Pete Plan

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 18 2005, 07:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 18 2005, 07:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->so 1:54 @ 17 spm would better for me than 1:56 @ 26 spm. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />The real question is which of those is the easier for you to accomplish, at those paces.<br /><br />Otherwise the stroke ratings are meaningless.<br /><br />The easier you can accomplish a certain pace, then the easier you will be able to go faster.<br /><br />If you can go faster at 17 than at 26 spm then row at the rating that allows you to go faster and improve. <br /><br />Otherwise you are holding yourself back, going backwards.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've already rowed 70K at 1:56 </td></tr></table><br /><br />What happened to the other 930,000 meters?

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 18 2005, 12:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 18 2005, 12:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've already rowed 70K at 1:56 </td></tr></table><br /><br />What happened to the other 930,000 meters? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Back in 2002, I rowed 1.2 million in the Holiday Challenge. <br /><br />So the other 930,000 were also there, even more than that. I rowed most of the challenge around 1:56 pace, as I remember.<br /><br />Junk meters of this sort pass the time, but they don't don't do anything much for training other than to reinforce bad technical habits.<br /><br />So I haven't done it again.<br /><br />It has taken a while, but I now think I could row the "challenge" with good technical habits (e.g., 17 spm @ 1:54, etc.). Too late to try this year, but next year I might be ready to try.<br /><br />If you could row the milliion meters with good technical habits, it would be _wonderful_ for your rowing.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The real question is which of those is the easier for you to accomplish, at those paces.<br /><br />Otherwise the stroke ratings are meaningless. </td></tr></table><br /><br />If ratings in training for rowing are meaningless, the moon is blue cheese!<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] John Rupp]

The only thing that counts is the pace, and the distance.

[[old] Pete Marston]

Without going into too much detail, just a quick post on the "Pete Plan" hopefully to answer some of the questions on the first page of this thread.<br /><br />If you've read the full thread on the "Pete plan" on the UK forum, you'll know that the plan only came about because I happened to post, in detail, the training I was doing, and how I structured it. As various people started copying it, in all, or in part, it became known as the "Pete Plan" so people knew what they were talking about. So this simply means the training I was (and am) doing, which I devised for myself, not for anyone else. As more and more people were following it, I wrote that thread on the UK forum to try to answer some of the frequently asked questions about the training, and to describe more fully what I was doing and why.<br /><br />The website someone posted here, with their brief description of the plan, is not something I've written, but simply a good, but brief, summary of it. The thread on the UK forum is the only single source I have written for info about the plan.<br /><br />The prescribed paces are all rough guides, if you read that thread on the UK forum it spells out exactly how to start out on the plan, and how to pace every session. The best way is to read that and follow the advice there, not to go for exact pace targets.<br /><br />The example of the "15k @ 2k + 15" - on its own that is pretty meaningless. Yes that's the sort of pace I'd do a steady, not too hard, 15k piece. But that doesn't mean someone else should, it's just a rough guide. I'm sure on the UK forum thread I explained this more fully to say something like "my best pace for an hour erg is 1:45, so for a normal steady paced row I'd do this sort of duration a few seconds slower pace, so 1:48". All the "steady" rows I do at around 2 to 4 seconds off my flat out pace for that distance, and at a correspondingly lower rate.<br /><br />The plan is designed for continual improvement, and for one session per day, 6 days per week. With only training once per day there is no need, in my opinion, to do any recovery / UT2 type rowing. My alternate days (alternate to the intervals and "flat out" distance) are good solid distance rows, something along the lines of mid to high end UT1 work.<br /><br />Pete