Wolverine Plan Discussion

[[old] Mike Caviston]

<b>Creating Level 4 Workouts</b> <br />Let’s assume that you are working with an appropriate Reference Pace. The next step is to figure out a target weekly volume and a starting average spm. I never start a training season with my final weekly volume. My weekly goal this year is 342’ per week, but I started at 266’ and am adding 6-10’ per week (and some weeks, no added minutes) till I reach my goal (10’ more to go at this point). Some years I’ve started with “only” about 200’ per week, but this summer I kept up a higher volume of training than usual for the off-season and was ready to start my program with more minutes than I have in the past. Now, for someone else, the weekly goal might be a single 60’ session, or a couple of 40’ sessions. So to begin, you need to decide how many minutes per week you’re shooting for, and how you are going to break them up throughout your training week.<br /><br />Don’t forget that the main point of Level 4 training is to increase endurance by gradually and systematically covering more meters in a given time frame. Also, you want to develop the skills & concentration necessary to consistently hit your target rates and splits. You can also take advantage of the mental challenge of executing the workout to distract you from how long and difficult it may be. One of the things I love about Level 4 workouts is the chance to be creative and original in designing workouts. Some people complain about how structured and rigid the WP is (and in some ways, it is, for better or worse). But there are a wide variety of ways to reach a target number of strokes and meters in a given session. The choice of particular sequences and the order in which you put them give each workout a unique flavor and I find that after almost a decade of Level 4 training (doing more Level 4 minutes than anyone else in the history of rowing), I am still finding new things to try. Workouts can be more evenly paced (relative to other L4 workouts, that is), or radically uneven, or front-loaded, or fairly even but with a hard sequence at the end, or some unique challenge buried in the middle, or completely different rhythms for different sequences to maximize variety, or a gradual increase in intensity during the workout, steep climbs with sharp drops or slow steady up & down hills – it would be as if a cyclist could completely redesign the landscape to suit his purposes before every ride. It just takes a little imagination.<br /><br />Each workout, and each training week, can be quantified by average spm. (E.g., 1104 strokes in 60’ = 18.4spm.) The training season should begin at about 18spm (give or take a couple tenths one way or the other.) You would generally keep the avg. spm constant early in the season until you reach your full volume of minutes over the next few weeks. That is, build from say 40’ to 60’ @ 18spm; once you reach 60’, begin to gradually increase the number of strokes for each 60’ session.<br /><br />As an example, let’s say someone is going to increase from 30’ to 60’ for one of their weekly sessions. They might progress like this:<br />1st session, 30’: 176,178,180 = 534 strokes (avg. 17.8spm)<br />Assuming that went well, proceed to a longer session (if not, repeat session 1).<br />2nd session, 36’ (using 6’ sequences): 104,110,104,110,104,110 = 642 (17.8)<br />(Proceed to next session or repeat if necessary.)<br />3rd session, 40’: 176,178,178,180 = 712 (17.8)<br />(Proceed or repeat.)<br />4th session, 42’: 112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)<br />5th session, 46’ (combination 10’ & 6’ sequences): 176,178,176,180,110 = 820 (17.8)<br />6th session, 50’: 176,176,186,176,176 = 890 (17.8)<br />7th session, 54’: 104,110,104,110,104,110,104,112^,104 = 962 (17.8)<br />8th session, 60’: 176,178,180,176,178,180 = 1068 (17.8)<br />Incidentally, someone with good general fitness who just needs practice developing their Level 4 skills might begin by doing shorter pieces with breaks, gradually fusing the workout into a continuous session (e.g., 3 x 20’, then 30’ + 20’ + 10’, or 24’ + 24’ + 12’, etc.) Now having reached a continuous 60’, add 4-6 strokes per week to each session. <br />9th session, 60’: 178,180,178,178,180,178 = 1072 (17.9)<br />10th session, 60’: 176,186,176,176,186,176 = 1076 (17.9)<br />11th session, 60’: 180,180,180,180,180,180 = 1080 (18)<br /><br />The rate of increase would depend on how easily you tolerate each workout. Based on the Level 4 tables, calculate the goal for your workout in total meters. If you easily meet your goal, or exceed it without really trying, you can increase by more strokes per session. If you miss your goal, or struggle to reach it, you may choose to keep your number of strokes the same, or increase by a smaller amount, or even decrease if you think you need to make sure you have enough fitness before proceeding. My general rule of thumb is to increase by 1 stroke per 10’ per week (i.e., add 4 strokes to a 40’ session or 6 strokes to a 60’ session.) Add more or less in a given week as necessary (as many as 8 strokes for 60’). My goal, over the course of 20-30 weeks of training, is to build my average stroke rate up from around 18 to as close to 20 as I can get (I’ve only made it as far as 20spm myself once.) Two strokes per minute may not sound like much for a season’s work, but it results in several hundred more meters per hour (all done under controlled conditions). <br /><br />Let’s look at another example of the WP’s variety, and see how many ways there are to construct a 60’ workout with 1116 strokes (an average of 18.6spm). Here are several examples using 10’ sequences (I won’t even bother with 6’ sequences, which would allow many more examples):<br />1) 186,186,186,186,186,186<br />2) 178,180,186,190,196,186<br />3) 180,190,180,190,186,190<br />4) 180,186,180,190,180,200<br />5) 184,186,188,188,186,184<br />6) 176,186,196,176,186,196<br />7) 186,178,186,188,192,186<br />8) 178,188,198,188,184,180<br />9) 176,188,188,188,188,188<br />10) 190,178,190,190,178,190<br />11) 180,184,186,188,188,190<br />These are all examples I have done or would do. Each includes the same number of strokes and would cover roughly the same number of meters (not exactly, because of rounding in various formulas used to calculate the totals). In my training plan I would consider each of these workouts to be equivalent to the others (number of strokes is the criteria), but (as Orwell might observe) some are more equal. Each workout or variation has a different feel. Each has its own unique challenges (being easier in some ways but harder in others). When I am building a workout from a previous session, sometimes I just change one sequence to add the number of strokes I want, but often I shake things up completely and do an entirely different format than what I’ve done recently, just to keep things interesting. My guidelines when designing a workout are to make sure that overall there is at least a variation of 4spm in the workout (lowest-highest), never increase rate more than 2 per shift (though I occasionally drop all the way from 24 to 16, which is an experience, I can tell you), and to generally make sure the workout is either symmetrical or that the second half is harder than the first. Still, occasionally I will make the first half harder by putting a particularly difficult sequence near the front.<br /><br />Here are examples from my training this year. I’ve been doing two 60’ sessions every week, and adding strokes at a conservative pace of 2 strokes per session. Here is what I’ve done so far:<br />1) 178,186,178,188,178,188 (1096 strokes, 18.3spm)<br />2) 180,180,180,180,188,190 (1098, 18.3)<br />3) 104,110,116,104,110,116,104,110,110,116 (1100, 18.3)<br />4) 180,186,180,186,180,190 (1102, 18.4)<br />5) 178,186,188,188,186,176 (1104, 18.4)<br />6) 176,186,188,192,186,178 (1106, 18.4)<br />7) 178,188,188,188,188,178 (1108, 18.5)<br />8) 180,190,180,190,180,190 (1110, 18.5)<br />9) 110,110,110,110,110,116,110,110,110,116 (1112, 18.5)<br />10) 180,186,188,186,188,186 (1114, 18.6)<br />11) 188,186,186,186,186,184 (1116, 18.6)<br />12) 110,110,116,110,110,110,116,110,110,116 (1118, 18.6)<br />13) 186,188,186,186,188,186 (1120, 18.7)<br />14) 184,186,188,186,188,190 (1122, 18.7)<br />15) 110,110,116,110,110,116,110,116,110,116 (1124, 18.7)<br />16) 186, 186,186,196,186,186 (1126,18.8)<br />17) 178,188,198,178,188,198 (1128, 18.8)<br />18) 110,116,110,116,110,116,110,116,110,116 (1130, 18.8)<br />19) 186,188,186,196,186,190 (1132, 18.9)<br />20) 188,190,188,190,188,190 (1134, 18.9)<br />At this rate, I should be able to reach 20spm or more by Feb. and the CRASH-B. My meter total for the first workout was about 15,750 (1:54.3 pace), and I am approaching 16K per hour; I should finish the season at 16,300 meters or more (1:50.4), which is a pretty substantial increase in Watts (and multiplied over the 5 ½ hours of Level 4 work I do every week). As always, I am interested in improving slowly and steadily over the long haul, and I am not going to push things too hard too soon or try for sudden, rapid gains.<br /><br />In my training journal, prior to each workout I list the sequences (186,188,190 etc.) as well as the projected meters for each sequence (according to the Level 4 tables for my Ref Pace). I also calculate the total projected meters for the workout. At the end of the workout I record actual meters for each sequence as well as the total. Ideally, the goal and actual would match perfectly. I can and in the past have gotten goal and actual to match perfectly or within a couple meters. However, aside from an occasional exercise in control, I usually use my goal paces (e.g., 16spm @ 1:59, 17spm @ 1:57, 18spm @ 1:55, etc.) as an outside limit, or the slowest I’ll let myself go. My “natural” paces at the slower rates (especially 16-17), or what feels most comfortable and automatic, is a bit faster than the prescribed paces. So I go a little faster at those rates. But my overall goal is consistency, so I keep track of the distances I cover for each sequence, and I want all the totals for any one sequence (e.g., 190) to all be within a couple meters of the other sequences with the same number of strokes. I want to keep relatively the same level of performance across the entire workout. I don’t want to be well ahead of my goal during one portion but behind on another. For my totals, I divide my actual meters by my projected (goal) meters, and use the quotient as an index of how successful the workout was. (Exactly 100% would mean I exactly matched my projected meters; a greater number means I exceeded my projected meters.) I refer to this quotient as my “%+” (percent plus) and based on my own personal history it should fall between .4 and .5 (i.e., my actual meters are typically about half a percent more than projected). For someone else the value may be different. I’m not saying there’s an optimal value; the idea is to be reasonably close to your projected goals and to be as consistent as possible across all workouts within the framework of your own training. If I’m really fatigued or it’s an exceptionally hot & humid day, I might barely reach my goal or even fall short. If conditions are optimum, I might exceed my goal by even more than usual – but I try to maintain the sensation of working no harder than usual. NOTE: one of the features of the WP is that it includes checks and balances to keep me from working too hard too often, or from trying to increase my pace or workload too rapidly – but I don’t necessarily clamp on the brakes completely if I’m feeling especially good. (You do eventually reach a stage where you wonder if you’ll ever feel that good again, and you want to take advantage of it…)<br /><br />I have a set schedule (as everyone should who follows the WP) and do multiple Level 4 workouts per week. My current Level 4 schedule is Sunday – 2 x 40’; Monday – 40’ or 42’; Tuesday – 40’; Thursday AM – 4 x 10’ or 7 x 6’; Thursday PM – 60’; Saturday – 60’. I sit down before the week starts and plot out all my progressions for each workout for the week. I’ve tried different methods of balancing the paces for each workout (e.g, with some harder and some easier) but I’ve found it more productive to have a single base rate for the week. Based on my system of adding 2 strokes every time I do 60’, I calculate what the spm will be for Saturday’s workout (e.g., 18.6). I then work backward and calculate the number of strokes I need to do on Sunday (the beginning of my training week) to maintain the same average (e.g., 18.6spm x 80’ = 1488 total strokes on Sunday). The 2 x 40’ might feature two identical 40’ pieces, or two pieces with the same number of strokes but different sequences, or one piece with more strokes than the other (variety…) Then I calculate the strokes needed for the other sessions in the week and construct those workouts with the appropriate sequences. NOTE: Yes, this all takes some time spent planning & calculating (and also for the other WP training bands). I personally enjoy playing with the formats and crunching the numbers, but that is one of the things that turn some people off from the Wolverine Plan. (Maybe you can find a coach who will plan the workouts and crunch all the numbers for you.)<br /><br />A final note about the 4 x 10’ workout (or its cousin, 7 x 6’). These are meant to be more advanced workouts for people doing a relatively high volume of Level 4 work (at least two continuous sessions and at least 100’ per week, and preferably more). The rule of thumb is to add 2spm to your continuous (base) rate, so if the base is 18.6 the 4 x 10’ becomes 20.6, which might be accomplished with something like 204,206,208,206. (The 4 x 10’ recovery is 3:20 and the 7 x 6’ recovery is 2:00.) These workouts do require more power than normal, but with the short duration and ample recovery they are generally well tolerated. But I stress again the purpose is primarily to get you familiar with the higher rates before you eventually incorporate them into continuous workouts. The goal is NOT to create a high-intensity power per stroke workout. However, I have heard of people who have made this the basis of their training and have ultimately paid the price (burnout, injury, etc.) If you are really working with the proper Ref Pace, the sequences at the higher end of the Level 4 tables are very tough indeed. My track record for reaching my goal with the 220 sequence (4’/3’/2’/1’ @ 20/22/24/26) is barely 50% over the past several years.<br /><br />Hope this has been more help to those attempting to work with the Wolverine Plan. Let me know if I am forgetting to address any Level 4 issues or not making myself clear. Happy training.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[[old] arakawa]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4th session, 42’:  112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)[right] </td></tr></table><br />I've read through the WP only about five or so times, but haven't yet spotted the definition of "^". What does that caret mean when you put it next to a number of strokes?

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-arakawa+Oct 1 2005, 09:21 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(arakawa @ Oct 1 2005, 09:21 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4th session, 42’:  112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)[right] </td></tr></table><br />I've read through the WP only about five or so times, but haven't yet spotted the definition of "^". What does that caret mean when you put it next to a number of strokes? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Look at the Level 4 Sequence Format table. You'll see that there are 2 sequences with 112 strokes. The 112^ sequence is an ascending sequence that increases the time and rate of each sub-sequence. (1 min @ 16SPM, 2 min @ 18, 3 min @ 20).

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-arakawa+Oct 2 2005, 01:21 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(arakawa @ Oct 2 2005, 01:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4th session, 42’:  112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)[right] </td></tr></table><br />I've read through the WP only about five or so times, but haven't yet spotted the definition of "^". What does that caret mean when you put it next to a number of strokes? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I believe the caret symbolizes the fact that they are pyramids. For instance for a 200^, you do 1' at 16spm, 2' at 18 spm, 3' at 20 spm and 4' at 22 spm. They all start easy and become increasingly hard!

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-FrancoisA+Oct 1 2005, 09:49 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Oct 1 2005, 09:49 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-arakawa+Oct 2 2005, 01:21 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(arakawa @ Oct 2 2005, 01:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 1 2005, 08:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4th session, 42’:  112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)[right] </td></tr></table><br />I've read through the WP only about five or so times, but haven't yet spotted the definition of "^". What does that caret mean when you put it next to a number of strokes? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I believe the caret symbolizes the fact that they are pyramids. For instance for a 200^, you do 1' at 16spm, 2' at 18 spm, 3' at 20 spm and 4' at 22 spm. They all start easy and become increasingly hard! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'd reserve the term pyramid for a sequence that both rises and falls. There are pyramid intervals for both level 1 and level 2. (I always thought pyramids were my swim coach's sick way of getting a lot of meters in while he went inside and kept warm during the long winter morning workouts).

[[old] FrancoisA]

Bill,<br /><br />You are right! They are sequences with increasing time and rates.<br />To construct pyramids we would need to create new sequences that are mirror images of the existing ones. For instance, we could create a 180# consisting of 1'/2'/3'/4' @ 22/20/18/16. Doing a regular 180 followed by a 180# would give a 20' pyramid.

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Sep 30 2005, 03:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 30 2005, 03:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bill,<br /><br />The WP & L4 work especially well for people with an established 2K history.  For people who have reached a plateau and are looking to build a foundation on which to reach a higher peak, I think Level 4 training can be very helpful.  But the trickiest thing about the Wolverine Plan is determining the correct Ref Pace for a novice, or someone with rapidly advancing fitness.  For someone with an established training history, the procedure may simply be to start a training season with a Ref Pace one second faster than the previous year.  In my own case, I’ve been working with the same Ref Pace for four years, but I’ve been making small progress by starting each season with a slightly higher volume and/or at a slightly higher average stroke rate (and therefore advancing farther by the end of the season).<br /><br />You are in the position of someone whose fitness is improving at a rate that may be too great to be accommodated by a single Reference Pace.  Your workouts indicate that you are getting close to a sub-7 2K.  (BTW, to answer your question, I would wait the 8-10 weeks or so before attempting a full-out 2K.  To break 7:00, I would suggest you can be pretty confident once your 4 x 1K gets to 1:45 or better; 1:44 would be great but I’m not aware of many people who can do 4 x 1K @ sub-2K pace.  But I would also want your 4 x 2K to get down to 1:50 or better.)  As for your Ref Pace, I don’t think you have mentioned what you are currently using.  I would also want to know your weekly Level 4 volume (in minutes).  Do the workouts you are doing now seem appropriately challenging (hard, but not TOO hard)?  Given your current Level 4 workouts and formats, is there room to progress with the established L4 progressions for the next several weeks?  If not, then you should readjust based on what you estimate your 2K to be based on your Level 1-2 training history.  But if the workouts seem to be at the correct intensity, then just keep steadily building until this season is over and think about planning with more precision next year.  For Levels 1-3, I propose guidelines for relationship between workout intensity and 2K pace.  But I also encourage people not to become overly obsessed about the relationship (“If I pull x:xx for 2K, what should I pull for 4 x 1K, 10K, etc. etc.?”)  The most important thing is to start where you can start and gradually, steadily, consistently build on that.  Good luck!<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br /><br />Thanks for this guidance. I'm using 1:49 as my reference pace, and I'll do 200' this week. (Last week sucked for me and I only did 80'). I've been concerned about overstroking these, since my accuracy is just now starting to get close to my targets. I consistently go over the distances by about 30 meters and have now been hitting the total strokes per segment. The workouts do seem fairly easy, but I start to feel the fatigue after about 50'. I was doing 70' sessions and the last 10' really got the glutes and hamstrings going, but the HR was still not over 150. Unless you suggest a change, I'll continue to go through the L4 progressions with a 1:49 ref pace.<br /><br />I'm pretty set on the L1 & L2 paces, since I've completed all of the workouts several times and have continued to increase the pace by at least 1 second every time. (I'm sure that will drop off eventually).<br /><br />For L3 pace, I'm using 2:01 and am up to 14.5k as my long workout and am doing 15x3' at the same pace. Should I increase this pace or just keep at it and add distance. Again, the HR doesn't ever get to 150. (I do get up to about 175 for the max exertions on L1 workouts, so there's plenty of room to work with on this.)<br /><br />I'm soaking up the L4 guidance you've put out so far. I just need to work with it more and see how the workouts go each time.<br /><br />Thanks again.

[[old] vplatzer]

hey mike<br /><br />i just read your plan and really like what you have to say. obviously, you are an excellent example of the wolverine plan but your examples with the women's team are also noteworthy<br /><br />i wanted to ask if you would share the "plan' with me? i am currently looking to go sub-7(masters women) in to make the indoor team and would like to get on a good plan. i followed the british concept 2 (interactive) training program and that was useful but it has its limitation<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />veronika platzer<br /><br />

[[old] Mike Caviston]

Bill, it seems like you’re on the right track with your Level 4 training. One does get a better sense of the level of effort involved once consistency is mastered for stroke rates & paces. What is your current average stroke rate, or what are some L4 workouts you’ve done recently (i.e., which sequences)? As long as there are plenty of faster sequences to work through in the next several weeks, you’re in good shape.<br /><br />Veronika, I’ll share the Wolverine Plan with anybody – even Cavaliers (or Buckeyes, or Huskies, etc.) If you’ve downloaded the original plan, plus the updated tables, and read all the comments I’ve written here – that’s pretty much everything. Expanding and clarifying all of that is a work in progress. Good luck, and if I can be of any help, I will.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mike Caviston+Oct 3 2005, 03:45 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Oct 3 2005, 03:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bill, it seems like you’re on the right track with your Level 4 training.  One does get a better sense of the level of effort involved once consistency is mastered for stroke rates & paces.  What is your current average stroke rate, or what are some L4 workouts you’ve done recently (i.e., which sequences)?  As long as there are plenty of faster sequences to work through in the next several weeks, you’re in good shape.<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br /><br />My average stroke rate has been 18. Last night's workout was 2x40' (180/184/180/184). I had jumped the gun a few weeks ago and was trying 184/188 etc. for a 2x40' and a 70', but I overstroked both workouts to get the meters. Backing off on the sequences and keeping the same reference pace has made the workouts easier.<br /><br />Your earlier post on composing L4 workouts gives me a lot to consider in planning and executing this portion of my training. There's lots of room to improve in the sequences, so I'll just stick with this pace and keep moving up the sequences.

[[old] DIESEL]

bump. this thread is too good to fade into obscurity. <br /><br />Mike, we're waiting with bated breath for the next update, big guy! <br /><br />D

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-DIESEL+Oct 11 2005, 09:44 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DIESEL @ Oct 11 2005, 09:44 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->bump.  this thread is too good to fade into obscurity. <br /><br />Mike, we're waiting with bated breath for the next update, big guy!  <br /><br />D <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Diesel,<br /><br />Can you lay out your training for us? I'd be interested how you integrate the WP with lifting. In fact, I'd be interested in how most people lay out their WP training over the week.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />

[[old] Mike Caviston]

Sorry, guys. That pesky career gets in the way occasionally – I spent the weekend grading exams. In the next few days I’ll write about the concept of pacing while training (and racing), some strategies I’ve used, and some guidelines I’ve developed to get me through various workouts.<br /><br />Regarding how others organize their WP workouts, I’m curious myself. I propose some do’s and don’ts when it comes to laying out a schedule, but there isn’t any absolute format. I’d like to see what other people do and why.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Oct 12 2005, 02:48 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Oct 12 2005, 02:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd be interested in how most people lay out their WP training over the week.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />I use rowing as cross-training to my swimming. My workouts are as follows<br /><br /><b>Monday</b>: 2.5 hours of swimming. L1 or L2 (alternating every week) + 30 min of weights and 15 min of stretching.<br /><b>Tuesday</b>: 2 hours of swimming. 40 min of L4<br /><b>Wednesday</b>: 2.5 hours of swimming. L3 (10 K now, plan to reach 15 K) + weights + stretching<br /><b>Thursday</b>: like Tuesday<br /><b>Friday</b>: like Wednesday<br /><b>Saturday</b>: One hour of swimming. 40 min of L4.<br /><b>Sunday</b> Rest!<br /><br />MWF are demanding quality swim workouts. So Mondays are very hard, but I recover on Tuesdays and Thursdays.<br />WP seems to be quite effective since my average for the 4x2K L2 went from 1:50.2 to 1:48.3 within 4 weeks!

[[old] Mike Caviston]

<b>The Importance of Pacing</b> <br />For endurance-based activities like rowing (and also cycling, swimming, running etc.), few things affect performance as much as pacing strategy and warm-up. This is confirmed by numerous published research articles as well as years of personal experience. Both are relatively simple and painless ways to gain an edge (as opposed to adding another session to your schedule, say, or unilaterally pulling every workout at a faster split). And yet both concepts are frequently ignored or outright rejected by athletes hoping to maximize performance (an attitude that has puzzled and frustrated me as a coach for years). I’ll discuss proper warm-up (longer and harder than your current method!) at a later date. This is about pacing strategy guidelines for training and racing.<br /><br />“Pacing strategy” refers to the overall approach of regulating intensity over the duration of the session in reference to a goal. Three classic strategies would be <b>even-split</b> (hold the same pace from start to finish), <b>negative-split</b> (build intensity over the duration; finishing pace faster than starting pace), and <b>fly-and-die</b> (starting as fast as you can and holding on as long as possible before fading). Fly-and-die is just not a smart way to approach a race. It is usually employed by athletes who are inexperienced, who don’t have a realistic sense of their current abilities, or who allow themselves to be overwhelmed by the excitement of competition. The physiological consequence is to accelerate the accumulation of fatiguing metabolic byproducts of intense muscular contraction (LACT, NH3, K+, etc.), resulting in severe discomfort and the inability to hold the desired pace. [For amusement, you can sift through some of the stroke data available from such races as BIRC or WIRC and see some of the Big Fades that some people have had to suffer…] Of course, if you look you will find examples of people who start fast and fade and still win their race. That doesn’t prove they raced their fastest race. It just proves their abilities are far enough above their competition that they can win even with a less than optimal strategy. One example that springs to mind is Paul Henderschott, one of the most successful athletes in the history of indoor rowing and someone who exhibits incredible intensity during training and racing. Paul treats a 2K like it’s a 1K, and then hangs on as best he can at the end. When he’s asked my advice about how to knock a couple more seconds off his time, I always tell him to hold back at the start. But he just can’t do it. So he wins CRASH-B by 16 seconds rather than 20. For myself, I know quite well that some of my victories over the past few years have been due as much to good race tactics on my part (and bad tactics by some competitors) as to pure fitness. Now, some coaches will encourage a young/inexperienced athlete to start hard with the hope that they will discover some hidden gear and perform at a level they didn’t think was possible. Unfortunately, a likely result is the athlete will have such an unpleasant experience that they develop a mental block against racing hard, and it may be a long, long time before they reach their true potential. I make it a priority to explore an athlete’s true potential as accurately as possible while training, so they will know what to expect when racing and be able to select a challenging but realistic goal. A general perception among rowers (outdoor as well as indoor) is that it is desirable to establish an early lead to be able to “control the race” – whatever that is supposed to mean. An athlete or crew that expends too much energy in the first 500m may find themselves with a 5-second lead at the half way point, but a smarter, more disciplined and patient crew that has properly conserved its energy will walk through them at some point during the second half of the race. You don’t “control” anything when your legs have turned to jelly, your lungs are scorched, your brain is numb and you still have 1000m to go. Some crews or athletes aren’t mentally tough enough to race effectively from behind, but I think waiting for the right time to explode is exercising real “control”.<br /><br />The even-split approach to racing makes the most sense from a purely mechanical standpoint. Consider the hypothetical example of covering 2000m with an average pace of 1:36 either by holding a steady 1:36 pace for the entire distance, or covering half with a 1:35 pace and half with a 1:37 pace. Either method would result in a 6:24 2K, but because of the cubic relationship between velocity and power, and the proportionately greater energy cost of the 1:35 pace, more total energy is expended with the uneven pace. If an athlete is truly performing at maximum capacity, the less efficient pacing results in a slower time. If you actually calculate the energy difference with this hypothetical example, you might be tempted to say the difference is pretty trivial, but I say even a fraction of a second is significant – when you come out on the losing side of a photo finish. And the greater the variation in pace during the race, the greater the amount of energy lost. So logically it must be concluded that the most effective race strategy would be to hold an even pace from start to finish. But I don’t race that way (unless I am not trying to achieve my maximum performance), because there are other than purely mechanical factors to contend with. There is the practical consideration of how races actually operate. If a race began off the fly (i.e., you could gradually build intensity for a period of time, maybe several minutes, and the clock started as you decided to firm up to race pace), I would definitely go for an even split. But that’s not how races work. Athletes wait for several minutes at the start, outdoors often in cold wet conditions while the aligners and starters work to begin the race (or the race or even two ahead of yours). Indoors, there are always delays as computer systems are brought on-line or dozens of competitors are brought to their starting position. The result is that no matter how thoroughly you warm up, you are probably going to have cooled down considerably by the actual start of your race. In which case, even starting at what should be a reasonable pace relative to your current fitness will probably result in the “fly-and-die” symptoms of accelerated lactate production and early fatigue. So I prefer to start at a pace slower than my overall goal pace. But it’s also important to recognize that any strokes slower than your true potential represent lost time that can never be made up, no matter how fast you row later in the race. So you can’t take it too easy either, and that presents a real quandary. On the one hand, you risk going too hard and burning out too soon, and on the other you risk getting too far behind your optimal pace. It’s a fine line to tread, but with enough training and racing experience as well as a little common sense, I think anyone can create an effective race strategy.<br /><br />I think the optimal pacing strategy for a 2K race is pretty close to:<br />800m (40%) @ GP +1; 600m (30%) @ GP; 400m (20%) @ GP – 1; and 200m (10%) @ GP – 2. [GP = Goal Pace, so to row 2K in 6:24, row the fist 800m @ 1:37, the next 600m @ 1:36, the next 400m @ 1:35, and the final 200m @ 1:34.] But that is an ideal, and the actual race plan might vary depending on specific circumstances. I always take into account things like how good my warm-up was, and how much I cooled off before the race actually started; what time I think I will need to win (as opposed to how fast I think I can go); how I actually feel in the first 5-600m; etc. Prior to the race, I will have worked out different worst-case and best-case scenarios and corresponding race plans so that I can react depending on the situation. Last year at the European Open, I initially thought based on my training I would be able to pull a 6:24. But once in Amsterdam, I was feeling pretty sluggish (jet lag, I suppose) and by race day I knew I had to be a little more conservative. It was only during the warm-up I finally decided on a target of 6:26, but I had already mentally rehearsed my strategy for that time so often I felt completely comfortable with it. I started out at a 1:38 pace; meanwhile, Per Hansen of Denmark was blasting off at 1:32 or so. But I knew he wasn’t going to hold that (and if he did, there was nothing I could do to catch him), so I stuck to my plan and slowly worked into the lead with about 500m to go. At the CRASH-Bs, I really had to alter my race plan at the last second. I had expected to pull about 6:22, but at the start of the race I got a little carried away and suspended right off my seat and onto the monorail. By the time I got back in place and into the race, I was so far behind the monitor actually said “HAH-hah!” (in the voice of Nelson Muntz). A typical reaction might be to go nuts for 500m or so in an effort to catch up, but I knew that would result in a painful crash and burn. I didn’t panic, and since I had rehearsed so many possible scenarios and strategies it only took a fraction of a second to shift to a race plan that brought me into the lead with only a couple hundred meters to go. I have to say that all things considered it was a pretty satisfying performance. But the only thing that saved me was a knowledge of effective pacing and a solid race plan.<br /><br />Optimal pacing for racing is one thing, but optimal pacing while training is often another. It would be similar if the goal for training was to execute every workout with the fastest time (or greatest distance) possible. But that’s not the goal (or at least, shouldn’t be). The goal is to get progressively faster in a constant and systematic manner over the duration of the training program. A proper strategy for pacing will help you reach your training goals more consistently and in a way that is more likely to be reproducible. Specific pacing strategies can ensure optimal metabolic responses to the workload and make it possible to accomplish a greater amount of work with less likelihood of overtraining or being unable to finish a session. A good pacing strategy can also make workouts more manageable psychologically. The strategies I use help me break long, tough workouts down mentally into increments that I can more easily visualize and work through. [This by now should be seen as an obvious benefit of Level 4 training, but I expand the concept in other ways to other training bands.]<br /><br />Once again I find I have gone on for paragraphs without covering half of my intended topic but I’m afraid I have to stop here. Next time I’ll give specific examples of my pacing guidelines and strategies for workouts of all kinds, from 25K continuous to 8 x 500m or 4 x 1K, and also workouts with unbalanced intervals like 3K/2.5K/2K. The general format is to divide each piece or interval into smaller segments, and have a specific design for negative splitting the workout in a planned and structured way. Sometimes the effect is practically an even split, and sometimes the increase in pace during the workout is pretty extreme. Again, I don’t offer this as the optimal way to execute an individual workout, but (the hallmark of the Wolverine Plan) as a structured format for ensuring consistent improvement over several weeks of training. More details next time.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />