viewtopic.php?f=3&t=326
Looks familiar. Take note of Tom R’s version of the decremented distance, negative paced 2k execution which Mike C. “gave” to Dougie. Tom lists prescribed distance @ each pace and in parentheses, percentage of total distance,
to wit, 40-30-20-10% of 2km or 800,600,400,200m.
Below are four examples of laminated “cue cards” which I made for my personal use in 40 and 60’ Wolverine Level 4 workouts. Most respondents to this thread will have some experience of selecting from the L4 10’ and 6’ sequences to produce 40’ or 1 hour workouts. These workouts executed @ prescribed pace/rate combinations should produce a progressive workload and higher average stroke rate over course of a training season.
Top row is remaining time in minutes at each rate change. Middle row is rate. Bottom row is total strokes at each rate change. So a mneumonic or cheat sheet to promote awareness of time waypoints on PM or ErgData and running stroke subtotals from ED or counting strokes. Total strokes is in red ink. 168 strokes/10’ is 16.8 rate average for sequence.
The 2nd and third sequences are certainly more demanding than the low rate, regular rate alternation of the first sequence. Both are ascending rate ladders producing 21.0 and 22.0 average spm when done to spec. The ‘210’ and ‘220’ decrement time at rate at each change such that the 4’-3’-2’-1’ succession is remarkably suggestive of the 40-30-20-10% of 2k virtual distance mentioned by Tom. (The ‘220 Up’ is usually judged “harder” than the 220 despite identical total stroke counts. Where is the difficulty? Obviously time @ rate. Incremented time @ rate and ascending rate ladder are coincident.)
I consider the 210 and 220 sequences formal templates of the negative-paced, 800,600,400,200m execution mentioned in my post and in old thread linked by MC.
As for the “flattened J’ and ‘Parsons table with one short leg” executions of the French Protocol, they may well hold sway psychologically whatever their results on the clock.
