Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[Joris]

IIRC Pete assumes pretty slow improvement on long intervals over SS for the first few weeks. This would explain why he now believes that you can increase the pace quicker. Unfortunately many will have gone quicker earlier and so find the suggestions tough.

You're right that after a few weeks I increased the pace quicker than Pete suggested on certain interval sessions.

For myself, however, I wouldn't use the word “unfortunately” because I was under the impression that the first interval sessions were otherwise a bit boring and of little use (not long enough to gain fitness and not fast enough to build muscle mass), so I'm glad I sped up some of those sessions.
On the other hand, the flip side of the coin is indeed that increasing the pace is now sometimes a bit slower than Pete suggests. But I'm willing to bear those consequences and I believe that, for me at least, it think it was even a bit more efficient this way.

[iain]

Unfortunately many will have gone quicker earlier and so find the suggestions tough.

You're right that after a few weeks I increased the pace quicker than Pete suggested on certain interval sessions.

For myself, however, I wouldn't use the word “unfortunately” because I was under the impression that the first interval sessions were otherwise a bit boring and of little use (not long enough to gain fitness and not fast enough to build muscle mass), so I'm glad I sped up some of those sessions.
On the other hand, the flip side of the coin is indeed that increasing the pace is now sometimes a bit slower than Pete suggests. But I'm willing to bear those consequences and I believe that, for me at least, it think it was even a bit more efficient this way.

Sorry, did not mean any opinion with the word "unfortunately", what I meant was that this was inconsistent with the assumptions used when estimating the appropriate pace and so the plan's pace suggetsions were no longer achievable.

I would suggest that the easiest approach is to adopt the "Lunchtime Plan" approach to pacing any interval session that has been done before. Ie do all but last interval at the average pace from the previous attempt and then the last as fast as possible.

[dmuskett]

Sorry, did not mean any opinion with the word "unfortunately", what I meant was that this was inconsistent with the assumptions used when estimating the appropriate pace and so the plan's pace suggetsions were no longer achievable.

I would suggest that the easiest approach is to adopt the "Lunchtime Plan" approach to pacing any interval session that has been done before. Ie do all but last interval at the average pace from the previous attempt and then the last as fast as possible.

This is basically the approach I am taking now. For a while I was taking that approach on the longer rows but it ramped the speed up way too fast. Fought against all of my competitive interests and am doing the longer ones slower, and suddenly I really enjoy them!

[Nomark]

I know the approach is to go at a pace you can finish at and then all out at the end, but is there any reason for this apart from psychological?

Say you did 4x1500 with 3 at 2:00 and one at 1:50, avg 1:57.5. Is that any difference going out harder with 3 at 1:55 and then tiring and finishing with a 2:05 (avg 1:57.5). Ignoring the watt to split time relationship, assume equivalent Watts if it helps.

I keep hearing that the last rep should be the fastest. Just wondering why? Is it to reduce the risk of HD or to somewhat simulate race pacing maybe?

[dmuskett]

I'll be honest, people keep using "HD" and I figure it means like... quit the exercise or something, from the context, but I have absolutely no idea what it stands for.

I would much rather finish strong then barely finish - or not finish. You also aren't literally working yourself to failure. To me, it just makes inherent sense to head out at a pace you know you can handle and then find out at the end how much juice you have left. Then next time, you know you can go faster - head out for the new average pace!

If I failed last time and limped in, that doesn't tell me what pace to start at next time, other then "something slower". And it gives me concerns:

1) I am training myself to quit on a row and a pace
2) I am rowing when I am completely dead - that can't be great for my form
3) dying on the rower feels fricking miserable. That makes me much less excited to get on the rower again
4) I don't get the data I need about where to start out next time, at a pace that I feel I can hold.

I just would much rather have fun finding out how much gas I have left in the tank at the end, then spend the first 3 intervals questioning if I'll have enough gas and the last interval dying.

[alex9026]

1) I am training myself to quit on a row and a pace
2) I am rowing when I am completely dead - that can't be great for my form
3) dying on the rower feels fricking miserable. That makes me much less excited to get on the rower again
4) I don't get the data I need about where to start out next time, at a pace that I feel I can hold.

I just would much rather have fun finding out how much gas I have left in the tank at the end, then spend the first 3 intervals questioning if I'll have enough gas and the last interval dying.

Without going in to the science behind it, you've summed it up well. For me, physiologically it's massive, and from a fitness perspective, it shows an element of adaption. You are capable of maintaining a pace a fraction quicker than previous, which you then intend to improve on with your last remaining effort.

I'm a big believer in avoiding falling in to the pitfalls of rowing "slow" just to finish a workout, by going out too hard we run this risk. Equally, we don't know our true limits if we aren't occasionally on the edge of them. The juice can, at times, be worth the squeeze, just don't make a habit of it.

HD = handle down

[reuben]

I'll be honest, people keep using "HD" and I figure it means like... quit the exercise or something, from the context, but I have absolutely no idea what it stands for.

My assumption has been that it stands for "handle down", i.e. quitting the session before complete, due to fatigue, pain, illness, starting too fast, house on fire, the call of nature, or whatever. I may well be wrong.

I always try to start - and hold - a pace that I've done in the past over a similar time and distance, plus or minus 1 second due to fatigue, sleep, etc. As I ramp up distance, I try to hold the same pace as the previous distance, or very close to it - see the BPP. I know at some point that this will become unsustainable, but it's not a bad idea given that the SS sessions go up only 500m/week.

I've only failed twice, but whether or not they're actual failures is up for debate.

1) I started a steady state session 4 or 5 seconds faster than normal, but felt fine (don't we all for the first 1k?), and decided to try to maintain it. I figured I'd die in the last 1-2k, but didn't. Newbie gains and all that, but I honestly thought that I had pretty much dialed in my SS pace for that sort of time/distance. It seems as though I found my new SS pace, or something darn close to it. So far it's held - lucky me.

2) I felt like crap but got on with it anyway. I started at a pace about 4s slower than normal. I didn't relish the idea of spending even more time in the seat than normal, but I wanted to make it to the end, which I did, so I considered that to be a "success", given that I didn't quit (HD?).

Your #2 concern is also one of my own. I don't want to sacrifice my form, poor as it may be, for pace. Thinking long term.

[iain]

Re finishing stronger I feel the psychological is the more important for me. However as seen from thre many detailed contributions to this forum by Mike Caviston, physiologically we impede ourselves when we go to the limit. AIUI the bodies defense mechanisms slow you down to protect you so it is actually slower overall. Psychologically a 2k is all about maintaining the target pace when you want to stop / slow down. So a training pattern of needing to slow down at the end will not build the mental approach that we need. Also personally at least I always find I have more left than I thought possible. I even managed a significant above target finish when "forced" to slow down significantly from 3.5k into a 5k race. I tend to find the penultimate rep harder even when done slower than the last, so he biggest mental challenge is maintaining the pace in that penultimate interval. If I set out too fast to maintain I suspect that I would most likely slow in the penultimate interval and this would make the session average slower.

[p_b82]

Part of the reason I hate intervals, is because I always hold back knowing that the last one will feel horrible - I have always therefore struggled to get the best of that sort of session as I just don't go close enough to the edge quite enough to *really* push on them when you need to. (and yes not every-one should be on the absolute edge, but the harder you do go at them the more benefit they do provide typically)

i also find that even a tiny rest totally alleviates the mental - this really is getting difficult now and I've still got X distance left - aspect; to a degree I almost always try to avoid looking at how long/far I have left to go, and only concern myself with the immediate split. (using ergzone as that displays the data a little nicer for me on my TT's - as just finishing that split at that pace is easier than thinking of the next 3 still to come for example).

I also really struggle to get myself going again after only a short rest - I think partly due to my cv system in-efficiencies - but when running using sprint drills at school, we were always expected to go flat out to start, and I'd always be well in-front of my peers (as I was quicker than them over 10-100m) but after 5 or so, they'd catch me & by 10 I may as well have been jogging.

On all my TT's bar 1, I've found a little extra at the end, in the last 300m or so - so doing that last interval faster helps cement that mindset of digging in towards the finish line and not backing off.

[Joris]

Sorry, did not mean any opinion with the word "unfortunately", what I meant was that this was inconsistent with the assumptions used when estimating the appropriate pace and so the plan's pace suggetsions were no longer achievable.

I would suggest that the easiest approach is to adopt the "Lunchtime Plan" approach to pacing any interval session that has been done before. Ie do all but last interval at the average pace from the previous attempt and then the last as fast as possible.

This is basically the approach I am taking now. For a while I was taking that approach on the longer rows but it ramped the speed up way too fast. Fought against all of my competitive interests and am doing the longer ones slower, and suddenly I really enjoy them!

@ Ian: no offence taken and I agree that the "Lunchtime Plan" approach for pacing intervals seems better adapted and easier to follow.
Pete probably had his reasons for deviating from this philosophy for the beginner plan, but I haven't yet figured out what those reasons would be.

@ dmuskett: indeed, for the steady state sessions, the main ambition should not be to increase your pace, but rather to maintain the same pace but for longer distances each week, at least till week 11 at which point the increase in distances is paused.


Week 14 - day 1 [10.000m]
Fourth consecutive week with a 10k steady state session.
I decreased my split time by another second till 2:27. The session went surprisingly well and my average heart rate even dropped significantly which means I can probably easily drop another second next week.

Here's an overview of the pace for my last 10k sessions, together with average heart rate:

• Week 11: 2:30 - 132
  Week 12: 2:29 - 138
  Week 13: 2:28 - 137
  Week 14: 2:27 - 133

Nice to see how my cardio smoothly increases week by week.

[iain]

Part of the reason I hate intervals, is because I always hold back knowing that the last one will feel horrible - I have always therefore struggled to get the best of that sort of session as I just don't go close enough to the edge quite enough to *really* push on them when you need to. (and yes not every-one should be on the absolute edge, but the harder you do go at them the more benefit they do provide typically)

On all my TT's bar 1, I've found a little extra at the end, in the last 300m or so - so doing that last interval faster helps cement that mindset of digging in towards the finish line and not backing off.

Its not just intervals. I break TTs down into a "psychological" first half and a "physical" second half. Often the former feels harder even 'though I know that I am capable of doing half the distance at a significantly faster pace. It is the knowledge of what is to come that makes it feel worse. In my case I believe that this is compounded by high endorphin releases that start later, this means that while I will be more physiologically stretched in the second half, I won't feel the pain of it as much as I experienced the lesser demands of the first half.

With intervals, I think the majority of the benefit can be had when we are still some way from our absolute max. Yes to reach our full potential this is necessary, but most of us train far less than we could and so will not reach our full potential anyway. I am particularly uncertain about the necessity to do "long" intervals flat out. Some authorities seem to assume that this type of training should be done around anaerobic threshold HRs. While all out intervals will exceed this by the middle interval (for me at least). So might there be a benefit from holding back a little?

I think the answer to the struggle is answered in your second para in what I quote above. Actually no need to go faster for the whole of the final interval, instead (and probably necessarily if we are approaching our limits) we can try and maintain the same pace for much of the interval that we have done for the earlier intervals. We only need to speed up at the end when we are confident that we will be able to maintain it.