Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[Dom82]

Broadly between 1k and 10k most people find that an all out effort drops off by a similar amount for a doubling of the distance. The amount of the change varies depending on comparative anaerobic strength and aerobic fitness. If you ignore the very unfit then most find the decline in pace for the doubling is 3-7S (call this factor "F"). "Paul's Law" suggests that to optimise 2k pace most people should train to get this factor to around 5S although this is high for most lightweights or older rowers. Nevertheless I assumed the mid-value of 5S.

generalising the formula will say that for an increase in distance from X to PX will decrease the pace (ie increase the time per 500m) by log(P)/log(2)xF. log(1.5)/log(2) x 5 = 2.9S which is approx the difference between the paces.

Really interesting, thanks.
To apply the formula to my case, let's say I can row 1k all effort at 2:05. Paul's Law would suggest an 8k time of 2:20, which I don't think I could do at the moment, so that would indicate that my aerobic fitness is worse than my anaerobic strength. On the other hand, if I apply an F factor of 6-7 to account that I'm quite tall and heavy, my 8k time would drop to around 2:25, which I probably could achieve. Is that correct?

[winniewinser]

BPP W5S2...4x800m/2'R.... absolutely grim this one ...1:49.2 from the last 3x1k session. HD thoughts after 3rd piece, 200m into the 4th and then every 50m thereafter. Pretty much came to a standstill but dug deep to finish. An all in last 200m to get below target so happy with that ultimately....hardly a 'fast' last . But boy did that make me question why I do this!

HR belt playing up but it did capture 178.

11:36.3 3,200m 1:48.7 272 1235 29
2:54.1 800m 1:48.8 272 1234 29
2:54.1 800m 1:48.8 272 1234 29
2:54.2 800m 1:48.8 271 1233 30
2:53.9 800m 1:48.6 273 1238 30

[mitchel674]

BPP W5S2...4x800m/2'R.... absolutely grim this one ...1:49.2 from the last 3x1k session. HD thoughts after 3rd piece, 200m into the 4th and then every 50m thereafter. Pretty much came to a standstill but dug deep to finish. An all in last 200m to get below target so happy with that ultimately....hardly a 'fast' last . But boy did that make me question why I do this!

HR belt playing up but it did capture 178.

11:36.3 3,200m 1:48.7 272 1235 29
2:54.1 800m 1:48.8 272 1234 29
2:54.1 800m 1:48.8 272 1234 29
2:54.2 800m 1:48.8 271 1233 30
2:53.9 800m 1:48.6 273 1238 30

Way to hang in there! The BPP can humble you.

[jrkob]

This does not prove a connection

Iain I will not try to convince anyone of anything but the connection was established decades ago, it is a very, very strong one and is the backbone of modern CVD research. There is ample to read on this particular subject. Apologies though that it wasn't what you were looking for !

[iain]

To apply the formula to my case, let's say I can row 1k all effort at 2:05. Paul's Law would suggest an 8k time of 2:20, which I don't think I could do at the moment, so that would indicate that my aerobic fitness is worse than my anaerobic strength. On the other hand, if I apply an F factor of 6-7 to account that I'm quite tall and heavy, my 8k time would drop to around 2:25, which I probably could achieve. Is that correct?

That's it. The calculations can be done for you on the FS site under utilities, put in times for 2 distances (preferably as close to 10k and 1k as possible) and it will use this to calculate your personal "F" and apply this to give you an equivalent for any other distance.

[iain]

Iain I will not try to convince anyone of anything but the connection was established decades ago, it is a very, very strong one and is the backbone of modern CVD research. There is ample to read on this particular subject. Apologies though that it wasn't what you were looking for !

I was actually looking for a link to research on blood pressure effects . Thanks for the link, very interesting, I wasn't rubbishing the work, only identifying the weakness (ie by "doesn't prove", I meant that literally not to mean that I didn't believe that there was a connection). However, one of my strong beliefs is that some regular exercise is better than none for almost everyone. I have seen too many posters lose motivation when told "you need to go long at a slow pace". This suits some, but is boring for others. I would take the research to suggest that anyone with inflammatory issues should be careful on harder sessions, while others would see this as a red flag that might suggest to some that the sessions they like best are "bad" and so demotivate them. I haven't read the whole paper yet, but the summary did suggest that it was looking at a point in time rather than the longer term. There are also plenty of studies showing that fitter people are at less risk.

[jrkob]

I was actually looking for a link to research on blood pressure effects

Ha I see ok I thought you were after research on CV risk in general.

one of my strong beliefs is that some regular exercise is better than none for almost everyone.[...] I would take the research to suggest that anyone with inflammatory issues should be careful on harder sessions[...] There are also plenty of studies showing that fitter people are at less risk.

Absolutely agree, this is also my understanding and I don't doubt this for a moment. As far as BP is concerned, I am my own lab rat and I know the very positive effect exercise has on mine which I think you may have read in others of my posts. To my surprise ! Because I can tell you I had tried a very large number of other things (except meds), none of which had worked. Even a little.

I have seen too many posters lose motivation when told "you need to go long at a slow pace". [...] while others would see this as a red flag that might suggest to some that the sessions they like best are "bad" and so demotivate them.

Ok thanks for the context, it was important !
Personnally, I have no issue with the intense sessions, if anything, they're less boring and shorter as you suggest. I'm going ahead with the plan I have now although based on others suggestions I am including more resting time.

The study is clear in the first paragraph of its introduction (so it must be important !) that it is talking about excessive exercise. They're using this word.
Nobody needs to exercise excessively !

[Mwoodburn]

Hi, I hope this is the right thread to post in. I'm on week 9 of the BPP. For the past few weeks I've been trying to improve my efficiency, as I feel I'm hitting a pace that I don't know I can do much better at quite yet.

For some examples, yesterday I rowed my 9k, I averaged 22SPM at a 2:14 pace. Which I feel is pretty good. Today, I decided to do my 4x800 at sub 2:00 pace while staying under 24SPM. I did 1:57 at a 23 SPM on average.

A couple of weeks ago I averaged 1:59 on 3x1500, but at a 25SPM, and last week I rowed the 25 minute workout at 19SPM consistently just to improve my stroke. Wound up doing it at 2:16.

I'm trying different things in order to improve my efficiency. So these next 2 workouts I have are both an 8k. If I decide to row at a specific heart rate not necessarily caring about the SPM or pace what's a good rate to target? Or if that's not a great workout, what are some things to try to aim for?

Pete who devised the BPP is not a fan of HR training! He himself largely rows SS based on a perceived effort, he has described this as that pace that he could row twice as far at if he had to. he has suggested that for him this is 22SPM of "normal" strokes, although as a powerful 5ft 11inch size, others might find a lower rating more appropriate. As a new rower I appreciate that this may not be easy to assess as you may not know what rowing 16k requires! while you have demonstrated a wide range of rowing strokes generating work per stroke from 6.6WMin (397J) to 9.5WMin (570J).

We can all put in an unsustainably large amount of work per stroke. An all out 4x800 would be done by most people at a 2k rating (28-34 for most), so I assume that the 23SPM used was not your natural stroke, so I would discount the 9.5WMin. I am surprised that you did 3 x 1.5k at (8.3WMin/498J) a much higher work per stroke than the 19SPM concentrating on your stroke (7.3WMin/439J). I would expect that you should use a stroke somewhere in this range. The rating will depend on your fitness and size. But I would suggest that you stick to the "natural" SPM used for the 25min, but try and increase the power per stroke closer to the 3 x 1.5k. If you achieved the same work per stroke this would be 2:10.4 pace, so aiming for say 2:14 would be a good start, but this is based on limited data. You should be sweating significantly and feel tired but not all out by the end of the interval.

- Iain

We'll today's workout was an 8k I decided to do this one in my typical pace and sped up a little on rhat last few hundred meters.

Wound up rowing at a 2:12.0 pace at 22spm which felt challenging but not extreme.

[iain]

The study is clear in the first paragraph of its introduction (so it must be important !) that it is talking about excessive exercise. They're using this word.
Nobody needs to exercise excessively !

Unfortunately most (all?) exercise Apps tell any serious Erger that their training is excessive, so not at all sure that it is irrelevant. I strongly suspect that the Apps are configured to protect against joint issues etc for runners, as rowing is low impact we can exercise longer and harder than when running. Also the load is spread more widely amongst the muscle groups.

[iain]

We'll today's workout was an 8k I decided to do this one in my typical pace and sped up a little on rhat last few hundred meters.

Wound up rowing at a 2:12.0 pace at 22spm which felt challenging but not extreme.

The pace is fine, but your rating looks a little fast compared to the earlier rows at 6.9WMin your stroke is stronger than the 9k, but weaker than the others. Of course I don't know whether you were exaggerating your stroke on some of these, but I would suggest trying to keep a similar pace going at 20SPM. This is most easily achieved by timing the start of each drive for the start of each 3rd second on the PM so that you can do exactly 20SPM.

Best of luck.

IAin

[Dom82]

Week 7- session 2: 7 x 500m / 2min rest

Pete's instructions were to target 1-2 sec faster than the 6x500 in week 1 (2:08.1). I decided to keep on the safe side with 2:07, but during intervals 2 to 4 for some reason my brain decided that my target was instead 2:08

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
14:48.9	3,500m	2:06.9	171	888	24	174
2:06.5	500m	2:06.5	173	895	24	165
2:07.6	500m	2:07.6	168	879	24	169
2:07.8	500m	2:07.8	168	877	25	172
2:07.5	500m	2:07.5	169	881	24	176
2:06.8	500m	2:06.8	172	890	25	178
2:06.7	500m	2:06.7	172	892	25	178
2:06.0	500m	2:06.0	175	902	25	181

Even though I'm not focusing on this, I see that my SPM in speed sessions increased a lot (it used to be 20-21 and now it got to 24.6). I don't know if it's a good sign (I'm getting used to rowing at higher SPMs) or a bad one (my efficiency ratios are getting poorer).

[iain]

Even though I'm not focusing on this, I see that my SPM in speed sessions increased a lot (it used to be 20-21 and now it got to 24.6). I don't know if it's a good sign (I'm getting used to rowing at higher SPMs) or a bad one (my efficiency ratios are getting poorer).

For these sessions most people rate 25-35 so I wouldn't worry. That said, it is worth keeping an eye on work per stroke (usually measured as Watts / SPM), if the 2:08.1 was at 20.5SPM and this 2:06.9 at 24.6SPM, that is a drop from 8.1WMin (487J) to 7.0WMin (418J) / stroke, a 14% reduction. If you want to get faster, you will need a strong stroke, so next time I suggest that you try and increase the work per stroke back towards where you started maintaining your higher stroke rate. Obviously this is harder work so needs to be done in several stages, you shouldn't try and increase power by 14% in one go, a sure fire way to create a H/D! Rowing at higher work per stroke puts more emphasis on strength while high SPM requires more aerobic fitness. You could also play with DF a bit as maintaining a higher SPM is easier on a lower DF as the power stroke will be quicker at the same work. However the difference is only significant at higher ratings as a 0.1S decrease in time of the stroke (a lot) would increase 20.5 to 21.2 and 24.6 to 25.7, so significant, but not huge. While it would increase 32 to 33.8!

[Dom82]

For these sessions most people rate 25-35 so I wouldn't worry. That said, it is worth keeping an eye on work per stroke (usually measured as Watts / SPM), if the 2:08.1 was at 20.5SPM and this 2:06.9 at 24.6SPM, that is a drop from 8.1WMin (487J) to 7.0WMin (418J) / stroke, a 14% reduction. If you want to get faster, you will need a strong stroke, so next time I suggest that you try and increase the work per stroke back towards where you started maintaining your higher stroke rate. Obviously this is harder work so needs to be done in several stages, you shouldn't try and increase power by 14% in one go, a sure fire way to create a H/D! Rowing at higher work per stroke puts more emphasis on strength while high SPM requires more aerobic fitness. You could also play with DF a bit as maintaining a higher SPM is easier on a lower DF as the power stroke will be quicker at the same work. However the difference is only significant at higher ratings as a 0.1S decrease in time of the stroke (a lot) would increase 20.5 to 21.2 and 24.6 to 25.7, so significant, but not huge. While it would increase 32 to 33.8!

Hi, you are right on the figures: the previous fast sessions had an average SPM of 21 and Watts / SPM of 8. With the last session Watts / SPM dropped to 6.9;
At the moment I wouldn't be able to keep a 24.6 SPM and, at the same time, go back to 8 W/SPM: I would most definitely blow up and, even if I could end the session, I would go too fast compared to the pace that the PBB currently prescribes me to follow.
What I could do with the following fast sessions is limit SPM to 21.5, which would roughly bring me back to the previous Watts / SPM; then, as the plan gets tougher and I need to row faster, I should try to keep the same work per stroke while increasing SPM.

[winniewinser]

BPP W5S3 - 7km 2:08....sweaty mess as I forgot my headband ... stinging eyes. HR calming down a bit.

29:49.0 7,000m 2:07.7 168 877 20 143
5:55.8 1,400m 2:07.0 171 887 20 135
5:57.0 1,400m 2:07.5 169 881 20 144
5:58.0 1,400m 2:07.8 167 876 20 146
5:58.2 1,400m 2:07.9 167 875 20 147
6:00.0 1,400m 2:08.5 165 866 20 146

[Dangerscouse]

Even though I'm not focusing on this, I see that my SPM in speed sessions increased a lot (it used to be 20-21 and now it got to 24.6). I don't know if it's a good sign (I'm getting used to rowing at higher SPMs) or a bad one (my efficiency ratios are getting poorer).

FWIW, I think that this is whatever you want to decide it is. I agree with Iain about the work per stroke, but it's not essential, or advisable imo, to always focus on it as you can lose vital recovery and enjoyment as it gets too hard too often.

Getting faster is a multi faceted process so I always like to use different stroke rates and power combinations. Getting more comfortable with higher SPMs is important and as long as you mix and match stronger efforts too, you'll make better progress.

Take the confidence boost of knowing you're improving at higher stroke rates but accept that you need to now gradually consolidate that progress.