wolverine plan, anyone?

[JerekKruger]

So I think the way set up the monitor results in inflating my meters somewhat for L4’s. I set it up for 6 back to back 10 minute intervals, and when it goes from one interval to the next invariably the pace artificially drops significantly on the monitor. Not sure exactly how much this contributes. May try just setting it for 60 minutes next time and see.

I noticed that when I was briefly using Rojabo (the workouts are shorter and more intense than the Wolverine Plan but have a similar rate changing structure). There seems to be a short lag between two back to back intervals which leads to weird things happening with splits (sometimes they drop and sometimes they get larger). I doubt it makes much difference to the overall result however, especially not in a 60 minute WP type workout.

When I did do L4 workouts I didn't do them as back to back intervals. I just did the whole piece as a single timed piece and I'd count strokes to keep on target (helped by my little cheat sheets telling me what the stroke counter should be at each rate change).

[jackarabit]

When I did do L4 workouts I didn't do them as back to back intervals. I just did the whole piece as a single timed piece and I'd count strokes to keep on target (helped by my little cheat sheets telling me what the stroke counter should be at each rate change).

The question of the consistency of monitor calc of meterage across the two formats is far less troublesome to me than the question of how I (and perhaps others?) react to monitor reports of current rate. The short term feedback/reaction loop is seeing an off-target stroke reported and immediately adjusting some component of the stroke (frequently not simply recovery time!). The usual consequence of this modality of compensation is bracketing or close approximation (successive reaveraging) of rate. Caviston mentions this monitor fixation/reaction briefly as a tool that should not substitute for metronomic technique in the big picture.

There is a second, less immediate feedback/reaction loop which shows its ugly head when I (we?) subvert the intention of regulated rate rowing (OTW synchronicity of multiple levers entrained and regulated only by human brains) by gross corrections to rate overage or shortfall as we approach the rate change waypoints (1,2,3, or 4’) of the L4 scheme. My usual reaction to rate overage or shortfall at the changes has been to drastically increase or reduce recovery time to create the quantity of strokes that corrects to target spm without regard to maintenance of prescribed rate. This little trick doesn’t receive much attention so could mean that I’m the only desperate fool who’s done this but I doubt it. Monitor feedback is a rich and slippery confection! Many a slip twixt fork and lip.

[JerekKruger]

Good point Jack. It's probably worth remembering that thanks to rounding, if your rate drops a point it might only have dropped by 0.5 or so, and as you say the adjustment can often mess up the average more than the slight drop.

The thing I always tried to do was (a) keep the rate where it's supposed to be but (b) trying to make sure I'd hit the appropriate stroke numbers as close to the minute mark as possible. More important to row exactly 20 strokes in a minute than to have 20 showing all the way through.

[kcavorsi]

L3

2500m warmup

Continuous 18,250m
Avg Pace: 1:57.2
Time: 1:11:19
Avg spm: 25

2500m cooldown

[jackarabit]

@ JK: Yes, rounding to whole numbers is like loose tie rods. Proximate control with width of road delimiters (ditches).

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60' 1.170 strokes 19.5 spm Ref Pace 1:41

192/194/196/198/196/194
Goal meters: 15,137
Meters rowed: 15,206

2500m cooldown

During this session I thought there was no way I would be over my goal meters. Felt like I was on the correct pace the majority of the time, and if off, seemed like strokes which were at a pace slower than target were as least as frequent and strokes faster than target. Did some calculations and it seems to me that the goal meters for at least some sequences in the chart I have are too low. For example the sequence 192 is 2'/2'/2'/2'/2' alternating at 20/18/20/18/20 so 6 total minutes at 20 and 4 minutes at 18spm. At ref pace 1:41, paces are 1:57 for 20spm and 2:02 for 18. Either by plugging these numbers into the C2 pace calculator or doing the math with meters/sec and total sec I get goal meters of 2522, however the chart lists 2509. Seems to me this explains my going over my goal meters more than expected. Have I gone wrong somewhere here? I'm not usually one to worry about little discrepancies like this, particularly if I'm making steady progress, which I think I am.

[harrythehamster]

. Did some calculations and it seems to me that the goal meters for at least some sequences in the chart I have are too low. For example the sequence 192 is 2'/2'/2'/2'/2' alternating at 20/18/20/18/20 so 6 total minutes at 20 and 4 minutes at 18spm. At ref pace 1:41, paces are 1:57 for 20spm and 2:02 for 18. Either by plugging these numbers into the C2 pace calculator or doing the math with meters/sec and total sec I get goal meters of 2522, however the chart lists 2509. Seems to me this explains my going over my goal meters more than expected. Have I gone wrong somewhere here? I'm not usually one to worry about little discrepancies like this, particularly if I'm making steady progress, which I think I am.

In my tables pace for SPM20 (ref pace 1:41) is not 1:57 but 1:58. And 1:58 (spm 20) and 2:02 (spm18) gives 2509m just like it is in the WP-tables. If you have gone for 1:57 instead of 1:58 (for all spm 20 sequences) that would pretty much explain the difference in total meters.

[jackarabit]

It’s possible MC could have made a mistake adding up goal meter totals from the “total strokes:total meters” tables. Doubt the UMich. athletic dept. supplied him with legions of proofreaders. And checking results of operations that draw from tables is repetitive drudge work.

[harrythehamster]

Spooky

[jackarabit]

Indeed. Our tables agree for rates 16 thru 18 but not for rate 19 thru 23. Paces for rates 24 and 25 also agree If the mistake is isolated to the case of ref. pace 1:41, it has only influenced Ken’s meter total on a few recent sessions.

[harrythehamster]

Unfortunately can't remember from where I originally downloaded my tables. But it seems that your and Cavorsi's tables are "out of sync" with the distance tables you are using (maybe there are two versions of distance tables too?) .

[jackarabit]

Harry, the tables I consult are the “even+odd rates” machars.net version. The older tables of “even“ rates only also give pace @ rate 20 as 1:58 for ref pace 1:41. This may take some time!

[kcavorsi]

Well I'll be damned. The pace table I have has several different paces than the one Harry has, while the goal meter table I have seems to jive with the pace table he has posted. For the life of me I can't remember now from where I downloaded these.

[jackarabit]

Below is the relevant chunk of the even rates only pace table from the August 2001 document, presumably straight from the Gospeler’s quill.

[jackarabit]

Well I'll be damned. The pace table I have has several different paces than the one Harry has, while the goal meter table I have seems to jive with the pace table he has posted. For the life of me I can't remember now from where I downloaded these.

Getting to look just a scosh “complicated,” ya think?