Wolverine Plan Discussion

[[old] TomR/the elder]

Mike--<br /><br />Two questions--<br /><br />1) Re periodization. While the WP trains all energy systems simultaneously thru the year w/ steadily increasing load (pace and distance), have you ever incorporated micro-cycles in the WP? By micro-cycle I mean, for example, a 3-week cycle of workouts that are light, medium, hard, progressivly building the load during the cycle and then starting the next cycle with a relatively (but not absolutely) easy week for adaptation? All endurance plans but the WP seem to rely on this sort of periodizaiton. I'm curious why you don't use this approach.<br /><br />2) Re long workouts (60+ min). I've read some of Hagerman's popular writings (short pieces for web sites). If I understand what he has written, he says that muscle biopsies show no difference between those who do workouts of approx 30 minutes and those who do workouts of more than an hour. He appears to argue that a brisk 10k will provide all the endurance work needed for someone whose race distance is 2k. Perhaps these writings are aimed at recreational athletes, but still, the biopsies sound conclusive. (I do a couple of 60-min pieces per week, and a half-marathon every 2d or 3d week, but my focus isn't solely on racing a 2k.)<br /><br />Thanx for the helpful posts and any light you can shed on these matters.<br /><br />Tom

[[old] bmoore]

Mike,<br /><br />Thanks for this posting. As I work through the plan and re-read your other postings, I'm able to figure out the plan a bit better each day. Perhaps because I'm new, I didn't get some of the things you said on the first or second read.<br /><br />I'll probably change my weekly workout further to have the Monday morning workout be another L4-60' instead of a L3-2x6k. This will leave 2 L3s in the week, a 15x3' and a steady distance (currently at 13.5k and going up 500m each week).<br /><br />The level 4 has been the hardest to grasp. I misunderstood the plan in regards to keeping a reference pace throughout a cycle, and thought this was something to increase as well. (Of course, I'm recording PBs everytime I do one of the set distances, so there may be some reference pace changes whenever I do a 2k PB).<br /><br />My question now is what to concentrate on to get the feel for the pace/rate combination. (I'm starting to see and feel the subtle changes needed for each shift). Should I be feeling the the pace or thinking about it? I tend to watch the monitor and make adjustments to each stroke to keep pace/rate constant. There's a particular feel that I sometimes get when I'm able to hold a constant pace and rate for 4-5 strokes, but I'm not able to hold it for much further than that. Any guidance would be appreciated.<br /><br />Regards,

[[old] jamesg]

BM<br />Level 4: I did some sums based on the paces in the L4 tables, calculating Watts, and Watt-minutes per stroke. <br />For any given 2k pace, the L4 Watt-minutes per stroke are nearly constant (+/-2-3%) within the 16-26 spm range. <br />These constant Wmin/stroke values also correspond to 2k Watts assuming a race rating of 31-32.<br /><br />So all we need do is think of a number, multiply it by rating, and then stick to that Watt level. 10 is very handy.<br /><br />In practical terms it means every single stroke is pulled equally long and hard, and we can change only the rating. That no doubt is what the waterborne coaches will want to see their crews do, when at last they're allowed to learn to row.

[[old] DIESEL]

Dear Mike, <br /><br />First off, thank you for providing a forum to discuss your training plan. I trust it will be most edifying to a lot of people that visit this site. <br /><br />I have three questions: <br /><br />1. How do you/ or can you reconcile the WP (particularly) Level 4 training with the principles espoused by Xeno in regards to long distance training with a certain lactate baseline. (sort of how the East Germans used to train, if I'm not mistaken). Anyway, given the correlation you provide between splits for L4 and your 2K performance - judging from personal experience, it seems like they would mesh perfectly - I have no idea if you've ever experimented with this - but I think that L4 once you adapt to it, is well in line, to Xeno's lactate training parameters. Or do you disregard lactate accumulation completely? <br /><br />I guess the question is this: how exactly did you extrapolate the L4 splits from a 2K standard - and is it possible that for some people using the correlation you provide increase lactate levels over what Xeno (and others) would believe to be adequate, and lead to overtraining as the weeks add up? <br /><br />2. I am curious as to the amount of calories you are putting away in the course of a day. If possible, please provide macronutrient break down. All I know is that I have a BMR of about 3200 as it is - and that each 60' L4 according to the erg is at least 1100 cals, not to mention the elevation in cals due to the "after burn" effect of exercise - especially a sport as physiologically demanding as rowing. So let's assume at least 1600 all things considered. <br /><br />I am assuming you have to eat a ton to not only fuel the workout, but to aid in recovery. Am I off base on this or not? <br /><br />3. Thoughts on weight training as a complement to the WP? Good idea or bad? <br /><br />Thanks for the input, <br /><br />D

[[old] Mike Caviston]

Gentlemen, thanks for your comments and questions, and I hope to continue to respond to them in the future. Fairly quickly for now:<br /><br />Tom, some day I’ll make the WP a total scholarly document, complete with footnotes and references. For now I’m pretty much saying, “This is what I believe – trust in my knowledge and experience, or not.” My first priority is making clear HOW I train, and I’ll clarify the WHY as best I can without writing an encyclopedia. My mission isn’t necessarily to convert people to my way of thinking. But I realize you aren’t necessarily challenging me, but just asking reasonable questions out of curiosity. Regarding periodization, historically the concept was popularized by the success of Communist bloc countries that had the social structure and resources to train athletes around 4-year Olympic cycles. Also a factor was the cycling of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Certainly a lot of coaches and athletes have used some form of periodization successfully. That’s not the same as proving that periodizing is the most effective way to train, and there is surprisingly little hard scientific data to support the concept, in my view. So when you ask “I’m curious why you don’t use this approach”, the answer is because it doesn’t work as well as my own method. Regarding longer workouts and the articles by Hagerman, I know his views have influenced a lot of people. I think some of the conclusions are based on misinterpretations of what Dr.Hagerman has found, and the fact that many of his studies seem to have been performed on relatively untrained or moderately fit subjects for relatively short periods of time. Also, measurements such as muscle biopsies (or VO2 max or lactate threshold or hematocrit, etc.) aren’t the relevant variable – performance is (according to the criterion of time to row 2K). What I can say definitively is that I have trained using primarily brisk 10Ks and 40-min rows (and only occasionally anything as long as 60’), and I have trained with a program that includes weekly sessions in the 60-90’ range – and my 2K has been considerably faster when training includes the longer sessions.<br /><br />Bill, I’ll be taking on Level 4 in my next post (this weekend?) and addressing a lot of the FAQs I hear. Regarding the ability to get the right pace/rate combination, my most immediate advice is simply keep working at it. Practice, practice. It’s such a normal part of my training (second nature) that I’m not sure I can remember what strategy I used to make it that way. I do find that for Level 4, since the amount of force per stroke is almost a constant, all I have to do is find the right rate and the pace follows. For Levels 1-3, I focus on pace first and then fine-tune the rate up or down a beat as necessary to fit my plan for the workout. Occasionally during sessions where I can’t find the right combo as quickly as I want, I start to count consecutive strokes where I get it right; some days it takes a lot of concentration just to get to “three”, and other days I get in the zone and get to twenty or more before I lose interest in counting.<br /><br />Diesel, I have definite views about nutrition and strength training, which I plan to get to eventually. As for how I correlated L4 pace to 2K pace – next time. Regarding the Level 4 and lactate – as I said in my last post, I just don’t think of monitoring lactate as a productive way to train. I’m not on a mission to get others to throw away their analyzers, but that’s just what I believe. My premise is to start with a reasonable baseline and systematically increase the workload at a rate that easily allows my body to adapt; if and when I overtrain (not likely), my signal will be an inability to improve my performance despite increasing the workload. It would be an interesting study in physiology to monitor VO2 and lactate levels during Level 4 training. I suspect lactate production is actually quite high, but removal is almost complete so that there is no accumulation. I can do 1-2 hours of Level 4 work the day before a 2K and still perform well. Level 4 removes excess lactate, and is a great recovery workout following Level 1. Level 4 always makes me feel stronger, and is a great transition between other workouts. I’ll continue this discussion soon.<br /><br />Thanks again for your interest and feedback.<br /><br />Mike Caviston

[[old] TomR/the elder]

Mike--<br /><br />Thanks for the historical context on periodization. As for Hagerman, I keep looking for an authority who can prove that doing less is a virtue, thus transforming a short-cut into a virtue, rather like the alchemical conversion of lead into gold. <br /><br />Tom

[[old] H_2O]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Sep 19 2005, 02:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 19 2005, 02:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Gentlemen, thanks for your comments and questions, and I hope to continue to respond to them in the future.[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br /><br />Thanks for this valuable information. Think about writing a book <br />(even a short one, the short ones are better anyway) otherwise your stuff will be lost.<br />Maybe we can be useful as feedback with the difficulties that we have.<br /><br />I am most interested in your detailed views on L4 rowing.<br /><br />For me the stroke rate / pace targets are very hard even if I make a conservative estimate of 2K performance. <br />I am rowing on very low drag (95) and to keep the pace I have to pull fairly fast<br /> and then have to slow down the recovery considerably to get a low stroke rate.<br /> For stroke rates under 21 the work recovery ratio becomes awkward, that's why I am gravitating to 22-23 SPM <br />which calls for a pace of 1:48 - 1:46. <br />To maintain this for 60 -90 minutes is daunting to say the least.<br /><br />So my first question is:<br /><br />1. Is it possible that rowing at very low spm such as 16 - 18 alters the work / recovery time ratio. If so should we worry about it? <br /><br />When we slow down the stroke rate we get fewer breaths per minute, less air ventilated. <br />This seems to somewhat cancel the effect of the slower pace.<br /><br />Questions:<br /><br />2. How does this effect you? Ie. does your heart rate go down if you move at L4 with say 16 spm versus L4 at 22 spm? <br />3.What heart rates do you have at 16 spm versus 22 spm?<br /> How would you describe your perceived effort? Does 16 spm feel much easier than 22 spm?<br />4. How hard was it for your rowers to deliver on the L4 targets?<br />5. Should low spm L4 sessions eventually become quite easy?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Michael

[[old] neilb]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Sep 19 2005, 02:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 19 2005, 02:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do find that for Level 4, since the amount of force per stroke is almost a constant, all I have to do is find the right rate and the pace follows.  <br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />When I was starting to build 60 min rows I found that matching watts output to spm was a way to bring interest and concentration to wwhat I was doing. So, the 60 mins passed "more quickly" and I also gained the benefit of a fairly smooth and even force per stroke.<br /><br />I no longer use this particular way to train but I do find that if I focus on the right stroke I can hold fairly steady spm consistently and also that the specifc pace for that spm is there (more or less!). So, I can start to increase pace simply by varying the spm rather than resorting to harder pull!<br /><br />I take the view that this is good because now for the lower rated work (20-26 spm) the stroke is nice and smooth and efficient. Introducing 4X1k and 4x2k is starting to develop the higher ratings.<br /><br />My initial approach was to use 20, 22, 24, 22, 20 spm in 5 min intervals trying to maintain spm and also watts as a constant factor. So say 200, 220, 240, 220, 200 watts for example.<br /><br />Tryiing to keep watts and spm at desired level required a lot of concentration on the stroke and as a result technique also improves. I guess it starts to help ingrain the stroke so it becomes automatic.<br /><br />Mel Harbour has commented before about how he is not in favour of working to maintain same force per stroke across a range of spm and I gues there are a range of views on this but for me I can now see that it did benefit my actual stroke/technique (and helps pass 60 min as with one eye on watts and the other on spm there is little opportunity to worry. Also there is always the point that every 5 mins the rate changes so there is variety.)<br /><br />Neil<br /><br /><br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

Mike--<br /><br />Sorry to hear you are no longer training the Michigam women. S..t happens, I guess.<br /><br />By and large, I am with you that the undisciplined can benefit greatly from a pervasive discipline, even down to minutia. Raising three children to adulthood has reinforced this view!<br /><br />I'm not sure how discipline helps or hinders the already disciplined, though. For the already disciplined, I think experimentation, creativity, and other sorts of freedom from discipline and rigid documentation and scheduling can be very beneficial, especially when the work load is high and demanding, as it is in competitive rowing. For instance, you yourself seem to benefit quite a bit from experimenting with your training, although you don't seem to allow those that you train/advise comparable liberties. <br /><br />I find your comments on exercise vs. training interesting. Yes, you certainly have to erg/row a lot to be good at erging/rowing, and if you don't erg at all, but just cross-train, your erging declines. What about agressively combining the two, though? Yes, 120' or so is a nice erging session. But what if you add another 120' on a stepper (say, at 300 watts). The more, the merrier, I think. The stepping is great for general aeorobic fitness (not just burning weight), and the additional work for the legs, the major rowing levers, seems to be beneficial, too. On the other hand, because stepping doesn't use the upper body, it gives the minor rowing levers (arms, back, etc.) an appreciated rest. <br /><br />A particularly nice schedule, I think, especially for beginners, is two two-hour sessions a day, with each session consisting of an hour row on the erg and an hour on the stepper. This is what I did when I began rowing. Over a couple of years of this, I brought my time for an hour row down 15/seconds or so per 500 (from 2:05 to 1:50). During this time, I didn't pay any attention to pace; I rowed by the calorie counter. I didn't know anything about rowing. I didn't do any intervals or low spm rowing at all. After a little sharpening, at 50 years old, I rowed 6:27.5 in my first race, and I have a lightweight frame (although I wasn't a lightweight for a few months after this first race). At that time, 6:27.5 was four seconds under the world record for 50s lwts (6:31.6).<br /><br />ranger

[[old] R S T]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Sep 22 2005, 05:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 22 2005, 05:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />A particularly nice schedule, I think, especially for beginners, is two two-hour sessions a day, with each session consisting of an hour row on the erg and an hour on the stepper. This is what I did when I began rowing. Over a couple of years of this, I brought my time for an hour row down 15/seconds or so per 500 (from 2:05 to 1:50). During this time, I didn't pay any attention to pace; I rowed by the calorie counter. I didn't know anything about rowing. I didn't do any intervals or low spm rowing at all. After a little sharpening, at 50 years old, I rowed 6:27.5 in my first race, and I have a lightweight frame (although I wasn't a lightweight for a few months after this first race). At that time, 6:27.5 was four seconds under the world record for 50s lwts (6:31.6).<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ranger<br /><br />Maybe you rowed a 6.27.5 <b>despite </b>the additional cardio training that you performed. Maybe a little less time on the stepper or whatever might even be good for your erging? Just a thought. <br /><br />Also, I think that "two 2-hour sessions a day" for a beginner is bad advice. Maybe you, or at a guess, less than 1% of beginners can handle such training. For the remainder who may read this forum such advice is a certain route to overtraining and burnout. I doubt even the WP is that difficult!!<br /><br />Cheers<br />RichardT<br /><br />P.S. Ranger - Have you ever considered using the services of a coach? If you have managed world class results to date from your own training regime, it would seem sensible to me to investigate whether there is a way to obtain some ''free speed'' through a review of your training approach.

[[old] dadams]

I'm going to have to agree with RichardT on this one Rich. You are an exception to the rule as far as beginners go. As far as advanced rowers go too. <br /><br />Realize that not everyone out here holds a WR. There can be only one for that. And it's a special breed that can achieve that. So your beginner training had a special breed edge to it as well.<br /><br />Dwayne

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Sep 22 2005, 05:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 22 2005, 05:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A particularly nice schedule, I think, especially for <b>beginners</b>, is two two-hour sessions a day, with each session consisting of an hour row on the erg and an hour on the stepper. This is what I did when I began rowing. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Ranger,<br /><br />Don't forget that you came to erging with a strong background as a marathoner. It takes years of gradual increased workloads to be able to train 4 hours a day, 6 days a week. This is typical training at the elite level by athletes in their twenties; definitely not recommended for a sedentary beginner!<br /><br />With your background as a runner, I am surprised that you were only holding a 2:05 for the hour. By comparison, after 2 months of training only 3 times a week for 40 minutes, I was holding 1:54.5 (I was only 148 lbs at that time). With good technique from the start, you would have done at least 1:55. Now, if you allow me this reinterpretation, you effectively went from 1:55 to 1:50 after years of that training regimen. This is not what could be called an unqualified successful training plan!<br /><br />I think that you are an exceptionally gifted and dedicated athlete, and that you have succeeded <b>in spite</b> of you're training plan (almost no intervals, DF at 10, a perfectible stroke, etc.). <br /><br />Regards

[[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-->I think that you are an exceptionally gifted and dedicated athlete, and that you have succeeded in spite of you're training plan </td></tr></table><br /><br />How do you know? Have you tried it? <br /><br />The "plan," if you want to call it that, is just relaxation, enjoyment, and quantity over quality (for quite some time, to begin with), not "racing" anything, albeit on a very regular schedule (I rarely miss a day in my physical training, whatever that might be), with negative splitting (more effort toward the ends of rows), a varied work load (erging plus extensive cross-training), and a slight increase in quality from month to month and year to year. All of the training was clearly UT2 (and slower). I suspect my heart rate was around 130 bpm-140bpm. <br /><br />Yes, you have to work up to whatever quantity of exercise you do, but how you do this exercise is also important, especially as a beginner. <br /><br />In really very short shrift, we are all capable of a _great_ deal of mild exercise. Gven our driven, competitive, clock-timed world, almost none of us these days do this sort of thing, though. We go too short too fast too soon. We slight our training _base_.<br /><br />At least, that's my approach to these things.<br /><br />A lot of physical performance, I think, is just complete and utter habituation to the specific task. At base, our physical life is unconscious, passive, habitual, automatic, not wildly obsessed with performance, numbers, pbs, racing, attention to minutia, etc., like our higher cognitive powers, thought and volition. And when it comes to habituation, the more you do, the better you get. The more you do, the easier it is.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[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-->you effectively went from 1:55 to 1:50 after years of that training regimen. This is not what could be called an unqualified successful training plan! </td></tr></table><br /><br />Years? Yes. But only two.<br /><br />I got so that I could row the hour at 1:50 in my daily workouts. When I finally "raced" an hour, I rowed at 1:48. <br /><br />Going from 1:55 to 1:48 in the hour row for a 50s lwt does not indicate successful training? Don't know where that's coming from. A drop of seven seconds per 500 is the stuff that dreams are made of. These seven seconds per 500 are just what most 50s lwts are trying to shed--but repeatedly fail. <br /><br />As it turns out, to my knowledge, only one 50s lwt in the history of the sport has done over 16700m for an hour, Rod Freed.<br /><br />If you can row 16700 for an hour, you can probably row a 2K around 6:40 without even training for it (i.e., sharpening). In fact, that's exactly what I did. One day I got curious about the 2K and, without sharpening, rowed 6:42. Only a handful of 50s lwts in the history of the sport have rowed under 6:40 for a 2K. <br /><br />If you do only extensive endurance work for most of your training, sharpening for a 2K usually brings your 2K time down about 10 seconds. So, if you can row 16700m for an hour and 6:40 for 2K without sharpening, with a month or two of dedicated sharpening, you can probably row 6:30 (or under) for 2K.<br /><br />Besides me, only one other 50s lwt in the history of the sport has ever rowed under 6:30 for 2K, the current WR holder, Graham Watt.<br /><br />You have an odd definition of "success." You don't seem to either recognize it or value it.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[old] Alan Maddocks]

Just to add my observations to this debate ............<br /><br />Whilst not advocating the kinds of volume that Ranger cites, I think there is considerable merit in his premise that daily training should be based on long, continuous rowing at low intensity to create both physical conditioning and (for performance) a substantial base.<br /><br />This was the premise that underlined the training programmes of Arthur Lydiard that so transformed middle and long distance running performances in the early 1960s, and has become the basis for all successful training (at elite level) for endurance (aerobic)-based sports (running, rowing, cycling, swimming etc.)<br /><br />The wider the base the higher the peak!!<br /><br />If the principle applies at the elite (performance) level, it must by default apply at all levels.<br /><br />Interesting to see that Mike C. states that his performance improved once he started doing individual rows in excess of one hour.