wolverine plan, anyone?

[kcavorsi]

L1

4K warmup

8 x 500m Goal pace 1:41.3

1:41.3
1:41.3
1:41.3
1:41.2
1:41.2
1:41.2
1:41.2
1:40.4

4K cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60' 1,164 strokes 19.4 spm Ref Pace 1:42
192/194/196/192/194/196
Goal meters: 14,986
Meters rowed: 15,099

2500m cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L2

4K warmup

4 x 2K Goal Pace 1:47.8

1:47.9
1:47.7
1:47.6
1:47.4

4K cooldown

[jackarabit]

05/11/18

L4 40’[176,178,178,180]
Target strokes: 712. Actual: 712
Target meters: 7741. Actual: 7987

17.8 spm [712/40 = 17.80]
5.8 W/s [103/17.8 = 5.78]
11.2 mps [7987/712= 11.22]

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60' 1,164 strokes 19.4 spm Ref Pace 1:42
192/194/196/192/194/196
Goal meters: 14,986
Meters rowed: 15,095

2500m cooldown

[jackarabit]

Cav, those 6 strokes a week really ratchet up the volume and average pace faster than I assumed (or guessed from Caviston’s comment that he doesn’t go beyond 20 spm in a season). I think a training “season” would likely be a minimum 24 wks. Can’t determine at a glance how many weeks you’ve been at this, but you mention starting seven weeks prior to posting here on 2 March, so say 17 weeks. The L4s must be getting harder but you’re maintaining a consistent overage on goal meters. Are you approaching a stall point or will you breeze thru to 20spm without turning a hair?

I have wisely chosen to futz around as long as possible below 60’. I rationalize that this is conditioning and familiarization.

[Allan Olesen]

, but if you really want to get the full picture you'd have to read through most the links contained on this page (you'll probably want to use a browser add on that processes the old code tags).

Do you have any suggestions for a browser plugin? I have searched for a plugin for Google Chrome, but without success. I am open to using another browser if necessary (as long as it is for Windows).

The formatting in those old threads really makes one's eyes bleed....

[jackarabit]

Do you have any suggestions for a browser plugin? I have searched for a plugin for Google Chrome, but without success. I am open to using another browser if necessary (as long as it is for Windows).
The formatting in those old threads really makes one's eyes bleed....

Yes please, Tom. Acting on your suggestion has proved impossible for me also.


Primitive workarounds which work for me:

—Where there are obvious lists, manual enumerating on hard copy with red marker on top of each instance of the line break code can assist the scanning eye.

—Green highlighter is also useful to make the salient bits jump out of the page.

—Adding annotation on colored postit notes attached to margins of hard copy makes a ruff n ready index and organizational exoskeleton for the multi-source thicket.

—If you think it necessary to read the fanboy queries from the old forum, simple redaction with black marker separates text from kitten yarn.

[kcavorsi]

Cav, those 6 strokes a week really ratchet up the volume and average pace faster than I assumed (or guessed from Caviston’s comment that he doesn’t go beyond 20 spm in a season). I think a training “season” would likely be a minimum 24 wks. Can’t determine at a glance how many weeks you’ve been at this, but you mention starting seven weeks prior to posting here on 2 March, so say 17 weeks. The L4s must be getting harder but you’re maintaining a consistent overage on goal meters. Are you approaching a stall point or will you breeze thru to 20spm without turning a hair?

I have wisely chosen to futz around as long as possible below 60’. I rationalize that this is conditioning and familiarization.

Hi Jack. Yes I'm in my 17th week. I have been pleasantly surprised by how good I've been feeling with L4's over the past few weeks. As I'm progressing in spm and pace, actually feeling better and better, and over the last week or so I have been exceeding goal meters more so than on previous sessions, and still keeping my stroke rates as prescribed. Hoping to continue adding 6 strokes per week until sometime in July, then do a 2K test. This would take me over 20 spm. We'll see how long I can keep it up, I'm cautiously optimistic. First name is Ken, BTW

Today was L3

2500m warmup

Continuous 18K
Avg Pace: 1:57.2
Time: 1:10:20
Avg spm: 25

2500 cooldown

[harrythehamster]

Formatted pdf of Caviston's forum posts concerning Wolverine Plan can be downloaded from here (5th file in the folder):
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... 1J3UnlOZms

(change Google Drive view to "listview" from upper right corner of the site if you need to). Did not include all the post, but should include all you need and probably more.

[jackarabit]

Thank you Harry! Easy scanning and immediate comprehension of The “Creating L4 Workouts” section is possible with the code tags in force as they were meant to be.

Currently printing hard copy. Punch it for the WP binder and good riddance to the HTML curse!

[Allan Olesen]

Thank you so much, Harry. My eyes immediately stopped bleeding.

Anyway, my request for a browser plugin still stands, if anyone has good input on this.

[Allan Olesen]

I have a question for the Wolverine experts.

Does anyone have experience with building Wolverine L4 workouts on a slower reference pace than your true 2k pace?

Specifically, I am thinking about basing a plan on a 2:11 reference pace instead of my true 2:01 2k pace.

It is clear that the improvements will be slower, but I am not really training. I am exercising to lose body fat. Right now this is more important to me than improving my 2k time. But on the other hand, if I could make some improvement and enjoy a more structured workout than my steady state rows, that would be quite welcome - and in this regard, the Wolverine L4 workouts look very tempting.

There are two reasons that I want to limit intensity:
1. Personal experience regarding fat loss.
For the last months I have stayed away from high intensity exercise and instead done a lot of low intensity rowing, paddling, running, walking and cykling with a target heart rate of 120-130 BPM (my max. is 181, so this is quite low). As a result, for the first time in my life I am able to exercise and lose weight without feeling hungry and tired. I have lost 20 kg in 20 weeks, so my low intensity approach works, and I don't really want to abandon it until I have reached my weight target.

2. Rowing inexperience and fear of injuries.
I have already overworked my back on a few training sessions at a low stroke rate. This was not the Wolverine plan, but a part of a weight loss training plan in RowPro. The result was some days with back pain which was beyond normal muscle fatique. So while I like the idea of training at higher load by reducing my stroke rate, it is obvious that I need to be a bit careful.

My background:
Age 50. Weight 86 kg. I am in a somewhat bad shape - my Garmin watch reports a running VO2Max of 33.

I am also a new rower. Sat down in a C2 for the very first time in the autumn 2017. A few weeks ago, I bought myself a C2 D1. I have currently 157k lifetime meters, most of them at very low intensity and most of them very recent.

Today, for the first time ever, I tested myself at 2k and got 8:02.6, which placed me as #56 of 113 in the Male HW 50-59 age rankings. I am surprised by this result which was a lot better than expected.

[harrythehamster]

No problemo, Jack & Allan.

Thank you so much, Harry. My eyes immediately stopped bleeding.

Anyway, my request for a browser plugin still stands, if anyone has good input on this.

Forum member Pie Man gave link to Firefox extension called FoxReplace. I haven't used it, so can't comment it's usability.

For anyone who doesn't mind using plugins you can sort some of the formating problems in the archived forum with Firefox and FoxReplace. For example here is the first post from viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4190 by Mike Caviston.

Since interest has been expressed regarding the Wolverine Plan, this thread is for occasional posts on that topic in an effort to clarify and expand some of my previous comments. For those who have followed the WP from the beginning, much of this information may be repetitive. For others, it will be more information than you want, so stop now. But hopefully for those interested it will help put things in better perspective. I’ll begin with some background about how and why I developed the plan and what its track record has been.

HISTORY OF THE WOLVERINE PLAN

I began rowing in 1979 and being somewhat of a perfectionist was interested from the beginning in maximizing my performance as a rower. In the earlier days quantification of rowing physiology was a little more dubious than it is today, since ergometers were rare instruments and were available only occasionally for testing, let alone training. We didn’t have anything at Michigan during the time I competed, but during various trips to different boathouses (e.g., Jacksonville, Wisconsin, and MIT) I had a few opportunities to take a crack at tests on either Gamut ergs or the new C2 Model As. When not on the water, the bulk of my training involved running (lots of hills and stairs), lifting, and cycling (during the summer). I shifted from competing to coaching in the early 80s, and became responsible for structuring the training of other athletes. Meanwhile, I continued to train and use myself as a guinea pig when developing team workouts. Three things to consider were availability of equipment (few if any ergs available till the late 80s/early 90s); time (club athletes couldn’t or wouldn’t devote that much of it to training); and effectiveness (given the first two realities, what would provide the greatest results?) The basic training template involved a variety of short sessions centered on intervals or moderately long continuous activities at higher intensity. This might translate as six-seven sessions per week ranging from 40-60 minutes each (including warm-up/cool-down).

It’s hard to say precisely how effective the training was. Our program was moderately successful (we didn’t suck outright and we didn’t dominate), but so many other factors besides the training program were involved (such as lack of funds and the various things they buy, like equipment and truly professional coaches). My personal motivation for training at that point was simply to stay in shape and set a good example for the troops. I didn’t have any competitive aspirations. But in 1987 I ended up entering my first indoor race through a series of slightly improbable events. The U of M program was taking a number of athletes to the CRASH-B satellite race in Cincinnati, though originally I wasn’t able to go myself. But my plans changed and at the last minute I decided to go and to enter a race myself. Discovering there was a lightweight category and realizing I wasn’t too far over the limit, I starved for a couple days and ran off the last couple pounds the morning of the event and made the competitive weight. I had no knowledge of or interest in ergometer records at that time, and didn’t really know what I was capable of, but 8:00 flat [for 2500m on a Model B] seemed like a nice round number and at least possible based on some of the workouts I had been doing. I struggled a bit in the 4th 500m, but finished in 8:02. To my surprise, I was informed afterwards that that was the fastest any lightweight so far had ever rowed 2500m – in other words, a world record. I was also informed I won a free plane ticket to Boston and the CRASH-Bs the following week. So I went, but it wasn’t a great performance. I certainly didn’t have the technique of making weight down to a science, so that was stressful. And the event itself required heats as well as a final, so two 2500m races within three hours was a bit more of both a physical and mental challenge than I was prepared for. I got 8:06 in the final, good enough for 5th place, while the winning time was 7:57. So my first world record stood for a whole week. I was 27 years old at the time.

Over the next 5 years or so, (having purchased my own erg) I was able to train more consistently and with a view towards maximizing my 2500m performance. Since U of M’s spring break often coincides with the weekend of the CRASH-Bs in February, as a coach I was with the team in Tampa, FL on it’s annual training trip and so unable to return to Boston for another crack at a hammer. But on various attempts over that period I pulled 7:57-8 for 2500m, which if memory serves would have been good enough for either first or second place in the Open Lightweight category during that stretch (though meanwhile the world record had been lowered to about 7:51). But I wasn’t getting any faster and it didn’t seem like I would make any major jumps, so from about the age of 32 I stopped training specifically to get faster on the erg. I still used it frequently, and I still trained hard, but I got more involved in alternate activities and stopped doing test pieces on the erg.

But I’m the sort who doesn’t really enjoy training as much without some sort of goal or target to shoot for, and running or cycling generally aren’t as readily quantifiable as the erg. So by the time I was 35 or 36 years old, I was thinking about reorganizing my training towards a specific goal involving rowing. During this time I had continued to refine and tweak the training program I was using for the athletes I was coaching, and also making use of information I was getting since I entered the graduate program in Kinesiology at Michigan (I entered in ’89, got my degree in ’93 and began as a teaching assistant in ’94, eventually becoming a Lecturer in ‘96). I had followed results from the WIRC and was aware of what times were competitive in my age bracket, and also in the next (over 40). So I had some specific times to shoot for and just needed a specific plan of attack for achieving my goals. And so began what would eventually be called the Wolverine Plan.

Much of the new plan simply incorporated workouts I had been doing for years. I invented 8 x 500m (and its Level 1 variations like 4 x 1K and the 250/500/750/1000/750/500/250 pyramid). We were doing them at Michigan the first week the Model B (and the metric PM1) was released. [If anybody else independently invented those workouts, they are Alfred Russel Wallace while I am Charles Darwin.] I hadn’t done much 4 x 2K (or a similar workout, 5 x 5’), but both were popular with other coaches at Michigan and I had some experience with them so I decided to create the workout category that would eventually be called Level 2. Long, continuous (Level 3) rows had been a staple of my erging workouts and were easy to incorporate. The one workout category that was considerably different from anything I’d done before was the category that would be called Level 4. I’ll talk about that more in a future post. Some aspects that distinguish the WP from other training programs designed for rowing include limiting cross- training, and no real periodization (all types of workouts in similar proportions year-round; no “endurance” phase followed by a “sharpening” phase.) Another characteristic of the WP, which I will discuss more later, is a strong emphasis on mental discipline. My rationale being that I couldn’t realistically train with much more volume, or intensityr, so I had to be even smarter and more productive with the time I had. I created a system, started recording and analyzing scores, experimented with different formats of similar workouts, tried to find the optimum order of different types of workouts, determined how hard I could work and how long I’d need to recover from various workouts, noted how much improvement for various workouts was realistic during a training season, etc., etc. This began in the fall-winter of 1997-1998. I was 36 years old, and in that first training season of the WP my fastest 2K was 6:26. The next year saw 6:24, then 6:21, then 6:20, and finally, in February 2002, during my 40th year on Earth, I set a lifetime PR (and WR in my age group) of 6:18.

Any discussion about whether the Wolverine Plan is an effective training program would begin with my own results. Obviously, I’ve been pretty successful (3 hammers and a 2nd at CRASH-B, as well as gold medals at 2 European IRCs and 1 BIRC.) Besides a record and championships won, what impresses me most about my accomplishments (if I can be excused for such an immodest comment) is the fact that I was the fastest I’ve ever been in my life at 40 years old. Bear in mind that I wasn’t some inactive couch potato that finally saw the light, or even some successful athlete coming to rowing from a different sport. I had been training specifically, relentlessly, and successfully for rowing since I was 18 years old. But the WP was effective enough so that even with my background, I was able to keep improving up to the start of my fourth decade. For reference, other senior/master athletes are faster than me relative to the Open standards; Eskild Ebbesen comes to mind as does Lisa Schlenker. Last year at 40 Lisa won the Open Lightweight category at WIRC (my record-setting time in 2002 would have placed 11th in the Open) – but well off her record pace of a few years ago.

So the WP has been (and continues to be) successful for me. But so what, I’m just one person, what does that prove? One person might win a championship in spite of their training, not because of it (though in my case you’d have to ignore my careful records of training for the pre- and post-WP years). Has anyone else benefited from the WP? I’ve certainly heard from a number of relative beginners, via e-mail or in person at various indoor events, who have told me they’ve benefited from the Wolverine Plan. But, beginners are pretty easy to help. What about experienced and competitive athletes? You could start by talking to some of my former USIRT teammates such as Joan Van Blom, Luanne Mills, and Mary Perrot (all multiple hammer winners). Also Nancii Bernard, who placed 2nd in 2004 and first in 2005 in the women’s senior category. Michigan alum and former Olympian Steve Warner was coached by me when he got his first CRASH-B medal as a UM freshman (second as a J18LW); Steve went on to win a couple hammers and many more medals in Boston.

The greatest opportunity to evaluate the Wolverine Plan would be the 4 seasons I spent as conditioning coach for the U of M women’s team. Women’s rowing became a varsity sport at Michigan in 1996. The test of success of a women’s program is how well it does at the NCAA championship. In its first four years of existence, the women placed 5th as a team at the NCAA championship three straight years (failing to be selected for the regatta in its first year). That is certainly not a record to be ashamed of. But the Michigan head coach, looking to shake things up and get an edge, brought me aboard before the 2000-2001 season to design the overall training plan for the team, to oversee indoor training, and to help the coaches coordinate outdoor training more effectively. Prior to my involvement, the team had trained as many college programs do, with a variety of demanding and grueling workouts but without any particular structure or plan for systematic improvement. Some of the features that I would eventually discourage or eliminate included lots of cross training (track sprinting or Indian-file runs were popular); training paces based on heart rates; and competitive workouts (athletes seated next to one another with the simple goal of beating the other, rather than following a personal season-long progression). Initially, the new program was simply called The Training Plan; it wasn’t till I eventually began posting on this forum and referred to the program that I had to give it a specific name. But whatever it was called, evidence that it worked came pretty quickly and decisively. (A rowing team is the closest thing there is to an actual laboratory for testing training. I’ve worked with hundreds of athletes over the years, with opportunities to try new things, subtle variations, and compare with previous results.) In collegiate rowing each athlete is tested periodically during the season for 6K and 2K performance, and over a four year period lots of data becomes available for individuals as well as team averages and trends. In my first year with the team, every single athlete in the program (with one exception) set PRs at both 6K and 2K. Some did so by quite large amounts, and interestingly some of the biggest gainers had already been the fastest athletes on the team. Two examples were particularly striking. That year Kate Johnson was a senior. Kate was a three-time All-American (and won silver in last year’s Olympic 8) and had entered UM as the most-recruited high school rower in the country. She was extremely talented and among the most dedicated athletes I’ve ever met. But despite all her desire and hard work she hadn’t really improved her 2K time in her three years at Michigan. But by the end of her senior year she had dropped 8 seconds, down to 6:49. Another senior, Bernadette Marten (eventual national team member and gold medal winner in the 8 at the 2002 World Championships, along with Johnson and Michigan alum Kate MacKenzie) also made a big jump. Bernadette had transferred to Michigan from another program and her best 2K to date had been 6:59. By year’s end she had a school-record 6:40. A 19-second drop by a woman who is already sub-7 is pretty dramatic. What benefited these two hard-working athletes most was the structure and organization of the new training plan.

Overall, many athletes set new standards for erging at Michigan following the introduction of the Wolverine Plan. As you enter the team’s erg room, practically the first thing you see is a large board that records the names and times of the fastest twenty 2K erg scores in the history of the program. After the program’s eighth year, 17 of the top score had been recorded in the 4-year period since the introduction of the WP. Still, for a college rowing program of Michigan’s stature, the only real measure of success is at the national championship. Did the fast erg scores translate into races won? Many factors contribute to the success of a crew on the water, and it’s hard to say that any one factor was dominant. But Michigan had the same equipment, the same coaches, and probably a tougher schedule (more women’s programs are getting faster every year) – and still managed to finish better than ever before (2nd as a team in 2001). We slipped to 8th in 2002, but that is deceiving, as all teams were separated by small margins and Michigan was actually closer to first on points than in the years when they finished 5th. In 2003 we finished 4th and in 2004 3rd. During those four years, the only teams to score more points than Michigan at the NCAA championship were Brown and Washington.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the team took it up a notch the year I started working with them. Maybe they just had good athletes who worked hard and the training program wasn’t much of a factor. Last year I was let go by the UM women’s program midway through the year. I won’t go into specifics, except to say that the head coach wanted to get back to being more hands-on with the team (it had been an unprecedented move for a head coach to let someone else have so much input in those areas where I was involved), and the athletes had become increasingly dissatisfied with the structure and inflexibility of the WP (they had forgotten what the WP says about negotiating the price of success). They changed the focus of their training more towards variety and what they thought of as stimulation, and away from pre-determined paces or set goals. I doubt if they were satisfied with the ultimate results (lowest finishes ever at the Big 10, Central Regional, and NCAA regattas). Last year’s team probably never had enough depth to be a serious championship contender, but there were high hopes for the first varsity 8. Michigan’s 1V had finished 2nd in the country in 2003 and 3rd in 2004, and five athletes in the 2005 1V had rowed in both those boats, while a sixth had rowed for part of 1 year. So it was a very successful and experienced crew, and beat a number of ranked crews early in the year, but struggled at the end and finished 9th at NCAAs. The major problems I saw with Michigan’s fitness at the end of last season was that they peaked too early, and several experienced athletes failed to improve their erg scores or in some cases finished slower than the year before (many younger athletes did improve, but as I’ve said that’s less impressive when evaluating a training program). Time will tell whether last year was just an aberration, and I wish this year’s team all the success in the world. But I’d be lying if I said I thought their current training was as effective as it can be.

Many people who read the forums have heard of the Wolverine Plan but proportionally few really understand it. I have read accounts from or have corresponded with several people who thought they were following the WP but were not (based on faulty second-hand accounts, or by not reading the available information carefully enough). Some people have taken a perverse pleasure in deliberately misrepresenting the WP or my subsequent comments, no matter how many times I correct them. I’ll provide some generic examples in the future. Still other people are happy to rip off the WP and promote its workouts and principles as their own. Well, I don’t have a copyright, so I guess I can’t complain, and the important thing is that people who want it get help with their training. The WP clearly isn’t for everybody, and maybe not for many at all. It takes a lot of physical and mental toughness, and more dedication and discipline than even many so-called serious athletes are willing to invest. Some people think it is very complicated, but it’s actually very simple once you learn the terminology and a few basic rules. It boils down to gradual, systematic progression over time. You don’t have to be fast to start using it, but if you stick with it long enough, you’ll be fast before you’re finished with it.

Mike Caviston

[jackarabit]

Allan, in regard to the suitability of using L4(ish) work for weight loss, assuming UT3 power output (Ref pace 2k+10” won’t generate pace @ rate nodes greater than UT3 surely.) supports the use of fat as the primary fuel source, the first departure from the customary long SS,wgt loss row would be that the energy inefficiency of frequent rate changes will induce fatigue which might tend to limit weekly volume, whether significantly or not I can't say. In its favor is perhaps the mental focus on holding one rate and finding the next which might prove less boring than steadies. You also mention the possible attenuation of the risk of injury in the slowed, low handle pressure drive. I’ll say give it a try or wait for the experts.