don't do easy days in between, maybe I should? I'm not trying to complain because I know I'm in better shape. It's just tough, sorry rant over.

[Litewait]

@nick - I don't think it gets easier, but sounds like you were doing what I was doing a few months ago...trying to run 5 miles flat out all the time. I've learned the non-hard SS distances are supposed be rowed at UT2. My rule is if I couldn't hold a labored conversation with someone next to me I am rowing too hard. Of course, I usually get pissed at my pace and kill myself the last 500-1000 as punishment. The vets will probably have more sound advice though.

[Kxthor911]

Tim I'm following the way the BPP says to do the sessions. I normally do seven sessions in two weeks based on my wrk load. I was actually curious if the in between days make the hard days any easier.

[john_n]

Ben - Way to go, on the 8K easy. Nice low rating.

Glenn - Managing to fit in some rowing is the most important thing. Quite rigorous 4x2K @ 2:02, 23 SPM.

Paul - Good work on your 8K and feeling fresh & “cruisy” afterwards.

Jack - Nice SS on Nov 8th. Was that done at 50% of the wattage level of your recent best 2K, or >50%? Very nice hard distance on Nov 9th with a good push for the final distance. Congratulations on rowing 9,000,000 meters. That’s more than twice the distance from one side to the other of the continental US, according to a quick search which said it is “2,800 miles wide”. 9 million meters = 5,592.34 miles. And what you said in your post on the 10th, making an analogy between actors rehearsing and learning their lines and Pete Plan (and other) training, is spot on target.

Piers - To answer your question about how I decided the 4th rep pace, I thought that 1:55 would be definitely doable for the last rep, so I tried to hold 1:55 for the first 1,500 meters of it and then pushed harder in an “exploratory manner,” to see how it felt as I kept trying to raise the pace during the last 500 of it. I’m trying to “train my mind” and let the body just go along for the ride, instead of the way I used to think for all but the last few weeks, which was something like “I can go as fast as my body is able to go.” It has finally sunk in to my brain, that the main work is in the mind and its no small work that the mind does. (I’m reading a book called “How Bad Do You Want It?” by Matt Fitzgerald and that’s where I got this recent new perspective) Your experiment with the “sort of 2K test suggested by Edward4492” sounds like training for the mind, too.

Rohan - Thanks for the comments on the 4X2K. I’m still able to make a noticeably faster final interval because I started out the Pete Plan in the first cycle with very conservative pace targets, based on SB paces for the relevant distances Pete suggests and having done those particular SBs all at a no-pain-throughout pace. Very lovely graph, for 5 splits of that nice 8K .

John A - Way to go, with that strong 30r20 @2:00!

Henry - If I understood you correctly, you’re right about the fear factor. To say it the way I understand it, focusing on training the mind, getting the mind used to changes of a size that it does not fear from one cycle to the next, seems to be of utmost importance to instill the confidence that helps a person to persist in training.

Roy - Agree, about the mental aspect. The book I mentioned to Piers has “opened my understanding” for the first time regarding that.

Gordon - Great pace on that Nov 10th session final 8x500 interval. You wanted it, reached for it and got it.

Tim - It sounds like that last interval was punishment enough. You should have a clear conscience after that 4x1,500. Victory in training is no HD. Persistence is more valuable than pace, in training.

Nick - Yes, it gets easier. But also no. It only gets “easier” at a given pace and distance. You teach yourself how fast you can go without strain and then after a period of time you dip in for a little more and go just a little faster. Which is harder, but you learn you can do it and then it feels easier so you go a tiny bit harder next time or next cycle. After a while you find that you’re kind of seeking a certain level of stress and you incrementally get faster at that stress level that you seek, as you get fitter. And faster.

What I've done since previous post: Nov 9 Cycle 2 Week 2 Day 4
8K steady distance recovery
37:27.6, 2:20.5, 23 SPM
Straps loose, DF 135. (No images posted here of its report or charts because its boring relative to today's which was more fun.)

Nov 10 Cycle 2 Week 2 Day 5
15 min w/u
10K hard distance: 39:39.8 @ 1:58.9 /500m
Did this 10K online in the company of three other guys who were in England, Germany and the US. They greatly encouraged me, by rowing alongside for the whole 10K even though I know they can row much faster (and usually do).
After it was over, I had to immediately get off the rower and go to the bathroom due to having had a bit too much coffee beforehand. When I returned, one of them asked if I'd gone to the bathroom to vomit and I was happy to say no, just excess coffee.
Target pace for first 9500m was 1:59.3, then slightly faster with 1K to go and still faster for final 500.
Straps loose, DF 135, 10 min warm down

[mdpfirrman]

Lots of good stuff on here.

Piers - you'll do fine. If you can do a 4 X 2K all under 7:40, you won't HD. No way. I wish I could do that kind of pace on the 4 X 2K but I'm not quite there. That's as mental as doing the 2K. I guess I look at it differently after PP -- only one to do!!

Gordon - what kind of rest are you doing on that set of 8? Solid work!

Finishing up the vacation. Been lifting nearly daily. Paddleboarded for the first time today. Managed to stand up a while but fell twice (couldn't get my daughter up in time to go early so there was a lot of boat waves / wake to deal with). Been swimming (more like treading water) around an hour a day. Hope my cardio won't be shot when I get home. Haven't done any intervals on the bike in around 4 or 5 days. Get home Sunday and I'll be back on the rower on Monday (for SS work).

Keep up the good work all!

[mudgeg]

Mike - rest time is 2min, which is horribly short. Generally after 2min my heart rate is slowing right down but the lactic acid in the legs hasn't dispersed. It's the legs that give out first I find. Plan says the rest to work ratio should be about 1:1.

I hate these sessions but apropos of earlier discussion on this thread from Henry and others I really believe a lot of it is in the mind.

[jackarabit]

@ John N.: My SS and my "hardish" (Rohan's word) distance produce suspiciously similar graphs, don't they? The SS piece is indeed much >50% of 2k test watts: 69% of 2kW (126/181.8) @ 73% of HRR + RHR (118x.73+54). I consider it a good example of UT1 SS because: 1) average pace is >10" slower than my average endurance interval pace (Pete's caveat), 2) average HR stops short of the 75-85% HR zone "black hole" that produces a low benefit:fatigue ratio.

The shorter hard distance 40' piece was done at 75% of 2kW. Pace and spm grphs flat in both. No graphing of HR obscures the greater price paid in cardiac stress (82% HRR average) to complete the hard distance at a power output a mere 10 watts greater than that of the SS row.

Picked all the lint from that navel, don't ya think? Back to 2k. As Roy says, just effin get er did!

[john_n]

@ John N.: My SS and my "hardish" (Rohan's word) distance produce suspiciously similar graphs, don't they? The SS piece is indeed much >50% of 2k test watts: 69% of 2kW (126/181.8) @ 73% of HRR + RHR (118x.73+54). I consider it a good example of UT1 SS because: 1) average pace is >10" slower than my average endurance interval pace (Pete's caveat), 2) average HR stops short of the 75-85% HR zone "black hole" that produces a low benefit:fatigue ratio.

The shorter hard distance 40' piece was done at 75% of 2kW. Pace and spm grphs flat in both. No graphing of HR obscures the greater price paid in cardiac stress (82% HRR average) to complete the hard distance at a power output a mere 10 watts greater than that of the SS row.

Picked all the lint from that navel, don't ya think? Back to 2k. As Roy says, just effin get er did!

That's thought provoking. For a few reasons. But mostly because I've been doing the SS recovery sessions lately at 50% SB 2K watts. That part (50% of recent SB 2K W) I'm sure of. But I don't know about where HR is during those because it depends on whether I calculate HRR + RHR using the method for figuring HRR that uses the 220-age figure, which would put my HR at 77% HRR+RHR during those SS recovery sessions. Or - if I throw out the 220-age figure and instead use what I'm fairly certain is HRmax +/- 3 BPM instead. Using the latter way to figure HRR+RHR puts my HR when doing SS sessions at 50% 2K W at only 60% HRR + RHR. It feels very easy, so I'm inclined to believe the 60% is more correct. More pondering of the navel...

[jackarabit]

John N. writes:

It feels very easy, so I'm inclined to believe the 60% is more correct. More pondering of the navel...

Check out this post by another septuagenerian with a remarkably clear understanding of physics, mathematics, OTW rowing, spreadsheet ops and probably a dozen other subjects:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=150899#p387668

My understanding is that James' reference is to precisely the method of HR zone calc (%HRR+RHR) employed in the Interactive Programmes HR zone generator, the confusing label "%MAX HR" found therein notwithstanding.

The OP in the thread containing the quoted comment was fretting over his "high" HR average. He was about ten points high on percentage due to calculating as simple percentage max. Oddly, none of his respondents chose to give him the more complex--and certainly more reassuring--formula. HTH.

[G-dub]

Nice 10K John n. Your pictures are getting better too.

[G-dub]

John - great 30 r20, sir. A target I would love to achieve at some point.

[jackarabit]

This is how you feel when doing your 1) best, 2) last? Pick two.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_870CzK2J4

[lindsayh]

But I don't know about where HR is during those because it depends on whether I calculate HRR + RHR using the method for figuring HRR that uses the 220-age figure, which would put my HR at 77% HRR+RHR during those SS recovery sessions. Or - if I throw out the 220-age figure and instead use what I'm fairly certain is HRmax +/- 3 BPM instead. Using the latter way to figure HRR+RHR puts my HR when doing SS sessions at 50% 2K W at only 60% HRR + RHR. It feels very easy, so I'm inclined to believe the 60% is more correct. More pondering of the navel...

John forget all about the 220 formula - it doesn't work at all. use HRR %% for figuring the ranges out.

[lindsayh]

Ok guys - racing done this week with a 6:49.5 2k (see the competition thread) which is SB and incidentally an AR but only a step along the way of course.
One more TT on Nov19.
The last ten weeks have been great and thanks for all the support and encouragement as I am sure it has made a heap of difference.
I am moving on to the 4th and final part of my Boston plan - Interactive - so reporting on the what training thread from now on but still have my oar in here. It is a really great group that is going and the improvements are amazing. very best of luck with all your training.
best