wolverine plan, anyone?

[Mike Caviston]

Where is this from? It looks as though somebody took my table and reproduced it incorrectly. Some columns seem to be systematically off by one second per Reference Pace. Note in the upper left under "2K pace" 1:27 is listed twice and there is no 1:28. I went back to my old Excel sheets (which I haven't opened in years). The formulas for pace per stroke rate are all correct for each Reference Pace so I don't think there are any errors there. The table for meters per sequence looks to have been set up correctly, though I haven't gone through it line by line. I think I did go through it line by line long ago. I used the tables for years with athletes with a range of 2Ks without issue. Doesn't mean there isn't a glitch or two in there somewhere, but I think the tables I provided have been well scrubbed for errors (especially the revised tables that added odd stroke rates to the original even sequences). I don't remember who I gave those to initially or how they wound up on the Internet. But as I said, it looks like this picture is an inaccurate reproduction.

[jackarabit]

As stated in post above, the source of of the L4 tables I consult is:

http://www.machars.net/wolverine/L4.xls

Looks to be past time to eschew the 2006 C2forum WP bibliography in favor of a look in the horse’s mouth! I have the August 2001 WP in hard copy and will be taking a look for a clue to why I chose to use the machars charts instead. Could have been the relative ease of scanning the page layout.

[Bloodbuzz Corio]

Jack - the August 2001 document (revised June 2002) is also on the C2 website: http://www.concept2.com/files/pdf/us/tr ... nePlan.pdf

Not surprisingly it has 1:58 as r20 pace for 1:41 reference and the 2,509m for the 192 sequence at that reference pace as discussed previously. Did you perhaps choose the machars because the original only had the even stroke rates?

[jackarabit]

Spot on Rohan! Howzit in good old Blighty or would it be Corio Bay these days?

Took a glance @ http://www.concept2.com/files/pdf/us/tr ... nePlan.pdf rather than trust my hard copy of same. The answer to why I began to use the machars.net tables two yrs ago was obvious. No odd number rate sequences, no pace to rate tables for odd number rate sequences, and no goal meters tables for odd number sequences are included in the C2 pdf. The machars.net tables do meld odd number rate sequences with even in the lists of 10 and 6’ sequences and the odd rates with even in the pace to rate and sequence meter total tables.

If the machars.net tables are corrupt, mistake-ridden transcriptions of “author-ized” tables, where are the genuine articles to be found? Harry, you appear to be the point man on the detective work and to possess tables that have been proved for accuracy of sequence goal meters. Your example indicates that yours include both even and odd rate sequences. Hope the source will turn up and we can share in your good fortune.

[harrythehamster]

As stated in post above, the source of of the L4 tables I consult is:

http://www.machars.net/wolverine/L4.xls

Jack, cannot open the link you gave. Instead this one opens: (edited: check marchars l4tables.xls link below, cannot put link directly here as intended, since I got warning: "Your message contains too many URLs. The maximum number of URLs allowed is 3.")

I am pretty sure that link is the one I used to d/l L4-tables I have. Most probably got the link from this WP-thread (first post there, 3rd link from the bottom of the post, just under the "subtitle"
Useful information on the WP from other sources
Updated L4 Pace charts (incl. odd stroke rates): http://www.machars.net/wolverine/l4tables.xls

viewtopic.php?t=8295

[harrythehamster]

Jack & Ken, what do you see in your xls file properties (if you still have those xls files left)?

[jackarabit]

Harry, I transcribed the machars link rather than copying from the forum topic. I see that I changed the lower case [l] in l4 to upper case [L]. I will get back you after I look at the properties as I have to move to pc from apple slate. Can’t think there will be a difference

[jackarabit]

Harry, the above screengrabs piped thru my typical insane pc—>email—>ipad lashup seem to be a match to yours for content, origin, author.

The hard copy with the doubled 1:27 ref pace @ top and the discrepant pace values for 1:41 ref pace are what apple ios presents from the machars URL. The complete, correct URL can be seen on the printout at bottom left hand

In addition, see below:



Your version and mine are BOTH accessible @ the machars.net URL depending on whether accessed from win10 or ios.. What a mess!

[jackarabit]

I just finished printing out the machars.net output as delivered on pc operating system (win 10). Pulled the “bad apples” from my WP binder and replaced.

Ken, if you accessed your L4 tables in an apple ios environment, you may want to do likewise.

Thank you Harry for bringing this to everyone’s attention. Great eye for detail!

I’m not bothering with further proofing of the faulty tables. A warning about the potential trap in the Macula WP source document/forum post would be a favor to future pilgrims

[kcavorsi]

So weird! Yes, I believe I downloaded from the machars.net link onto my iPhone and got the result with the incorrect paces. Strange though when I try to do it again now on my phone it won't load. Was able to see the correct table this morning from a PC at work. Well that's a relief at least, nice to have that sorted out.

Anyway today was L1 so luckily didn't have to worry about my recent L4 woes:

4K warmup

4K pyramid

250: 1:30.4
500: 1:41.2
750: 1:41.6
1000: 1:42.1
750: 1:41.5
500: 1:41.1
250: 1:30.2

4K cooldown

[Allan Olesen]

Your version and mine are BOTH accessible @ the machars.net URL depending on whether accessed from win10 or ios.. What a mess!

I tried to fetch the file from machars.net and check the values stored in those cells in the spreadsheet. As I suspected, it is a simple rounding/formatting problem.

The values stored in the cells are not in full seconds. They have been calculated by multiplying the ref. pace with a factor, resulting in fractional seconds.

What you see on the screen is a rounded value of the stored number, and the rounding behaviour in your software will decide whether you see 1:57 or 1:58 on the screen.

If we want to see the exact number of seconds, we need to convert the stored value which is a floating point representing a fraction of a full day (24 hours). So by multiplying the cell value by 24*60*60 and then making sure that the result is shown with normal number formatting, we will get the precise number of seconds in the cell.

For the 20 SPM @1:41ref being discussed here, the exact value in the cell is equal to 117.867 seconds. Not 117 seconds and not 118 seconds.

So if you open the spreadsheet in some software which always rounds down to full seconds, you get 1:57. And if you open the spreadsheet in some software which always rounds to nearest second, you get 1:58.

So this part is simple enough.

Then there is the 1:27/1:28 ref pace near the top corner. That one is more strange. The reason for the different value shown on different systems is the same: The exact value in the cell is equal to 87.8 seconds. But this is not a calculated value, so it must somehow have been input with fractional seconds. Perhaps because someone originally made a calculation from a 2500m or 5000m time in full seconds and then copy/pasted the result as values in Excel.

[lindsayh]

My head is hurting and I am just a spectator!!

[hjs]

My head is hurting and I am just a spectator!!

And the fun thing is, Mike did not even really calculate the L4 paces, he used his own training and roughly extrapolated those numbers.

[harrythehamster]

I tried to fetch the file from machars.net and check the values stored in those cells in the spreadsheet. As I suspected, it is a simple rounding/formatting problem.

The values stored in the cells are not in full seconds. They have been calculated by multiplying the ref. pace with a factor, resulting in fractional seconds.

What you see on the screen is a rounded value of the stored number, and the rounding behaviour in your software will decide whether you see 1:57 or 1:58 on the screen.

If we want to see the exact number of seconds, we need to convert the stored value which is a floating point representing a fraction of a full day (24 hours). So by multiplying the cell value by 24*60*60 and then making sure that the result is shown with normal number formatting, we will get the precise number of seconds in the cell.

For the 20 SPM @1:41ref being discussed here, the exact value in the cell is equal to 117.867 seconds. Not 117 seconds and not 118 seconds.

So if you open the spreadsheet in some software which always rounds down to full seconds, you get 1:57. And if you open the spreadsheet in some software which always rounds to nearest second, you get 1:58.

So this part is simple enough.

Yes, after making sure Jack and Ken had downloaded L4 tables from the same source I had, the most probable explation seemed to be settings in formatting/rounding in either personally made or in software defaults. As a mere mortal, who has no real expertise in Excel, i have to disagree about the simplicity of the issue though! I guess i was just lucky to have my numbers not skewed in the process. Something still puzzless me though. First of all, I have mm:ss format in all the cells and similarly all the cells have exactly the same rounding rules. So why on earth is some of the cells rounded (or just fractions of the second ignored) inconsistently?
for example (just some pickings from the tables to show the inconsistency):

Then there is the 1:27/1:28 ref pace near the top corner. That one is more strange. The reason for the different value shown on different systems is the same: The exact value in the cell is equal to 87.8 seconds. But this is not a calculated value, so it must somehow have been input with fractional seconds. Perhaps because someone originally made a calculation from a 2500m or 5000m time in full seconds and then copy/pasted the result as values in Excel.

Are you referring to a value in cell A3? What I see in that cell is 01:27 and the formatting is mm:ss. If I change formatting of that cell to number, I get value of
0,00100694444444444, so guess that's time in decimal format (showing friction of the full day, of 24h?), then in order to make it more understandable (to show value in seconds), I just multiplied it by (86400) (in steps that is *60*60*24), and I got 87 (sec) as an result, so it puzzles me how did you get that 87.8 sec of yours?

[JerekKruger]

And the fun thing is, Mike did not even really calculate the L4 paces, he used his own training and roughly extrapolated those numbers.

Yeah, I don't think the specific paces are actually all that important so long as you increase/decrease with rate appropriately. In the end whether you row at 1:58, 1:57 or even (shock horror) 1:59 won't make much of a difference to the final result.