Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 29th, 2005, 5:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Nov 29 2005, 04:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />A good technical focus with Level 4 workouts is to develop and maintain optimal length for the stroke. Then attempt to maintain this length as rates increase (even beyond the upper limits of L4 workouts into L3, L2, and L1). Personally, I think I’ve made some progress this year hanging onto my full length at higher rates. Like most people, when it comes to the last couple hundred meters of a Level 1 piece I’ll pretty much do whatever is necessary to hang onto my split. But I try not to get too short and too ugly and to work on expanding the upper rating limit for good technique as my fitness improves. (This is one application of ErgMonitor that I would definitely like to have available if I could train in the proximity of a computer.) Training needs to prioritize long-term steady gains over short-term performance.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />All I can say about staying long consistently is AMEN. For whatever reason, I've been focusing on this and BOY, does it make a difference ... a very positive difference. Stroke rate dropped and pace improved (or stroke rate dropped and pace stayed the same, but sure felt like much less work). I almost felt like I had been leaving part of the stroke and work "on the table" -- wasted -- never to be recaptured.

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » November 29th, 2005, 5:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 25 2005, 06:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I went to the Wolverine Plan web site and download the entire program with all the tables, studied the program and outlined it for myself. <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi all,<br /><br />Still cutting and pasting and trying to put together what the whole plan actually is. I like the idea k had of collecting Mike's major articles into one document. Am greatly looking forward to the future installment that will tie it all together. But the erging season is on in earnest, so I guess this year I'll have to settle for being just somewhat obliquely influenced by the plan.<br /><br />I did a google search and was disappointed in how little it turned up. But now I see that there is actually a web site devoted to the Wolverine Plan?? Could you please share with us where this web site can be found?<br /><br />I haven't yet decided whether this club would rather spread the news, or keep it to itself, at least through the next erg contest. <br /><br />Thanks,<br />Doug

[old] Delilah · Post by **[old] Delilah** » November 29th, 2005, 6:05 pm

A physiological question.......for Mike but pleased to have any input - including anything based on 'feel' rather than technical knowledge.<br /><br />Level 4<br />I understand that this is first and foremost endurance work. However, since you are required to 'pull harder' I presume the fibre recruitment involves more of those fibres more suited to strength work and correspondingly less aerobic. Does this therefore increase the likelyhood that they will be involved in adaptation that improves them aerobically rather than 'normal' unrestricted work that (because of lower fibre recruitment numbers) utilises the more aerobic fibres to a greater extent?<br />I hope that makes sense - if not then a more simple version would be.........<br />Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?<br />D.

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » November 29th, 2005, 7:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Nov 29 2005, 09:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I did a google search and was disappointed in how little it turned up. But now I see that there is actually a web site devoted to the Wolverine Plan?? Could you please share with us where this web site can be found? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It this what you were looking for <a href='http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm</a>?

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » November 29th, 2005, 9:05 pm

<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'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 25 2005, 06:22 AM)<br />I went to the Wolverine Plan web site and download the entire program with all the tables, studied the program and outlined it for myself. <br /> </td></tr></table> <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Nov 29 2005, 04:53 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Nov 29 2005, 09:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I did a google search and was disappointed in how little it turned up. But now I see that there is actually a web site devoted to the Wolverine Plan?? Could you please share with us where this web site can be found? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It this what you were looking for <a href='http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm</a>? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks. Actually I don't know. It's a question for ragiarn, who mentioned "The Wolverine Plan Website", or anyone else who knows of such a thing. Mike? Do you operate a website devoted to the Wolverine Plan?<br /><br />The link here is close to what I originally got, but it has tables which my original find did not. I've also gotten the newer tables that Mike posted above.<br /><br />- Doug

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » November 29th, 2005, 9:21 pm

Mike,<br /><br />Could you elaborate a bit on the physiological goals and which workouts target which goal.<br />I found your remark on another thread very interesting that "Lactate tolerance" is not a valid physiological goal.<br /><br />

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 29th, 2005, 10:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(H_2O @ Nov 30 2005, 02:21 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mike,<br /><br />Could you elaborate a bit on the physiological goals and which workouts target which goal.<br />I found your remark on another thread very interesting that "Lactate tolerance" is not a valid physiological goal. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Couple of articles on Lactate tolerance - <a href='http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/lactic.htm' target='_blank'>Lactic Acid</a> - <a href='http://www.runnersweb.com/running/rw_ne ... Burke.html' target='_blank'>Threshold Training for Improved Lactate Tolerance</a><br /><br />George<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 30th, 2005, 12:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 29 2005, 02:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?<br />D. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Unrestricted rate rowing develops your endurance more quickly and more thoroughly.<br />

[old] Delilah · Post by **[old] Delilah** » November 30th, 2005, 4:55 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 29 2005, 11:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 29 2005, 02:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?<br />D. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Unrestricted rate rowing develops your endurance more quickly and more thoroughly. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />On what evidence do you base this rather bold assertion?

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » November 30th, 2005, 8:45 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 30 2005, 04:55 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 29 2005, 11:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 29 2005, 02:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?<br />D. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Unrestricted rate rowing develops your endurance more quickly and more thoroughly. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />On what evidence do you base this rather bold assertion? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Delilah:<br /><br />In case you are new to this forum and do not know John, I'd affectionately classify him as our forum "jester".<br /><br />In some cases, back in the middle ages, a jester would have been called the court's "fool" ... if you get my drift.<br /><br />There's a real neat "ignore user" feature that I've found particulary helpful. Let me know if you need help finding it.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Regards -- Mark

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » November 30th, 2005, 9:14 am

Today’s L4 workout<br />I set today to accomplish several goals.<br />1- full 60’ continuous rowing<br />2- Strapless rowing <br />3- trying to achieve 16 spm= 16/18 2’ split<br />4 the least of my concerns was pace and meters rowed. <br /><br />Accomplished<br />rowed for an entire L4 for 60 minutes- I could have rowed another 20-30 minutes however I had set the timer at 60’ and I have to go to work today.<br />I was able to row the entire 60’ strapless. <br />In the first 40 minutes I was unable to row an entire 2 min. split at 16 spm average. However in the last 12 minutes I was able to row consecutively 16-18-16-18-16-18. My average for the entire 60’ was 17 spm. <br /><br />I had a lot of consecutive 17 spm splits however many of the 17 spm were supposed to be 16 spm but more often than not of the 34+/- strokes during the 2’ splits there were more 17spm than 16spm- I suspect the avg. spm for those splits was probably 16.6 or 16.7 spm - The monitor rounds or down to the nearest whole number so these became 17 spm. And some of the 17spm were supposed to be 18 spm but again there were probably more 17spm than 18 spm so perhaps the average was 17.4 spm rounded down to 17. When I look at the string of 17 spm splits and compare the pace and meters there is a definite alternating of pace and meters between the 17spm avg. which indicate that the paces were actually above and below the 17 spm. <br /><br />Technique: I had been able to row 16 spm in the past, however as Mike noted, that was accomplished with bad rowing technique. I have spent the last 7 days trying to learn what constitutes a good stroke and analyze where the flaws in my stroke. <br /><br />I reviewed Mikes comments on technique and I reviewed the topic of strapless rowing. I also reviewed Rowing Technique- The Mike Spracklen Method. <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/sprack.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/sprack.htm</a> <br /><br />What was wrong with my technique. <br />1- I was pulling too hard at the very beginning of the stroke- basically jumping out of the starting block- Mike noted that it is important to match the effort with the speed of the fly wheel. Jumping at the start made 16 spm seem harder that 18 spm because the flywheel is slower and I was trying to accelerate the flywheel too quickly. <br /><br />In reviewing Mike Spracklen’s technique I tried to visualize being in a boat. (I have never had the pleasure of trying a real racing boat but have had some experience in a regular row boat). <br /><br />In the first part of the stroke the blade enters the water and the first thing to do is match the speed of the blade to the speed of the boat (flywheel)- Mike Spracklen then talks of finding the “post” - I imagine a post in the water against which you apply maximum force to propel the boat fast. I imagine that this is the point where the blade is at its deepest point and is completely vertical and therefore finding the highest resistance. This is the “catch” on the flywheel.<br />This is the point at which the leg drive should be at the maximum drive and the back comes into play.<br /><br />2. The second problem with my technique was that my stroke was not long enough. I was not going forward enough and at the end of the stroke I was not leaning far enough back. I found that I could reach low spm when I reached forward enough to get on the balls of my feet just before initiating the stroke. Mike Spracklen explains this position well.<br /> ”To achieve optimum position for the application of power and good forward length. Note the following points.<br /> 1. Head High- encourages good posture for body and spine<br /> 2. Chest against thighs- Rotation should be centered around the hip joint, not the upper or lower back.<br /> 3. Shins vertical- strong position for the quadriceps<br /> 4. Relaxed but alert- poised like a cat ready to spring”<br /><br />By following the above recommendation I could reach further and by leaning a little bit more at the end I could lengthen my stroke. Whenever I accomplished all of these in perfect harmony the stroke felt smooth and almost effortless and I was able to get a slower spm.<br /><br />3. The third problem was the beginning of the recovery. I was pausing to time my return and then rushing towards the flywheel to start my next stroke. Wrong!!!!!!.<br />Rowing strapless helped me correct this serious flaw. I was using the straps to pull myself towards the flywheel. <br /><br />Without the straps I am forced to use the momentum of pushing my hands forward and leaning my torso forward (pushing the oars back to the starting position), to bring me back to the flywheel. <br />I have found this actually to be the hardest part to learn. I needed a full 40 minutes of experimenting to begin to get proper feel for the this aspect of the stroke. Once I got the hang of it I was able to run off a series of 16-18-16 for the last 12 minutes. <br /><br />Mark Spracklen speaks of a “poise” during the recovery phase and he describes it:<br /><br /> ”Rhythm-Where to Poise<br /> It is always necessary to compose before any dynamic action (i.e. throwing a discuss, lifting a weight, hitting a ball, or rowing a stroke). The question is, Where is the best place to "poise" prior to the action? There are different schools of thought in rowing on where the poise should be and currently, it is popular that it be during the first half of the recovery. The attack on the stroke begins before well before the slide has reached front stops. The seat accelerates forward from the poise position into the stroke and is thought to be the best way of achieving a fast catch. The poise can be at the backstops or it can be halfway forwards.<br /> The disadvantages are.... The movement is robust and energy consuming.<br /> The method taught by me is to poise during the last part of the movement towards the front stops. The inertia created by the draw at the finish is used to carry the hands away from the body, the trunk into the catch angle and the seat from backstops. The rower has time to relax, let the boat run under the seat, and to prepare for the next stroke. The poise just before blade entry is sufficient to achieve a very fast catch.”<br /><br />I suspect it will take me at least another week of concentration on technique before I can begin to consistently hit the 16 spm with good form. But I think that in the long run I will benefit if I can carry that through to the faster spm. <br /><br />After all the purpose of the 16 spm is to perfect the rowing technique and it is obvious to me that it is easy to hide bad technique at faster paces.<br /><br />A note about rowing strapless. I noted during my workout that to compensate for going strapless I was still digging my heels in the help pull me forward somewhat. During my cool down I experiment with lower to heels of the support so that I could not rest my heels on the support. This forced me to use the momentum of pushing my arms and torso forwad to propel the seat back to flywheel. I will try this on My next L4 workout.<br /><br />My L4 workout was slower than usuall but I accomplished what I set out to do. With time I will be able to pick up the pace.<br /><br />Thanks to Mike especially for pointing out the importance of long stroke, and matching the effort at the beginning of the stroke to spin of the flywheel. <br /><br />Comments for the other members of this group have also been appreciated. <br /><br />I hope someone can benefit from my experience in trying to improve my technique and achieve a 16spm with good form.<br /><br />Your comments and corrections are welcomed.<br /><br />Ralph Giarnella

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » November 30th, 2005, 3:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Delilah @ Nov 29 2005, 06:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Level 4... since you are required to 'pull harder' I presume the fibre recruitment involves more of those fibres more suited to strength work and correspondingly less aerobic. Does this therefore increase the likelyhood that they will be involved in adaptation that improves them aerobically rather than 'normal' unrestricted work... Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br />It is my hypothesis that the nature of L4 rowing aerobically targets glycolytic fibers more effectively than free-rate rowing. Of course, I don’t have the technological resources to test this hypothesis. I think unrestricted/free-rate work will improve endurance faster than restricted/L4 work – in the short run. Level 4 provides a framework for continuing to improve endurance, slowly but surely, for a much greater period of time. Of course, the Wolverine Plan also includes a free-rate endurance training band (i.e., Level 3).<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br />

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » December 1st, 2005, 6:53 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Nov 30 2005, 01:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I reviewed Mikes comments on technique and I reviewed the topic of strapless rowing. I also reviewed Rowing Technique- The Mike Spracklen Method. <a href='http://home.hia.no/~stephens/sprack.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/~stephens/sprack.htm</a> <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Interesting quote from that page:<br /><br />"All the muscles are working through their middle range and the blade is at its most efficient point in the stroke. Make full use of this advantage by beginning the draw with the arms before midway. The arms must start to draw well before the legs reach the backstops. "<br /><br />If this is supposed to increase maximum force allowed when legs are bent then here's a simple physical analogy: A chain is not stronger than it's weakest link. Straight arms are stronger than bent arms (try doing a deadlift PB with bent arms) and if you want to keep the weakest link as strong as possible the arms should be straight when driving with the legs. <br /><br />OTH, If your legs hit the backstops before the optimal angle then you can not apply maximum force (legs are stronger than back) there and you will be limited to backstrength. In order to shift the leg power to a later angle you could start contracting your arms prior to hitting the backstops and then push with legs pass the midangle. Still you are limited by the force sustainable by bent arms. The legs,however, produce more force than the back and by bending arms early you could let the legs apply more force than the back could over the midangle if the <i>static</i> max strength of your arms were stronger than your <i>contractive</i> max strength of the back at this speed. <br /><br />The confounding factor is that maximum force is not what is the goal when rowing. It would be the case if you were only allowed to do 1 stroke during a race but that's not the way races are set up now. You do many strokes and the leg power in them are far from maximum in order to keep an efficient force profile, so low that the weaker link of bent arms is still strong enough, the contractive back power is strong enough as well over the midangle. If you can gain efficiency by bending the arms early than that's a reason for it. You will be able to generate an equally efficient force profile during the drive with bending the arms after the backstops. The reason for bending them early would be how easy internally this profile was conceived (smoothness) and quickness of water pressure contact. Anyway that's my view. Feel free to disagree!

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 1st, 2005, 11:29 am

CONFESSIONS still ...<br /><br />LEVEL 2 Pyramid today for the first time:<br /><br />1000M warm up - about 2:30 pace with spurts below 2:00 pace<br /><br />1) 3000M target 2:02.4 actual 2:01.9<br /><br />1500M active recovery about 2:30 pace and low SPM<br /><br />2) 2500M target 2:02.0 actual 2:01.1<br /><br />1500M active recovery about 2:30 pace and low SPM<br /><br />3) 2000M target 2:01.4 actual 2:00.4<br /><br />Average Pace: TARGET 2:02.0 ACTUAL 2:01.2<br /><br />Completed 100K leg of the Holiday Challenge in the midst of this.<br /><br />Could have worked harder, but wanted to be careful. Patience has not been a virtue of mine in the past. I'm trying to change this. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Now that I've completed the entire variety of workouts suggested for Levels 1 & 2, I will begin to cycle through them again picking up the paces based on past performance. To date, my paces have been set based on my reference pace (1:54) and Mike's suggestions on *slowest* recommended starting pace ... to be safe and start slowly and (hopefully) improve surely.<br /><br />We'll see how it's going in Saturday's 2K "test" during the Fall Series 2K handicap race. I will say that total weekly meters have increased substantially (to 90-100K+ each week) following the Plan. Looks like the second million meters will come at least twice as fast as the first million.<br /><br />Row well ...

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 1st, 2005, 6:26 pm

<b>The Myth of Lactate Tolerance</b> <br />Interval training is very integral to the Wolverine Plan. The Level 1 (sub-2K pace) workouts are the most critical and everything else is designed to support these workouts by developing the necessary endurance, speed, strength, technique, etc. Periodically when training is discussed there is debate about the format of interval programs. I have previously discussed the thinking behind the format of Level 1 workouts (e.g., <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... =2054&st=0' target='_blank'>HERE</a>). A subject that has been perpetually debated is the recovery interval between work periods (e.g., 8 x 500m). My preference is to take enough recovery time, and utilize <b>active recovery</b> , to promote as complete recuperation as possible between work intervals. <i>Intensity</i> is the most important of the many training variables, and training should be structured to protect intensity as much as possible. All things considered, I think more rather than less recovery is preferred. Still, there are some practical considerations and recovery must be limited to a reasonable period. Many people train within a defined time limit (such as their lunch hour). I used to run team workouts within time limits – e.g., 60’ max for one group before the next group arrives. Recovery can’t go on forever. For me the most practical consideration is that if I spend <b>too</b> much time on recovery, I begin to lose my warm-up, and the next interval is proportionately harder. (For 8 x 500m, even after a thorough warm-up, the first interval usually feels pretty difficult and the second one feels significantly easier. With too much time off between intervals, they <b>all</b> feel like the first one.) <br /><br />Another school of thought regarding interval training is to keep the recovery period relatively short. Some people apparently feel that shorter recovery periods are more <i>macho</i> , and longer recovery is for wimps. This actually cracks me up, because adequate recovery means you go <i>faster</i> during the work intervals, which hurts <i>more</i> . Part of the so-called “logic” of shorter recovery intervals is to increase the lactate load and force the body to improve its “lactate tolerance”. “Lactate tolerance” is a fallacy, and I will explain why.<br /><br />Ideally, training for an event such as 2K will result in improved energy production (via both aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways) as well as increased resistance to fatigue. Briefly stated, the stimulus for increased energy production comes from systematically increasing the training intensity across the various training bands. Following a training paradigm that hinders increased intensity is counterproductive to the goal of enhancing energy production. Meanwhile, “lactate tolerance” is not being enhanced either. The body deals with reduced pH, or neutralizes excess acid, with a combination of bicarbonate, phosphate, and protein chemical buffers (including hemoglobin). I know of no compelling scientific evidence to suggest that training has any effect on the body’s buffering systems. I have at hand a half dozen of the leading Exercise Physiology texts that all say the same thing. For example, from McArdle, Katch, and Katch: “It is tempting to speculate that anaerobic training has a positive effect on the body’s capacity for acid-base regulation, perhaps through the enhancement of chemical buffers or the alkaline reserve. However, it has never been shown that buffering capacity becomes enhanced through exercise training.” Before anyone starts posting links to different web sites that talk about improved “lactate tolerance”, take some time to investigate what if any scientific evidence is offered. For example, a physiological variable like <i>aerobic capacity</i> (VO2 max) is well-defined, easily measured in a laboratory, results are reproducible, normal values exist for untrained and well-trained individuals, standardized units exist for expressing those values, there is an established relationship between training intensity/duration and increased VO2 max, there are other measurable physiological correlates to explain the enhanced aerobic capacity (e.g., increased stroke volume and mitochondrial density), and so on, and so on. Try finding such information for “lactate tolerance”. If you want to defend it as a viable training objective, then you must 1) give it a clear clinical definition; 2) describe how it is measured in a laboratory; 3) provide pre-training and post-training values, in proper units; and 4) give examples of research investigations that have clearly shown a training effect on “lactate tolerance”.<br /><br />The Lactate Threshold, on the other hand, can be measured, is affected by training, and has been shown to correlate highly with endurance performance. [There is some subjectivity in determining exactly where the TLACT occurs, and many people confuse the TLACT with the so-called “anaerobic threshold”, which is another fallacy that I won’t go into now.] Improving the TLACT is accomplished with LSD-style training to stimulate such changes as increased mitochondrial and capillary density in the skeletal muscles, resulting in a greater ability to remove lactate from the muscle and dispose of it elsewhere. A buzzword in the training literature is <i>monocarboxylate transporters</i> (MCTs), which transport lactate across the muscle sarcolemma. Endurance training increases MCTs, making it easier for lactate to leave the muscle and enter the circulation, where it can be transported to oxidative muscle fibers or organs such as the heart, liver, or kidneys for removal. Note that improving the Lactate Threshold is <b>not </b> improving “lactate tolerance” – it is enhancing the <b>removal</b> of lactate from the muscle so the muscle doesn’t have to tolerate it! Since high lactate values are associated with conditions that are known to increase fatigue and reduce intensity, removing lactate allows the muscle fibers to continue working at a higher intensity for a longer time.<br /><br />Balanced training incorporates both high-intensity interval training to enhance energy production, and low/moderate intensity sessions of longer duration to enhance endurance (i.e., the ability to resist fatigue). In the Wolverine Plan, the intent is to use greater endurance to allow a sustained higher intensity and more rapid recovery during interval sessions. To facilitate more rapid/complete recovery, I utilize <b>active recovery</b> . This is distinct from passive recovery. The idea is to engage in enough work to stimulate greater circulation, so that excess lactate (and other fatiguing metabolic byproducts) will be removed and disposed of more quickly and efficiently. The correct intensity maximizes waste disposal without producing any more fatiguing agents. Research using different recovery protocols suggests that optimal recovery intensity is around 40% of VO2 max. Since several studies indicate that 2K pace is just about equal to VO2 max for many individuals, it is interesting that the Recovery Paces listed in the WP Level 4 tables are just about 40% of 2K pace (in Watts). I initially determined the Rec Pace by feel, but there appears to be some scientific support for why it “feels” right.<br /><br />Soon I will revisit my guidelines for recovery for the different WP interval workouts. I’ve covered this before, but I’ll try to be even more clear and explicit. <br /><br />Mike Caviston