Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[alex9026]

Decided to go for Week 9.2 today. I could feel my back but it wasn't bad at all. Did a 1k warm up and then it was 4x800m, 2r. Pete recommended a second quicker than last time (1:59.7). But since I'd done a 3x1000m recently at 1:56.3 I decided to push it a little and aim for 1:56. It went well although it was tough and I ended up in a heap afterwards, but my back was fine which makes me think when I'm conscious of my stroke I'm ok. I also didn't have the seat hopping problem I had last time. I kept my hands a bit lower just in case and no issues.

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	S/M	
12:21.1	3,200m	1:55.7	225	29
3:05.5	800m	1:55.9	225	30
3:05.4	800m	1:55.9	225	28
3:05.8	800m	1:56.1	224	29
3:04.3	800m	1:55.1	229	30

Good bit of progress here, nice work.

[mitchel674]

Feels like a happy medium between a too slow (to me) UT2 effort and pushing myself hard enough that it makes it more difficult to get on the rower. Intervals are for pushing and pain, long rows are for just rowing. Speaking of which, 4.2 is supposed to be 3x1000 w/ 3 minutes rest - I'm gonna push that to 3.4 because I have rest days imposed on me by life on Wednesday and Thursday, so I'll do 4.3 and 4.4 on Sunday and Monday and then push real hard on the intervals Tuesday morning. I don't see why this would mess with the plan, but if I'm wrong someone let me know.

Well done. Looks like a Goldilocks steady state. Not too easy and not too hard. And evenly paced too which is hard. That's exactly how I feel about the too different workouts. Steady state should be very doable and intervals should be on the line. I also do some workouts out of order depending on whether I feel like SS or intervals. I don't think it matters as long as you are rested for intervals and aren't doing them back to back.

I just started week 9 today. 9.1 9k. It didn't go as well as I'd hoped. I had a couple of days off after intervals on Thursday, so rest shouldn't have been an issue, and I'd been itching to get back to the erg so it wasn't motivation either. It just felt like an off day. It was hard keeping to 2:20 and my splits kept dropping. My stroke rate was too high. And my lower back also hurt most of the way through which was worrying. Urgh.
Maybe I've overdone it lately in the sprints or too much volume too soon is catching up on me, or picked up a bad habit, but I just wasn't feeling it today. On the plus side I did 9k at a decent clip which is the furthest I've ever done. 4x800 tomorrow unless I have a day off. Will see how I feel. I have an enforced break for 2 weeks at the beginning of Feb due to a holiday and it is starting to sound ideal!

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	S/M	
42:34.3	9,000m	2:21.9	122	23
8:21.8	1,800m	2:19.3	129	22
8:23.0	3,600m	2:19.7	128	23
8:32.6	5,400m	2:22.3	121	23
8:42.7	7,200m	2:25.1	114	24
8:34.2	9,000m	2:22.8	120	23

I like to look at the force curve when I do these long rows. My goal is to keep my ideal, smooth curve with each stroke. I find this keeps me from developing bad habits like opening too early or hunching my back.

[PleaseLockIn]

Wk 2, Day 1 - 5500m

I paced this at ~UT2, the high end. A couple dips into UT1

29:10, r20 (2:39.1 split). My HR was a bit higher on average, around high 150s according to my Apple Watch. Surprisingly, I checked it in my case and it isn't extremely unreliable.

Meanwhile, if I allow myself to go high UT1 low AT (say hard distance sessions) I can go ~2:20 r20 for much longer.

Tomorrow: 4*750m 2R. Considering my HR was approximately a hard distance session for my previous interval, I think I could average 2:02 or 2:01 if I keep it to r24. It will notbe a bad session. I can do it.

Hopefully by week 4 or 5 I will dip below 2:00 intervals at r24.

[iain]

29:10, r20 (2:39.1 split).

if I allow myself to go high UT1 low AT (say hard distance sessions) I can go ~2:20 r20 for much longer.

That is 4.4WMin. We are all different, but at that work per stroke I find my stroke deteriorates and I get little feedback on stroke quality. One of the key purposes of doing SS is to have time to groove your stroke at a slow enough pace that you aren't under pressure and so can maintain a good stroke. Only you know what pace you need to do to recover fully for the intervals, but if you need to slow at that pace I would recommend a lower rating.

Tomorrow: 4*750m 2R. Considering my HR was approximately a hard distance session for my previous interval, I think I could average 2:02 or 2:01 if I keep it to r24. It will notbe a bad session. I can do it. Hopefully by week 4 or 5 I will dip below 2:00 intervals at r24.

That is a huge step up in work per stroke (2:02 at R24 is >8WMin). So you are both increasing the rating and the power per stroke. Some people try and maintain similar ratios between recovery and stroke, so watts would increase from R20 to R24 by (24/20)^3. That would mean 2:26 pace at R20 would be equivalent to 2:02 pace at R24. But this is unusual and primarily for those that don't row low rates. TO put this in context, 2:02 at R24 would equate to a 6:30 R30 2k!

[Sakly]

TO put this in context, 2:02 at R24 would equate to a 6:30 R30 2k!

I think you got the formula wrong. 2:02 at r24 is 8Wmin stroke. At r30 this gives you 240W average, converting to 1:53.4 pace and giving you a ~7:33 2k.

But I agree to what you wrote about the low power strokes in the steady.
I would ditch the HRM and focus on good strong strokes in the steady and lower the rate as needed to get a good workout, but not be toasted by the end. Probably cutting the time also helps. Cutting stroke power surely doesn't.

[PleaseLockIn]

TO put this in context, 2:02 at R24 would equate to a 6:30 R30 2k!

I think you got the formula wrong. 2:02 at r24 is 8Wmin stroke. At r30 this gives you 240W average, converting to 1:53.4 pace and giving you a ~7:33 2k.

But I agree to what you wrote about the low power strokes in the steady.
I would ditch the HRM and focus on good strong strokes in the steady and lower the rate as needed to get a good workout, but not be toasted by the end. Probably cutting the time also helps. Cutting stroke power surely doesn't.

Yes, > 8Wmin at 2:02.0 at R24, watt/rating. I need at least 10.15Wmin to sustain 1:59 30r20 at next year's trials, so I need to develop enough strength to hold that for a decent amount of time. After that, it will be my endurance carrying the day.

In that case, I will cut the time and maybe keep steady state at r19. I will accept an HR to 80% of my HRR. Somehow in my hard distance pieces even though my HR was a bit over 180, I could still talk 2 or more sentences. My RPE felt "good workout" and moderate (5-6) even though my HR suggested 8.

My 2k in Dec was 7:58.6 (1:59.7). 2k + 20 to 2k + 25 is suggested for UT2. For my physiology, for some reason my UT2 pace is 2k + 40. My UT1 pace appears to be 2k + 20. I guess people are different. Or maybe I just have verypoor fitness. Or maybe I have a technique problem. Or both.

[Sakly]

TO put this in context, 2:02 at R24 would equate to a 6:30 R30 2k!

I think you got the formula wrong. 2:02 at r24 is 8Wmin stroke. At r30 this gives you 240W average, converting to 1:53.4 pace and giving you a ~7:33 2k.

But I agree to what you wrote about the low power strokes in the steady.
I would ditch the HRM and focus on good strong strokes in the steady and lower the rate as needed to get a good workout, but not be toasted by the end. Probably cutting the time also helps. Cutting stroke power surely doesn't.

Yes, > 8Wmin at 2:02.0 at R24, watt/rating. I need at least 10.15Wmin to sustain 1:59 30r20 at next year's trials, so I need to develop enough strength to hold that for a decent amount of time. After that, it will be my endurance carrying the day.

In that case, I will cut the time and maybe keep steady state at r19. I will accept an HR to 80% of my HRR. Somehow in my hard distance pieces even though my HR was a bit over 180, I could still talk 2 or more sentences. My RPE felt "good workout" and moderate (5-6) even though my HR suggested 8.

My 2k in Dec was 7:58.6 (1:59.7). 2k + 20 to 2k + 25 is suggested for UT2. For my physiology, for some reason my UT2 pace is 2k + 40. My UT1 pace appears to be 2k + 20. I guess people are different. Or maybe I just have verypoor fitness. Or maybe I have a technique problem. Or both.

As long as you don't post a video from the side, it is not possible to say something about your technique.
To train a strong stroke, I would ditch the HRM and fully trust body's response. If you feel fatigue, stop, take a rest, restart. Do that on low ratings, as often as you like and you are able to maintain the strong stroke. When you feel the stroke gets weaker, stop the session. Length of the session depends on your recovery and you need to find out doing these sessions the next weeks.
In my view it doesn't make sense to weaken the stroke to get a low HR for a steady session. Rowing needs a good powerful stroke in the first place and that's what you should train.

[p_b82]

To train a strong stroke, I would ditch the HRM and fully trust body's response.

In my view it doesn't make sense to weaken the stroke to get a low HR for a steady session. Rowing needs a good powerful stroke in the first place and that's what you should train.

I think I am going to disagree with you here, as there is a huge difference from some-one who can just throw out a sub 7 on just starting and some-one grinding out a sub 8 in terms of their Wmin capability and their base CV fitness and the gap between the two.

By your comment I should never have done the FM - as I used a "weak" stroke to do it to keep my HR down low enough to sustain the effort for 3+ hrs (as it was my first just finishing was an aim so i treated it as a long SS row).
I do accept that this lower Wmin training was to the detriment of my sub 10k pace/ability; so I think it needs to have a caveat or two attached to it.

I also think there's a balance with "getting something done" at the individual's most efficient rating and then working on improving it when the rating might not be as effective for them.
EG - first hit the 200W threshold for 30mins regardless of the rate, then look to dropping it to a rate capped effort.
It's more then about incremental goals/gains/wins rather than ability, but I feel it's easier to achieve something like this with that sort of stepping stone than an all or nothing approach.

In PLI's specific case I'm also concerned that the focus on the r20 work will come at a detriment to the actual race rating capability, as spending a long time rating low = it being harder to rate up again. The qualifying effort might be for r20; but boat seat competition will be decided at race ratings and imo that needs not to be ignored.

When I personally did my r20 pb challenge last year over distances from 2k->HM I got very good (for me) at going r20 and not so good at much above r25 & I know that other people on here have reported the same thing occurring due to the way our bodies adapt to specific stimulus.

[Sakly]

To train a strong stroke, I would ditch the HRM and fully trust body's response.

In my view it doesn't make sense to weaken the stroke to get a low HR for a steady session. Rowing needs a good powerful stroke in the first place and that's what you should train.

I think I am going to disagree with you here, as there is a huge difference from some-one who can just throw out a sub 7 on just starting and some-one grinding out a sub 8 in terms of their Wmin capability and their base CV fitness and the gap between the two.

By your comment I should never have done the FM - as I used a "weak" stroke to do it to keep my HR down low enough to sustain the effort for 3+ hrs (as it was my first just finishing was an aim so i treated it as a long SS row).
I do accept that this lower Wmin training was to the detriment of my sub 10k pace/ability; so I think it needs to have a caveat or two attached to it.

I also think there's a balance with "getting something done" at the individual's most efficient rating and then working on improving it when the rating might not be as effective for them.
EG - first hit the 200W threshold for 30mins regardless of the rate, then look to dropping it to a rate capped effort.
It's more then about incremental goals/gains/wins rather than ability, but I feel it's easier to achieve something like this with that sort of stepping stone than an all or nothing approach.

In PLI's specific case I'm also concerned that the focus on the r20 work will come at a detriment to the actual race rating capability, as spending a long time rating low = it being harder to rate up again. The qualifying effort might be for r20; but boat seat competition will be decided at race ratings and imo that needs not to be ignored.

When I personally did my r20 pb challenge last year over distances from 2k->HM I got very good (for me) at going r20 and not so good at much above r25 & I know that other people on here have reported the same thing occurring due to the way our bodies adapt to specific stimulus.

It's ok to disagree
Getting a marathon done is a completely different goal compared to train a good stroke and use it. You needed to adapt to get your goal reached, PLI needs to train a good stroke in his steady sessions. If he can maintain this stroke for "only" 5min, that's ok, as there is no target/goal in terms of distance or time. Train weak strokes with intention to get the HR down, because anyone says a low HR is best for a steady state makes no sense to me, as this trains a weak stroke. If I don't want to burn out in longer sessions, but want to use a strong stroke, I need to cut it into intervals, where I can use these kind of strokes to train them. Over time the intervals get longer and the rests get shorter. HR will come down as well.
I am not talking about to trade 1W lower per stroke for the lower rate. In case of PLI we are talking about half the power. That will not get anyone to a good powerful stroke. In my point of view this steady thing here is way too much focused on HR.

[iain]

TO put this in context, 2:02 at R24 would equate to a 6:30 R30 2k!

I think you got the formula wrong. 2:02 at r24 is 8Wmin stroke. At r30 this gives you 240W average, converting to 1:53.4 pace and giving you a ~7:33 2k.

I was showing the extreme position of people who believe that the ratio of time on drive to recovery should stay the same. For these people, speed is proportional to rating. I personally keep the stroke as similar as possible and just vary the recovery over the normal (non-sprinting) stroke range. But this is not universally agreed eg Elizabeth increases the work per stroke with the rating significantly (although less than the fixed ratio brigade), so I am in no position to mandate that work per stroke should be constant for all. But going from R24 to R30 will reduce the time taken per stroke to 24/30ths. If the ratio is the same then the length of the drive should stay the same, but the time taken for the drive will be 24/30ths. So the pace will be 24/30ths. 24/30*122S = 97.6S = 1:37.6.

Re immediately above, I agree with Sakly that a "good" stroke needs to be maintained and used. Personally my stroke gets sloppy when below 7WMin so I don't train at these weak strokes. p_b82, I cannot currently row a 7.5k 30min and I suspect that this would not apply to many masters rowers and quite a proportion of the ladies who erg, so your prescription would mean many people not concentrating on maintaining a good stroke. I would say that as well as allowing for training in intervals, many of us also use a lower rating to keep HR down. But I would add to the above that HR formulas to identify the "right" pace is flawed. The unfit fatigue less at the same %HRR or %HRMax than the fit. HR bands are devised for the fit and so I believe most newbies can comfortably recover at higher HRs than the bands suggest. IMHO HR data for those who haven't reached a significant proportion of their ability should be used to compare sessions and any limits determined from their experience rather than these misleading calculations. I am aware that many will not agree with this as it goes against the "data driven" approach that seems to be the most methodical.

[dmuskett]

Interesting to come into this discussion after the session I just did last night . 4.3, 6500m. I was going to do 4.3 on Sunday, 4.4 yesterday, and then do the 3.2 intervals tonight because the next two days are forced rest days due to my calendar. After pulling a hardish but okay 2:22 on the 4.1 6500m on Saturday, I just never got on the rower on Sunday. So Monday I was still feeling a bit meh about it, so I decided to try to get on and do it at a relaxing 2:30 pace.

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
32:29.7	6,500m	2:29.9	104	657	17	141
6:29.8	1,300m	2:29.9	104	657	18	131
6:29.8	2,600m	2:29.9	104	657	17	140
6:29.9	3,900m	2:29.9	104	657	17	141
6:30.2	5,200m	2:30.0	104	656	17	145
6:30.0	6,500m	2:30.0	104	656	18	150

Was initially disappointed that I could not get the pace exact on each one, then realized all of my intervals were within two tenths of a second of the perfect time, so what's a mere mortal to do. When I compared it to my 2:21.9 run from Saturday, I had the exact same stroke county of 567 strokes. Felt like I was able to think a lot about the technical parts of the stroke, I guess mostly I just... slowed the strokes down a bit. 3x1000 intervals tonight.

[Citroen]

In case of PLI we are talking about half the power. That will not get anyone to a good powerful stroke. In my point of view this steady thing here is way too much focused on HR.

I'm with Sakly on this.

We've seen many folks give up on erging because they can't keep their HR artificially low.

Most folks don't know their HR zones (because they haven't tested them correctly and junk like 220-age exists), so stop letting HR manage your workout. Do your workout then look back at HR to see how you did, not the other way round.

[p_b82]

We're all saying the same thing RE the HR - aka don't keep it low for the sake of keeping it low while you are building up to achieve ABC pace over distance Y. (insert as applicable).
When a person gets fit enough, the HR will come down if they continue to progressively overload their system - aka get faster/fitter.

p_b82, I cannot currently row a 7.5k 30min and I suspect that this would not apply to many masters rowers and quite a proportion of the ladies who erg, so your prescription would mean many people not concentrating on maintaining a good stroke.

I think you're missing the point - I'm not saying at all that people should row with a strong stroke - or even what is strong for a given person.

My point was IMO it is better to use a "weak" (to use some people's words) stroke at a higher rating to achieve an aim, and then afterwards to build up to making that stroke stronger and reducing the rating - if starting from a position where the goal is currently unachievable regardless of rating and the distances are greater than 1000m.

my 10k at 6.88Wmin (2:06.6 r25) had a HR at the end ~95% max; my 30min was ~7.5Wmin (2:06.1 r23) with Hr ~98% max - technically a "better" stroke than the 10k, but it was only 0.5s/500m (2W average) faster.
by all the various predictors out there, my 10k is "better" than my 30min score...

and neither come close to a 7500m 30min either - my CV system just can't support that output currently regardless.

[Dangerscouse]

IMHO HR data for those who haven't reached a significant proportion of their ability should be used to compare sessions and any limits determined from their experience rather than these misleading calculations. I am aware that many will not agree with this as it goes against the "data driven" approach that seems to be the most methodical.

I'm with you on this. I wonder if people all too easily fall into slavishly following what they're told rather than wondering 'what if'?

We are all far too different to be compared to a standard type of person that neatly fits in a box. I always use what's right for me, based on long term data and also specifics on any given day, but I don't try and artificially manage it.

[Sakly]

TO put this in context, 2:02 at R24 would equate to a 6:30 R30 2k!

I think you got the formula wrong. 2:02 at r24 is 8Wmin stroke. At r30 this gives you 240W average, converting to 1:53.4 pace and giving you a ~7:33 2k.

I was showing the extreme position of people who believe that the ratio of time on drive to recovery should stay the same. For these people, speed is proportional to rating. I personally keep the stroke as similar as possible and just vary the recovery over the normal (non-sprinting) stroke range. But this is not universally agreed eg Elizabeth increases the work per stroke with the rating significantly (although less than the fixed ratio brigade), so I am in no position to mandate that work per stroke should be constant for all. But going from R24 to R30 will reduce the time taken per stroke to 24/30ths. If the ratio is the same then the length of the drive should stay the same, but the time taken for the drive will be 24/30ths. So the pace will be 24/30ths. 24/30*122S = 97.6S = 1:37.6.

Ahh, ok, didn't get this point. Sure, if ratio stay the same, this is true. But it also shows that it is very unlikely to happen and the reality is somewhere in between
For me it's also not the same drive on steady state and time trials (on shorter stuff <=2k). Typically my steady stroke is around 11Wmin, but on time trials often tends to go to 12-13-14Wmin, so the drive gets a bit harder and faster. For longer stuff the drive/stroke seems to stay very consistent to my steady state drive/stroke.