wolverine plan, anyone?

[hjs]

Hi Thanks for the information and advise... is there a link to the New Wolverine plan ... ive searched but ???

There is no new plan. Its just the original.

[JerekKruger]

There's not really a single resource for it. The three links contain a lot of it:

The basic outline

Some useful remarks

Many useful links, most of posts by Mike Caviston himself

Those three things should combine to give most of what the WP is, or at least the best approximation available online. The last one takes some deciphering it a browser add on to read.

[jackarabit]

Bob, my reference to the New Wolverine Plan Thread is a reference to a several yrs. old thread on this forum. It was linked by Tom (“JerekKruger”) in a post on page 4 of this current thread and again in his post preceding this one.

Sorry for the confusion. New Wolverine Plan Thread is the thread subject. There is no new, updated, revised WP but there is an extensive list of resources and commentary:

viewtopic.php?t=8295#p106236

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60' 1,116 strokes 18.6 spm Ref pace 1:42
184/186/188/184/186/188
Goal meters: 14,790
Meters rowed: 14,843

2500m cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L3

2500m warmup

Continuous 16K
Pace: 1:57.9
1:02:53
Avg spm: 25

2500m cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L1 this morning

4K warmup

4K pyramid

250m: 1:42.2
500m: 1:42.4
750m: 1:42.4
1000m: 1:42.4
750m: 1:42.4
500m: 1:42.4
250m: 1:42.2

4K cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60' 1,122 strokes 18.7 spm Ref pace 1:42
184/186/188/190/188/186
Goal meters:14,814
Meters rowed: 14,864

2500m cooldown

[bob01]

Hi.... I have recently returned to the Erg.... Still in the early stages of 're acclimatization'

I come form a swim coaching environment

investigating various training plans.... last time I took it seriously some 15years ago I followed the Concept interactive program ( I never actually did a 2k time trial- just guessing my pace) as I knew that the 2k done properly would be that painful I wouldn't want to do it again in a hurry. 15 years later after my 50y ltw 6.46...kinda proves my point LOL

I am at the moment dabbling in the BPP.

Looking at the WP and I recognise the benefits of the longer rows...ie. . ' capillarization'

My question is regarding L4: whilst recognising the benefit of changing stroke rate (occupying the mind, holding - in swimming terms- would be distance per stroke ) with a ref pace of 1.52 for example the pace is 2.20 at 16SPM to 1:57 at 26SPM. Surely these would be using completely different energy pathways... 1.57 would be faster than threshold!!!! 20SPM at 2:10 would probably be sustainable for >60mins. Anything faster, would that be L3 effort??

If there is one thing I learnt from my swim coaching is the longer efforts should not be too taxing

Any thoughts

[JerekKruger]

My question is regarding L4: whilst recognising the benefit of changing stroke rate (occupying the mind, holding - in swimming terms- would be distance per stroke ) with a ref pace of 1.52 for example the pace is 2.20 at 16SPM to 1:57 at 26SPM. Surely these would be using completely different energy pathways... 1.57 would be faster than threshold!!!! 20SPM at 2:10 would probably be sustainable for >60mins. Anything faster, would that be L3 effort??

The Wolverine Plan doesn't really train different energy systems separately in the way that, say, the Interactive Plan does. I guess L1 is primarily AN and L2 is primarily AT (depending on the length of each they both overlap at TR a bit), but L3 and L4 aren't so clear cut. For L4 you can't do any better than reading Mike Caviston's thoughts on them himself:

Notes on Level 4

When I put together the Wolverine Plan, the aspect most different from my previous training was the Level 4 training band. Training at lower rates using rhythm & rating pyramids & ladders was certainly not a new concept. I had used such things with my crews on the water for years, but had avoided using them for indoor training. Part of the rationale involved trying to maximize fitness in a limited amount of time (in my early days of involvement with rowing as a coach, we had limited access to ergs and the commitment of the athletes wasn’t as developed as it is today). Watching other coaches run indoor workouts based on shifting ratings sequences, I didn’t like the generally low intensity or lack of accountability these workouts had. Athletes were instructed to pull at specific rates, but were given no clear instructions about pace. Athletes were free to pull harder or not as they chose, and frequently as workouts progressed and ratings got higher, splits would actually get slower. Now, I just can’t abide a training paradigm where someone can shift from 24 to 26spm and go slower in the process. As I set about restructuring my training into what is now the WP, I thought I could take advantage of certain aspects of low rate work as long as I developed standards for consistency.

The initial workouts were primarily a matter of trial-and-error as I tried different paces at different rates to see what felt right. I wanted to keep things fairly simple using evenly spaced whole numbers, so I settled on 2:00 @ 16spm, 1:56 @ 18, 1:52 @ 20, and 1:48 @ 22. After I started fooling around with different workouts, different 10-30’ pieces with various 2’/2’/2’ etc. combinations, I added 1:44 @ 24 and 1:40 @ 26 to my list with the idea that I’d eventually use them when I got in better shape. The paces seemed to be appropriate, and there wasn’t really any more science behind them than that. I had no preconceived notion of “power per stroke” or anything like that. During that first year of Level 4 training, my best 2K ended up being 6:24, so I began to think of my 2K pace (1:36) in relation to these low-rate workouts. Later calculations would eventually show that, indeed, the amount of energy (Joules) per stroke for the low-rate work was roughly the same as for my 2K. That may just be a coincidence or it may be the reason those Level 4 paces “felt” right.

The next step was to create standard 10’ and 6’ sequences to save time in planning workouts, give me a shorthand to record them with, make it easier to look at different patterns, etc. The first year or two, I experimented with a wide variety of workout formats: 6-10 x 10’ with various recovery periods, depending on intensity; 40-80’ of continuous rowing; and longer pieces with recovery, such as 3-4 x 20’, 30’/20’/10’, etc. I gradually decided the best formats were continuous rows of 40-70’ duration (the exception being 4 x 10’, which I’ll discuss below). When I began working with the Michigan women’s team, I expanded the “Reference Pace” concept to other 2K paces. My most recent update to Level 4 has been the addition of sequences based on odd-numbered stroke rates.

I have heard and read a lot of discussion about Level 4 over the past few years, and one of the frustrating things about sharing my plan with the masses is the number of myths & misconceptions that have arisen. Some have persisted despite many attempts on my part to dispel them. Let me try again. Myth #1: “Level 4 is strength training.” It’s not; it’s endurance training. Sure, it requires a certain amount of strength, or “power per stroke”, or whatever you want to call it. Lack of power was one of my original complaints about low-rate rowing as many people performed it; I never saw the benefit of putzing along at paces well over 2:00. But the amount of power required for Level 4 is proportional to established 2K ability; it’s not intended to exceed it. It’s intended to tax endurance, not necessarily strength. A 60’ Level 4 workout may have as many as 1200 strokes, or 1200 consecutive “reps” without pause. What kind of strength program would feature sessions like that? Who would walk into a weight room, pick up a couple dumbbells, and pump out more than a thousand reps? How light would the weight have to be? Would they really expect to get stronger? Amusingly to me, some individuals who have stated that Level 4 uses too much power per stroke also do workouts such as “30r20” which involves maximal power for half an hour at 20spm. This requires far more power per stroke than any Level 4 workout. Myth #2: “Level 4 isn’t appropriate for heavyweights.” The idea here being that since the training was developed by a lightweight and popularized by women, it doesn’t address the needs of big men. This ties into the mistaken belief that Level 4 focuses on strength and power rather than endurance, and heavyweight men already have enough power. This thinking is flawed on two levels. First, enough power relative to whom? Women and lightweight men? Second, as I keep saying BUT APPARENTLY NOT OFTEN ENOUGH, Level 4 is endurance training. So, any heavyweight that wants to improve endurance would benefit from Level 4 workouts. Myth #3: “Rowing at low rates keeps you from reaching higher rates during a 2K race.” Nonsense. Never doing workouts at higher intensity (2K rate and pace) keeps you from optimizing your 2K rate. Which is why the WP includes Level 1 & 2 workouts every week. Myth #4: “Rowing continuously at a steady rate according to the WP Level 4 guidelines gives the same effect as shifting the rate.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some people don’t want the challenge or responsibility of thinking about the different shifts in pace and rate; they want to get into a comfortable groove and just keep one steady rate for the entire workout. That’s still training, and if that’s what they want to do, more power to them. But they are mistaken if they think rowing for 60’ @ a constant 20spm according to WP guidelines is the same as doing the 200 sequence (4’/3’/2’/1’ @ 18/20/22/24) six times in a row. In the first place, due to the relationship between velocity and power, the average watts for the varying rate sequences will be higher than for the steady rate, even though the total number of strokes taken is the same in both scenarios. Secondly, and more importantly, the steady “groove” creates a neurological adaptation that improves efficiency, making it easier to hold a given pace, while disrupting the groove (changing the rate) reduces efficiency. [I came across the concept of perseveration, the persistence of a movement pattern after performing a rhythmic activity for an extended period, while researching efficiency for my Sports Biomechanics class. For example, in triathlons, during the transition from cycle to run, the effect of the cycling cadence persists and disrupts the triathlete’s running economy for about 6’ after getting off the bike. This means that the athlete requires more oxygen to run at a given pace following the cycling leg than running at the same pace without having cycled. This occurs even with the same stride length/frequency and controlling for prior fatigue by having the athlete run before running economy is measured.] The take-home message is that rowing at a given average pace with changing rates is more physically demanding than rowing at the same pace with a constant rate. You can’t use Level 4 predictors or assume Level 4 adaptations just because you can hold a particular pace at a steady rate. The simple proof for me is that I can cover MANY more meters in a given time frame using a constant rate than by using the same average rate with Level 4 sequences.

There are several other benefits to Level 4 training besides increased ENDURANCE (did I mention Level 4 was good for endurance?) It gives athletes a chance to work on overall technique as specified by a coach or according to whatever parameters an individual is trying to develop. Low rates = more time between strokes = more opportunity to think & modify. Things like consistency, ratio, suspension & acceleration on the drive, control on the recovery, length, and so on. (BTW, I strongly encourage everyone to row strapless as often as possible and certainly for all Level 4 rowing.) As I discussed in a previous post, the skills required for Level 4 rowing correlate with fast rowing on the erg as well as on the water. Mentally, breaking up long pieces into 1, 2, and 3 minute chunks makes things go by a lot faster. The overall variety using the Level 4 format makes it possible to do 60’ workouts again and again and again without ever doing them the same way twice.

Some have asked about different physiological aspects of Level 4. Regarding heart rate, I have no idea, as I never monitor HR while training. I don’t know about lactate, either, but I would bet money that lactate levels after a workout are no higher than resting. I find the relationship between breathing and level 4 very interesting. I am a long-time asthmatic and while I haven’t had a truly serious attack in years, it does occasionally limit my performance or cause me to shorten or alter my workouts. With Level 4’s lower rates, even when my bronchi are constricted, there is time for slower, more deliberate breaths and I find I can get adequate air. Slow, deep breathing is more effective than rapid, shallow breathing at allowing gas exchange (greater alveolar ventilation for given minute ventilation) and I try to maintain a slower, deeper pattern for all workouts. I can’t imagine breathing more than once per stroke! Another interesting observation I’ve had about Level 4 is that it apparently utilizes more muscle glycogen than other workouts. I never “bonk” during other workouts, even 25-30K Level 3s, but I have to be careful with Level 4. (As I will eventually describe, my overall diet is very high in carbohydrates of all kinds).

In general, I think Level 4 is a fairly simple concept. Learn your paces, and construct workouts that slowly/gradually increase the number of strokes taken in a given time frame. As a result, more meters will be accumulated and endurance will improve. The hardest step in many cases is choosing an initial Reference Pace (which dictates what paces to pull for various rates). This is the trickiest to discuss because while I have some pretty clear guidelines there are some cases where I don’t have solid advice, and a little trial and error will be required. The Ref Pace is ideally selected based on your best 2K pace from the previous season. If your 2K was 7:00 flat, use a 1:45 Ref Pace, consult the appropriate tables, and base your workouts accordingly. If your 2K pace was in between 2 whole numbers, I would generally recommend rounding down (slower) for anyone new to Level 4 training. But for people who think the training is “hard” (which concept I’ll discuss shortly), I also discourage people form choosing an even slower Ref Pace. If you completed a maximal 2K last year, even if you are out of shape now, you should be able to handle the designated pace (you can start at low volume and at the lower end of the ratings spectrum). You should never, NEVER choose a Ref Pace faster than your 2K. Yet I hear of people doing this again and again. They choose a Ref Pace based on what they want to do or think they will or should do. They invariably burn out and abandon the program before they can realize its benefits. The Ref Pace should be selected based on what you have actually done, not what you hope to do in the future. If training goes well this year, you can increase the pace next year. Some people try to compensate for a lower training volume by using a higher Ref Pace to maximize the intensity, but I strongly discourage this. [The 4 x 10’ workout in the WP is only meant to gradually acclimate users to more intense sequences that will eventually be incorporated into the continuous rows.] Another myth about Level 4 is that it predicts 2K. In fact there is only a modest correlation. The truest predictors of 2k ability are workouts such as 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. Even though my 2K has been slipping for the past couple years, my Level 4 performance has continued to improve (very slightly, but it’s the only training band that has continued to improve since I set my PR four years ago). I try to get people away from the mindset that “If I row Ref Pace X, I will get 2K score Y”. Instead I try to encourage the mindset that “Since I’ve pulled 2K score Y, I should use Ref Pace X”. For a total novice, it will be impossible to choose an appropriate Ref Pace, and I would encourage more informal drills or short workouts trying different Level 4 rates and paces. After a couple months, the newbie could probably do a Level 1 workout like 8 x 500m with a good enough effort to estimate 2K pace and Level 4 Ref Pace. But that’s not going to be an exact science, and will likely require some occasional adjustments. For the non-competitive rower, one strategy is to choose a Ref Pace on a given day based on how you feel. If you feel ambitious, choose a harder pace; if you feel sluggish, choose an easier pace. (I know a few former varsity rowers who break up their stairclimbing and spinning classes with a few erg workouts. They like having a format that gives the workout some structure with the option of taking it easy when they feel like it.) But for athletes training seriously to maximize their 2K speed, it is preferable to work within the framework of one stable Ref Pace for a season.

The last thing I’ll address today is the question of how “hard” Level 4 should feel. Many athletes are set on the notion that training must include “easy” or “recovery” days, and they are surprised and alarmed at just how challenging Level 4 can be. I think “hard” is a relative term, but no workout should ever feel “easy”. If it’s easy, it’s not training, because training means pushing yourself to new levels. OTOH, training needs to be realistic, and possible; it rarely needs to be excruciating. The level of effort I am searching for with ALL my workouts is “tough, but doable”. I want to feel tired but not exhausted. I want to feel like if I HAD to, I could’ve gone a little harder – but I’m glad I didn’t have to. And next time I WILL go a little harder, but by then I will have adapted and will be physically and mentally prepared. Now, some days it becomes clear to me pretty early in the workout that I’ve bitten off maybe more than I can chew, and that every stroke is going to be a dogfight. When that happens, I get through it as best I can and then try to set the goal pace more accurately next time. With the Wolverine Plan, I want every workout to be “hard” but not necessarily the same kind of hard. Different training bands have different intensities, durations and other parameters to stress different aspects of our physiology (and psychology). – Having said all that, I wouldn’t worry or quibble if a workout feels “easy” as long as you create a format that systematically has you increasing the intensity. If you can get through a whole season, improving beyond past performances, and it still feels “easy” – more power to you.

Next week I’ll go through some guidelines for designing a single Level 4 workout (what sequences in which order, etc.) as well as tips for progressing the intensity level systematically over a training season. I’ll give various examples from my training and explain why I did what I did. If anyone wants to provide some examples of Level 4 workouts they have done, or how they increase volume/intensity during the season, I’ll try to comment (don’t be shy – I’ll even do it in a supportive, non-sarcastic manner [you hope]).

[jackarabit]

Interesting analysis of method of derivation of power levels in rate-prescribed workouts, including WP level 4.

https://quantifiedrowing.wordpress.com/ ... -workouts/

[jamesg]

Well said Jack.

L4 is simpler than it looks. Just convert the paces to Watts and divide by the ratings: Power/Rating = the Work in the stroke. The message as I understand it is: train your stroke, every one must be a race stroke or close. The C2 erg and PM show it all; and let us apply the basic idea to all training, not just L4.

Maybe I can do without all the usual academic distractions (HR, energy paths, bands, intervals, thresholds, Lactate...).

[JerekKruger]

L4 is simpler than it looks.

Not really. What you describe gives you a way of determining paces yes (though not the same method that Mike Caviston used) but a large part of designing L4 workouts is about designing the progression. By changing which sequences you use, and how many you use, you can control the overall time and average stroke rate quite precisely. The idea then is that you slowly increase one or both of these over a season in order to make your workouts progressively harder. This is the complicated part of L4 workout design, not choosing the pace.

[jackarabit]

L4 is simpler than it looks.

Not really. What you describe gives you a way of determining paces yes (though not the same method that Mike Caviston used) but a large part of designing L4 workouts is about designing the progression. By changing which sequences you use, and how many you use, you can control the overall time and average stroke rate quite precisely. The idea then is that you slowly increase one or both of these over a season in order to make your workouts progressively harder. This is the complicated part of L4 workout design, not choosing the pace.

Complicated enuf to put college girls on the back foot for a couple weeks. No mean accomplishment.

[Mike Caviston]

60' 1,116 strokes 18.6 spm Ref pace 1:42
184/186/188/184/186/188
Goal meters: 14,790
Meters rowed: 14,843

60' 1,122 strokes 18.7 spm Ref pace 1:42
184/186/188/190/188/186
Goal meters:14,814
Meters rowed: 14,864

Interesting family of sequences you've been using. I've used more combinations over the years than I can count, and I'm not sure I've done these.

4K pyramid

250m: 1:42.2
500m: 1:42.4
750m: 1:42.4
1000m: 1:42.4
750m: 1:42.4
500m: 1:42.4
250m: 1:42.2

Not telling you or anyone how to do this, but my specific recommendation is not to hold the same pace all the way. My guide is in my comments somewhere, but the 1K should be a little faster than 2K, and the 250s close to all-out. 500s close to 8x500 pace and 750s between that and 1k.

My question is regarding L4: whilst recognising the benefit of changing stroke rate (occupying the mind, holding - in swimming terms- would be distance per stroke ) with a ref pace of 1.52 for example the pace is 2.20 at 16SPM to 1:57 at 26SPM. Surely these would be using completely different energy pathways... 1.57 would be faster than threshold!!!! 20SPM at 2:10 would probably be sustainable for >60mins. Anything faster, would that be L3 effort??

If there is one thing I learnt from my swim coaching is the longer efforts should not be too taxing

I liked teaching swimmers to row and training them, because they appreciated the need for mileage. But for L4 think more in terms of running or cycling, specifically a long ride across variable terrain. Sometimes the course is flat and you cruise at one power output, and sometimes you climb and shift to another power output. Sometimes it's comfortably aerobic and sometimes you need an anaerobic surge to get up the steep grade before coasting again on the other side. It's not a perfect analogy but you get the idea. The great thing about L4 is you can be the architect of the terrain and decide where the hills are and how steep and how many.

L4 is simpler than it looks. Just convert the paces to Watts and divide by the ratings: Power/Rating = the Work in the stroke.

L4 requires a compromise somewhere, to use whole numbers for pace and rate. If you want to use Watts, it can't get any simpler than the formula I've offered before: set 16spm @ 50% of 2K Watts, and increase by 3% for each additional spm.

a large part of designing L4 workouts is about designing the progression. By changing which sequences you use, and how many you use, you can control the overall time and average stroke rate quite precisely. The idea then is that you slowly increase one or both of these over a season in order to make your workouts progressively harder. This is the complicated part of L4 workout design, not choosing the pace.

I agree with everything except "complicated", but YMMV. It does require more effort than following a cookie-cutter predetermined schedule, but I consider that a strength, not a weakness. Not selling a product here, so anyone who disagrees can follow that stripped down rotation of workouts discussed in another thread.

[JerekKruger]

Yeah sorry that's what I meant by complicated. Not that it's actually all that complicated, but that it is more so than most plans. Your going to have to do a bit more work planning your workouts (at least until you get used to the concept).

Personally I really liked the idea of L4. I had previously been focused on lifting where there are countless ways you can slowly progress the difficulty and I didn't like the fact that, as far as I could tell, the standard recommendation for steady state doesn't have that. People simply tell you to row a long time at a low rate and pace. L4 workouts give a way to progress longer rows which I like.