Wolverine Calculations

[old] brian lancaster · Post by **[old] brian lancaster** » September 23rd, 2004, 12:00 pm

Does anyone know precisely how the rates required for use on the Wolverine Training program are calculated? Mike Caviston refers to things such as 90-95% of 2k rate for a routine at level 2. If the 2k best is say 8 minutes (2.00/500m) what is meant by 90% of this? Do you multiply by 1.1 for 110% giving 2:12. It doesn't matter that precisely I know but I am curious as to what HIS calculation procedure is. The program has great precision in it's structure and I've found to my cost that quite small changes can take you from an exercise that you can finish into one that you cannot. I've got especially hung up by the 15x3minutes level 3 exercise with minute rests, pitching the rate too high and failing after only 8 reps. I find myself doing the 8 a bit faster each time rather than going a bit slower and finishing the full 15. This is largely because I'm not clear how I should calculate my rate. I know trial and error would sort it out but I would like to aim at my current expected limit directly. Mike also spoke of a revised program that he was issuing to 'selected clients' Is that now available somewhere on the net? I am currently struggling to find sufficient form to give myself a chance of holding on to the 65-69 title at BIRC in November and, so far my progress is worryingly slow. So, if anyone can help with any of the above details, I will be grateful. Brian Lancaster

[old] Kudos · Post by **[old] Kudos** » September 23rd, 2004, 12:12 pm

I know that this does not help you much, but in my BH there is a chart with all the max 6k paces and the respective 60-70-80-90% splits that would correlate. it was a professional chart so it must be out there somewhere. If you give C2 an e-mail or go to rec.sport.rowing and ask I'm sure someone could give you a link/download for it.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 23rd, 2004, 12:15 pm

I converted my 2k time to watts and based my percentages on that. Rick

[old] Cran · Post by **[old] Cran** » September 23rd, 2004, 1:47 pm

% watts

[old] brian lancaster · Post by **[old] brian lancaster** » September 23rd, 2004, 5:15 pm

Thanks folks for the rapid responses. Now it's been pointed out, Power is the obvious factor that you need to reduce by the appropriate percentage. I'm ashamed to say that I used to teach engineering subjects too. Let's hope there's a bit more left in the body than the brain. B.L.

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » September 24th, 2004, 9:40 am

In the W, MC explicitly says %s of times or velocity: - The intensity is ~ 85-90% of 2K velocity (L3). - For L2: The minimum or slowest pace for Level 2 when beginning the season is roughly 2K PR pace * 1.08. For example, if your 2K PR is 7:11.0, your 500m split is 1:47.8. Convert this # to seconds and multiply by 1.08. Now 85-90% of "speed" is 61 - 73% of 2k power output, due to the cube law which also explains why the pace has to be right: 1% pace is 3% Watts, 6W @ 2:00 pace, and I feel even this small diff very easily. The L4 is tighter mathematically, tho' still expressed as paces: divide 2k Wattage by 30-32 (presumed 2k rating) and then multiply by the prescribed rating. The maths is easy if your number is ten, but not the pulling I've found. I do 2ks at 27, which doesn't make things any easier. In the interactive T also hides Watts behind paces. Doing a bit of spreadsheet jiggery pokery it seems the W percentages (of 2k) are 65 75 85 100, for UT2, 1, AT, AN. For some reason faster people get hit a bit harder, which doesn't worry me much.

[old] brian lancaster · Post by **[old] brian lancaster** » September 29th, 2004, 2:16 pm

Jamesg thanks for your response. My original problem was raised by that 1.08 in the quote below that you gave. " The intensity is ~ 85-90% of 2K velocity (L3). - For L2: The minimum or slowest pace for Level 2 when beginning the season is roughly 2K PR pace * 1.08. For example, if your 2K PR is 7:11.0, your 500m split is 1:47.8. Convert this # to seconds and multiply by 1.08." It must refer to 85% pace since that is the minimum start value. What I was asking was how precisely is that multiplier derived from 85%? Is there a table around, that someone can give me a link for, of equivalent wattages related to steady /500m rates. If, as you say, 1% pace is 3% Watts, I can use that table to confirm the above multiplier and sort out the rates that I need to be working at. What formula are you using to give that equivalence? B.L.

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » September 29th, 2004, 5:34 pm

Brian - You might be making this harder than it really is ... The Wolverine plan is a pace-based plan. Basically, you pick a pace for a given workout and do it. Next time you do the workout you go faster. Repeat until you are fast ... or don't care anymore Now the question is, what pace do you start at. Mike indicated that for the COLLEGE Varsity Women he works with a good rule of thumb is 2K PR pace * 1.08 where the 2K is a recent test (this is done ONCE at the start of the season). The point is, after the first workout this pace doesn't really matter anymore. Now you are training so based on what you did THIS time you adjust pace NEXT time (if you completed the workout go a little faster, if not go a little slower). From then on your 2K trials don't affect your workouts. Hope this helps ... JimR

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » September 30th, 2004, 6:46 am

Brian, I've re-read the W and I think the levels can be summed up as to my MC hijack here: L1, W= 3-4% of weekly metres; I = 95-105% intensity respect to last 2k; WO = 1 pr week; total km per wo = 4 L2, W=6-8%, I=90-95, WO=1; km = 7-8 L3, W=22-25%, I=85-90, WO=2-3, km=12 L4, W=65-70%, I=80-90, WO all the others (5!), km=10-15. Notes 85% pace is used in L3 and 4, not L2 - he uses the 1.08 muliplier in L2 only. Expressed as % of speed it's 92.6% ie in the middle of the 90-95% range MC calls for in L2. Intensity means speed, and % (of speed) and 1.08 (x time) refer to a 2k test directly. If you want to convert pace to Watts or v-v, there's a table in the Interactive schedules. Alternatively, if you don't mind using a spreadsheet: W = 2.8 x V^3, where W is the Watts the machine measures and V is the conventional speed in m/s; and Pace = 500/V in seconds. A rough W/pace conversion is to say 1% slower pace is 3% less Watts (because 0.99^3 = 0.97). Pace 2:00 = 203W and in the pace range 1:54 - 2:06, W=175-235. For CV work @18-22 I try to stick to 10W x rating, and not less than 9x, without using any plan apart from getting on and doing it. No calculations are needed really, and the PM2 shows everything. I choose a level and go; if no sweat, accelerate. Had enough, stop. Sorry about the length, and apologies for any misinterpretations or misrepresentations.

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » September 30th, 2004, 9:46 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (jamesg @ Sep 30 2004, 06:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ... I = 95-105% intensity respect to last 2k ...  </td></tr></table> Great summary, I would make one observation. MC talks about a starting pace and that is all these are ... starting paces. After the first time you do a specific workout you don't adjust based on any 2K times, you adjust based on how you performed on the workout. I'm thinking that arriving at a good starting point for a workout is only going to save a little time anyway. I think it goes like this ... (1) devise a new workout (say 10x1250m w/ 2:45 rest) (2) look at similar workouts (say 4x1500m w/3:30 rest done at 2:15 pace) (3) arrive at a target based on how different the workouts are ... these two are almost the same distance, shorter rest, more of them ... my guess would be 2:30 pace. (4) do the workout at the target pace If the pace was way too easy bump it by something like 2-3 sec pace, if it was OK bump by 1 sec, if it was a challenge bump by 0.1 or so. The goal is to find the pace that is VERY hard to do as soon as possible (without breaking down). Then just go a little faster each time (usually each week). Every so often I reach for two much and bomb. The I think of something MC said ... don't be greedy. JimR

[old] brian lancaster · Post by **[old] brian lancaster** » October 2nd, 2004, 11:53 am

James Thanks for the in-depth reply. I appreciate the time you must have spent on it. I've been going through a series of bad patches in trying to prepare for this year's BIRC and had become quite disheartened. I had the day free from the rower yesterday and came back for a 5k today with some apprehension. It turned out that I took 17.3 seconds off my best since starting this year's preparation. The time is still mediocre but I always struggle with anything over 500m and can only come anywhere near a reasonable 2k in a race situation. I'll be getting back to the Wolverine workouts with renewed vigour at least for the present. If someone could just hand me the key to the mental problems that occur not long after halfway through these longer sessions it would help a great deal. For some reason if I consider the time it will take to finish a session there is a great incentive to stop. If I think of the distance however it seems much less daunting. I commonly find that there was a bit left after finally finishing but tapping that reserve in other than the race situation is very difficult. B.L.

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » October 3rd, 2004, 3:05 am

Maybe the key to avoiding that sinking feeling is rhythm. I use as far as I can an exactly 2:1 recovery/pull ratio, like a Waltz, and have no distance problems apart from shear fatigue. Marching to a 1:1 ratio however is not my cup of tea at all. Both would no doubt be hypnotic enough to let us do long pieces, but on the erg 1:1 is just too much like hard work - maybe ok for racing, or the short distances you note, 500m, but not for long slow stuff. Two beats per bar is fine for discos or for stamping round the campfire before battle when a considerable degree of hypnosis is needed... When I rowed 8s, many years ago, what we all wanted was a stroke with good rhythm. The boat just flew, with apparently no effort. There must be reasons for this, so my theory of the day is waltz, don't march. The Blue Danube is more relaxing than Radetzky. In 8s there was nothing in between paddling at 22-23 and rowing at 32-34. I don't think I ever rated 27-29 in ten years rowing, and the reason maybe that it's plain impossible because of the uncomfortable rhythm/effort/gearing combination that would be needed. Slight adjustment of the damper can make the pull slightly quicker or slower, so that you can nail the 2:1 exactly, at the pace you want, and swing it. May even help breathing. I'm thinking this slant may shed light on the 7-8-10m per stroke polemics; novices and very fast people pulling 7-8m are probably using near 1:1, but at 10m we are forced to go to 2:1 and a very good thing too.