Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » November 8th, 2005, 11:38 am

Confessions of a Wolverine Plan Newbie Day 2: Level 4 / 40' = 176/180/176/180 Today's piece was a 40' Level 4 workout, made up of the following 10' sequences:<ul><li>176 = 2'/2'/2'/2'/2' @ 16/18/20/18/16 SPM --> 2288 m</li><li>180 = 4'/3'/2'/1' @ 16/18/20/22 SPM --> 2305 m</li><li>176 = 2'/2'/2'/2'/2' @ 16/18/20/18/16 SPM --> 2288 m</li><li>180 = 4'/3'/2'/1' @ 16/18/20/22 SPM --> 2305 m</li></ul><ul><li>16 SPM @ 2:15 --> 13.9 mps</li><li>18 SPM @ 2:10 --> 12.8 mps</li><li>20 SPM @ 2:06 --> 11.9 mps</li><li>22 SPM @ 2:01 --> 11.3 mps</li></ul>Actual distances & stroke counts:<ul><li>1st 10' = 2292 m / 174 strokes (+4 m / -2 strokes)</li><li>2nd 10' = 2314 m / 180 strokes (+9 m / +0 strokes)</li><li>3rd 10' = 2305 m / 180 strokes (+17 m / +4 strokes)</li><li>4th 10' = 2315 m / 182 strokes (+10 m / +2 strokes)</li></ul>Observations:<ul><li>There's a lot to plan and remember for a Level 4 workout. I typed it all up and printed it out, and put the piece of paper on a clipboard resting on a standing fan next to the erg. The default 8-point font at a distance of about six feet was a bit too small for me to read while rowing, even at 16 SPM. I'm going to swing by my local Staples and get one of those document holders that people put on their computer displays, so I can have the information physically closer, and use a larger font.</li><li>There's a lot to think about during a Level 4 workout. I knew going in that I would need to pay fairly close attention to the monitor, so I didn't bother to put a DVD in the player (which I usually do with any workout over 20 minutes long), opting instead for the iPod. I couldn't concentrate on what I was supposed to be doing, in terms of stroke rate and pace, with the music in the background, so I took the earphones out after about 3 minutes. Of the four 10' sequences I pulled today, only the first one was understroked. It must've been the few seconds it took to remove the iPod without throwing it.</li><li>After reading the various comments on how one might actually maintain stroke rate and pace during a Level 4 workout, especially in a workout whose size is defined by time duration as opposed to meters, I thought I'd set my PM2 to report meters covered so far - after all, average pace is not too informative for a Level 4 workout that changes pace throughout. Since I know the stroke rate and the pace for each sub-sequence, I can compute the meters per stroke (mps), then watch the meters covered climbing. For example, if I'm in the middle of a 16 SPM sub-sequence at 2:15, I need to get 13.9 mps. If the last digit of the meters covered is a 7 at my last catch, my next catch is when the last digit of the meters covered is a 1. I found it easier to fine tune the timing of my next catch when I watch numbers that tick over nearly four times a second (2:15 per 500 m = 3.7 meters per second) as opposed to a number that ticks over only once a second (the seconds digit of the remaining time) or "using the Force" and hoping that I had the right stroke rate. I ended up watching the last digit of the meters covered on the recovery (not enough attention left to look at the other digits), looking at the instantaneous pace through the drive, and the instantaneous stroke rate as I started the recovery. I still need to work on tightening up my stroke rate and pace. Until I added up the strokes in the post-mortem, I actually thought I understroked all four 10' sequences, because I saw instantaneous stroke rates that were lower than my target more often than I saw stroke rates that were higher.</li><li>The 40' of this Level 4 workout went by really fast, despite having no TV and no music to row to. I was so engrossed during the entire stroke (catch, drive, and recovery) trying to keep my stroke rate and pace on target that I rarely had time to look at the time elapsed. I had to remind myself from time to time to look at that, so I'll know when I need to change my stroke rate and pace. I think I actually did my first 2' sub-sequence for nearly 3' before I realized I was supposed to have picked up the pace. That probably also contributed to my understroking the first 10' sequence.</li><li>Compared to yesterday's Level 1 workout, today's Level 4 workout didn't seem as tiring - I certainly didn't fall off the erg panting when I was done like I did yesterday. I had the energy but not the time for a cool down (meeting at work first thing). Towards the end, I was thinking, I could hold this pace forever. But I remembered that one of the goals of Level 4 is to build up endurance gradually and in a sustainable fashion. I also remembered that I have a Level 2 5x1500 tomorrow.</li></ul>The next time I do a 40' Level 4 (scheduled for one week from today), I think I'll add four strokes to the third sequence to make it a 176/180/180/180.

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » November 8th, 2005, 1:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(arakawa @ Nov 8 2005, 11:38 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Confessions of a Wolverine Plan Newbie Day 2: Level 4 / 40' = 176/180/176/180 [/list]The next time I do a 40' Level 4 (scheduled for one week from today), I think I'll add four strokes to the third sequence to make it a 176/180/180/180. </td></tr></table> Based on a previous post by Mike about some of my LVL4 progressions you would do better to add the 4 strokes to one of the 180 intervals. A better training effect is had with a 176/180/184/176 than a 176/180/180/180 ... even though the total number of strokes is the same. To overly simplify what Mike said about this ... mixing it up more makes your muscles adapt better. See Mike's previous posts for a lot of good information based on science ... I'm just a hack about this. JimR

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » November 9th, 2005, 1:49 am

I did my second Level 4 workout today, 168/176/176/188. At first I had the erg on slides, but since it takes me a few strokes to get going nicely on slides without whacking into the ends, I stopped & put the erg on the floor andstarted over. The way I've been keeping track of the work out is with a white board that is about 36" x 24" --you can write big enough to read it. I list the intervals, numbered, like this 1) 2/16(48)2:26 meaning, 2 minutes, 16 spm (set metronome for 48), pace 2:26. I don't think reading off a computer printout would be very helpful. I ended up doing all the intervals at faster paces and a few more strokes per intervale than I should have: 1st 10' +47 m, +6 strokes 2nd 10' +83 m, +4 strokes 3rd 10' +37 m, +0 strokes 4th 10', +85 m, +4 strokes so it ended up being 14 strokes and 252 meters high. The pace was faster on every interval than it was supposed to be by 3--7 seconds/500 m. (the only one that was any where near close was the first one, which was only 1 second too fast). I think my ref. pace of 1:57 is too slow as I appear to be doing the workout as though my ref. pace is 1:54 or so. Should I fix this by going with the faster ref. pace, or by lengthening the workout to 60', or by increasing the number of strokes? I am sort of confused. Does anyone understand what you should do in this situation?

[old] Guy_W · Post by **[old] Guy_W** » November 9th, 2005, 8:53 am

Carla If I were you I would change my ref pace to 1:55 or 1:56. From what you said earlier about 1:57 2k pace and 2:00 30' pace it appears your 2k pace is relatively weak anyway. It doesn't sound like you are getting a great deal of endurance strain/gain from the 1:57 pieces (if you'd kept to pace!). I (believe that I) recall, perhaps in original WP document, that Mike (whilst generally reluctant to advise shifting reference paces), would consider doing this if an athlete consistently met not only the metre targets for current ref pace but also those for the next ref pace up. You seem to be an (extreme) example of this. I am in a slightly less extreme position where my actual level 4 metres are approx those for the 1 sec faster ref pace. I am monitoring it and speeding up my planned progression in terms of average stroke/sequences (eg. weekly x.4 -> x.6 average instead of planned 0.1 weekly increase) in the meantime. This is an option for you too although you are so far ahead of target metres that (as I say, "if i were you") I would try a faster ref pace. Guy

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » November 9th, 2005, 9:48 am

Carla, I'd lengthen the workout first. Overstroking also makes the workouts easier. Move up to 60 minutes and don't overstroke. I'd then start moving up the progressions. I've been doing 3x 184/188 to get my 60' in. Masa, I use a small yellow sticky note. It looks like this: <table width='95%' cellspacing='1' cellpadding='3' border='0' align='center'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>CODE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='code'><div>16 - 2:14 18 - 2:09 20 - 2:05 22 - 2:00 176 - 2-2-2-2-2 180 - 4-3-2-1 184 - 3-3-3-1 188 - 2-2-2-2-2</div></td></tr></table> I know that the 180 & 184 simply goes up the above paces (16-22). Above the 2s on the 176 & 188, I pencil in the rate. This gives me all of the elements I need for the workout in one small sheet. I use lots of sticky notes for various pacing for other workouts, but this one for L4 workouts pretty much stays put. I'm getting close to 192, but I think I can remember it's the same as a 188 but starts with the 20.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 9th, 2005, 9:59 am

Friends: I'm interested in comments on my schedule, as opposed to the intricacies of the WP, as I feel I'm finally starting to understand them (the fine details of pacing, rate, etc.) well enough to "self coach" (for now!). Like many, I have a wife, family, and I run my own business, so I cannot predict when life's priorities will not allow me to train. I started rowing May 6, 05, with a goal of going sub-7 by the end of this season (April 30, 2006). My 2K time now is 7:38.2 done a few weeks ago on my own -- not in a race. I had some gas left at the end (lots actually), so I am comfortable that 7:38 is easily repeatable or could be bettered right now. I've started on the WP with the thought that some structure and methodology to my training is better than none, or some haphazard mish mash. I've developed a plan that goes: L1 - avg. 4K training meters per w/o L4 - avg. 12K+ t/m per w/o L3 - avg. 12K t/m per w/o L4 L2 - avg. 8K t/m per w/o L4 L3 L4 ... over eight days, and then repeats. This is roughly equal to the ratios of the workouts suggested in the plan, although not exact. Meters percentage over these eight workouts, which total 84K meters if my math is correct, break down as: L1 - 5% (3% to 4%) L2 - 10% (6% to 8%) L3 - 29% (22% to 25%) L4 - 57% (65% to 70%) (some rounding error) ... where the plan suggests the percentages in parentheses. In reality, the L4 workouts are probably a few percentage points higher than this since 12K is the minimum I get in for most of the L4s I've done thus far. So, I'm close to the percentages the plan and Mike recommend, but not spot on. I used this combination because it's easy to remember if I'm on the road, and it's an easy ratio of: 1:1:2:4 in a simple sequence that appears to give me the rest I need between the faster, more taxing, L1 and L2 workouts. I rest when I feel like I need it -- listening to my body as best I can, which has become easier as I've gotten older -- or the day before a race when I want to be totally fresh. Or, when priorities dictate an "unplanned rest day". Rest is usually 1 day a week or one day every two weeks. I've started at the bottom rung of each workout in terms of suggested times, and am slowly moving interval times up by 2 sec. pace each time I repeat them, to soon, hopefully, get to my training limit, which I don't feel I've reached yet (i.e. I could work harder right now), and I'm also moving stroke counts up in the L4 workouts. If I cannot get in one of the planned workouts, I just do the workout, in this sequence, the next possible day I can. If I have a day when I can row for 20 or 30 minutes, but cannot complete the scheduled w/o, I do what I can (maybe a 5K or a 30 minute piece) and pick up with the plan where I left off -- always keeping the sequence regardless of the "stop gap" workout. I'd be interested in your comments on this approach, and any suggestion you'd have on improving it, knowing the constraints and goal. Thanks! Regards -- Mark

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » November 9th, 2005, 10:11 am

Maybe Mike can help on this one? Both arguments as to what I should do seem to make sense. I was 252 meters over and a total of 14 strokes over. The meters were supposed to be 8459 in 708 strokes, av. 12 mps, and what I did was 8711 in 722 strokes, which also averages 12 mps, so I wasn't just trading rate for pace and making it easier, I don't think...? I still don't know how I got in 14 extra strokes in the 40 minutes, because I was using a metrenome and driving consistently on the accented beat. I computed the strokes by using "recall" when I was done, and doubling the average spm given by the PM for each 2 minute interval. 8 of the overstrokes are accounted for by my 16's ending up being 17's, 4 by 20's that ended up being 21's, and two by an 18 that was really a 19. I have to say, the 40 minutes really seems short, with all this cogitating going on!

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » November 9th, 2005, 10:46 am

Under L4, MC says "Intensity is generally ~ 80-90% of 2K". I think he means the fictitious C2 ergspeed, so the L4 power (due to the cube law) is between 50 and 73% of 2k power. This is another route to suitable L4 paces, tho' still based on the 2k test: use half your 2k power at rating 16 and at higher ratings increase in proportion. MC's numbers seem to imply a conventional 2k rating of 32; if you did your 2k test at a lower rating, I think you'll find the tabled 2k-based L4 paces slow. Doing the prescribed paces at just one stroke slower makes a 5% difference in work per stroke. Anyway there's a simple control: if I can't wait for my two minutes at 22 to be over to drop to 20 (as usual), and then find that hard too, I reckon I'm at the right work level. Using Watts, it's very easy to relate work levels to rating: choose a number, say 9, multiply by the rating, then stick to that W level at that rating. Adjust to taste, but make sure you always pull a long hard and effective stroke. After all we're training for water where nothing else will do. Watts are also more accurate than paces: we train mostly from 160 say to 300W, 140 steps; but the corresponding paces go from 2:10 to 1:45, 35 steps, and me only from 2:08 to 2:00 or 8 steps. Too grainy.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » November 9th, 2005, 6:14 pm

Hi people, I’m hip-deep in a couple projects right now, so don’t have a lot of time for WP discussion. (I’ll be able to devote more time next week.) But I’m keeping tabs on the thread and appreciate the questions and discussion. A couple quick points – Carla, I can’t say any more about Reference Pace than I already have, except to repeat it’s not an exact science. I know it must seem like a hassle but – please go back and revisit some of my comments from earlier on this thread, or follow the link I posted before to some of my comments from previous threads. Regarding the general balance in pace between different Level 1 workouts, a rough guide might be something like, if 8 x 500 = A, then Pyramid = A + .5; 5 x 750 = A + 1.5; and 4 x 1K = A + 3. This is only a rough guide and shouldn’t be taken too literally. I think every workout should develop its own history and you shouldn’t become overly obsessed about how one relates to another (or how one training band relates to another). Having said that, if your 4 x 1K is more than 4 seconds slower than your 8 x 500, then you might expect to bring the two paces a little closer as your overall endurance improves. Mark’s description of his schedule seems to be a good real-life attempt at maintaining some structure when total structure isn’t possible. I need to re-express my overall suggestions for percent of workout meters in each Level adjusted to include warm-up. That topic is on my short list. James is correct that Watts is a more accurate and meaningful way to compare training bands than pace. My initial figures were an off-the-cuff generalization for a group of people who really didn’t want to hear about Watts! Another thing to address in the future. Happy training, Mike Caviston

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 9th, 2005, 7:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Nov 9 2005, 06:14 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Regarding the general balance in pace between different Level 1 workouts, a rough guide might be something like, if 8 x 500 = A, then Pyramid = A + .5; 5 x 750 = A + 1.5; and 4 x 1K = A + 3. This is only a rough guide and shouldn’t be taken too literally. I think every workout should develop its own history and you shouldn’t become overly obsessed about how one relates to another (or how one training band relates to another). Having said that, if your 4 x 1K is more than 4 seconds slower than your 8 x 500, then you might expect to bring the two paces a little closer as your overall endurance improves. </td></tr></table> Mike: Thanks for the above. I'm about to do the A Pyramid for the first time soon, and this will help me select a pace that *could* make sense based on my 8x500 and 4x1000 times thus far. Regards -- Mark

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » November 9th, 2005, 11:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Carla, I can’t say any more about Reference Pace than I already have, except to repeat it’s not an exact science. I know it must seem like a hassle but – please go back and revisit some of my comments from earlier on this thread, or follow the link I posted before to some of my comments from previous threads. </td></tr></table> Still not sure which way to go, after reading everything I could find on it...I think I will drop the reference pace to 1:56 and see how it goes on Thursday's 50' (that will my first Level 4 over 40' and I think jumping to 60' might be too much). I'm already doing the 40' L4's at the paces that go with that reference pace anyway with no trouble. That would be faster than my 2K pace, but my 2K pace is stupidly slow in comparison with the other distances (something I'm trying to rectify by following a proper training plan instead of winging it).

[old] kjgress · Post by **[old] kjgress** » November 10th, 2005, 1:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Nov 9 2005, 10:45 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>[Still not sure which way to go, after reading everything I could find on it...I think I will drop the reference pace to 1:56 and see how it goes on Thursday's 50' (that will my first Level 4 over 40' and I think jumping to 60' might be too much). I'm already doing the 40' L4's at the paces that go with that reference pace anyway with no trouble. That would be faster than my 2K pace, but my 2K pace is stupidly slow in comparison with the other distances (something I'm trying to rectify by following a proper training plan instead of winging it). </td></tr></table> Carla: I don't know what your times, etc are, but here is something else to think about. How are you doing in the other training bands (Lev 1-3) with the reference pace you have established? I fell into a bit of a bind as I chose a reference pace that was too fast at the beginning (I had what I thought were good reasons at the time). I was easily able to support the level 4 workouts at the correct splits and paces (overstroking does make the workout easier; just getting to the correct rate may help the workload). I was also able to do the other levels at the beginning with the exception of Level 1. I couldn't get anywhere near the ref pace-2 on the level 1's. This should've been a clue. As I progressed through about 6 weeks of training I improved across all levels and then somewhat stalled at the level 1 workouts. All the other levels are meant to support Level 1 workouts. The fact that I couldn't support the level 1 workouts at the chosen reference pace even though I could support Level 2-4 has caused a problem that I am in the middle of correcting. So just make sure that the new reference pace works out for the Level 1. Remember that the goal of the WP is to improve 2K time, not 10K 60 min or 1/2M times!. Sorry this was long-winded, but hope it may help. KJG

[old] Thomas · Post by **[old] Thomas** » November 10th, 2005, 2:55 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Remember that the goal of the WP is to improve 2K time, not 10K 60 min or 1/2M times!. </td></tr></table> ooh-rah

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » November 10th, 2005, 5:44 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 10 2005, 06:55 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Remember that the goal of the WP is to improve 2K time, not 10K 60 min or 1/2M times!. </td></tr></table> ooh-rah </td></tr></table> I second that (or third that, I guess). The longer pieces are fun, and entering those times in the rankings and Nonathlon provide added incentive to keep up the training. But the main racing distance is the 2km, and the Wolverine (and other structured programs) zeros in on that. Rick

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » November 10th, 2005, 9:34 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>All the other levels are meant to support Level 1 workouts. The fact that I couldn't support the level 1 workouts at the chosen reference pace even though I could support Level 2-4 has caused a problem that I am in the middle of correcting. So just make sure that the new reference pace works out for the Level 1. </td></tr></table> Ah, now I am getting it better. Level 3 & 4, no problem--I'm 6 or 7 seconds faster/500 m than I'm supposed to be, with plenty left in the tank at the end. I am doing 4 workouts a week, so I'm supposed to be alternating Level 1 and Level 2 once a week. So far I've done one interval workout (this is my first full week). I'm not sure if it qualifies as a Level 1 or a Level 2 because I was doing an interval thing for a team challenge. 4 x 750 with 2 min passive rest. My splits were 1:54.6, 1:56.7, 1:55.4, 1:56.7. I think the slowest you are supposed to do those is at your 2K PB pace? which was 1:57. So now what? If I do Levels 3 & 4 using the Level 1 reference pace as a guide, it's not even a workout. Should I do the Levels 1 & 2 with one reference pace and Levels 3 & 4 with another? I can't see that doing Level 3 & 4 so much slower than is even slightly challenging is anything more than a waste of time. Next week I will do my team challenge thing in addition to a real Level 1--probably 8 x 500, and that will be more accurate. I don't see how overstroking makes the workout easier if your meters are also higher by the correct number to correspond with the additional strokes; it does make it easier if you come out with the planned number of meters and you do it in more strokes than you were supposed to. If your average strokes per meter is what it should have been, seems to me it's the same deal. If I am missing something here please straighten me out as I'm not known to be the most logical person around! Thanks for any thoughts, I'm really trying to get this right.

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training