I recall at least one person saying that they copied down all of Mike Caviston's posts on the Wolverine Plan from the previous forum.
Now that it seems like the previous forum is dead, can someone either repost them here on this new forum or email them to me? Thanks.
Wolverine Plan posts from previous forum?
Here's a little start, if it works. Not sure if I got all of Mike's posts. Not sure he covered all the topics that he'd planned.
- Doug
-----------------------------
Wolverine Plan – Entries from Concept 2 Forums
Mike Caviston
HISTORY OF THE WOLVERINE PLAN
I began rowing in 1979 and being somewhat of a perfectionist was interested from the beginning in maximizing my performance as a rower. In earlier days quantification of rowing physiology was a little more dubious than it is today, since ergometers were rare instruments and were available only occasionally for testing, let alone training. We didn’t have anything at Michigan during the time I competed, but during various trips to different boathouses (e.g., Jacksonville, Wisconsin, and MIT) I had a few opportunities to take a crack at tests on either Gamut ergs or the new C2 Model As. When not on the water, the bulk of my training involved running (lots of hills and stairs), lifting, and cycling (during the summer). I shifted from competing to coaching in the early 80s, and became responsible for structuring the training of other athletes. Meanwhile, I continued to train and use myself as a guinea pig when developing team workouts. Three things to consider were availability of equipment (few if any ergs available till the late 80s/early 90s); time (club athletes couldn’t or wouldn’t devote that much of it to training); and effectiveness (given the first two realities, what would provide the greatest results?) The basic training template involved a variety of short sessions centered on intervals or moderately long continuous activities at higher intensity. This might translate as six-seven sessions per week ranging from 40-60 minutes each (including warm-up/cool-down).
It’s hard to say precisely how effective the training was. Our program was moderately successful (we didn’t suck outright and we didn’t dominate), but so many other factors besides the training program were involved (such as lack of funds and the various things they buy, like equipment and truly professional coaches). My personal motivation for training at that point was simply to stay in shape and set a good example for the troops. I didn’t have any competitive aspirations. But in 1987 I ended up entering my first indoor race through a series of slightly improbable events. The U of M program was taking a number of athletes to the CRASH-B satellite race in Cincinnati, though originally I wasn’t able to go myself. But my plans changed and at the last minute I decided to go and to enter a race myself. Discovering there was a lightweight category and realizing I wasn’t too far over the limit, I starved for a couple days and ran off the last couple pounds the morning of the event and made the competitive weight. I had no knowledge of or interest in ergometer records at that time, and didn’t really know what I was capable of, but 8:00 flat [for 2500m on a Model B] seemed like a nice round number and at least possible based on some of the workouts I had been doing. I struggled a bit in the 4th 500m, but finished in 8:02. To my surprise, I was informed afterwards that that was the fastest any lightweight so far had ever rowed 2500m – in other words, a world record. I was also informed I won a free plane ticket to Boston and the CRASH-Bs the following week. So I went, but it wasn’t a great performance. I certainly didn’t have the technique of making weight down to a science, so that was stressful. And the event itself required heats as well as a final, so two 2500m races within three hours was a bit more of both a physical and mental challenge than I was prepared for. I got 8:06 in the final, good enough for 5th place, while the winning time was 7:57. So my first world record stood for a whole week. I was 27 years old at the time.
Over the next 5 years or so, (having purchased my own erg) I was able to train more consistently and with a view towards maximizing my 2500m performance. Since U of M’s spring break often coincides with the weekend of the CRASH-Bs in February, as a coach I was with the team in Tampa, FL on it’s annual training trip and so unable to return to Boston for another crack at a hammer. But on various attempts over that period I pulled 7:57-8 for 2500m, which if memory serves would have been good enough for either first or second place in the Open Lightweight category during that stretch (though meanwhile the world record had been lowered to about 7:51). But I wasn’t getting any faster and it didn’t seem like I would make any major jumps, so from about the age of 32 I stopped training specifically to get faster on the erg. I still used it frequently, and I still trained hard, but I got more involved in alternate activities and stopped doing test pieces on the erg.
But I’m the sort who doesn’t really enjoy training as much without some sort of goal or target to shoot for, and running or cycling generally aren’t as readily quantifiable as the erg. So by the time I was 35 or 36 years old, I was thinking about reorganizing my training towards a specific goal involving rowing. During this time I had continued to refine and tweak the training program I was using for the athletes I was coaching, and also making use of information I was getting since I entered the graduate program in Kinesiology at Michigan (I entered in ’89, got my degree in ’93 and began as a teaching assistant in ’94, eventually becoming a Lecturer in ‘96). I had followed results from the WIRC and was aware of what times were competitive in my age bracket, and also in the next (over 40). So I had some specific times to shoot for and just needed a specific plan of attack for achieving my goals. And so began what would eventually be called the Wolverine Plan.
Much of the new plan simply incorporated workouts I had been doing for years. I invented 8 x 500m (and its Level 1 variations like 4 x 1K and the 250/500/750/1000/750/500/250 pyramid). We were doing them at Michigan the first week the Model B (and the metric PM1) was released. [If anybody else independently invented those workouts, they are Alfred Russel Wallace while I am Charles Darwin.] I hadn’t done much 4 x 2K (or a similar workout, 5 x 5’), but both were popular with other coaches at Michigan and I had some experience with them so I decided to create the workout category that would eventually be called Level 2. Long, continuous (Level 3) rows had been a staple of my erging workouts and were easy to incorporate. The one workout category that was considerably different from anything I’d done before was the category that would be called Level 4. I’ll talk about that more in a future post. Some aspects that distinguish the WP from other training programs designed for rowing include limiting cross- training, and no real periodization (all types of workouts in similar proportions year-round; no “endurance” phase followed by a “sharpening” phase.) Another characteristic of the WP, which I will discuss more later, is a strong emphasis on mental discipline. My rationale being that I couldn’t realistically train with much more volume, or intensityr, so I had to be even smarter and more productive with the time I had. I created a system, started recording and analyzing scores, experimented with different formats of similar workouts, tried to find the optimum order of different types of workouts, determined how hard I could work and how long I’d need to recover from various workouts, noted how much improvement for various workouts was realistic during a training season, etc., etc. This began in the fall-winter of 1997-1998. I was 36 years old, and in that first training season of the WP my fastest 2K was 6:26. The next year saw 6:24, then 6:21, then 6:20, and finally, in February 2002, during my 40th year on Earth, I set a lifetime PR (and WR in my age group) of 6:18.
Any discussion about whether the Wolverine Plan is an effective training program would begin with my own results. Obviously, I’ve been pretty successful (3 hammers and a 2nd at CRASH-B, as well as gold medals at 2 European IRCs and 1 BIRC.) Besides a record and championships won, what impresses me most about my accomplishments (if I can be excused for such an immodest comment) is the fact that I was the fastest I’ve ever been in my life at 40 years old. Bear in mind that I wasn’t some inactive couch potato that finally saw the light, or even some successful athlete coming to rowing from a different sport. I had been training specifically, relentlessly, and successfully for rowing since I was 18 years old. But the WP was effective enough so that even with my background, I was able to keep improving up to the start of my fourth decade. For reference, other senior/master athletes are faster than me relative to the Open standards; Eskild Ebbesen comes to mind as does Lisa Schlenker. Last year at 40 Lisa won the Open Lightweight category at WIRC (my record-setting time in 2002 would have placed 11th in the Open) – but well off her record pace of a few years ago.
So the WP has been (and continues to be) successful for me. But so what, I’m just one person, what does that prove? One person might win a championship in spite of their training, not because of it (though in my case you’d have to ignore my careful records of training for the pre- and post-WP years). Has anyone else benefited from the WP? I’ve certainly heard from a number of relative beginners, via e-mail or in person at various indoor events, who have told me they’ve benefited from the Wolverine Plan. But, beginners are pretty easy to help. What about experienced and competitive athletes? You could start by talking to some of my former USIRT teammates such as Joan Van Blom, Luanne Mills, and Mary Perrot (all multiple hammer winners). Also Nancii Bernard, who placed 2nd in 2004 and first in 2005 in the women’s senior category. Michigan alum and former Olympian Steve Warner was coached by me when he got his first CRASH-B medal as a UM freshman (second as a J18LW); Steve went on to win a couple hammers and many more medals in Boston.
The greatest opportunity to evaluate the Wolverine Plan would be the 4 seasons I spent as conditioning coach for the U of M women’s team. Women’s rowing became a varsity sport at Michigan in 1996. The test of success of a women’s program is how well it does at the NCAA championship. In its first four years of existence, the women placed 5th as a team at the NCAA championship three straight years (failing to be selected for the regatta in its first year). That is certainly not a record to be ashamed of. But the Michigan head coach, looking to shake things up and get an edge, brought me aboard before the 2000-2001 season to design the overall training plan for the team, to oversee indoor training, and to help the coaches coordinate outdoor training more effectively. Prior to my involvement, the team had trained as many college programs do, with a variety of demanding and grueling workouts but without any particular structure or plan for systematic improvement. Some of the features that I would eventually discourage or eliminate included lots of cross training (track sprinting or Indian-file runs were popular); training paces based on heart rates; and competitive workouts (athletes seated next to one another with the simple goal of beating the other, rather than following a personal season-long progression). Initially, the new program was simply called The Training Plan; it wasn’t till I eventually began posting on this forum and referred to the program that I had to give it a specific name. But whatever it was called, evidence that it worked came pretty quickly and decisively. (A rowing team is the closest thing there is to an actual laboratory for testing training. I’ve worked with hundreds of athletes over the years, with opportunities to try new things, subtle variations, and compare with previous results.) In collegiate rowing each athlete is tested periodically during the season for 6K and 2K performance, and over a four year period lots of data becomes available for individuals as well as team averages and trends. In my first year with the team, every single athlete in the program (with one exception) set PRs at both 6K and 2K. Some did so by quite large amounts, and interestingly some of the biggest gainers had already been the fastest athletes on the team. Two examples were particularly striking. That year Kate Johnson was a senior. Kate was a three-time All-American (and won silver in last year’s Olympic 8) and had entered UM as the most-recruited high school rower in the country. She was extremely talented and among the most dedicated athletes I’ve ever met. But despite all her desire and hard work she hadn’t really improved her 2K time in her three years at Michigan. But by the end of her senior year she had dropped 8 seconds, down to 6:49. Another senior, Bernadette Marten (eventual national team member and gold medal winner in the 8 at the 2002 World Championships, along with Johnson and Michigan alum Kate MacKenzie) also made a big jump. Bernadette had transferred to Michigan from another program and her best 2K to date had been 6:59. By year’s end she had a school-record 6:40. A 19-second drop by a woman who is already sub-7 is pretty dramatic. What benefited these two hard-working athletes most was the structure and organization of the new training plan.
Overall, many athletes set new standards for erging at Michigan following the introduction of the Wolverine Plan. As you enter the team’s erg room, practically the first thing you see is a large board that records the names and times of the fastest twenty 2K erg scores in the history of the program. After the program’s eighth year, 17 of the top score had been recorded in the 4-year period since the introduction of the WP. Still, for a college rowing program of Michigan’s stature, the only real measure of success is at the national championship. Did the fast erg scores translate into races won? Many factors contribute to the success of a crew on the water, and it’s hard to say that any one factor was dominant. But Michigan had the same equipment, the same coaches, and probably a tougher schedule (more women’s programs are getting faster every year) – and still managed to finish better than ever before (2nd as a team in 2001). We slipped to 8th in 2002, but that is deceiving, as all teams were separated by small margins and Michigan was actually closer to first on points than in the years when they finished 5th. In 2003 we finished 4th and in 2004 3rd. During those four years, the only teams to score more points than Michigan at the NCAA championship were Brown and Washington.
Maybe it was just a coincidence that the team took it up a notch the year I started working with them. Maybe they just had good athletes who worked hard and the training program wasn’t much of a factor. Last year I was let go by the UM women’s program midway through the year. I won’t go into specifics, except to say that the head coach wanted to get back to being more hands-on with the team (it had been an unprecedented move for a head coach to let someone else have so much input in those areas where I was involved), and the athletes had become increasingly dissatisfied with the structure and inflexibility of the WP (they had forgotten what the WP says about negotiating the price of success). They changed the focus of their training more towards variety and what they thought of as stimulation, and away from pre-determined paces or set goals. I doubt if they were satisfied with the ultimate results (lowest finishes ever at the Big 10, Central Regional, and NCAA regattas). Last year’s team probably never had enough depth to be a serious championship contender, but there were high hopes for the first varsity 8. Michigan’s 1V had finished 2nd in the country in 2003 and 3rd in 2004, and five athletes in the 2005 1V had rowed in both those boats, while a sixth had rowed for part of 1 year. So it was a very successful and experienced crew, and beat a number of ranked crews early in the year, but struggled at the end and finished 9th at NCAAs. The major problems I saw with Michigan’s fitness at the end of last season was that they peaked too early, and several experienced athletes failed to improve their erg scores or in some cases finished slower than the year before (many younger athletes did improve, but as I’ve said that’s less impressive when evaluating a training program). Time will tell whether last year was just an aberration, and I wish this year’s team all the success in the world. But I’d be lying if I said I thought their current training was as effective as it can be.
Many people who read the forums have heard of the Wolverine Plan but proportionally few really understand it. I have read accounts from or have corresponded with several people who thought they were following the WP but were not (based on faulty second-hand accounts, or by not reading the available information carefully enough). Some people have taken a perverse pleasure in deliberately misrepresenting the WP or my subsequent comments, no matter how many times I correct them. I’ll provide some generic examples in the future. Still other people are happy to rip off the WP and promote its workouts and principles as their own. Well, I don’t have a copyright, so I guess I can’t complain, and the important thing is that people who want it get help with their training. The WP clearly isn’t for everybody, and maybe not for many at all. It takes a lot of physical and mental toughness, and more dedication and discipline than even many so-called serious athletes are willing to invest. Some people think it is very complicated, but it’s actually very simple once you learn the terminology and a few basic rules. It boils down to gradual, systematic progression over time. You don’t have to be fast to start using it, but if you stick with it long enough, you’ll be fast before you’re finished with it.
As I get time, some of the specific topics I hope to address in the near future:
1. General Training Concepts (structure, progression, specificity etc.)
2. Level 4 (addressing the many myths & misconceptions, plus new charts)
3. Levels 1-3 Pacing (benefits of pacing; new charts)
4. Warm-Up/Active Recovery
5. Overall Training Schedule (generic, plus my personal schedule)
6. Off-Season vs. In-Season Training (and the transitions back & forth)
Before diving deeper into specific portions of the Wolverine Plan (Level 4, etc.), I want to spend a little time clarifying my position on several general training concepts. Again, much of this will be repetitive to anyone who has read my previous posts, but I think people will understand the WP a little better if they realize where I am coming from in my understanding of physiology, biomechanics, and even psychology. To begin, I’m always careful to make a distinction between Training as a means of maximizing performance in an athletic event or contest, and Exercise as a means of maintaining overall health & fitness. The WP is a Training Plan, and its primary intent is to allow rowers (indoor and outdoor) to maximize their performance while racing the collegiate & international competitive distance of 2000 meters. As such, the WP requires more commitment, discipline, and effort than a simple Exercise routine (though I know of many non-competitive exercise enthusiasts who have gotten ideas for variety and structure for their workouts from the WP).
Training must address the specific physiological and biomechanical demands of the event for which one is training. Rowing requires a high level of performance from both the aerobic and rapid glycolytic metabolic energy pathways, and the appropriate training will be a mixture of workouts of longer duration (e.g., 40-60’) at low-moderate intensity, as well as briefer workouts of higher intensity (approaching and even exceeding race pace). A training plan for rowers will therefore be quite different from plans for athletes in other sports (marathon runners, multi-stage cyclists, track or pool sprinters, etc.) A training plan needs the proper balance between higher and lower intensity workouts. Race-pace training is stressful and fatiguing and requires greater recovery between sessions. Such sessions should only be performed once or twice per week if an athlete hopes to continue developing over an extended period without showing signs of overtraining or staleness. Endurance training, on the other hand, can (and in an idealized plan, should) be performed several times per week. A key point that I reiterate frequently, is that everyone should build their training volume slowly & carefully. But even untrained or unfit individuals have a remarkable capacity for improving endurance, given time. As a frame of reference, in my own training the combined meters of Level 1 & 2 workouts make up <10% of my total training volume; the other categories (warm-up, Level 3, Level 4) make up the other 90+%. For those whose total volume doesn’t approach my own, meters at an intensity that is near 2K pace should still be <20% of the weekly total.
I believe the most effective training is holistic when it comes to integrating different training bands throughout the season. I don’t believe in periodizing my training, such as an early season “endurance phase”, and a pre-competition “sharpening” or “interval” phase. Variables such as strength, endurance, speed, and power are interdependent and should be developed simultaneously and in roughly the proportions requires in competition. This makes sense to me based on my understanding of both the biochemistry of energy metabolism in skeletal muscle, as well as the neural control of multi-joint movements such as a rowing stroke. Another point I make regarding effective training is the limited value of cross training. Variety (in the form of activities such as running, swimming, cycling, stairclimbing, etc.) is nice to relieve the monotony of long sessions or to take some of the stress off those overworked muscles and joints, but specificity is necessary to maximize the unique adaptations required for rowing. I like to do 3-4 hours of stationary cycling per week, mostly to cool down from my rowing workouts, but this is supplementary to my regular routine. [I don’t need any more clear proof of the limits of cross training than I received this summer. I had the opportunity to do some traveling and had access to excellent fitness facilities but no erg. For 15 consecutive days, I followed a routine that combined cycling and stairclimbing, performing more than 120’ of work per day, which is more than my normal rowing volume. I mimicked the format and intensities of my normal rowing workouts as well as I could. I made substantial gains on the alternate equipment; I lost weight as a result of the extra calories expended; but when I got back on the erg my rowing performance had declined considerably. It is exactly eight weeks since the end of the trip, and I am only now getting back to the level I had attained before the start of the trip.] Still another key point I address regarding successful training is the need to accurately measure performance. This means keeping detailed records of every session (warm-up, total meters, total time, sub-interval splits, stroke rate, drag factor, notes about temperature & humidity or any other factor that would affect performance). This information is vital if you hope to accurately gauge your progress, isolate the key performance variables, and identify any training errors. I continually look back over records from past years and make judgments like “This went well… this needs to be modified slightly… this didn’t work at all… in order for this to work, I need to _______...”
When it comes to assessing performance, or determining the target intensity for workouts, the one variable I use is pace. Not heart rate, not perceived exertion, not lactate levels, or anything else. Indoor rowing is a unique activity in that the environment is about as stable as any in sport. Temperature may vary, but there are no hills and no headwinds to deal with. So for a cyclist, 20mph might require more or less effort depending on the wind & terrain, and an additional index of intensity such as HR might be useful, but on an erg a given pace pretty much tells the story. The C2 monitor gives instant and accurate feedback on every stroke. Why on earth disregard that for something as variable or unstable as HR, which is affected not only by effort but also temperature, hydration, caffeination, body position, emotional state, and God knows what else? The same is true for lactate levels, assuming you have the means of taking and analyzing samples. Many factors besides effort affect lactate values, and many variables besides lactate (e.g., ammonia, potassium, and calcium) are involved in muscle fatigue and vary as a function of intensity. The view of performance as seen through the lens of HR- or lactate-based training is always going to be fuzzy, so it’s actually more accurate as well as simpler to focus on pace (the per-500m split on the erg’s monitor).
The major benefit of a Training Plan is to provide structure, and a framework for consistent performance. The plan should include some format for systematic progression over time. A common error among athletes preparing for competition is to jump from workout to workout without any regard for the eventual long-term outcome. They select workouts randomly (or by avoiding the types of workouts they least enjoy), make up their minds about what to do on the spur of the moment, change formats in the middle of a session, do a workout based on somebody else’s challenge, etc. They may have no idea about the appropriate pace for a particular workout, the best strategy for completing the workout, or what pace for the workout is appropriate when pursuing specific goals in competition. It is not enough (though it is certainly crucial) to simply “work hard” day after day. There needs to be a framework for determining how hard is “hard”, and whether the workout serves the specific physiological needs of the athlete, and what the effects will be on subsequent workouts (i.e., leave you so tired and sore you must take time off). Athletes may do well or poorly on a particular workout, but take the results out of the context of a stable routine and incorrectly assume they are in better or worse shape than they are. My goal with the Wolverine plan is to create a consistent, structured, progressive format for improving gradually over time. I have checks and balances for quantifying the relevant variables (pace & stroke rate for each segment of each piece within each workout) to make sure that the appropriate intensity is being reached but not exceeded. I can be confident my gains are real and not an artifact of an artificially accommodating schedule, and I can be reasonably certain I will be able to reach the same level of performance or better in a race. There are alternate means of structuring training; keeping HR within certain bands is one example (though not as effective, in my opinion). Another viable plan has been built around the premise of systematically increasing stroke rate while keeping the distance covered per stroke fixed at 10 meters. Other structured formats are no doubt possible.
Progress is the goal of training and my recommendation is to proceed in a slow, steady, fairly linear manner. Avoid trying to gain too much too soon. My analogy is with the fly-and-die approach to a 2K race. Pick a training pace for the season that will let you finish strong, not burn out several weeks before the big race. I quantify my weekly intensity and volume (meters, time, pace, Watts, and Joules for each training band as well as all workouts combined) and plan my workout goals to keep my rates of increase smooth, steady, and appropriate for my current fitness level. The weekly overall intensity increase from week to week averages a little over one tenth of a second per 500m, or just under 1 Watt average power per week. Not very impressive. But over 30 weeks or so, it’s a pretty dramatic improvement. If I add volume, I add it very slowly. Sports physicians recommend no more than a 10% increase in volume from one week to the next, but I keep it at maybe 2-3%, which generally means an increase in overall distance of 500m-1K (Level 3), or 4-6’ of time (Level 4).
The Wolverine Plan recommends a fairly high volume of training for optimal results. I work up to 160-180K per week total, though people have made significant improvements with half that distance. The endurance sessions include long, continuous Level 3 rows (I’ve gone as long as 32K), and Level 4 sessions of 60-70’. Many people can’t or won’t row that long continuously, and question whether it is necessary or prudent. I myself haven’t rowed 32K continuously in a few years, but my target for this year is 25K (currently at 23K, taking about 84’). I do 60’ Level 4 rows twice a week, and eventually will extend one of those to 70’. But many people prefer to break longer sessions into shorter segments (e.g., 3 x 20’ or 3 x 5K), and wonder how that fits into the Wolverine Plan. The answer would depend on how serious you are about maximizing your performance and exactly what you hope to accomplish with training. In terms of cardiovascular adaptation, there is probably minimal difference between doing 60 consecutive minutes vs. 3 x 20’, with short (3-5’) breaks, at the same overall intensity. But besides strengthening the heart, another desired training adaptation is to make the skeletal muscles more efficient at extracting oxygen and sparing glycogen. The nature of our muscles’ strategy for dealing with prolonged, steady work is to activate motor units with muscle fibers that are primarily adapted for endurance; relatively speaking, the fibers that are primarily adapted for speed and strength remain unselected. However, in a 2K race ALL fibers will be recruited and I know in that situation I want every single fiber to have as much endurance as possible. If we take breaks every 20’ or so, those fibers most subject to fatigue will probably never get called upon, because it doesn’t take the fatigue-resistant fibers long to rest up. They may be nearly recovered for the next 20’ piece. To activate the most fatigue-susceptible fibers (“fast-twitch”, if you prefer), we must first tire out the fatigue-resistant (“slow-twitch”) fibers – which is going to take longer than 20’. How long? Probably somewhere between 60-90’ of continual activation. So I recommend at least one 60’ session per week – meaning 60’ of continuous, uninterrupted rowing. If you can’t manage that at the start of a training season, that’s fine – just work to progressively bring at least one session to an hour’s length. That might mean starting at 30’ and adding a few minutes per week, or starting at 8K and building to 16K in 500m increments. The Wolverine Plan mentions 4x 10’ Level 4 workouts, and 2 x 6K Level 3 workouts, and some people seize on this as permission to break everything down into shorter segments. Read more closely: 4 x 10’ is an advanced workout for those already doing 2 or more continuous sessions, and the 2 x 6K refers to outdoor training when the body of water doesn’t allow longer rows (I’d prefer a straight 12K).
An extremely important aspect of training with the Wolverine Plan is to master the specific skills required to hold the specified rates and paces in the various training bands, and to develop mental skills as well as physical. Unfortunately it is this structure and these strict guidelines that turn many people off from the WP – even though they are what have made the plan so effective. Some have tried to modify the plan by keeping the same general formats but eliminating specific guidelines (e.g., doing Level 4 sequences without guidelines for pace). This is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It turns out that such attention to detail while working hard is at least as important as the work itself. For example, data I collected from the women’s team at Michigan consistently showed that such things as accuracy when performing Level 4 or consistent pacing for interval work were better predictors of who would row in the first boat than were raw 2K scores! Faster rowers (erg and water) tended to have much better “erg skills” than slower rowers. Athletes and coaches both were too quick to dismiss this, rationalizing that some athletes had better skill on the erg because they had better skill on the water, and didn’t prioritize developing skills on the erg. I am not talking about eliminating gross mechanical deficiencies like losing connection on the drive or opening the back too early; I’m talking about things like being able to hold a stable rate and pace for an extended period of time, or being able to shift from one rate to another quickly and accurately. I encourage people not to let themselves be sidetracked by outside stimuli that would reduce concentration. Only listen to music if it doesn’t distract. (It was a source of frustration to me when athletes would be mouthing the lyrics to Eminem during workouts, or asking the cox’n to skip the CD ahead to their favorite track, when they didn’t know what sequence they were supposed to be doing or what stroke rate or split they should be following.) It is my belief that high concentration and overall attention to detail will facilitate optimal neurological as well as physiological improvement. This summer, I happened to read two interesting books that talked about something called the “broken windows” phenomenon. The phenomenon, essentially, is this: when a window is broken in an abandoned building and is not fixed, soon more windows will be broken. The fact that the window wasn’t fixed sends a signal that it’s okay to break more windows. In Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner), crime statistics in New York City were examined and it was determined that a significant factor in reducing crime rates in the 90s was the policy of focusing police attention on lesser crimes such as turnstile jumpers, public urinators, panhandlers, and so on. Some complained that this was a waste of resources and the cops should be out catching real crooks, but it apparently sent the message that ALL crime would be targeted, and serious crime fell as well. In Dumbing Down Our Kids, Charles Sykes looked at trends in education that lead to poor academic performance, and provided examples where school districts that make student discipline a priority (e.g., dress codes; no chewing gum in class) get better results. All of this really fits well with my priorities when it comes to training. Hard work is essential, but it needs to be focused and directed to lead to the greatest gains. Details like a structured warm-up, a firm goal pace, a specified plan for stroke rate and pace during each portion of the workout, an overall plan for improvement, etc. aren’t just incidental but critical for success. For years I have watched as athletes disregard relatively minor details, until it eventually seems okay to quit during pieces, skip workouts, abandon goals, etc.
Finally, for this installment, a reminder that training isn’t supposed to be easy. If it was, it wouldn’t be doing its job. That seems so remarkably obvious, yet in the midst of training athletes frequently look for ways to cut corners or find the path of least resistance or renegotiate the terms for improvement. Is the full warm-up really necessary? I don’t want to row strapless; it’s harder to get my splits. Do I have to do the whole piece? Can’t I take a break? Can I take tomorrow off? If I have to keep changing the rate, I can’t get into a groove. This is hard…
There is a Zen saying: “The obstacle is the path”.
NOTES ON LEVEL 4
When I put together the Wolverine Plan, the aspect most different from my previous training was the Level 4 training band. Training at lower rates using rhythm & rating pyramids & ladders was certainly not a new concept. I had used such things with my crews on the water for years, but had avoided using them for indoor training. Part of the rationale involved trying to maximize fitness in a limited amount of time (in my early days of involvement with rowing as a coach, we had limited access to ergs and the commitment of the athletes wasn’t as developed as it is today). Watching other coaches run indoor workouts based on shifting ratings sequences, I didn’t like the generally low intensity or lack of accountability these workouts had. Athletes were instructed to pull at specific rates, but were given no clear instructions about pace. Athletes were free to pull harder or not as they chose, and frequently as workouts progressed and ratings got higher, splits would actually get slower. Now, I just can’t abide a training paradigm where someone can shift from 24 to 26spm and go slower in the process. As I set about restructuring my training into what is now the WP, I thought I could take advantage of certain aspects of low rate work as long as I developed standards for consistency.
The initial workouts were primarily a matter of trial-and-error as I tried different paces at different rates to see what felt right. I wanted to keep things fairly simple using evenly spaced whole numbers, so I settled on 2:00 @ 16spm, 1:56 @ 18, 1:52 @ 20, and 1:48 @ 22. After I started fooling around with different workouts, different 10-30’ pieces with various 2’/2’/2’ etc. combinations, I added 1:44 @ 24 and 1:40 @ 26 to my list with the idea that I’d eventually use them when I got in better shape. The paces seemed to be appropriate, and there wasn’t really any more science behind them than that. I had no preconceived notion of “power per stroke” or anything like that. During that first year of Level 4 training, my best 2K ended up being 6:24, so I began to think of my 2K pace (1:36) in relation to these low-rate workouts. Later calculations would eventually show that, indeed, the amount of energy (Joules) per stroke for the low-rate work was roughly the same as for my 2K. That may just be a coincidence or it may be the reason those Level 4 paces “felt” right.
The next step was to create standard 10’ and 6’ sequences to save time in planning workouts, give me a shorthand to record them with, make it easier to look at different patterns, etc. The first year or two, I experimented with a wide variety of workout formats: 6-10 x 10’ with various recovery periods, depending on intensity; 40-80’ of continuous rowing; and longer pieces with recovery, such as 3-4 x 20’, 30’/20’/10’, etc. I gradually decided the best formats were continuous rows of 40-70’ duration (the exception being 4 x 10’, which I’ll discuss below). When I began working with the Michigan women’s team, I expanded the “Reference Pace” concept to other 2K paces. My most recent update to Level 4 has been the addition of sequences based on odd-numbered stroke rates.
I have heard and read a lot of discussion about Level 4 over the past few years, and one of the frustrating things about sharing my plan with the masses is the number of myths & misconceptions that have arisen. Some have persisted despite many attempts on my part to dispel them. Let me try again. Myth #1: “Level 4 is strength training.” It’s not; it’s endurance training. Sure, it requires a certain amount of strength, or “power per stroke”, or whatever you want to call it. Lack of power was one of my original complaints about low-rate rowing as many people performed it; I never saw the benefit of putzing along at paces well over 2:00. But the amount of power required for Level 4 is proportional to established 2K ability; it’s not intended to exceed it. It’s intended to tax endurance, not necessarily strength. A 60’ Level 4 workout may have as many as 1200 strokes, or 1200 consecutive “reps” without pause. What kind of strength program would feature sessions like that? Who would walk into a weight room, pick up a couple dumbbells, and pump out more than a thousand reps? How light would the weight have to be? Would they really expect to get stronger? Amusingly to me, some individuals who have stated that Level 4 uses too much power per stroke also do workouts such as “30r20” which involves maximal power for half an hour at 20spm. This requires far more power per stroke than any Level 4 workout. Myth #2: “Level 4 isn’t appropriate for heavyweights.” The idea here is being that since the training was developed by a lightweight and popularized by women, it doesn’t address the needs of big men. This ties into the mistaken belief that Level 4 focuses on strength and power rather than endurance, and heavyweight men already have enough power. This thinking is flawed on two levels. First, enough power relative to whom? Women and lightweight men? Second, as I keep saying BUT APPARENTLY NOT OFTEN ENOUGH, Level 4 is endurance training. So, any heavyweight that wants to improve endurance would benefit from Level 4 workouts. Myth #3: “Rowing at low rates keeps you from reaching higher rates during a 2K race.” Nonsense. Never doing workouts at higher intensity (2K rate and pace) keeps you from optimizing your 2K rate. This is why the WP includes Level 1 & 2 workouts every week. Myth #4: “Rowing continuously at a steady rate according to the WP Level 4 guidelines gives the same effect as shifting the rate.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some people don’t want the challenge or responsibility of thinking about the different shifts in pace and rate; they want to get into a comfortable groove and just keep one steady rate for the entire workout. That’s still training, and if that’s what they want to do, more power to them. But they are mistaken if they think rowing for 60’ @ a constant 20spm according to WP guidelines is the same as doing the 200 sequence (4’/3’/2’/1’ @ 18/20/22/24) six times in a row. In the first place, due to the relationship between velocity and power, the average watts for the varying rate sequences will be higher than for the steady rate, even though the total number of strokes taken is the same in both scenarios. Secondly, and more importantly, the steady “groove” creates a neurological adaptation that improves efficiency, making it easier to hold a given pace, while disrupting the groove (changing the rate) reduces efficiency. [I came across the concept of perseveration, the persistence of a movement pattern after performing a rhythmic activity for an extended period, while researching efficiency for my Sports Biomechanics class. For example, in triathlons, during the transition from cycle to run, the effect of the cycling cadence persists and disrupts the triathlete’s running economy for about 6’ after getting off the bike. This means that the athlete requires more oxygen to run at a given pace following the cycling leg than running at the same pace without having cycled. This occurs even with the same stride length/frequency and controlling for prior fatigue by having the athlete run before running economy is measured.] The take-home message is that rowing at a given average pace with changing rates is more physically demanding than rowing at the same pace with a constant rate. You can’t use Level 4 predictors or assume Level 4 adaptations just because you can hold a particular pace at a steady rate. The simple proof for me is that I can cover MANY more meters in a given time frame using a constant rate than by using the same average rate with Level 4 sequences.
There are several other benefits to Level 4 training besides increased ENDURANCE (did I mention Level 4 was good for endurance?) It gives athletes a chance to work on overall technique as specified by a coach or according to whatever parameters an individual is trying to develop. Low rates = more time between strokes = more opportunity to think & modify. Things like consistency, ratio, suspension & acceleration on the drive, control on the recovery, length, and so on. (BTW, I strongly encourage everyone to row strapless as often as possible and certainly for all Level 4 rowing.) As I discussed in a previous post, the skills required for Level 4 rowing correlate with fast rowing on the erg as well as on the water. Mentally, breaking up long pieces into 1, 2, and 3 minute chunks makes things go by a lot faster. The overall variety using the Level 4 format makes it possible to do 60’ workouts again and again and again without ever doing them the same way twice.
Some have asked about different physiological aspects of Level 4. Regarding heart rate, I have no idea, as I never monitor HR while training. I don’t know about lactate, either, but I would bet money that lactate levels after a workout are no higher than resting. I find the relationship between breathing and level 4 very interesting. I am a long-time asthmatic and while I haven’t had a truly serious attack in years, it does occasionally limit my performance or cause me to shorten or alter my workouts. With Level 4’s lower rates, even when my bronchi are constricted, there is time for slower, more deliberate breaths and I find I can get adequate air. Slow, deep breathing is more effective than rapid, shallow breathing at allowing gas exchange (greater alveolar ventilation for given minute ventilation) and I try to maintain a slower, deeper pattern for all workouts. I can’t imagine breathing more than once per stroke! Another interesting observation I’ve had about Level 4 is that it apparently utilizes more muscle glycogen than other workouts. I never “bonk” during other workouts, even 25-30K Level 3s, but I have to be careful with Level 4. (As I will eventually describe, my overall diet is very high in carbohydrates of all kinds).
In general, I think Level 4 is a fairly simple concept. Learn your paces, and construct workouts that slowly/gradually increase the number of strokes taken in a given time frame. As a result, more meters will be accumulated and endurance will improve. The hardest step in many cases is choosing an initial Reference Pace (which dictates what paces to pull for various rates). This is the trickiest to discuss because while I have some pretty clear guidelines there are some cases where I don’t have solid advice, and a little trial and error will be required. The Ref Pace is ideally selected based on your best 2K pace from the previous season. If your 2K was 7:00 flat, use a 1:45 Ref Pace, consult the appropriate tables, and base your workouts accordingly. If your 2K pace was in between 2 whole numbers, I would generally recommend rounding down (slower) for anyone new to Level 4 training. But for people who think the training is “hard” (which concept I’ll discuss shortly), I also discourage people from choosing an even slower Ref Pace. If you completed a maximal 2K last year, even if you are out of shape now, you should be able to handle the designated pace (you can start at low volume and at the lower end of the ratings spectrum). You should never, NEVER choose a Ref Pace faster than your 2K. Yet I hear of people doing this again and again. They choose a Ref Pace based on what they want to do or think they will or should do. They invariably burn out and abandon the program before they can realize its benefits. The Ref Pace should be selected based on what you have actually done, not what you hope to do in the future. If training goes well this year, you can increase the pace next year. Some people try to compensate for a lower training volume by using a higher Ref Pace to maximize the intensity, but I strongly discourage this. [The 4 x 10’ workout in the WP is only meant to gradually acclimate users to more intense sequences that will eventually be incorporated into the continuous rows.] Another myth about Level 4 is that it predicts 2K. In fact there is only a modest correlation. The truest predictors of 2k ability are workouts such as 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. Even though my 2K has been slipping for the past couple years, my Level 4 performance has continued to improve (very slightly, but it’s the only training band that has continued to improve since I set my PR four years ago). I try to get people away from the mindset that “If I row Ref Pace X, I will get 2K score Y”. Instead I try to encourage the mindset that “Since I’ve pulled 2K score Y, I should use Ref Pace X”. For a total novice, it will be impossible to choose an appropriate Ref Pace, and I would encourage more informal drills or short workouts trying different Level 4 rates and paces. After a couple months, the newbie could probably do a Level 1 workout like 8 x 500m with a good enough effort to estimate 2K pace and Level 4 Ref Pace. But that’s not going to be an exact science, and will likely require some occasional adjustments. For the non-competitive rower, one strategy is to choose a Ref Pace on a given day based on how you feel. If you feel ambitious, choose a harder pace; if you feel sluggish, choose an easier pace. (I know a few former varsity rowers who break up their stairclimbing and spinning classes with a few erg workouts. They like having a format that gives the workout some structure with the option of taking it easy when they feel like it.) But for athletes training seriously to maximize their 2K speed, it is preferable to work within the framework of one stable Ref Pace for a season.
The last thing I’ll address today is the question of how “hard” Level 4 should feel. Many athletes are set on the notion that training must include “easy” or “recovery” days, and they are surprised and alarmed at just how challenging Level 4 can be. I think “hard” is a relative term, but no workout should ever feel “easy”. If it’s easy, it’s not training, because training means pushing yourself to new levels. OTOH, training needs to be realistic, and possible; it rarely needs to be excruciating. The level of effort I am searching for with ALL my workouts is “tough, but doable”. I want to feel tired but not exhausted. I want to feel like if I HAD to, I could’ve gone a little harder – but I’m glad I didn’t have to. And next time I WILL go a little harder, but by then I will have adapted and will be physically and mentally prepared. Now, some days it becomes clear to me pretty early in the workout that I’ve bitten off maybe more than I can chew, and that every stroke is going to be a dogfight. When that happens, I get through it as best I can and then try to set the goal pace more accurately next time. With the Wolverine Plan, I want every workout to be “hard” but not necessarily the same kind of hard. Different training bands have different intensities, durations and other parameters to stress different aspects of our physiology (and psychology). – Having said all that, I wouldn’t worry or quibble if a workout feels “easy” as long as you create a format that systematically has you increasing the intensity. If you can get through a whole season, improving beyond past performances, and it still feels “easy” – more power to you.
Next week I’ll go through some guidelines for designing a single Level 4 workout (what sequences in which order, etc.) as well as tips for progressing the intensity level systematically over a training season. I’ll give various examples from my training and explain why I did what I did. If anyone wants to provide some examples of Level 4 workouts they have done, or how they increase volume/intensity during the season, I’ll try to comment (don’t be shy – I’ll even do it in a supportive, non-sarcastic manner [you hope]).
Below previously posted by Mike Caviston) ...
From prev. post
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
By far the most common question I get regarding the WP is something like, "Okay, I think I understand all this Level 1-2-3-4 business. But how the heck do I put it together into a weekly program? The Plan says something about 9 workouts a week, and I ain't doing that! So what gives?" Hey, the 9 per week is an ideal we've never really achieved at Michigan. Our team generally does 8 per week in season (that means during the fall and spring outdoor seasons, and includes 2 erg sessions along with 6 H2O workouts) and 6 erg sessions per week in the winter. I myself usually do 11 workouts per week for about half the year, and 7-9 per week the other half. At the lower end of the spectrum, I could see people making gains on 4 workouts per week. The first thing you need to do is decide how many workouts a week you will realistically commit to. A general rule is to always include a Level 1 workout and usually a Level 2, and then to supplement them with as much Level 3 & 4 as is practical or you are willing to do. Do them in roughly a ratio of twice as much Level 4 as Level 3. This refers to total meters more so than number of workouts. Now, bearing in mind the format can be flexible and these aren't carved in stone, here are some examples of possible plans using 4-8 session per week:
4 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1 OR Level 2 (alternate each week)
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day 3: Level 3 (12K)
Day 4: Level 4 (60')
• Alternate the Level 1 or 2 workouts until about 4 weeks before your big race. Then, while keeping Level 1, replace the Level 3 or one of the Level 4s with Level 2.
• You might occasionally use an interval format rather than a continuous format for Level 3 or 4 (see the Wolverine Plan for details).
5 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day 3: Level 2
Day 4: Level 4 (60')
Day 5: Level 3 (12K)
6 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day3: Level 2
Day 4: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 5: Level 3 (15K)
Day 6: Level 4 (60')
7 Workouts/Week: Day 1, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 1, PM: Level 3 (10 x 3')
Day 2: Level 1
Day 3: Level 4 (2 x 40')
Day 4: Level 2
Day 5: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 6: Level 3 (12K)
8 Workouts/Week: Day 1, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 1, PM: Level 3 (12 x 3')
Day 2: Level 1
Day 3, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 3, PM: Level 4 (60')
Day 4: Level 2
Day 5: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 6: Level 3 (15K)
• If doing more than one Level 3 or more than 2 Level 4s per week, do one using the interval format on a regular basis.
• The amounts listed for Level 3 & 4 may need to be built gradually over several weeks.
So the general idea is to separate the high-intensity workouts with slower, more continuous workouts. It is possible to work hard on a daily basis within the framework of each type of workout by alternating workouts of different type. Level 1 doesn't have to be at the beginning of the week (I personally do mine in the middle of the week), but it's a good place if you need some extra recovery to be well rested and ready to perform at a high level. You may also periodically want to do time trials (such as a 95%-effort 2K or an all-out 6K) in place of the workout scheduled for the end of the week, and doing Level 1 early in the week allows you to recover without compromising your training. (Alternately, you may want to do a time trial at the beginning of the week, in place of the Level 1 workout, but I prefer not to go that route.)
A REGULAR FORMAT OR SCHEDULE IS KEY
It is very important to develop a schedule you are comfortable with and then stick to it as closely as possible over the duration of your training cycle. I don't think that the exact order of workouts is a crucial factor but keeping the workouts in the same order on a weekly basis is necessary to allow consistent and reproducible improvement. Occasionally something will come up and you will have to use your best judgment about what alterations to make, but do your best to keep your schedule as consistent as possible. I don't have a hard and fast rule about which workout(s) to toss if you know you can't complete an entire week, but a couple general rules would be: 1) drop Level 1 if you are far away from competition and drop Level 3 if you are close to competition; and 2) all other things being equal, the workout you struggle with most is the last one you should drop. One of our biggest challenges at Michigan (and I imagine for all college crews) is to maintain a consistent schedule despite multiple variables like competitions and the associated travel, seasonal changes, facility availability, exams, class schedules, holidays etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating Level 4 Workouts
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.
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.
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.
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:
1st session, 30’: 176,178,180 = 534 strokes (avg. 17.8spm)
Assuming that went well, proceed to a longer session (if not, repeat session 1).
2nd session, 36’ (using 6’ sequences): 104,110,104,110,104,110 = 642 (17.8)
(Proceed to next session or repeat if necessary.)
3rd session, 40’: 176,178,178,180 = 712 (17.8)
(Proceed or repeat.)
4th session, 42’: 112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)
5th session, 46’ (combination 10’ & 6’ sequences): 176,178,176,180,110 = 820 (17.8)
6th session, 50’: 176,176,186,176,176 = 890 (17.8)
7th session, 54’: 104,110,104,110,104,110,104,112^,104 = 962 (17.8)
8th session, 60’: 176,178,180,176,178,180 = 1068 (17.8)
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.
9th session, 60’: 178,180,178,178,180,178 = 1072 (17.9)
10th session, 60’: 176,186,176,176,186,176 = 1076 (17.9)
11th session, 60’: 180,180,180,180,180,180 = 1080 (18)
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).
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):
1) 186,186,186,186,186,186
2) 178,180,186,190,196,186
3) 180,190,180,190,186,190
4) 180,186,180,190,180,200
5) 184,186,188,188,186,184
6) 176,186,196,176,186,196
7) 186,178,186,188,192,186
8) 178,188,198,188,184,180
9) 176,188,188,188,188,188
10) 190,178,190,190,178,190
11) 180,184,186,188,188,190
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.
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:
1) 178,186,178,188,178,188 (1096 strokes, 18.3spm)
2) 180,180,180,180,188,190 (1098, 18.3)
3) 104,110,116,104,110,116,104,110,110,116 (1100, 18.3)
4) 180,186,180,186,180,190 (1102, 18.4)
5) 178,186,188,188,186,176 (1104, 18.4)
6) 176,186,188,192,186,178 (1106, 18.4)
7) 178,188,188,188,188,178 (1108, 18.5)
8) 180,190,180,190,180,190 (1110, 18.5)
9) 110,110,110,110,110,116,110,110,110,116 (1112, 18.5)
10) 180,186,188,186,188,186 (1114, 18.6)
11) 188,186,186,186,186,184 (1116, 18.6)
12) 110,110,116,110,110,110,116,110,110,116 (1118, 18.6)
13) 186,188,186,186,188,186 (1120, 18.7)
14) 184,186,188,186,188,190 (1122, 18.7)
15) 110,110,116,110,110,116,110,116,110,116 (1124, 18.7)
16) 186, 186,186,196,186,186 (1126,18.8)
17) 178,188,198,178,188,198 (1128, 18.8)
18) 110,116,110,116,110,116,110,116,110,116 (1130, 18.8)
19) 186,188,186,196,186,190 (1132, 18.9)
20) 188,190,188,190,188,190 (1134, 18.9)
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
- Doug
-----------------------------
Wolverine Plan – Entries from Concept 2 Forums
Mike Caviston
HISTORY OF THE WOLVERINE PLAN
I began rowing in 1979 and being somewhat of a perfectionist was interested from the beginning in maximizing my performance as a rower. In earlier days quantification of rowing physiology was a little more dubious than it is today, since ergometers were rare instruments and were available only occasionally for testing, let alone training. We didn’t have anything at Michigan during the time I competed, but during various trips to different boathouses (e.g., Jacksonville, Wisconsin, and MIT) I had a few opportunities to take a crack at tests on either Gamut ergs or the new C2 Model As. When not on the water, the bulk of my training involved running (lots of hills and stairs), lifting, and cycling (during the summer). I shifted from competing to coaching in the early 80s, and became responsible for structuring the training of other athletes. Meanwhile, I continued to train and use myself as a guinea pig when developing team workouts. Three things to consider were availability of equipment (few if any ergs available till the late 80s/early 90s); time (club athletes couldn’t or wouldn’t devote that much of it to training); and effectiveness (given the first two realities, what would provide the greatest results?) The basic training template involved a variety of short sessions centered on intervals or moderately long continuous activities at higher intensity. This might translate as six-seven sessions per week ranging from 40-60 minutes each (including warm-up/cool-down).
It’s hard to say precisely how effective the training was. Our program was moderately successful (we didn’t suck outright and we didn’t dominate), but so many other factors besides the training program were involved (such as lack of funds and the various things they buy, like equipment and truly professional coaches). My personal motivation for training at that point was simply to stay in shape and set a good example for the troops. I didn’t have any competitive aspirations. But in 1987 I ended up entering my first indoor race through a series of slightly improbable events. The U of M program was taking a number of athletes to the CRASH-B satellite race in Cincinnati, though originally I wasn’t able to go myself. But my plans changed and at the last minute I decided to go and to enter a race myself. Discovering there was a lightweight category and realizing I wasn’t too far over the limit, I starved for a couple days and ran off the last couple pounds the morning of the event and made the competitive weight. I had no knowledge of or interest in ergometer records at that time, and didn’t really know what I was capable of, but 8:00 flat [for 2500m on a Model B] seemed like a nice round number and at least possible based on some of the workouts I had been doing. I struggled a bit in the 4th 500m, but finished in 8:02. To my surprise, I was informed afterwards that that was the fastest any lightweight so far had ever rowed 2500m – in other words, a world record. I was also informed I won a free plane ticket to Boston and the CRASH-Bs the following week. So I went, but it wasn’t a great performance. I certainly didn’t have the technique of making weight down to a science, so that was stressful. And the event itself required heats as well as a final, so two 2500m races within three hours was a bit more of both a physical and mental challenge than I was prepared for. I got 8:06 in the final, good enough for 5th place, while the winning time was 7:57. So my first world record stood for a whole week. I was 27 years old at the time.
Over the next 5 years or so, (having purchased my own erg) I was able to train more consistently and with a view towards maximizing my 2500m performance. Since U of M’s spring break often coincides with the weekend of the CRASH-Bs in February, as a coach I was with the team in Tampa, FL on it’s annual training trip and so unable to return to Boston for another crack at a hammer. But on various attempts over that period I pulled 7:57-8 for 2500m, which if memory serves would have been good enough for either first or second place in the Open Lightweight category during that stretch (though meanwhile the world record had been lowered to about 7:51). But I wasn’t getting any faster and it didn’t seem like I would make any major jumps, so from about the age of 32 I stopped training specifically to get faster on the erg. I still used it frequently, and I still trained hard, but I got more involved in alternate activities and stopped doing test pieces on the erg.
But I’m the sort who doesn’t really enjoy training as much without some sort of goal or target to shoot for, and running or cycling generally aren’t as readily quantifiable as the erg. So by the time I was 35 or 36 years old, I was thinking about reorganizing my training towards a specific goal involving rowing. During this time I had continued to refine and tweak the training program I was using for the athletes I was coaching, and also making use of information I was getting since I entered the graduate program in Kinesiology at Michigan (I entered in ’89, got my degree in ’93 and began as a teaching assistant in ’94, eventually becoming a Lecturer in ‘96). I had followed results from the WIRC and was aware of what times were competitive in my age bracket, and also in the next (over 40). So I had some specific times to shoot for and just needed a specific plan of attack for achieving my goals. And so began what would eventually be called the Wolverine Plan.
Much of the new plan simply incorporated workouts I had been doing for years. I invented 8 x 500m (and its Level 1 variations like 4 x 1K and the 250/500/750/1000/750/500/250 pyramid). We were doing them at Michigan the first week the Model B (and the metric PM1) was released. [If anybody else independently invented those workouts, they are Alfred Russel Wallace while I am Charles Darwin.] I hadn’t done much 4 x 2K (or a similar workout, 5 x 5’), but both were popular with other coaches at Michigan and I had some experience with them so I decided to create the workout category that would eventually be called Level 2. Long, continuous (Level 3) rows had been a staple of my erging workouts and were easy to incorporate. The one workout category that was considerably different from anything I’d done before was the category that would be called Level 4. I’ll talk about that more in a future post. Some aspects that distinguish the WP from other training programs designed for rowing include limiting cross- training, and no real periodization (all types of workouts in similar proportions year-round; no “endurance” phase followed by a “sharpening” phase.) Another characteristic of the WP, which I will discuss more later, is a strong emphasis on mental discipline. My rationale being that I couldn’t realistically train with much more volume, or intensityr, so I had to be even smarter and more productive with the time I had. I created a system, started recording and analyzing scores, experimented with different formats of similar workouts, tried to find the optimum order of different types of workouts, determined how hard I could work and how long I’d need to recover from various workouts, noted how much improvement for various workouts was realistic during a training season, etc., etc. This began in the fall-winter of 1997-1998. I was 36 years old, and in that first training season of the WP my fastest 2K was 6:26. The next year saw 6:24, then 6:21, then 6:20, and finally, in February 2002, during my 40th year on Earth, I set a lifetime PR (and WR in my age group) of 6:18.
Any discussion about whether the Wolverine Plan is an effective training program would begin with my own results. Obviously, I’ve been pretty successful (3 hammers and a 2nd at CRASH-B, as well as gold medals at 2 European IRCs and 1 BIRC.) Besides a record and championships won, what impresses me most about my accomplishments (if I can be excused for such an immodest comment) is the fact that I was the fastest I’ve ever been in my life at 40 years old. Bear in mind that I wasn’t some inactive couch potato that finally saw the light, or even some successful athlete coming to rowing from a different sport. I had been training specifically, relentlessly, and successfully for rowing since I was 18 years old. But the WP was effective enough so that even with my background, I was able to keep improving up to the start of my fourth decade. For reference, other senior/master athletes are faster than me relative to the Open standards; Eskild Ebbesen comes to mind as does Lisa Schlenker. Last year at 40 Lisa won the Open Lightweight category at WIRC (my record-setting time in 2002 would have placed 11th in the Open) – but well off her record pace of a few years ago.
So the WP has been (and continues to be) successful for me. But so what, I’m just one person, what does that prove? One person might win a championship in spite of their training, not because of it (though in my case you’d have to ignore my careful records of training for the pre- and post-WP years). Has anyone else benefited from the WP? I’ve certainly heard from a number of relative beginners, via e-mail or in person at various indoor events, who have told me they’ve benefited from the Wolverine Plan. But, beginners are pretty easy to help. What about experienced and competitive athletes? You could start by talking to some of my former USIRT teammates such as Joan Van Blom, Luanne Mills, and Mary Perrot (all multiple hammer winners). Also Nancii Bernard, who placed 2nd in 2004 and first in 2005 in the women’s senior category. Michigan alum and former Olympian Steve Warner was coached by me when he got his first CRASH-B medal as a UM freshman (second as a J18LW); Steve went on to win a couple hammers and many more medals in Boston.
The greatest opportunity to evaluate the Wolverine Plan would be the 4 seasons I spent as conditioning coach for the U of M women’s team. Women’s rowing became a varsity sport at Michigan in 1996. The test of success of a women’s program is how well it does at the NCAA championship. In its first four years of existence, the women placed 5th as a team at the NCAA championship three straight years (failing to be selected for the regatta in its first year). That is certainly not a record to be ashamed of. But the Michigan head coach, looking to shake things up and get an edge, brought me aboard before the 2000-2001 season to design the overall training plan for the team, to oversee indoor training, and to help the coaches coordinate outdoor training more effectively. Prior to my involvement, the team had trained as many college programs do, with a variety of demanding and grueling workouts but without any particular structure or plan for systematic improvement. Some of the features that I would eventually discourage or eliminate included lots of cross training (track sprinting or Indian-file runs were popular); training paces based on heart rates; and competitive workouts (athletes seated next to one another with the simple goal of beating the other, rather than following a personal season-long progression). Initially, the new program was simply called The Training Plan; it wasn’t till I eventually began posting on this forum and referred to the program that I had to give it a specific name. But whatever it was called, evidence that it worked came pretty quickly and decisively. (A rowing team is the closest thing there is to an actual laboratory for testing training. I’ve worked with hundreds of athletes over the years, with opportunities to try new things, subtle variations, and compare with previous results.) In collegiate rowing each athlete is tested periodically during the season for 6K and 2K performance, and over a four year period lots of data becomes available for individuals as well as team averages and trends. In my first year with the team, every single athlete in the program (with one exception) set PRs at both 6K and 2K. Some did so by quite large amounts, and interestingly some of the biggest gainers had already been the fastest athletes on the team. Two examples were particularly striking. That year Kate Johnson was a senior. Kate was a three-time All-American (and won silver in last year’s Olympic 8) and had entered UM as the most-recruited high school rower in the country. She was extremely talented and among the most dedicated athletes I’ve ever met. But despite all her desire and hard work she hadn’t really improved her 2K time in her three years at Michigan. But by the end of her senior year she had dropped 8 seconds, down to 6:49. Another senior, Bernadette Marten (eventual national team member and gold medal winner in the 8 at the 2002 World Championships, along with Johnson and Michigan alum Kate MacKenzie) also made a big jump. Bernadette had transferred to Michigan from another program and her best 2K to date had been 6:59. By year’s end she had a school-record 6:40. A 19-second drop by a woman who is already sub-7 is pretty dramatic. What benefited these two hard-working athletes most was the structure and organization of the new training plan.
Overall, many athletes set new standards for erging at Michigan following the introduction of the Wolverine Plan. As you enter the team’s erg room, practically the first thing you see is a large board that records the names and times of the fastest twenty 2K erg scores in the history of the program. After the program’s eighth year, 17 of the top score had been recorded in the 4-year period since the introduction of the WP. Still, for a college rowing program of Michigan’s stature, the only real measure of success is at the national championship. Did the fast erg scores translate into races won? Many factors contribute to the success of a crew on the water, and it’s hard to say that any one factor was dominant. But Michigan had the same equipment, the same coaches, and probably a tougher schedule (more women’s programs are getting faster every year) – and still managed to finish better than ever before (2nd as a team in 2001). We slipped to 8th in 2002, but that is deceiving, as all teams were separated by small margins and Michigan was actually closer to first on points than in the years when they finished 5th. In 2003 we finished 4th and in 2004 3rd. During those four years, the only teams to score more points than Michigan at the NCAA championship were Brown and Washington.
Maybe it was just a coincidence that the team took it up a notch the year I started working with them. Maybe they just had good athletes who worked hard and the training program wasn’t much of a factor. Last year I was let go by the UM women’s program midway through the year. I won’t go into specifics, except to say that the head coach wanted to get back to being more hands-on with the team (it had been an unprecedented move for a head coach to let someone else have so much input in those areas where I was involved), and the athletes had become increasingly dissatisfied with the structure and inflexibility of the WP (they had forgotten what the WP says about negotiating the price of success). They changed the focus of their training more towards variety and what they thought of as stimulation, and away from pre-determined paces or set goals. I doubt if they were satisfied with the ultimate results (lowest finishes ever at the Big 10, Central Regional, and NCAA regattas). Last year’s team probably never had enough depth to be a serious championship contender, but there were high hopes for the first varsity 8. Michigan’s 1V had finished 2nd in the country in 2003 and 3rd in 2004, and five athletes in the 2005 1V had rowed in both those boats, while a sixth had rowed for part of 1 year. So it was a very successful and experienced crew, and beat a number of ranked crews early in the year, but struggled at the end and finished 9th at NCAAs. The major problems I saw with Michigan’s fitness at the end of last season was that they peaked too early, and several experienced athletes failed to improve their erg scores or in some cases finished slower than the year before (many younger athletes did improve, but as I’ve said that’s less impressive when evaluating a training program). Time will tell whether last year was just an aberration, and I wish this year’s team all the success in the world. But I’d be lying if I said I thought their current training was as effective as it can be.
Many people who read the forums have heard of the Wolverine Plan but proportionally few really understand it. I have read accounts from or have corresponded with several people who thought they were following the WP but were not (based on faulty second-hand accounts, or by not reading the available information carefully enough). Some people have taken a perverse pleasure in deliberately misrepresenting the WP or my subsequent comments, no matter how many times I correct them. I’ll provide some generic examples in the future. Still other people are happy to rip off the WP and promote its workouts and principles as their own. Well, I don’t have a copyright, so I guess I can’t complain, and the important thing is that people who want it get help with their training. The WP clearly isn’t for everybody, and maybe not for many at all. It takes a lot of physical and mental toughness, and more dedication and discipline than even many so-called serious athletes are willing to invest. Some people think it is very complicated, but it’s actually very simple once you learn the terminology and a few basic rules. It boils down to gradual, systematic progression over time. You don’t have to be fast to start using it, but if you stick with it long enough, you’ll be fast before you’re finished with it.
As I get time, some of the specific topics I hope to address in the near future:
1. General Training Concepts (structure, progression, specificity etc.)
2. Level 4 (addressing the many myths & misconceptions, plus new charts)
3. Levels 1-3 Pacing (benefits of pacing; new charts)
4. Warm-Up/Active Recovery
5. Overall Training Schedule (generic, plus my personal schedule)
6. Off-Season vs. In-Season Training (and the transitions back & forth)
Before diving deeper into specific portions of the Wolverine Plan (Level 4, etc.), I want to spend a little time clarifying my position on several general training concepts. Again, much of this will be repetitive to anyone who has read my previous posts, but I think people will understand the WP a little better if they realize where I am coming from in my understanding of physiology, biomechanics, and even psychology. To begin, I’m always careful to make a distinction between Training as a means of maximizing performance in an athletic event or contest, and Exercise as a means of maintaining overall health & fitness. The WP is a Training Plan, and its primary intent is to allow rowers (indoor and outdoor) to maximize their performance while racing the collegiate & international competitive distance of 2000 meters. As such, the WP requires more commitment, discipline, and effort than a simple Exercise routine (though I know of many non-competitive exercise enthusiasts who have gotten ideas for variety and structure for their workouts from the WP).
Training must address the specific physiological and biomechanical demands of the event for which one is training. Rowing requires a high level of performance from both the aerobic and rapid glycolytic metabolic energy pathways, and the appropriate training will be a mixture of workouts of longer duration (e.g., 40-60’) at low-moderate intensity, as well as briefer workouts of higher intensity (approaching and even exceeding race pace). A training plan for rowers will therefore be quite different from plans for athletes in other sports (marathon runners, multi-stage cyclists, track or pool sprinters, etc.) A training plan needs the proper balance between higher and lower intensity workouts. Race-pace training is stressful and fatiguing and requires greater recovery between sessions. Such sessions should only be performed once or twice per week if an athlete hopes to continue developing over an extended period without showing signs of overtraining or staleness. Endurance training, on the other hand, can (and in an idealized plan, should) be performed several times per week. A key point that I reiterate frequently, is that everyone should build their training volume slowly & carefully. But even untrained or unfit individuals have a remarkable capacity for improving endurance, given time. As a frame of reference, in my own training the combined meters of Level 1 & 2 workouts make up <10% of my total training volume; the other categories (warm-up, Level 3, Level 4) make up the other 90+%. For those whose total volume doesn’t approach my own, meters at an intensity that is near 2K pace should still be <20% of the weekly total.
I believe the most effective training is holistic when it comes to integrating different training bands throughout the season. I don’t believe in periodizing my training, such as an early season “endurance phase”, and a pre-competition “sharpening” or “interval” phase. Variables such as strength, endurance, speed, and power are interdependent and should be developed simultaneously and in roughly the proportions requires in competition. This makes sense to me based on my understanding of both the biochemistry of energy metabolism in skeletal muscle, as well as the neural control of multi-joint movements such as a rowing stroke. Another point I make regarding effective training is the limited value of cross training. Variety (in the form of activities such as running, swimming, cycling, stairclimbing, etc.) is nice to relieve the monotony of long sessions or to take some of the stress off those overworked muscles and joints, but specificity is necessary to maximize the unique adaptations required for rowing. I like to do 3-4 hours of stationary cycling per week, mostly to cool down from my rowing workouts, but this is supplementary to my regular routine. [I don’t need any more clear proof of the limits of cross training than I received this summer. I had the opportunity to do some traveling and had access to excellent fitness facilities but no erg. For 15 consecutive days, I followed a routine that combined cycling and stairclimbing, performing more than 120’ of work per day, which is more than my normal rowing volume. I mimicked the format and intensities of my normal rowing workouts as well as I could. I made substantial gains on the alternate equipment; I lost weight as a result of the extra calories expended; but when I got back on the erg my rowing performance had declined considerably. It is exactly eight weeks since the end of the trip, and I am only now getting back to the level I had attained before the start of the trip.] Still another key point I address regarding successful training is the need to accurately measure performance. This means keeping detailed records of every session (warm-up, total meters, total time, sub-interval splits, stroke rate, drag factor, notes about temperature & humidity or any other factor that would affect performance). This information is vital if you hope to accurately gauge your progress, isolate the key performance variables, and identify any training errors. I continually look back over records from past years and make judgments like “This went well… this needs to be modified slightly… this didn’t work at all… in order for this to work, I need to _______...”
When it comes to assessing performance, or determining the target intensity for workouts, the one variable I use is pace. Not heart rate, not perceived exertion, not lactate levels, or anything else. Indoor rowing is a unique activity in that the environment is about as stable as any in sport. Temperature may vary, but there are no hills and no headwinds to deal with. So for a cyclist, 20mph might require more or less effort depending on the wind & terrain, and an additional index of intensity such as HR might be useful, but on an erg a given pace pretty much tells the story. The C2 monitor gives instant and accurate feedback on every stroke. Why on earth disregard that for something as variable or unstable as HR, which is affected not only by effort but also temperature, hydration, caffeination, body position, emotional state, and God knows what else? The same is true for lactate levels, assuming you have the means of taking and analyzing samples. Many factors besides effort affect lactate values, and many variables besides lactate (e.g., ammonia, potassium, and calcium) are involved in muscle fatigue and vary as a function of intensity. The view of performance as seen through the lens of HR- or lactate-based training is always going to be fuzzy, so it’s actually more accurate as well as simpler to focus on pace (the per-500m split on the erg’s monitor).
The major benefit of a Training Plan is to provide structure, and a framework for consistent performance. The plan should include some format for systematic progression over time. A common error among athletes preparing for competition is to jump from workout to workout without any regard for the eventual long-term outcome. They select workouts randomly (or by avoiding the types of workouts they least enjoy), make up their minds about what to do on the spur of the moment, change formats in the middle of a session, do a workout based on somebody else’s challenge, etc. They may have no idea about the appropriate pace for a particular workout, the best strategy for completing the workout, or what pace for the workout is appropriate when pursuing specific goals in competition. It is not enough (though it is certainly crucial) to simply “work hard” day after day. There needs to be a framework for determining how hard is “hard”, and whether the workout serves the specific physiological needs of the athlete, and what the effects will be on subsequent workouts (i.e., leave you so tired and sore you must take time off). Athletes may do well or poorly on a particular workout, but take the results out of the context of a stable routine and incorrectly assume they are in better or worse shape than they are. My goal with the Wolverine plan is to create a consistent, structured, progressive format for improving gradually over time. I have checks and balances for quantifying the relevant variables (pace & stroke rate for each segment of each piece within each workout) to make sure that the appropriate intensity is being reached but not exceeded. I can be confident my gains are real and not an artifact of an artificially accommodating schedule, and I can be reasonably certain I will be able to reach the same level of performance or better in a race. There are alternate means of structuring training; keeping HR within certain bands is one example (though not as effective, in my opinion). Another viable plan has been built around the premise of systematically increasing stroke rate while keeping the distance covered per stroke fixed at 10 meters. Other structured formats are no doubt possible.
Progress is the goal of training and my recommendation is to proceed in a slow, steady, fairly linear manner. Avoid trying to gain too much too soon. My analogy is with the fly-and-die approach to a 2K race. Pick a training pace for the season that will let you finish strong, not burn out several weeks before the big race. I quantify my weekly intensity and volume (meters, time, pace, Watts, and Joules for each training band as well as all workouts combined) and plan my workout goals to keep my rates of increase smooth, steady, and appropriate for my current fitness level. The weekly overall intensity increase from week to week averages a little over one tenth of a second per 500m, or just under 1 Watt average power per week. Not very impressive. But over 30 weeks or so, it’s a pretty dramatic improvement. If I add volume, I add it very slowly. Sports physicians recommend no more than a 10% increase in volume from one week to the next, but I keep it at maybe 2-3%, which generally means an increase in overall distance of 500m-1K (Level 3), or 4-6’ of time (Level 4).
The Wolverine Plan recommends a fairly high volume of training for optimal results. I work up to 160-180K per week total, though people have made significant improvements with half that distance. The endurance sessions include long, continuous Level 3 rows (I’ve gone as long as 32K), and Level 4 sessions of 60-70’. Many people can’t or won’t row that long continuously, and question whether it is necessary or prudent. I myself haven’t rowed 32K continuously in a few years, but my target for this year is 25K (currently at 23K, taking about 84’). I do 60’ Level 4 rows twice a week, and eventually will extend one of those to 70’. But many people prefer to break longer sessions into shorter segments (e.g., 3 x 20’ or 3 x 5K), and wonder how that fits into the Wolverine Plan. The answer would depend on how serious you are about maximizing your performance and exactly what you hope to accomplish with training. In terms of cardiovascular adaptation, there is probably minimal difference between doing 60 consecutive minutes vs. 3 x 20’, with short (3-5’) breaks, at the same overall intensity. But besides strengthening the heart, another desired training adaptation is to make the skeletal muscles more efficient at extracting oxygen and sparing glycogen. The nature of our muscles’ strategy for dealing with prolonged, steady work is to activate motor units with muscle fibers that are primarily adapted for endurance; relatively speaking, the fibers that are primarily adapted for speed and strength remain unselected. However, in a 2K race ALL fibers will be recruited and I know in that situation I want every single fiber to have as much endurance as possible. If we take breaks every 20’ or so, those fibers most subject to fatigue will probably never get called upon, because it doesn’t take the fatigue-resistant fibers long to rest up. They may be nearly recovered for the next 20’ piece. To activate the most fatigue-susceptible fibers (“fast-twitch”, if you prefer), we must first tire out the fatigue-resistant (“slow-twitch”) fibers – which is going to take longer than 20’. How long? Probably somewhere between 60-90’ of continual activation. So I recommend at least one 60’ session per week – meaning 60’ of continuous, uninterrupted rowing. If you can’t manage that at the start of a training season, that’s fine – just work to progressively bring at least one session to an hour’s length. That might mean starting at 30’ and adding a few minutes per week, or starting at 8K and building to 16K in 500m increments. The Wolverine Plan mentions 4x 10’ Level 4 workouts, and 2 x 6K Level 3 workouts, and some people seize on this as permission to break everything down into shorter segments. Read more closely: 4 x 10’ is an advanced workout for those already doing 2 or more continuous sessions, and the 2 x 6K refers to outdoor training when the body of water doesn’t allow longer rows (I’d prefer a straight 12K).
An extremely important aspect of training with the Wolverine Plan is to master the specific skills required to hold the specified rates and paces in the various training bands, and to develop mental skills as well as physical. Unfortunately it is this structure and these strict guidelines that turn many people off from the WP – even though they are what have made the plan so effective. Some have tried to modify the plan by keeping the same general formats but eliminating specific guidelines (e.g., doing Level 4 sequences without guidelines for pace). This is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It turns out that such attention to detail while working hard is at least as important as the work itself. For example, data I collected from the women’s team at Michigan consistently showed that such things as accuracy when performing Level 4 or consistent pacing for interval work were better predictors of who would row in the first boat than were raw 2K scores! Faster rowers (erg and water) tended to have much better “erg skills” than slower rowers. Athletes and coaches both were too quick to dismiss this, rationalizing that some athletes had better skill on the erg because they had better skill on the water, and didn’t prioritize developing skills on the erg. I am not talking about eliminating gross mechanical deficiencies like losing connection on the drive or opening the back too early; I’m talking about things like being able to hold a stable rate and pace for an extended period of time, or being able to shift from one rate to another quickly and accurately. I encourage people not to let themselves be sidetracked by outside stimuli that would reduce concentration. Only listen to music if it doesn’t distract. (It was a source of frustration to me when athletes would be mouthing the lyrics to Eminem during workouts, or asking the cox’n to skip the CD ahead to their favorite track, when they didn’t know what sequence they were supposed to be doing or what stroke rate or split they should be following.) It is my belief that high concentration and overall attention to detail will facilitate optimal neurological as well as physiological improvement. This summer, I happened to read two interesting books that talked about something called the “broken windows” phenomenon. The phenomenon, essentially, is this: when a window is broken in an abandoned building and is not fixed, soon more windows will be broken. The fact that the window wasn’t fixed sends a signal that it’s okay to break more windows. In Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner), crime statistics in New York City were examined and it was determined that a significant factor in reducing crime rates in the 90s was the policy of focusing police attention on lesser crimes such as turnstile jumpers, public urinators, panhandlers, and so on. Some complained that this was a waste of resources and the cops should be out catching real crooks, but it apparently sent the message that ALL crime would be targeted, and serious crime fell as well. In Dumbing Down Our Kids, Charles Sykes looked at trends in education that lead to poor academic performance, and provided examples where school districts that make student discipline a priority (e.g., dress codes; no chewing gum in class) get better results. All of this really fits well with my priorities when it comes to training. Hard work is essential, but it needs to be focused and directed to lead to the greatest gains. Details like a structured warm-up, a firm goal pace, a specified plan for stroke rate and pace during each portion of the workout, an overall plan for improvement, etc. aren’t just incidental but critical for success. For years I have watched as athletes disregard relatively minor details, until it eventually seems okay to quit during pieces, skip workouts, abandon goals, etc.
Finally, for this installment, a reminder that training isn’t supposed to be easy. If it was, it wouldn’t be doing its job. That seems so remarkably obvious, yet in the midst of training athletes frequently look for ways to cut corners or find the path of least resistance or renegotiate the terms for improvement. Is the full warm-up really necessary? I don’t want to row strapless; it’s harder to get my splits. Do I have to do the whole piece? Can’t I take a break? Can I take tomorrow off? If I have to keep changing the rate, I can’t get into a groove. This is hard…
There is a Zen saying: “The obstacle is the path”.
NOTES ON LEVEL 4
When I put together the Wolverine Plan, the aspect most different from my previous training was the Level 4 training band. Training at lower rates using rhythm & rating pyramids & ladders was certainly not a new concept. I had used such things with my crews on the water for years, but had avoided using them for indoor training. Part of the rationale involved trying to maximize fitness in a limited amount of time (in my early days of involvement with rowing as a coach, we had limited access to ergs and the commitment of the athletes wasn’t as developed as it is today). Watching other coaches run indoor workouts based on shifting ratings sequences, I didn’t like the generally low intensity or lack of accountability these workouts had. Athletes were instructed to pull at specific rates, but were given no clear instructions about pace. Athletes were free to pull harder or not as they chose, and frequently as workouts progressed and ratings got higher, splits would actually get slower. Now, I just can’t abide a training paradigm where someone can shift from 24 to 26spm and go slower in the process. As I set about restructuring my training into what is now the WP, I thought I could take advantage of certain aspects of low rate work as long as I developed standards for consistency.
The initial workouts were primarily a matter of trial-and-error as I tried different paces at different rates to see what felt right. I wanted to keep things fairly simple using evenly spaced whole numbers, so I settled on 2:00 @ 16spm, 1:56 @ 18, 1:52 @ 20, and 1:48 @ 22. After I started fooling around with different workouts, different 10-30’ pieces with various 2’/2’/2’ etc. combinations, I added 1:44 @ 24 and 1:40 @ 26 to my list with the idea that I’d eventually use them when I got in better shape. The paces seemed to be appropriate, and there wasn’t really any more science behind them than that. I had no preconceived notion of “power per stroke” or anything like that. During that first year of Level 4 training, my best 2K ended up being 6:24, so I began to think of my 2K pace (1:36) in relation to these low-rate workouts. Later calculations would eventually show that, indeed, the amount of energy (Joules) per stroke for the low-rate work was roughly the same as for my 2K. That may just be a coincidence or it may be the reason those Level 4 paces “felt” right.
The next step was to create standard 10’ and 6’ sequences to save time in planning workouts, give me a shorthand to record them with, make it easier to look at different patterns, etc. The first year or two, I experimented with a wide variety of workout formats: 6-10 x 10’ with various recovery periods, depending on intensity; 40-80’ of continuous rowing; and longer pieces with recovery, such as 3-4 x 20’, 30’/20’/10’, etc. I gradually decided the best formats were continuous rows of 40-70’ duration (the exception being 4 x 10’, which I’ll discuss below). When I began working with the Michigan women’s team, I expanded the “Reference Pace” concept to other 2K paces. My most recent update to Level 4 has been the addition of sequences based on odd-numbered stroke rates.
I have heard and read a lot of discussion about Level 4 over the past few years, and one of the frustrating things about sharing my plan with the masses is the number of myths & misconceptions that have arisen. Some have persisted despite many attempts on my part to dispel them. Let me try again. Myth #1: “Level 4 is strength training.” It’s not; it’s endurance training. Sure, it requires a certain amount of strength, or “power per stroke”, or whatever you want to call it. Lack of power was one of my original complaints about low-rate rowing as many people performed it; I never saw the benefit of putzing along at paces well over 2:00. But the amount of power required for Level 4 is proportional to established 2K ability; it’s not intended to exceed it. It’s intended to tax endurance, not necessarily strength. A 60’ Level 4 workout may have as many as 1200 strokes, or 1200 consecutive “reps” without pause. What kind of strength program would feature sessions like that? Who would walk into a weight room, pick up a couple dumbbells, and pump out more than a thousand reps? How light would the weight have to be? Would they really expect to get stronger? Amusingly to me, some individuals who have stated that Level 4 uses too much power per stroke also do workouts such as “30r20” which involves maximal power for half an hour at 20spm. This requires far more power per stroke than any Level 4 workout. Myth #2: “Level 4 isn’t appropriate for heavyweights.” The idea here is being that since the training was developed by a lightweight and popularized by women, it doesn’t address the needs of big men. This ties into the mistaken belief that Level 4 focuses on strength and power rather than endurance, and heavyweight men already have enough power. This thinking is flawed on two levels. First, enough power relative to whom? Women and lightweight men? Second, as I keep saying BUT APPARENTLY NOT OFTEN ENOUGH, Level 4 is endurance training. So, any heavyweight that wants to improve endurance would benefit from Level 4 workouts. Myth #3: “Rowing at low rates keeps you from reaching higher rates during a 2K race.” Nonsense. Never doing workouts at higher intensity (2K rate and pace) keeps you from optimizing your 2K rate. This is why the WP includes Level 1 & 2 workouts every week. Myth #4: “Rowing continuously at a steady rate according to the WP Level 4 guidelines gives the same effect as shifting the rate.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some people don’t want the challenge or responsibility of thinking about the different shifts in pace and rate; they want to get into a comfortable groove and just keep one steady rate for the entire workout. That’s still training, and if that’s what they want to do, more power to them. But they are mistaken if they think rowing for 60’ @ a constant 20spm according to WP guidelines is the same as doing the 200 sequence (4’/3’/2’/1’ @ 18/20/22/24) six times in a row. In the first place, due to the relationship between velocity and power, the average watts for the varying rate sequences will be higher than for the steady rate, even though the total number of strokes taken is the same in both scenarios. Secondly, and more importantly, the steady “groove” creates a neurological adaptation that improves efficiency, making it easier to hold a given pace, while disrupting the groove (changing the rate) reduces efficiency. [I came across the concept of perseveration, the persistence of a movement pattern after performing a rhythmic activity for an extended period, while researching efficiency for my Sports Biomechanics class. For example, in triathlons, during the transition from cycle to run, the effect of the cycling cadence persists and disrupts the triathlete’s running economy for about 6’ after getting off the bike. This means that the athlete requires more oxygen to run at a given pace following the cycling leg than running at the same pace without having cycled. This occurs even with the same stride length/frequency and controlling for prior fatigue by having the athlete run before running economy is measured.] The take-home message is that rowing at a given average pace with changing rates is more physically demanding than rowing at the same pace with a constant rate. You can’t use Level 4 predictors or assume Level 4 adaptations just because you can hold a particular pace at a steady rate. The simple proof for me is that I can cover MANY more meters in a given time frame using a constant rate than by using the same average rate with Level 4 sequences.
There are several other benefits to Level 4 training besides increased ENDURANCE (did I mention Level 4 was good for endurance?) It gives athletes a chance to work on overall technique as specified by a coach or according to whatever parameters an individual is trying to develop. Low rates = more time between strokes = more opportunity to think & modify. Things like consistency, ratio, suspension & acceleration on the drive, control on the recovery, length, and so on. (BTW, I strongly encourage everyone to row strapless as often as possible and certainly for all Level 4 rowing.) As I discussed in a previous post, the skills required for Level 4 rowing correlate with fast rowing on the erg as well as on the water. Mentally, breaking up long pieces into 1, 2, and 3 minute chunks makes things go by a lot faster. The overall variety using the Level 4 format makes it possible to do 60’ workouts again and again and again without ever doing them the same way twice.
Some have asked about different physiological aspects of Level 4. Regarding heart rate, I have no idea, as I never monitor HR while training. I don’t know about lactate, either, but I would bet money that lactate levels after a workout are no higher than resting. I find the relationship between breathing and level 4 very interesting. I am a long-time asthmatic and while I haven’t had a truly serious attack in years, it does occasionally limit my performance or cause me to shorten or alter my workouts. With Level 4’s lower rates, even when my bronchi are constricted, there is time for slower, more deliberate breaths and I find I can get adequate air. Slow, deep breathing is more effective than rapid, shallow breathing at allowing gas exchange (greater alveolar ventilation for given minute ventilation) and I try to maintain a slower, deeper pattern for all workouts. I can’t imagine breathing more than once per stroke! Another interesting observation I’ve had about Level 4 is that it apparently utilizes more muscle glycogen than other workouts. I never “bonk” during other workouts, even 25-30K Level 3s, but I have to be careful with Level 4. (As I will eventually describe, my overall diet is very high in carbohydrates of all kinds).
In general, I think Level 4 is a fairly simple concept. Learn your paces, and construct workouts that slowly/gradually increase the number of strokes taken in a given time frame. As a result, more meters will be accumulated and endurance will improve. The hardest step in many cases is choosing an initial Reference Pace (which dictates what paces to pull for various rates). This is the trickiest to discuss because while I have some pretty clear guidelines there are some cases where I don’t have solid advice, and a little trial and error will be required. The Ref Pace is ideally selected based on your best 2K pace from the previous season. If your 2K was 7:00 flat, use a 1:45 Ref Pace, consult the appropriate tables, and base your workouts accordingly. If your 2K pace was in between 2 whole numbers, I would generally recommend rounding down (slower) for anyone new to Level 4 training. But for people who think the training is “hard” (which concept I’ll discuss shortly), I also discourage people from choosing an even slower Ref Pace. If you completed a maximal 2K last year, even if you are out of shape now, you should be able to handle the designated pace (you can start at low volume and at the lower end of the ratings spectrum). You should never, NEVER choose a Ref Pace faster than your 2K. Yet I hear of people doing this again and again. They choose a Ref Pace based on what they want to do or think they will or should do. They invariably burn out and abandon the program before they can realize its benefits. The Ref Pace should be selected based on what you have actually done, not what you hope to do in the future. If training goes well this year, you can increase the pace next year. Some people try to compensate for a lower training volume by using a higher Ref Pace to maximize the intensity, but I strongly discourage this. [The 4 x 10’ workout in the WP is only meant to gradually acclimate users to more intense sequences that will eventually be incorporated into the continuous rows.] Another myth about Level 4 is that it predicts 2K. In fact there is only a modest correlation. The truest predictors of 2k ability are workouts such as 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. Even though my 2K has been slipping for the past couple years, my Level 4 performance has continued to improve (very slightly, but it’s the only training band that has continued to improve since I set my PR four years ago). I try to get people away from the mindset that “If I row Ref Pace X, I will get 2K score Y”. Instead I try to encourage the mindset that “Since I’ve pulled 2K score Y, I should use Ref Pace X”. For a total novice, it will be impossible to choose an appropriate Ref Pace, and I would encourage more informal drills or short workouts trying different Level 4 rates and paces. After a couple months, the newbie could probably do a Level 1 workout like 8 x 500m with a good enough effort to estimate 2K pace and Level 4 Ref Pace. But that’s not going to be an exact science, and will likely require some occasional adjustments. For the non-competitive rower, one strategy is to choose a Ref Pace on a given day based on how you feel. If you feel ambitious, choose a harder pace; if you feel sluggish, choose an easier pace. (I know a few former varsity rowers who break up their stairclimbing and spinning classes with a few erg workouts. They like having a format that gives the workout some structure with the option of taking it easy when they feel like it.) But for athletes training seriously to maximize their 2K speed, it is preferable to work within the framework of one stable Ref Pace for a season.
The last thing I’ll address today is the question of how “hard” Level 4 should feel. Many athletes are set on the notion that training must include “easy” or “recovery” days, and they are surprised and alarmed at just how challenging Level 4 can be. I think “hard” is a relative term, but no workout should ever feel “easy”. If it’s easy, it’s not training, because training means pushing yourself to new levels. OTOH, training needs to be realistic, and possible; it rarely needs to be excruciating. The level of effort I am searching for with ALL my workouts is “tough, but doable”. I want to feel tired but not exhausted. I want to feel like if I HAD to, I could’ve gone a little harder – but I’m glad I didn’t have to. And next time I WILL go a little harder, but by then I will have adapted and will be physically and mentally prepared. Now, some days it becomes clear to me pretty early in the workout that I’ve bitten off maybe more than I can chew, and that every stroke is going to be a dogfight. When that happens, I get through it as best I can and then try to set the goal pace more accurately next time. With the Wolverine Plan, I want every workout to be “hard” but not necessarily the same kind of hard. Different training bands have different intensities, durations and other parameters to stress different aspects of our physiology (and psychology). – Having said all that, I wouldn’t worry or quibble if a workout feels “easy” as long as you create a format that systematically has you increasing the intensity. If you can get through a whole season, improving beyond past performances, and it still feels “easy” – more power to you.
Next week I’ll go through some guidelines for designing a single Level 4 workout (what sequences in which order, etc.) as well as tips for progressing the intensity level systematically over a training season. I’ll give various examples from my training and explain why I did what I did. If anyone wants to provide some examples of Level 4 workouts they have done, or how they increase volume/intensity during the season, I’ll try to comment (don’t be shy – I’ll even do it in a supportive, non-sarcastic manner [you hope]).
Below previously posted by Mike Caviston) ...
From prev. post
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
By far the most common question I get regarding the WP is something like, "Okay, I think I understand all this Level 1-2-3-4 business. But how the heck do I put it together into a weekly program? The Plan says something about 9 workouts a week, and I ain't doing that! So what gives?" Hey, the 9 per week is an ideal we've never really achieved at Michigan. Our team generally does 8 per week in season (that means during the fall and spring outdoor seasons, and includes 2 erg sessions along with 6 H2O workouts) and 6 erg sessions per week in the winter. I myself usually do 11 workouts per week for about half the year, and 7-9 per week the other half. At the lower end of the spectrum, I could see people making gains on 4 workouts per week. The first thing you need to do is decide how many workouts a week you will realistically commit to. A general rule is to always include a Level 1 workout and usually a Level 2, and then to supplement them with as much Level 3 & 4 as is practical or you are willing to do. Do them in roughly a ratio of twice as much Level 4 as Level 3. This refers to total meters more so than number of workouts. Now, bearing in mind the format can be flexible and these aren't carved in stone, here are some examples of possible plans using 4-8 session per week:
4 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1 OR Level 2 (alternate each week)
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day 3: Level 3 (12K)
Day 4: Level 4 (60')
• Alternate the Level 1 or 2 workouts until about 4 weeks before your big race. Then, while keeping Level 1, replace the Level 3 or one of the Level 4s with Level 2.
• You might occasionally use an interval format rather than a continuous format for Level 3 or 4 (see the Wolverine Plan for details).
5 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day 3: Level 2
Day 4: Level 4 (60')
Day 5: Level 3 (12K)
6 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day3: Level 2
Day 4: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 5: Level 3 (15K)
Day 6: Level 4 (60')
7 Workouts/Week: Day 1, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 1, PM: Level 3 (10 x 3')
Day 2: Level 1
Day 3: Level 4 (2 x 40')
Day 4: Level 2
Day 5: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 6: Level 3 (12K)
8 Workouts/Week: Day 1, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 1, PM: Level 3 (12 x 3')
Day 2: Level 1
Day 3, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 3, PM: Level 4 (60')
Day 4: Level 2
Day 5: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 6: Level 3 (15K)
• If doing more than one Level 3 or more than 2 Level 4s per week, do one using the interval format on a regular basis.
• The amounts listed for Level 3 & 4 may need to be built gradually over several weeks.
So the general idea is to separate the high-intensity workouts with slower, more continuous workouts. It is possible to work hard on a daily basis within the framework of each type of workout by alternating workouts of different type. Level 1 doesn't have to be at the beginning of the week (I personally do mine in the middle of the week), but it's a good place if you need some extra recovery to be well rested and ready to perform at a high level. You may also periodically want to do time trials (such as a 95%-effort 2K or an all-out 6K) in place of the workout scheduled for the end of the week, and doing Level 1 early in the week allows you to recover without compromising your training. (Alternately, you may want to do a time trial at the beginning of the week, in place of the Level 1 workout, but I prefer not to go that route.)
A REGULAR FORMAT OR SCHEDULE IS KEY
It is very important to develop a schedule you are comfortable with and then stick to it as closely as possible over the duration of your training cycle. I don't think that the exact order of workouts is a crucial factor but keeping the workouts in the same order on a weekly basis is necessary to allow consistent and reproducible improvement. Occasionally something will come up and you will have to use your best judgment about what alterations to make, but do your best to keep your schedule as consistent as possible. I don't have a hard and fast rule about which workout(s) to toss if you know you can't complete an entire week, but a couple general rules would be: 1) drop Level 1 if you are far away from competition and drop Level 3 if you are close to competition; and 2) all other things being equal, the workout you struggle with most is the last one you should drop. One of our biggest challenges at Michigan (and I imagine for all college crews) is to maintain a consistent schedule despite multiple variables like competitions and the associated travel, seasonal changes, facility availability, exams, class schedules, holidays etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating Level 4 Workouts
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.
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.
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.
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:
1st session, 30’: 176,178,180 = 534 strokes (avg. 17.8spm)
Assuming that went well, proceed to a longer session (if not, repeat session 1).
2nd session, 36’ (using 6’ sequences): 104,110,104,110,104,110 = 642 (17.8)
(Proceed to next session or repeat if necessary.)
3rd session, 40’: 176,178,178,180 = 712 (17.8)
(Proceed or repeat.)
4th session, 42’: 112^,104,110,104,110,104,110 = 748 (17.8)
5th session, 46’ (combination 10’ & 6’ sequences): 176,178,176,180,110 = 820 (17.8)
6th session, 50’: 176,176,186,176,176 = 890 (17.8)
7th session, 54’: 104,110,104,110,104,110,104,112^,104 = 962 (17.8)
8th session, 60’: 176,178,180,176,178,180 = 1068 (17.8)
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.
9th session, 60’: 178,180,178,178,180,178 = 1072 (17.9)
10th session, 60’: 176,186,176,176,186,176 = 1076 (17.9)
11th session, 60’: 180,180,180,180,180,180 = 1080 (18)
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).
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):
1) 186,186,186,186,186,186
2) 178,180,186,190,196,186
3) 180,190,180,190,186,190
4) 180,186,180,190,180,200
5) 184,186,188,188,186,184
6) 176,186,196,176,186,196
7) 186,178,186,188,192,186
8) 178,188,198,188,184,180
9) 176,188,188,188,188,188
10) 190,178,190,190,178,190
11) 180,184,186,188,188,190
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.
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:
1) 178,186,178,188,178,188 (1096 strokes, 18.3spm)
2) 180,180,180,180,188,190 (1098, 18.3)
3) 104,110,116,104,110,116,104,110,110,116 (1100, 18.3)
4) 180,186,180,186,180,190 (1102, 18.4)
5) 178,186,188,188,186,176 (1104, 18.4)
6) 176,186,188,192,186,178 (1106, 18.4)
7) 178,188,188,188,188,178 (1108, 18.5)
8) 180,190,180,190,180,190 (1110, 18.5)
9) 110,110,110,110,110,116,110,110,110,116 (1112, 18.5)
10) 180,186,188,186,188,186 (1114, 18.6)
11) 188,186,186,186,186,184 (1116, 18.6)
12) 110,110,116,110,110,110,116,110,110,116 (1118, 18.6)
13) 186,188,186,186,188,186 (1120, 18.7)
14) 184,186,188,186,188,190 (1122, 18.7)
15) 110,110,116,110,110,116,110,116,110,116 (1124, 18.7)
16) 186, 186,186,196,186,186 (1126,18.8)
17) 178,188,198,178,188,198 (1128, 18.8)
18) 110,116,110,116,110,116,110,116,110,116 (1130, 18.8)
19) 186,188,186,196,186,190 (1132, 18.9)
20) 188,190,188,190,188,190 (1134, 18.9)
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
Last edited by dougsurf on March 16th, 2006, 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Apparently there's a posting length limit. Here's another installment.
- D
-----------------------------------------------------
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.
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…)
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.)
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.
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.
The Importance of Pacing
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.
“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 even-split (hold the same pace from start to finish), negative-split (build intensity over the duration; finishing pace faster than starting pace), and fly-and-die (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”.
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.
I think the optimal pacing strategy for a 2K race is pretty close to:
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 knowledge of effective pacing and a solid race plan.
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.]
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.
Pacing Continued
To reiterate my main points regarding pacing: the goal when racing is to strike a good compromise between maximal mechanical efficiency (even-split) and optimal liberation of metabolic energy (negative-split). I like to create a race plan that involves negative-splitting to a degree, but ideally not too extreme. (I would never purposely begin a race at a pace faster than I expected to finish.) The concept of pacing should also be applied to training sessions with the goal of maximizing the desired training effect for the specific workout.
I also apply the concept of pacing to the entire training season. I want to make as many gains as possible before the end of the year, but I don’t want to burn out too quickly (fly-and-die) before my biggest race. Just as it’s easy to imagine, in the adrenaline rush of the first 500m of a race, that you will somehow magically be able to sustain that insane pace till the end – it is also easy to imagine those rapid gains you make early in the season will continue indefinitely. It can be very disheartening to have your training stall with a month to go before the big race (as I well know), and the safeguard is to have a sense of how to pace your fitness over the course of the season. I use the Wolverine Plan to make sure that my progress stays on track to reach my season goals, and that I improve every week but not too fast too soon.
For example, if I wanted to row 2K in 6:24 by Feb. 25, 2006 [CRASH-B], 1-2 weeks prior to the race I would want to be able to do a 4 x 2K workout with an average pace of 1:40 or faster, and a 4 x 1K workout with an average pace in the low 1:35s. In August and September I didn’t sit down and try to hammer out scores as hard as I could trying to get to my targets as fast as possible. I know that I can improve my Level 2 paces over the season at a rate of about .2s/500m/week, and my 4 x 1K pace by about .1s/500m/week, so I form my seasonal strategy based on those rates of improvement (i.e., my seasonal training pace). So, 25 weeks out from CRASH-B, I need to be pulling around 1:45 for 4 x 2K; I need to be pulling around 1:37 for 4 x 1K. Each week that I reach my goal, I set the next week’s goal based on the seasonal pace. If I don’t reach my goal, I repeat my attempt at the same pace or even go back to a previous pace if necessary. As I get into the final 6-8 weeks of training, if I think I can make a bigger jump then I’ll probably go for it. But like an actual 2K race, I don’t want to “sprint” too soon and risk stalling just before the finish line. [This all assumes there are no intervening distractions like 2K trials in October, European racing in December, holiday traveling, etc. I’ll need to readjust my “seasonal” pace to account for these interruptions to my overall training focus on CRASH-Bs.]
So, each week for each workout I have a firm goal pace. The next step is to create a specific plan for achieving the desired workout goal. For a workout like 8 x 500m, a simple method (as described in the original WP document) is to take the average pace from the previous time you completed the workout, and begin the new workout at that pace, bringing it down for the final 2-3 intervals to finish with a new, lower average. Then repeat the format next time you do the same workout. This works fairly well, especially earlier in the season when you’re not exactly sure how hard to push, and you will probably make large gains initially. But I caution against going too hard too often, and someone who pushes too hard too soon in the season will probably plateau early. After the first couple times with this workout in a given season, I settle into choosing a goal pace that is on average 1 tenth of a sec faster per 500m for every week since I last did the workout. If I finish a little ahead of my goal, I’ll readjust my target for next time. So, last week my target for 8 x 500m was 1:33.0; my actual average pace ended up 1:32.8; in two more weeks, when I do the workout again, my target will be 1:32.5. When I do this workout, I take about 3 ½ minutes recovery (most of it active) between pieces. I don’t set a recovery time on the monitor, but keep track manually. I start each interval from a dead stop, with the flywheel nearly motionless, and use the opportunity to practice racing starts. Not to start as fast as I can, but to see how quickly/smoothly I can settle into a desired pace. I also set the 500m with 250m sub-intervals to see if I pace the piece correctly; my goal being to negative- or even-split (not positive-split). Incidentally, here is an anecdote about the benefits of negative-splitting the individual pieces for this workout. During my coaching years, 8 x 500m was always a popular erg workout, and people were usually pretty jacked to try to get some fast numbers. Without being given specific instructions, the typical strategy for most athletes would be to hammer the first 10-15 strokes as hard as possible, then slowly fade till the end. The final score might be respectable but the technique was not what I was trying to achieve. At some point in the season I would run the workout with some specific guidelines: everyone had to even-split or negative-split each piece; for every piece that had a positive split (no matter how fast it was), they would have to do another until they had 8 pieces that were even- or negative split. I can’t recall anyone ever having to do an extra piece; almost everyone finished significantly faster than they had all season; and most people reported that mentally it was a much more enjoyable experience (and a few people reported that the stress of keeping the pace in check made the experience less enjoyable). [What continues to be puzzling to me is that after that experience, during future workouts without specific guidelines most people reverted back to the fly-and-die approach.]
I use the same approach for other Level 1 workouts (5 x 750m and the Pyramid). That is, I negative- or even-split each individual piece. I don’t do the Pyramid often enough to have developed what I believe would be an ideal strategy, but I do it roughly like this:
250m) fast as I can
500m) about the same as my best 8 x 500m pace
750m) about a second slower than that
1000m) about another half second slower than that (i.e., the 750m)
750m) faster than the first 750m
500m) faster than the first 500m
250m) fast as I can
In the end, my best Pyramid average will end up about half a second slower than my best 8 x 500m average.
My strategy for 4 x 2K and 4 x 1K (again, once I have an overall Goal Pace according to my planned progression for the season) is:
1st piece: GP + .2
2nd piece: GP
3rd piece: GP
4th piece: GP - .2
So if my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 2K was 1:42.0, my target the first piece is 1:42.2; for the second & third, 1:42.0; and for the last, 1:41.8. If my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 1K was 1:35.2, I’d pull the first 1K in 1:35.4; the next two in 1:35.2; and the last one in 1:35.0.
I’ve experimented with a number of formats for unbalanced workouts. (The Level 2 workout 3K/2.5K/2K is an unbalanced workout. I also use an alternate Level 3 format, in addition to continuous rowing, of 6K/5K/4K. [Another variation of this that I’ve used with the UM team is 5K/4K/3K.]) For years, athletes have asked for instructions about how to pace these workouts, and the general guidelines “Make the pace a little faster for each piece” didn’t seem to be specific enough. So I’ve come up with this:
1st piece: GP + .4
2nd piece: GP
3rd piece: GP - .6
So if my overall Goal Pace for 3K/2.5K/2K was 1:42.4, then I’d pull the 3K in 1:42.8; the 2.5K in 1:42.4, and the 2K in 1:41.8. If my overall GP for 6K/5K/4K was 1:47.2, I’d pull 6K in 1:47.6; 5K in 1:47.2; and 4K in 1:46.6. Incidentally, I find the crossover for Level 2 (4 x 2K vs. 3K/2.5K/2K) is just about perfect. For a good part of the season I alternate the two formats on a weekly basis and reduce the pace by two tenths every week (1:44.0 for 4 x 2K, then 1:43.8 for 3K/2.5K/2K, then 1:43.6 for 4 x 2K, etc.)
Once again I am short on time without entirely completing my objective, so I will have to continue the explanation at another time. The only thing left to explain regarding pacing is the specific formats I use for each individual piece. For anything 1K or longer, I divide each piece into 5 subintervals (e.g., 2K into 5 x 400m) and have a GP for each segment of each individual piece. For example, if I want to do a 2K in 1:42.4, my plan would be 400m @ 1:44, 400m @ 1:43, 400m @ 1:42, 400m @ 1:42, 400m @ 1:41 (I work entirely in whole numbers for the sub-intervals). Like the Level 4 sequences, this may all sound confusing at first but is pretty simple once you get the hang of it. Next time I’ll describe the whole process and give some examples. – Always assuming, of course, anyone has followed me this far. Happy training.
Pacing, Part 3
To reiterate again some of the major strategies from the Wolverine Plan regarding pacing:
1) Select a Goal pace for a given workout (e.g., 4 x 2K) based on an overall seasonal progression. Know where you are at the start of a training season, and where you want to end up at the end of the season. Follow a fairly linear progression (i.e., rate of improvement) from the beginning to the end of the season. Goal paces for a given session should be chosen with consideration for the number of weeks before your Big Race for the season (e.g., twelve, eight, or four weeks before CRASH-Bs). From one week to the next, modify the Goal Pace slightly if dictated by recent results. So, if the goals for the same/similar session from the past two weeks were achieved easily, you might consider making the next pace a little faster than you originally calculated. If you’ve recently struggled to reach your goals (or failed to reach a goal), you might want to adjust your current goal to be a little slower than originally calculated. This might involve repeating the previous goal, or even going back to a goal from a couple weeks ago.
2) Once a specific target has been selected for a given workout, determine Goal Paces for each individual piece within the workout, as I described previously. For example, if the overall GP for a 4 x 2K workout is 1:41.8, my format would be 1st piece @ 1:42.0; 2nd @ 1:41.8; 3rd @ 1:41.8; and 4th @ 1:41.6.
3) Have a strategy for finishing each individual piece at the desired pace. One strategy is to simple start a given piece a few tenths of a second slower than GP, and gradually bring the pace down to GP over the body of the piece. I’ve used that strategy successfully for years. I still use it for Level 1 workout intervals shorter than 1K. I haven’t performed the Level 2 workout 5 x 1500m in a couple years, but I plan to get back to it a couple times this season using this “fairly even pace” strategy. When I do Level 3 intervals (i.e., 3-5’ or 1250-1500m work intervals with a strict 3:1 work:recovery ratio), I also use this format. But for other workouts (specifically 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, 3K/2.5K/2K, 6K/5K/4K, and continuous Level 3) I have developed a more elaborate format.
Again, a basic disclaimer: the format I am about to describe is not meant to represent the optimal way to produce the fastest times for these workouts. It is a strategy I use to facilitate consistency of performance, to facilitate a steady structured progression of fitness, and to give myself a firmer mental grasp on some tough workouts.
I divide each interval into 5 segments (inspired by the default setting of the PM3). I plot whole number (no decimal) GPs for each segment, and round the interval GP as well as the overall workout GP off to an even decimal. Example:
Workout GP for 4 x 2K: 1:41.8
GP for first 2K interval: 1:42.0
GP for 1st 400m: 1:44
GP for 2nd 400m: 1:43
GP for 3rd 400m: 1:42
GP for 4th 400m: 1:41
GP for 5th 400m: 1:40
GP for second 2K interval: 1:41.8
GP for 1st 400m: 1:43
GP for 2nd 400m: 1:43
GP for 3rd 400m: 1:42
GP for 4th 400m: 1:41
GP for 5th 400m: 1:40
GP for third 2K interval: 1:41.8; format same as for second interval
GP for fourth 2K interval: 1:41.6
GP for 1st 400m: 1:43
GP for 2nd 400m: 1:42
GP for 3rd 400m: 1:42
GP for 4th 400m: 1:41
GP for 5th 400m: 1:40
I have created tables for all the various combinations for paces between 1:30-2:10, but unfortunately I can’t reproduce them here. Hopefully the pattern becomes clear. If the GP for an interval (2K in the above example) is a whole number, then the segment GPs are, 1st segment = GP+2; 2nd segment = GP+1; 3rd segment = GP; 4th segment = GP-1; 5th segment = GP-2. If the GP for an interval is a whole number -.2, subtract 1 second from the first segment; if the interval GP is a whole number -.4, subtract an additional 1 second from the second segment; and so on. I know it sounds confusing, but it’s based on a simple repeating pattern.
So, for an interval GP of 1:42.0, you have (from 1st to 5th segments):
1:44, 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.8: 1:43, 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.6: 1:43, 1:42, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.4: 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.2: 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40, 1:40.
For 1:41.0: 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40, 1:39.
For 1:40.8: 1:42, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40, 1:39.
For 1:40.6: 1:42, 1:41, 1:41, 1:40, 1:39.
Etc. etc. etc. Just substitute the same general pattern for other interval GPs (1:54.2, 1:35.6, etc.)
An example using 3K/2.5K/2K and a 1:59.8 GP for the entire workout:
First interval is 3K; GP is 1:59.8 + .4 = 2:00.2.
3K is 5 x 600m segments; segment GPs are 2:02, 2:01, 2:00, 1:59, 1:59.
Second interval is 2.5K; GP is 1:59.8.
2.5K is 5 x 500m segments; segment GPs are 2:01, 2:01, 2:00, 1:59, 1:58.
Third interval is 2K; GP is 1:59.8 - .6 = 1:59.2.
2K is 5 x 400m segments; segment GPs are 2:01, 2:00, 1:59, 1:58, 1:58.
Another example using 4 x 1K and an overall GP of 1:35.2:
The GPs for the four 1K interval s are 1:35.4, 1:35.2, 1:35.2, and 1:35.0.
Each 1K is divided into 200m segments. Segment GPs for the first 1K are 1:37, 1:36, 1:35, 1:35, 1:34. For the next two 1Ks: 1:37, 1:36, 1:35, 1:34, 1:34. For the final 1K: 1:37, 1:36, 1:35, 1:34, 1:33.
You have to be technically sharp to row this way, to make the desired shifts when necessary and consistently hit the desired splits (and hold the correspondingly appropriate stroke rates). It is extremely challenging during 4 x 1K when the shifts come every 200m and the fatigue factor is high. But I believe this technical proficiency (the skill to hit and hold the descending paces) is beneficial in allowing one to utilize maximal efficiency. – I don’t hit every target GP exactly on every segment, but pretty close, and it is rare that I miss a target GP by more than a tenth of a second. If you attempt this method, and struggle initially, I encourage you to stick with it until you develop the ability to hit your desired goals almost automatically (the same as with Level 4 training).
For long, continuous Level 3 rows I modify the format slightly. These workouts should be 60’-plus in duration; that will be at least 12-16K for most people (I am currently doing 24K, which most recently took 87:02.7). My approach is to break the long row into multiple smaller segments with 4-5 whole number GPs to achieve my overall GP for the workout. The number of smaller segments varies depending on the length of the workout and the best division to keep the math simple. So I divide 24K into a dozen 2K segments. I am going to bump the workout up to 25K soon and will divide it into 10 segments each 2.5K in length. For 15K I would probably keep it simple and use 3K segments. Once I establish my overall GP for the entire workout, I use the general format described above for the interval workouts, but play with it a little bit to adapt it to the longer workout. The spread of segment paces from start to finish (gradually getting faster, of course) will be 3-4 seconds (e.g., 1:51-1:47). Yesterday my 24K goal was 1:49.0, and my GPs for each 2K were 1:51, 1:51, 1:50, 1:50, 1:49, 1:49, 1:49, 1:49, 1:48, 1:48, 1:47, 1:47. Again, this isn’t the absolute fastest way to do a long workout like this, but I know I’ll be warmed up before things get too hard, and I can break the overall workout down mentally into shorter segments. These workouts just don’t seem that long any more. The last 4-6K can be pretty challenging, but by that point I’ve invested too much in the workout to give up easily, and proportionally the remaining distance is small enough that I can usually tough it out. Perception-wise, each segment might feel something like this:
1st segment: almost too easy; have to hold back to keep from going faster.
2nd segment: fairly easy; could keep the pace for a long time and the thought of going faster doesn’t concern me much.
3rd segment: just about right; couldn’t cruise like this forever, though; could go faster if I HAD too.
4th segment: this feels like work, but I can handle it; don’t know how I can go faster, though.
5th segment: hang on somehow; I guess I can do it after all.
Overall, I’ve found this strategy very helpful when approaching tough workouts for which I’ve reached plateaus over the past couple years. (You think 4 x 1K is a bitch? You ought to be in my shoes, who has done it so many times and know that even if I kill myself on this workout, rather than becoming faster I can only hope to become less slow.) Others who are newer to these workouts might not need such special guidance. Still others will think it is another example of how the Wolverine Plan is too complicated and structured. Well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. This is just an option.
To summarize the main advantages of the system:
• Built-in extended warm-up makes hard work physiologically less stressful
• More consistent, reproducible results
• Mentally reduces longer, tough workouts to manageable chunks
• Develops technical proficiencies required to change pace/rate on demand
• Ingrains the concept of finishing strong/always getting faster
But, I would also say this strategy requires a certain level of commitment and mental toughness some people just don’t have. It takes a certain faith in your abilities to spend the entire workout behind your goal pace, knowing there isn’t much room for error and that as tired as you are, you have to find a way to get faster before the workout is over. But with practice, the proper attitude can become automatic and I think the value of such an approach when racing is tremendous.
Well, there you have the Wolverine Plan approach to pacing during training & racing. I don’t imagine everything will sink in all at once or that everyone who reads this will be convinced of the strategy’s effectiveness. But as I have said repeatedly regarding the WP, I’m not seeking converts. I’m just trying to clarify for anyone interested exactly what the program is all about. Happy training.
---------------------
Upon the advice of Bill Moore, a WP acolyte and local indoor rower, I've decided to adopt the Wolverine Plan and use it to prep for the CRASH-B. I got a lot of help from Bill in setting up this plan and understanding how to progress from week to week, and I'm sharing it here so (a) I can get feedback, and other WP novices can learn. I believe everything I have below can be traced back directly to the WP document or something Mike Caviston posted.
6 workouts a week
Day 1 - Level 1
Day 2 - Level 4 (40')
Day 3 - Level 2
Day 4 - Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 5 - Level 3 (15k)
Day 6 - Level 4 (60')
Day 7 - rest
2k reference time = 7:11.3
2k reference pace = 1:47.8
recovery pace = 2:32
Level 1 @ 1:47.8
8 x 500
4 x 1k
4k pyramid
Level 2 @ 1:56.7 (108.3% of 2k pace)
5 x 1500
4 x 2k
3k / 2.5k / 2k
recovery distance = 75% of work distance
Level 3 @ 2:04.6 (115.6% of 2k pace)
12k
15 x 3', 1' recovery
Level 4
40' = 176/180/176/180
4 x 10' = ?
60' = 176/180/176/180/176/180
So it sounds like good advice for Level 4 newbies is to concentrate first on getting the desired rates on command, and paces will eventually fall into place. While this may be difficult at first, practice is key, and it shouldn’t take more than a couple sessions before some improvement occurs.
When I have a little more time next week I plan to revisit the topics of warm-up and active recovery. But my workout this morning was 4 x 1K, and since that workout has recently been mentioned, let me make a few observations. (I said quite a bit about this a few months ago on another thread. Previous Comments) 4 x 1K is both the toughest and most valuable workout I do to prepare for 2Ks. For the fall I have been doing it only every third week (in January I plan to start doing it every alternate week). Last week I did a 2K trial instead of a Level 1 workout, so it had been four weeks since I last did 4 x 1K. I was plenty nervous before hand, but the workout went well. Even though I shouldn’t have been surprised based on the overall progress of my training, it’s always good to see the general progress confirmed with good execution of a tough workout.
The results (including my sub-interval pacing format):
1st piece GP: 1:35.4 [actual time & pace: 3:10.4 (1:35.2)]
200m GP: 1:37 [actual pace: 1:37.0]
400m GP: 1:36 [actual: 1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
800m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
1000m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8]
2nd piece GP: 1:35.2 [3:10.1 (1:35.1)]
200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8]
400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:35.0]
800m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8]
1000m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0]
3rd piece GP: 1:35.2 [3:10.0 (1:35.0)]
200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8]
400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
800m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8]
1000m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0]
4th piece GP: 1:35.0 [3:09.7 (1:34.9)]
200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8]
400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
800m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0]
1000m GP: 1:33 [1:33.0]
So I beat my overall goal for the workout by .2 seconds, which is pretty rare for me (I generally either get the goal exactly or sometimes go .1 sec under), but my goal was a little conservative. Splitting each 1K into 200m segments makes things go by a lot quicker since each segment only lasts about 38 seconds so I’m constantly reaching another milestone and I have plenty to think about in the meantime trying to hold my pace and rate objective for each segment. My final 200m @ 1:33 wasn’t pretty (became short & rushed), but every other segment went smoothly. Several weeks ago when my overall GP was 1:36-ish, the 1:34 pace wasn’t very pretty. Now I’m handling it pretty well, and the hope is I will eventually have good technique @ 1:33 as well.
This is probably a good opportunity to remind everyone (as the discussion shifts around between different WP training Levels) that all Levels are integral to the overall Plan and all need to be addressed with equal concern for detail. Happy training.
Here are some Level 4 observations based on recent discussion:
Reference Paces can be tricky, so it’s important to try to choose one you can stick with for an entire training season. In the absence of a reliable 2K score, probably the best alternative is to estimate 2K ability from a Level 1 workout. This of course assumes the Level 1 workout is performed correctly and with a near-maximal effort. If the L4 workouts feel too easy, one way to increase intensity is too use a more rapid rate of increase in strokes/workout (beyond the suggested 1 stroke/10’/week). But make sure there is room on the sequence charts to keep increasing without passing 200 strokes/10’ before the end of your training season. If you reach the point where you are doing 1200 strokes in an hour and it’s only midway through the season, something has gone seriously wrong. Another option if workouts seem too easy is to increase the length of the workouts. This may not be the best solution since there will be practical limits as to how long you are able to row. Going from say 50’ to 60’ may be a temporary solution, but chances are if you don’t have the correct Ref Pace then the longer workout will soon start to feel too “easy” again.
Execution of the workouts with the correct stroke rates is essential to create the structured format for gradual, long-term improvement. If you want to do a workout with higher rates and higher meter totals, there is already a training band called level 3.
I think people are overthinking the setting of the monitor for subintervals. I always set for 10’ (or 6’) and am perfectly happy with the results. [That is, a 60’ workout is set up as a continuous 60’ row but I recover the 6’ or 10’ meter/pace totals after the workout along with the grand total.] I can review the meter total for each 10’ sequence and how it compares to my goal and see my overall consistency for a given sequence (e.g., 190) from one week to the next. Setting for 2’ sub-intervals isn’t necessarily better information because in that small a time frame the average spm or meter total can vary significantly depending on whether you happen to be on the recovery or on the drive when the next 2’ segment begins. Over 6-10’, things even out pretty well. When using the PM2 there is less information available on the monitor during the workout, so you have to accept on faith that you are reaching your goals though I have calculated my meter goals by the first 10’, 20’, 30’ etc. so I know if I am on target as the workout progresses. With enough practice and experience I have found I can pretty accurately estimate what my meter total was for each segment without actually seeing until the workout is over; I can just tell by how well each segment seems to be going at the time and if I seem to be a little ahead, a little behind, or right on my goal paces. These days I almost exclusively use the PM3, which allows a little more information to be viewed during the actual workout. I set up the screen to see my overall average pace as well as my average pace for each segment (10’ or 6’) of the workout. That gives more direct feedback about how each segment is going. If, say, one of the segments is 180 (4’/3’/2’/1’), I know exactly where I am for the first 4’ of the segment and can still estimate pretty well over the final 6’. I know what the average pace should be for each segment so as I finish one segment and move on to another I know how well I did on the completed segment.
Using index cards or sticky notes or whatever on or near the monitor to keep the workout’s rate and pace changes available for reference is a good practice. But it probably won’t be too long before you chunk all the bits of information for each sequence so that terms like “180” and “188” automatically bring to mind the necessary formats so you don’t have to think in terms of “4’ @16spm @ 2:02, then 3’ @ 18spm @ 1:58, then…” etc. Then all you have to memorize before a workout are the actual sequences you will be using. I never count strokes during a workout for a particular time period but that doesn’t mean that others can’t. I just pay attention to keeping the rate consistent on the monitor. One little trick I do is, if I’m trying to pull @ 18spm and I inadvertently see “19” for a stroke on the monitor, I try to relax enough that I soon see a “17” to compensate. But it gets messy if you see-saw back and forth between 17 & 19 when you’re trying to hold 18, so I really concentrate on holding the one desired rate.
It appears that many people are avoiding sequences that follow the 4’/3’/2’/1’ format or the pyramid sequences (176, 186, 196) and simply alternating 2’ at a time between two different rates. I think of the “2s” and the “8s” sequences (178, 182, 188, 192 etc.) as filler between the more challenging and productive “6s” and “10s” (186, 196, 180, 190, 200). The Level 4 format is meant to be more varied than a simple alternation of “up 2” and “down 2” every two minutes or alternating the same two sequences for an entire workout. Now, that is boring!
Also, why not get into the odd number sequences (178, 186, 190, 198 etc.)? Consult the PaceVsRate chart:
Everything becomes simpler and smoother with a few million more meters under your belt, so hang in there.
In my experience, there are three workouts which most closely relate to 2K ability. The first/best predictor of my 2K ability is 4 x 1K (Level 1); the next best predictor is 4 x 2K (Level 2); and third is a Level 3 interval workout.
I have referred to Level 3 intervals periodically over the past couple years but here is a chance to clarify and consolidate information. First off, Level 3 intervals (I’ll say L3I for short) are (like 4 x 10’/L4) a supplementary or advanced workout to be done in conjunction with a weekly Continuous Level 3. [As explained previously, one of the cornerstones of a WP program should be a continuous Level 3 of 60’ or more.] Some basic points about L3I:
1) The basic format is a 3:1 work:recovery ratio. I suggest 3’ on/1’ off, 4’ on/1’20” off, or 5’ on/1’40” off. I always used these formats in a team setting so that slower and faster athletes could all stay on the same start/stop schedule. But for my personal workouts I prefer to use distance for the work intervals; the two formats I favor involve either 1250m or 1500m for each work interval (1K might be appropriate for slower athletes). I set the recovery interval as 1/3 of the estimated time for my work interval (since this involves extra math some might prefer to stick to 3’ on/1’ off.) The 1500m interval is actually pretty easy to work with since the recovery interval would be the same as your overall workout GP.
2) The total distance for the L3I work intervals should add up to somewhere between 75-90% of the distance you cover during 60’ of continuous Level 3 rowing. No need to be obsessed with the exact percentage; adjust it to suit your needs and abilities. But that’s a ballpark figure. That would probably mean something like 12-15 x 3’, 8-10 x 1500m, etc.
3) The intensity is roughly (60’ Level 3 Continuous pace) – 3 seconds. E.g., if Level 3 Continuous is 1:51, then L3I is 1:48 (at least to get started). [In Watts, the L3I pace would be about 8% faster than Continuous.] As with other relationships between intensities for different workouts, use it as a rough guide to get started but let the specific workout develop its own history and progress.
4) The recovery can be pretty light, but keep moving. For Level 1 & 2 workouts with higher intensity, the recovery needs to be even more active. For L3I, paddling lightly is fine; just don’t stop entirely.
5) Pacing for each work interval should be continuous or negative split. I prefer to do them with essentially continuous pacing using a small negative split. I prefer to avoid hitting it too hard at the start of each interval, but just settle quickly into my planned Goal Pace.
6) Pacing across the entire workout should also be fairly even with a slight negative split. My format is currently 10 x 1500m (1:45r), so the math is pretty simple when I figure out my strategy. For example, to average 1:46.2 for the entire workout, I do two intervals @ 1:47 and the remaining eight @ 1:46.
7) This workout is deceptively enjoyable in the early stages. It is fun and it is easy to make rapid gains initially. But eventually you cross a threshold and one day you sit down and get blindsided by one of the toughest workouts you can remember doing. I’ve coached athletes who refer to this as the “Level 2 from h3ll”, because the paces get pretty fast and it just goes on and on. In my training, by the end of the season my L3I pace surpasses my initial Level 2 pace from the start of the season. It might be called “Level 2.5”.
8) I find this to be a very valuable workout but I have become increasingly cautious when it comes to advancing the pace. For years I did this workout on a weekly basis, but now I do it only on alternate weeks (alternating with 6K/5K/4K, which I have mentioned previously).
9) Again, this L3I workout is in addition to my Continuous Level 3. As with the 4 x 10’ (L4) workout, many people look at this and say “Ooh, that looks like fun, I’ll do that instead of the Continuous workout!” The WP already has L1 & L2 for intervals and intensity. Make sure to TCB first with plenty of continuous L3 & L4 training before adding another interval session.
Enjoy!
Warming Up
As I have previously written, in my experience there are two things that come as close as anything to providing “free speed” when training or racing. These are proper pacing and warm-up . These have been confirmed for me by personal experience, by having worked with hundreds of athletes over the past 25 years, and having read an extensive amount of published scientific research on these topics. Yet amazingly many athletes are unwilling to consider alternate pacing or warm-up strategies as a means of enhancing performance. I have discussed pacing already on this thread. I have discussed warm-up many times in the past, but it is time to revisit the topic again.
The purpose of warming up is to prepare the body for the physical (and mental) demands of the task at hand. Some of the physiological effects of properly warming up include dilating blood vessels supplying the active muscles; increasing sympathetic neural drive to the heart so HR will be able to reach max values; beginning the sweating response to keep the body cool; beginning the process of activating the appropriate energy pathways; mobilizing adequate fuel sources (i.e., breakdown and release of fatty acids for longer sessions); and allowing the muscles & joints to reach the full Range Of Motion required during the session. Many people behave as if all of this can be accomplished with a few minutes of low-moderate intensity preparation prior to their training session (or race!) In fact, a proper warm-up needs to be longer and more intense than many people apparently realize.
Many people fear an intense/extended warm-up will leave them too exhausted to perform well during a workout or race. Ironically, failing to warm up long enough with sufficient intensity will limit performance! I find that during a Level 1 or Level 2 interval workout, the first interval is generally the hardest and slowest (even after what I consider a complete warm-up). The next interval feels significantly easier, and throughout the workout, even as fatigue progressively becomes more of a limiting factor, the later intervals are more relaxed. Clearly, the body requires time to become prepared and acclimated for hard work. I have heard or read many people recount experiences where they performed unexpectedly well after a tough initial work period (e.g., doing better on the second 2K at a venue race even though the first 2K was supposed to be “all-out”.) An anecdote I have related before illustrates the point. Several years ago while coaching at Michigan in the pre-erg era, a staple workout was to have the team run a dozen times up (and down) a dozen flights of stairs in the tallest building on campus. Cumulative time for all 12 trips up & down would typically be in the 30-35’ range. The standard warm-up I required was to jog to the top & back at least twice before beginning the actual workout on the clock. Some athletes, as a penalty for various infractions during the previous week (late to practice, etc.) would also have to do two fast “penalty flights” within a specific time limit (or do more penalties), and within a couple minutes start the actual workout. So that meant 2 jog + 2 penalty + 12 workout flights. It quickly became apparent that not only were the athletes given the penalty flights NOT too tired to perform well – they took huge chunks off their best overall times; they performed MUCH better relative to past performances than their non-penalized teammates.
With that in mind, for the past several years I have repeated a little experiment with many different squads of rowers (similar to the “pacing” experiment I described in a previous post). Part of the season would go by and athletes would be given some general guidelines for warming up but would have quite a bit of flexibility in determining their own formats and intensities. Then at some point before a tough workout (e.g., 4 x 1K) I would require a more specific and demanding warm-up – something that when they saw it written on the white board would cause their jaws to drop a little and you could tell they were thinking something like, “I’m going to do THAT warm-up and THEN do 4 x 1K? I don’t THINK so!” [I think that’s the hallmark of a good warm-up: it should be intense enough that outsiders will mistake it for the actual workout.] So the athletes would be afraid they wouldn’t be able to complete the workout. But they always did, and in almost every case they did it significantly faster than previously and with less perceived effort. (Inexplicably, when the specifically intense guidelines for warm-up were removed, most athletes reverted back to an easier but less successful format. Someone could devote an entire thread to the topic of athletes’ psychology and why they tend to resist things that have proven to be effective.)
So, warm-ups need to be longer & more intense than performed by many people. I don’t have a blanket formula (I doubt if there is one), but I can offer examples of warm-ups I use for my own training. Like all aspects of training, I prefer quite a bit of structure with my warm-ups. I follow specific formats for specific workouts. The formats aren’t quite as strict as for Levels 1-4, and a slight amount of variation may occur from one day to the next, but by-and-large I follow pretty scripted scenarios. I do so for a few reasons. In the first place, following a routine is a good way to encourage consistency. People who get inconsistent results for different types of workouts might benefit from re-examining their preparations before the workout. One of the guiding principles of the Wolverine Plan is to slowly, gradually, and systematically increase the overall training load week by week. What many fail to realize is that warm-up is part of the training load. I perform a set routine every week (i.e., 1 L1, 1 L2, 2 L3, and 6 L4 workouts every week). The intensity and duration of each workout is controlled to keep an overall balance and pace for the entire week’s training. The warm-ups are also part of the training load and I keep the duration and intensity of the warm-ups controlled as well. Essentially, warm-ups can be thought of as “Level 5” in the WP framework, and account for over 25K of my training meters every week. These are not “junk” meters, but quality meters with a specific training effect essential to the overall process.
Here is a basic description of my warm-ups:
I begin with about 15 firm strokes to check my drag factor; this is sort of a “pre-warm-up” warm-up. For the actual warm-up, I set the monitor for Just Row (for all workouts, I pre-set a time or distance and count down, so this is a chance for a little variety in how I look at the monitor). The warm-ups themselves have evolved after a period of trial-and-error and attempting many different things. The current formats have their logic but some aspects are there “just because” they have been working for me. So I’m not presenting these as fixed ideals , but as illustrations that demonstrate some of the key factors in warming up.
My standard warm-up distance for Level 4 workouts is 2000m.
1st 200m (about 20 strokes) @ 70% of 2K Watts (a solid Level 3 pace).
From 200-850m, @14-16spm; minimal pace is the Recovery Pace defined for my 2K in the WP (37% of 2K Watts), but the actual Recovery Pace I use will often be faster by 2-4 sec/500m.
At 850m, I firm up so that my rate is 28-30spm and pace is 90% of 2K Watts (a fast Level 2 pace) and hold this for 12-15 strokespace is until I reach 1000m.
At 1000m, I drop back down to Recovery Pace and rate.
At 1450m, I firm up to 26-27spm and a pace 80% of 2K Watts (a slow Level 2 pace) and hold it for 12-15 strokes.
The final 400m or so is done at Recovery Pace and rate.
From one warm-up to the next, the exact number of firm strokes or the exact pace for each one might vary slightly, but at the end the average pace for the 2000m ends up being remarkably consistent (within a couple tenths of a sec per 500m), at 45% of 2K Watts.
When I finish the 2000m, I take a couple minutes to take care of such business as making sure my water bottle is full, my towel is handy, use the bathroom if necessary, maybe do a few brief stretches, etc. I partly do this to simulate the transition from the warm-up erg to race erg that occurs at venue races. To finish, I’ll take a few more strokes, some easy, some firm, for another 30-90 seconds (depending on how much I’ve cooled), then set the monitor and begin the actual workout.
My standard warm-up for Level 3 workouts is 2500m. The first 2000m is identical to the Level 4 warm-up. The final 500m is done at Recovery Pace except for an additional 10 strokes at 80% of 2K Watts (slow Level 2). The average pace for the whole warm-up is 45% of 2K Watts.
The standard warm-up for Level 2 is 4000m long. It begins with 100m (about 10 strokes) @ 26-27spm, 70% 2K Watts.
From 100m-1000m, 14-16spm and Recovery Pace.
From 1000m-2000m, 26-27spm and at least 80% of 2K Watts. NOTE: this is perceived as hard work, and takes a little mental toughness. For the desired physiological effect, it is important that the pace be maintained continuously (not in short bursts) for the entire distance.
From 2000m-2500m, settle to 18spm @ L4 16 pace (i.e., the pace usually prescribed for rowing at 16spm according to the WP charts).
At 2500m, shift down to 14-16spm @ Recovery Pace. At about 2800m, firm up to 28-30spm at 90% 2K Watts for 15-20 strokes, then drop back to Recovery Pace and rate at about 3000m. At about 3450m, firm up for 10-15 more strokes at 90% 2K Watts, then finish the remainder of the 4000m @ Recovery Pace.
The warm-up for Level 1 workouts is identical to that for Level 2, except the 90% 2K Watts becomes 105% 2K Watts (@32-33spm). The average pace for the L1-2 warm-ups works out to 51-2% of 2K Watts.
Warm-ups also serve a diagnostic purpose for me (i.e., Am I ready to perform?) Some days the first 20 strokes just seem a little harder than normal, and the desired pace doesn’t appear as quickly as it usually does. Or other portions might be more difficult than usual or it might take longer than usual to reach the half-way point. Things like this tell me that I’ll need to expend a little extra effort to get prepared, or take a little more time, or in a worst-case scenario, maybe adjust my goal for the workout a little.
In my training journal I record the times and distances for all workouts, and the distances for each warm-up. (I don’t record the paces for the warm-ups but as I have said, they are very consistent and I know for all intents and purposes what they are.) The percent of total training volume distributed among warm-ups and the various training bands is pretty consistent. Warm-up is about 15-17% of total weekly volume; Level 1 is 2-3%; Level 2 is 4-6%; Level 3 is 20-25%; and level 4 is 50-55%. For warm-up, I only record the standard allotted distances, ignoring any additional or supplemental warm-up meters. I also neglect to record my active recovery meters for interval sessions and my cool-down meters after workouts are completed. This means several thousand meters per week go unrecorded, but I find I get a more accurate and meaningful portrait of my training that way.
My standard race warm-up is 7500m. It begins with a 4000m block that is identical to the Level 1 warm-up. Then, after a 1-2 minute break, I set the monitor for 2000m. I break this 2K portion of the warm-up into 400m segments. The 1st 400m is 14-16spm/Recovery Pace; 2nd 400m is 18spm/L4 16 pace; middle 400m is 32-33spm/sub-2K pace; 4th 400m same as 2nd; 5th 400m same as 1st. Yes, the middle 400m is sub -2K pace, faster than I expect to go in the actual race. A mental component to this 2K portion is to review and visualize my race plan for the day (and to prove to myself that a monitor will indeed count down to zero from 2000m!) After another 1-2 minute break, I do a final 1500m at recovery Pace, with two 12-15 stroke bursts at near-2K pace. Ideally, I finish the warm-up 5-10 minutes before the scheduled start of the race, which leaves me enough time to leave the warm-up area, find a men’s room if necessary, report to the race area, and begin adjusting my race erg as soon as I’m allowed. Prior to the start of the race, I alternate light strokes with short bursts at firm pressure to maintain the proper muscle temperature. The analogy I use is to think of a kettle on the stove just getting ready to boil. I don’t want to start boiling before the race starts but I want the flame to be high enough so that when I see “ROW” on my monitor I begin boiling in the shortest time possible. Incidentally, it is important to know how long the entire warm-up routine will take. I go through the entire routine at least a couple times in the days leading up to the race, so I know exactly when to begin (relative to my race time) on race day. Once I begin the warm-up, I am also prepared to shorten or extend the process as necessary if I receive word the original schedule has changed. Often races fall behind schedule and you must handle a delay (e.g., Paris EIRC 2003), but I’ve also been at races where lost time is unexpectedly made up and a race begins sooner than originally anticipated (e.g., Amsterdam EIRC 2004).
To sum up my major point, warm-up is a crucial aspect of the training/racing process and needs to be attended with as much planning and scientific validation as other aspects of training. Most people will benefit significantly from longer and more intense warm-ups. This will probably take some mental conditioning as well. That is, it may take you a while to get your head around the idea that working harder before a race will make you faster, not slower. I suggest gradually adjusting your warm-up procedures under controlled conditions during training to see what formats are most physically and mentally beneficial.
One final matter related to warm-up for anyone who trains more than once per day. I have come across several published research articles describing the benefits of prior exercise on subsequent workouts. This refers to the lingering warm-up effects of a first session on a second session performed a few hours later. For example, vasodilators remain active, allowing a quicker more efficient distribution of blood flow to active muscles, and metabolic enzymes are in a more ready state. With proper nutrition between workouts, there is more efficient and effective glycogen synthesis and storage in the fibers utilized during the first session, leaving them favorably primed for the second session. I have long known from personal experience that when I add a second session to my daily routine I appear to become more rather than less energetic. It’s good to see my experiences validated under experimental circumstances.
Speaking of second workouts, it is that time once again…
The Myth of Lactate Tolerance
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 th
- D
-----------------------------------------------------
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.
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…)
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.)
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.
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.
The Importance of Pacing
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.
“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 even-split (hold the same pace from start to finish), negative-split (build intensity over the duration; finishing pace faster than starting pace), and fly-and-die (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”.
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.
I think the optimal pacing strategy for a 2K race is pretty close to:
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 knowledge of effective pacing and a solid race plan.
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.]
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.
Pacing Continued
To reiterate my main points regarding pacing: the goal when racing is to strike a good compromise between maximal mechanical efficiency (even-split) and optimal liberation of metabolic energy (negative-split). I like to create a race plan that involves negative-splitting to a degree, but ideally not too extreme. (I would never purposely begin a race at a pace faster than I expected to finish.) The concept of pacing should also be applied to training sessions with the goal of maximizing the desired training effect for the specific workout.
I also apply the concept of pacing to the entire training season. I want to make as many gains as possible before the end of the year, but I don’t want to burn out too quickly (fly-and-die) before my biggest race. Just as it’s easy to imagine, in the adrenaline rush of the first 500m of a race, that you will somehow magically be able to sustain that insane pace till the end – it is also easy to imagine those rapid gains you make early in the season will continue indefinitely. It can be very disheartening to have your training stall with a month to go before the big race (as I well know), and the safeguard is to have a sense of how to pace your fitness over the course of the season. I use the Wolverine Plan to make sure that my progress stays on track to reach my season goals, and that I improve every week but not too fast too soon.
For example, if I wanted to row 2K in 6:24 by Feb. 25, 2006 [CRASH-B], 1-2 weeks prior to the race I would want to be able to do a 4 x 2K workout with an average pace of 1:40 or faster, and a 4 x 1K workout with an average pace in the low 1:35s. In August and September I didn’t sit down and try to hammer out scores as hard as I could trying to get to my targets as fast as possible. I know that I can improve my Level 2 paces over the season at a rate of about .2s/500m/week, and my 4 x 1K pace by about .1s/500m/week, so I form my seasonal strategy based on those rates of improvement (i.e., my seasonal training pace). So, 25 weeks out from CRASH-B, I need to be pulling around 1:45 for 4 x 2K; I need to be pulling around 1:37 for 4 x 1K. Each week that I reach my goal, I set the next week’s goal based on the seasonal pace. If I don’t reach my goal, I repeat my attempt at the same pace or even go back to a previous pace if necessary. As I get into the final 6-8 weeks of training, if I think I can make a bigger jump then I’ll probably go for it. But like an actual 2K race, I don’t want to “sprint” too soon and risk stalling just before the finish line. [This all assumes there are no intervening distractions like 2K trials in October, European racing in December, holiday traveling, etc. I’ll need to readjust my “seasonal” pace to account for these interruptions to my overall training focus on CRASH-Bs.]
So, each week for each workout I have a firm goal pace. The next step is to create a specific plan for achieving the desired workout goal. For a workout like 8 x 500m, a simple method (as described in the original WP document) is to take the average pace from the previous time you completed the workout, and begin the new workout at that pace, bringing it down for the final 2-3 intervals to finish with a new, lower average. Then repeat the format next time you do the same workout. This works fairly well, especially earlier in the season when you’re not exactly sure how hard to push, and you will probably make large gains initially. But I caution against going too hard too often, and someone who pushes too hard too soon in the season will probably plateau early. After the first couple times with this workout in a given season, I settle into choosing a goal pace that is on average 1 tenth of a sec faster per 500m for every week since I last did the workout. If I finish a little ahead of my goal, I’ll readjust my target for next time. So, last week my target for 8 x 500m was 1:33.0; my actual average pace ended up 1:32.8; in two more weeks, when I do the workout again, my target will be 1:32.5. When I do this workout, I take about 3 ½ minutes recovery (most of it active) between pieces. I don’t set a recovery time on the monitor, but keep track manually. I start each interval from a dead stop, with the flywheel nearly motionless, and use the opportunity to practice racing starts. Not to start as fast as I can, but to see how quickly/smoothly I can settle into a desired pace. I also set the 500m with 250m sub-intervals to see if I pace the piece correctly; my goal being to negative- or even-split (not positive-split). Incidentally, here is an anecdote about the benefits of negative-splitting the individual pieces for this workout. During my coaching years, 8 x 500m was always a popular erg workout, and people were usually pretty jacked to try to get some fast numbers. Without being given specific instructions, the typical strategy for most athletes would be to hammer the first 10-15 strokes as hard as possible, then slowly fade till the end. The final score might be respectable but the technique was not what I was trying to achieve. At some point in the season I would run the workout with some specific guidelines: everyone had to even-split or negative-split each piece; for every piece that had a positive split (no matter how fast it was), they would have to do another until they had 8 pieces that were even- or negative split. I can’t recall anyone ever having to do an extra piece; almost everyone finished significantly faster than they had all season; and most people reported that mentally it was a much more enjoyable experience (and a few people reported that the stress of keeping the pace in check made the experience less enjoyable). [What continues to be puzzling to me is that after that experience, during future workouts without specific guidelines most people reverted back to the fly-and-die approach.]
I use the same approach for other Level 1 workouts (5 x 750m and the Pyramid). That is, I negative- or even-split each individual piece. I don’t do the Pyramid often enough to have developed what I believe would be an ideal strategy, but I do it roughly like this:
250m) fast as I can
500m) about the same as my best 8 x 500m pace
750m) about a second slower than that
1000m) about another half second slower than that (i.e., the 750m)
750m) faster than the first 750m
500m) faster than the first 500m
250m) fast as I can
In the end, my best Pyramid average will end up about half a second slower than my best 8 x 500m average.
My strategy for 4 x 2K and 4 x 1K (again, once I have an overall Goal Pace according to my planned progression for the season) is:
1st piece: GP + .2
2nd piece: GP
3rd piece: GP
4th piece: GP - .2
So if my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 2K was 1:42.0, my target the first piece is 1:42.2; for the second & third, 1:42.0; and for the last, 1:41.8. If my overall Goal Pace for 4 x 1K was 1:35.2, I’d pull the first 1K in 1:35.4; the next two in 1:35.2; and the last one in 1:35.0.
I’ve experimented with a number of formats for unbalanced workouts. (The Level 2 workout 3K/2.5K/2K is an unbalanced workout. I also use an alternate Level 3 format, in addition to continuous rowing, of 6K/5K/4K. [Another variation of this that I’ve used with the UM team is 5K/4K/3K.]) For years, athletes have asked for instructions about how to pace these workouts, and the general guidelines “Make the pace a little faster for each piece” didn’t seem to be specific enough. So I’ve come up with this:
1st piece: GP + .4
2nd piece: GP
3rd piece: GP - .6
So if my overall Goal Pace for 3K/2.5K/2K was 1:42.4, then I’d pull the 3K in 1:42.8; the 2.5K in 1:42.4, and the 2K in 1:41.8. If my overall GP for 6K/5K/4K was 1:47.2, I’d pull 6K in 1:47.6; 5K in 1:47.2; and 4K in 1:46.6. Incidentally, I find the crossover for Level 2 (4 x 2K vs. 3K/2.5K/2K) is just about perfect. For a good part of the season I alternate the two formats on a weekly basis and reduce the pace by two tenths every week (1:44.0 for 4 x 2K, then 1:43.8 for 3K/2.5K/2K, then 1:43.6 for 4 x 2K, etc.)
Once again I am short on time without entirely completing my objective, so I will have to continue the explanation at another time. The only thing left to explain regarding pacing is the specific formats I use for each individual piece. For anything 1K or longer, I divide each piece into 5 subintervals (e.g., 2K into 5 x 400m) and have a GP for each segment of each individual piece. For example, if I want to do a 2K in 1:42.4, my plan would be 400m @ 1:44, 400m @ 1:43, 400m @ 1:42, 400m @ 1:42, 400m @ 1:41 (I work entirely in whole numbers for the sub-intervals). Like the Level 4 sequences, this may all sound confusing at first but is pretty simple once you get the hang of it. Next time I’ll describe the whole process and give some examples. – Always assuming, of course, anyone has followed me this far. Happy training.
Pacing, Part 3
To reiterate again some of the major strategies from the Wolverine Plan regarding pacing:
1) Select a Goal pace for a given workout (e.g., 4 x 2K) based on an overall seasonal progression. Know where you are at the start of a training season, and where you want to end up at the end of the season. Follow a fairly linear progression (i.e., rate of improvement) from the beginning to the end of the season. Goal paces for a given session should be chosen with consideration for the number of weeks before your Big Race for the season (e.g., twelve, eight, or four weeks before CRASH-Bs). From one week to the next, modify the Goal Pace slightly if dictated by recent results. So, if the goals for the same/similar session from the past two weeks were achieved easily, you might consider making the next pace a little faster than you originally calculated. If you’ve recently struggled to reach your goals (or failed to reach a goal), you might want to adjust your current goal to be a little slower than originally calculated. This might involve repeating the previous goal, or even going back to a goal from a couple weeks ago.
2) Once a specific target has been selected for a given workout, determine Goal Paces for each individual piece within the workout, as I described previously. For example, if the overall GP for a 4 x 2K workout is 1:41.8, my format would be 1st piece @ 1:42.0; 2nd @ 1:41.8; 3rd @ 1:41.8; and 4th @ 1:41.6.
3) Have a strategy for finishing each individual piece at the desired pace. One strategy is to simple start a given piece a few tenths of a second slower than GP, and gradually bring the pace down to GP over the body of the piece. I’ve used that strategy successfully for years. I still use it for Level 1 workout intervals shorter than 1K. I haven’t performed the Level 2 workout 5 x 1500m in a couple years, but I plan to get back to it a couple times this season using this “fairly even pace” strategy. When I do Level 3 intervals (i.e., 3-5’ or 1250-1500m work intervals with a strict 3:1 work:recovery ratio), I also use this format. But for other workouts (specifically 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, 3K/2.5K/2K, 6K/5K/4K, and continuous Level 3) I have developed a more elaborate format.
Again, a basic disclaimer: the format I am about to describe is not meant to represent the optimal way to produce the fastest times for these workouts. It is a strategy I use to facilitate consistency of performance, to facilitate a steady structured progression of fitness, and to give myself a firmer mental grasp on some tough workouts.
I divide each interval into 5 segments (inspired by the default setting of the PM3). I plot whole number (no decimal) GPs for each segment, and round the interval GP as well as the overall workout GP off to an even decimal. Example:
Workout GP for 4 x 2K: 1:41.8
GP for first 2K interval: 1:42.0
GP for 1st 400m: 1:44
GP for 2nd 400m: 1:43
GP for 3rd 400m: 1:42
GP for 4th 400m: 1:41
GP for 5th 400m: 1:40
GP for second 2K interval: 1:41.8
GP for 1st 400m: 1:43
GP for 2nd 400m: 1:43
GP for 3rd 400m: 1:42
GP for 4th 400m: 1:41
GP for 5th 400m: 1:40
GP for third 2K interval: 1:41.8; format same as for second interval
GP for fourth 2K interval: 1:41.6
GP for 1st 400m: 1:43
GP for 2nd 400m: 1:42
GP for 3rd 400m: 1:42
GP for 4th 400m: 1:41
GP for 5th 400m: 1:40
I have created tables for all the various combinations for paces between 1:30-2:10, but unfortunately I can’t reproduce them here. Hopefully the pattern becomes clear. If the GP for an interval (2K in the above example) is a whole number, then the segment GPs are, 1st segment = GP+2; 2nd segment = GP+1; 3rd segment = GP; 4th segment = GP-1; 5th segment = GP-2. If the GP for an interval is a whole number -.2, subtract 1 second from the first segment; if the interval GP is a whole number -.4, subtract an additional 1 second from the second segment; and so on. I know it sounds confusing, but it’s based on a simple repeating pattern.
So, for an interval GP of 1:42.0, you have (from 1st to 5th segments):
1:44, 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.8: 1:43, 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.6: 1:43, 1:42, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.4: 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:41, 1:40.
For 1:41.2: 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40, 1:40.
For 1:41.0: 1:43, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40, 1:39.
For 1:40.8: 1:42, 1:42, 1:41, 1:40, 1:39.
For 1:40.6: 1:42, 1:41, 1:41, 1:40, 1:39.
Etc. etc. etc. Just substitute the same general pattern for other interval GPs (1:54.2, 1:35.6, etc.)
An example using 3K/2.5K/2K and a 1:59.8 GP for the entire workout:
First interval is 3K; GP is 1:59.8 + .4 = 2:00.2.
3K is 5 x 600m segments; segment GPs are 2:02, 2:01, 2:00, 1:59, 1:59.
Second interval is 2.5K; GP is 1:59.8.
2.5K is 5 x 500m segments; segment GPs are 2:01, 2:01, 2:00, 1:59, 1:58.
Third interval is 2K; GP is 1:59.8 - .6 = 1:59.2.
2K is 5 x 400m segments; segment GPs are 2:01, 2:00, 1:59, 1:58, 1:58.
Another example using 4 x 1K and an overall GP of 1:35.2:
The GPs for the four 1K interval s are 1:35.4, 1:35.2, 1:35.2, and 1:35.0.
Each 1K is divided into 200m segments. Segment GPs for the first 1K are 1:37, 1:36, 1:35, 1:35, 1:34. For the next two 1Ks: 1:37, 1:36, 1:35, 1:34, 1:34. For the final 1K: 1:37, 1:36, 1:35, 1:34, 1:33.
You have to be technically sharp to row this way, to make the desired shifts when necessary and consistently hit the desired splits (and hold the correspondingly appropriate stroke rates). It is extremely challenging during 4 x 1K when the shifts come every 200m and the fatigue factor is high. But I believe this technical proficiency (the skill to hit and hold the descending paces) is beneficial in allowing one to utilize maximal efficiency. – I don’t hit every target GP exactly on every segment, but pretty close, and it is rare that I miss a target GP by more than a tenth of a second. If you attempt this method, and struggle initially, I encourage you to stick with it until you develop the ability to hit your desired goals almost automatically (the same as with Level 4 training).
For long, continuous Level 3 rows I modify the format slightly. These workouts should be 60’-plus in duration; that will be at least 12-16K for most people (I am currently doing 24K, which most recently took 87:02.7). My approach is to break the long row into multiple smaller segments with 4-5 whole number GPs to achieve my overall GP for the workout. The number of smaller segments varies depending on the length of the workout and the best division to keep the math simple. So I divide 24K into a dozen 2K segments. I am going to bump the workout up to 25K soon and will divide it into 10 segments each 2.5K in length. For 15K I would probably keep it simple and use 3K segments. Once I establish my overall GP for the entire workout, I use the general format described above for the interval workouts, but play with it a little bit to adapt it to the longer workout. The spread of segment paces from start to finish (gradually getting faster, of course) will be 3-4 seconds (e.g., 1:51-1:47). Yesterday my 24K goal was 1:49.0, and my GPs for each 2K were 1:51, 1:51, 1:50, 1:50, 1:49, 1:49, 1:49, 1:49, 1:48, 1:48, 1:47, 1:47. Again, this isn’t the absolute fastest way to do a long workout like this, but I know I’ll be warmed up before things get too hard, and I can break the overall workout down mentally into shorter segments. These workouts just don’t seem that long any more. The last 4-6K can be pretty challenging, but by that point I’ve invested too much in the workout to give up easily, and proportionally the remaining distance is small enough that I can usually tough it out. Perception-wise, each segment might feel something like this:
1st segment: almost too easy; have to hold back to keep from going faster.
2nd segment: fairly easy; could keep the pace for a long time and the thought of going faster doesn’t concern me much.
3rd segment: just about right; couldn’t cruise like this forever, though; could go faster if I HAD too.
4th segment: this feels like work, but I can handle it; don’t know how I can go faster, though.
5th segment: hang on somehow; I guess I can do it after all.
Overall, I’ve found this strategy very helpful when approaching tough workouts for which I’ve reached plateaus over the past couple years. (You think 4 x 1K is a bitch? You ought to be in my shoes, who has done it so many times and know that even if I kill myself on this workout, rather than becoming faster I can only hope to become less slow.) Others who are newer to these workouts might not need such special guidance. Still others will think it is another example of how the Wolverine Plan is too complicated and structured. Well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. This is just an option.
To summarize the main advantages of the system:
• Built-in extended warm-up makes hard work physiologically less stressful
• More consistent, reproducible results
• Mentally reduces longer, tough workouts to manageable chunks
• Develops technical proficiencies required to change pace/rate on demand
• Ingrains the concept of finishing strong/always getting faster
But, I would also say this strategy requires a certain level of commitment and mental toughness some people just don’t have. It takes a certain faith in your abilities to spend the entire workout behind your goal pace, knowing there isn’t much room for error and that as tired as you are, you have to find a way to get faster before the workout is over. But with practice, the proper attitude can become automatic and I think the value of such an approach when racing is tremendous.
Well, there you have the Wolverine Plan approach to pacing during training & racing. I don’t imagine everything will sink in all at once or that everyone who reads this will be convinced of the strategy’s effectiveness. But as I have said repeatedly regarding the WP, I’m not seeking converts. I’m just trying to clarify for anyone interested exactly what the program is all about. Happy training.
---------------------
Upon the advice of Bill Moore, a WP acolyte and local indoor rower, I've decided to adopt the Wolverine Plan and use it to prep for the CRASH-B. I got a lot of help from Bill in setting up this plan and understanding how to progress from week to week, and I'm sharing it here so (a) I can get feedback, and other WP novices can learn. I believe everything I have below can be traced back directly to the WP document or something Mike Caviston posted.
6 workouts a week
Day 1 - Level 1
Day 2 - Level 4 (40')
Day 3 - Level 2
Day 4 - Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 5 - Level 3 (15k)
Day 6 - Level 4 (60')
Day 7 - rest
2k reference time = 7:11.3
2k reference pace = 1:47.8
recovery pace = 2:32
Level 1 @ 1:47.8
8 x 500
4 x 1k
4k pyramid
Level 2 @ 1:56.7 (108.3% of 2k pace)
5 x 1500
4 x 2k
3k / 2.5k / 2k
recovery distance = 75% of work distance
Level 3 @ 2:04.6 (115.6% of 2k pace)
12k
15 x 3', 1' recovery
Level 4
40' = 176/180/176/180
4 x 10' = ?
60' = 176/180/176/180/176/180
So it sounds like good advice for Level 4 newbies is to concentrate first on getting the desired rates on command, and paces will eventually fall into place. While this may be difficult at first, practice is key, and it shouldn’t take more than a couple sessions before some improvement occurs.
When I have a little more time next week I plan to revisit the topics of warm-up and active recovery. But my workout this morning was 4 x 1K, and since that workout has recently been mentioned, let me make a few observations. (I said quite a bit about this a few months ago on another thread. Previous Comments) 4 x 1K is both the toughest and most valuable workout I do to prepare for 2Ks. For the fall I have been doing it only every third week (in January I plan to start doing it every alternate week). Last week I did a 2K trial instead of a Level 1 workout, so it had been four weeks since I last did 4 x 1K. I was plenty nervous before hand, but the workout went well. Even though I shouldn’t have been surprised based on the overall progress of my training, it’s always good to see the general progress confirmed with good execution of a tough workout.
The results (including my sub-interval pacing format):
1st piece GP: 1:35.4 [actual time & pace: 3:10.4 (1:35.2)]
200m GP: 1:37 [actual pace: 1:37.0]
400m GP: 1:36 [actual: 1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
800m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
1000m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8]
2nd piece GP: 1:35.2 [3:10.1 (1:35.1)]
200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8]
400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:35.0]
800m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8]
1000m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0]
3rd piece GP: 1:35.2 [3:10.0 (1:35.0)]
200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8]
400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
800m GP: 1:34 [1:33.8]
1000m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0]
4th piece GP: 1:35.0 [3:09.7 (1:34.9)]
200m GP: 1:37 [1:36.8]
400m GP: 1:36 [1:35.8]
600m GP: 1:35 [1:34.8]
800m GP: 1:34 [1:34.0]
1000m GP: 1:33 [1:33.0]
So I beat my overall goal for the workout by .2 seconds, which is pretty rare for me (I generally either get the goal exactly or sometimes go .1 sec under), but my goal was a little conservative. Splitting each 1K into 200m segments makes things go by a lot quicker since each segment only lasts about 38 seconds so I’m constantly reaching another milestone and I have plenty to think about in the meantime trying to hold my pace and rate objective for each segment. My final 200m @ 1:33 wasn’t pretty (became short & rushed), but every other segment went smoothly. Several weeks ago when my overall GP was 1:36-ish, the 1:34 pace wasn’t very pretty. Now I’m handling it pretty well, and the hope is I will eventually have good technique @ 1:33 as well.
This is probably a good opportunity to remind everyone (as the discussion shifts around between different WP training Levels) that all Levels are integral to the overall Plan and all need to be addressed with equal concern for detail. Happy training.
Here are some Level 4 observations based on recent discussion:
Reference Paces can be tricky, so it’s important to try to choose one you can stick with for an entire training season. In the absence of a reliable 2K score, probably the best alternative is to estimate 2K ability from a Level 1 workout. This of course assumes the Level 1 workout is performed correctly and with a near-maximal effort. If the L4 workouts feel too easy, one way to increase intensity is too use a more rapid rate of increase in strokes/workout (beyond the suggested 1 stroke/10’/week). But make sure there is room on the sequence charts to keep increasing without passing 200 strokes/10’ before the end of your training season. If you reach the point where you are doing 1200 strokes in an hour and it’s only midway through the season, something has gone seriously wrong. Another option if workouts seem too easy is to increase the length of the workouts. This may not be the best solution since there will be practical limits as to how long you are able to row. Going from say 50’ to 60’ may be a temporary solution, but chances are if you don’t have the correct Ref Pace then the longer workout will soon start to feel too “easy” again.
Execution of the workouts with the correct stroke rates is essential to create the structured format for gradual, long-term improvement. If you want to do a workout with higher rates and higher meter totals, there is already a training band called level 3.
I think people are overthinking the setting of the monitor for subintervals. I always set for 10’ (or 6’) and am perfectly happy with the results. [That is, a 60’ workout is set up as a continuous 60’ row but I recover the 6’ or 10’ meter/pace totals after the workout along with the grand total.] I can review the meter total for each 10’ sequence and how it compares to my goal and see my overall consistency for a given sequence (e.g., 190) from one week to the next. Setting for 2’ sub-intervals isn’t necessarily better information because in that small a time frame the average spm or meter total can vary significantly depending on whether you happen to be on the recovery or on the drive when the next 2’ segment begins. Over 6-10’, things even out pretty well. When using the PM2 there is less information available on the monitor during the workout, so you have to accept on faith that you are reaching your goals though I have calculated my meter goals by the first 10’, 20’, 30’ etc. so I know if I am on target as the workout progresses. With enough practice and experience I have found I can pretty accurately estimate what my meter total was for each segment without actually seeing until the workout is over; I can just tell by how well each segment seems to be going at the time and if I seem to be a little ahead, a little behind, or right on my goal paces. These days I almost exclusively use the PM3, which allows a little more information to be viewed during the actual workout. I set up the screen to see my overall average pace as well as my average pace for each segment (10’ or 6’) of the workout. That gives more direct feedback about how each segment is going. If, say, one of the segments is 180 (4’/3’/2’/1’), I know exactly where I am for the first 4’ of the segment and can still estimate pretty well over the final 6’. I know what the average pace should be for each segment so as I finish one segment and move on to another I know how well I did on the completed segment.
Using index cards or sticky notes or whatever on or near the monitor to keep the workout’s rate and pace changes available for reference is a good practice. But it probably won’t be too long before you chunk all the bits of information for each sequence so that terms like “180” and “188” automatically bring to mind the necessary formats so you don’t have to think in terms of “4’ @16spm @ 2:02, then 3’ @ 18spm @ 1:58, then…” etc. Then all you have to memorize before a workout are the actual sequences you will be using. I never count strokes during a workout for a particular time period but that doesn’t mean that others can’t. I just pay attention to keeping the rate consistent on the monitor. One little trick I do is, if I’m trying to pull @ 18spm and I inadvertently see “19” for a stroke on the monitor, I try to relax enough that I soon see a “17” to compensate. But it gets messy if you see-saw back and forth between 17 & 19 when you’re trying to hold 18, so I really concentrate on holding the one desired rate.
It appears that many people are avoiding sequences that follow the 4’/3’/2’/1’ format or the pyramid sequences (176, 186, 196) and simply alternating 2’ at a time between two different rates. I think of the “2s” and the “8s” sequences (178, 182, 188, 192 etc.) as filler between the more challenging and productive “6s” and “10s” (186, 196, 180, 190, 200). The Level 4 format is meant to be more varied than a simple alternation of “up 2” and “down 2” every two minutes or alternating the same two sequences for an entire workout. Now, that is boring!
Also, why not get into the odd number sequences (178, 186, 190, 198 etc.)? Consult the PaceVsRate chart:
Everything becomes simpler and smoother with a few million more meters under your belt, so hang in there.
In my experience, there are three workouts which most closely relate to 2K ability. The first/best predictor of my 2K ability is 4 x 1K (Level 1); the next best predictor is 4 x 2K (Level 2); and third is a Level 3 interval workout.
I have referred to Level 3 intervals periodically over the past couple years but here is a chance to clarify and consolidate information. First off, Level 3 intervals (I’ll say L3I for short) are (like 4 x 10’/L4) a supplementary or advanced workout to be done in conjunction with a weekly Continuous Level 3. [As explained previously, one of the cornerstones of a WP program should be a continuous Level 3 of 60’ or more.] Some basic points about L3I:
1) The basic format is a 3:1 work:recovery ratio. I suggest 3’ on/1’ off, 4’ on/1’20” off, or 5’ on/1’40” off. I always used these formats in a team setting so that slower and faster athletes could all stay on the same start/stop schedule. But for my personal workouts I prefer to use distance for the work intervals; the two formats I favor involve either 1250m or 1500m for each work interval (1K might be appropriate for slower athletes). I set the recovery interval as 1/3 of the estimated time for my work interval (since this involves extra math some might prefer to stick to 3’ on/1’ off.) The 1500m interval is actually pretty easy to work with since the recovery interval would be the same as your overall workout GP.
2) The total distance for the L3I work intervals should add up to somewhere between 75-90% of the distance you cover during 60’ of continuous Level 3 rowing. No need to be obsessed with the exact percentage; adjust it to suit your needs and abilities. But that’s a ballpark figure. That would probably mean something like 12-15 x 3’, 8-10 x 1500m, etc.
3) The intensity is roughly (60’ Level 3 Continuous pace) – 3 seconds. E.g., if Level 3 Continuous is 1:51, then L3I is 1:48 (at least to get started). [In Watts, the L3I pace would be about 8% faster than Continuous.] As with other relationships between intensities for different workouts, use it as a rough guide to get started but let the specific workout develop its own history and progress.
4) The recovery can be pretty light, but keep moving. For Level 1 & 2 workouts with higher intensity, the recovery needs to be even more active. For L3I, paddling lightly is fine; just don’t stop entirely.
5) Pacing for each work interval should be continuous or negative split. I prefer to do them with essentially continuous pacing using a small negative split. I prefer to avoid hitting it too hard at the start of each interval, but just settle quickly into my planned Goal Pace.
6) Pacing across the entire workout should also be fairly even with a slight negative split. My format is currently 10 x 1500m (1:45r), so the math is pretty simple when I figure out my strategy. For example, to average 1:46.2 for the entire workout, I do two intervals @ 1:47 and the remaining eight @ 1:46.
7) This workout is deceptively enjoyable in the early stages. It is fun and it is easy to make rapid gains initially. But eventually you cross a threshold and one day you sit down and get blindsided by one of the toughest workouts you can remember doing. I’ve coached athletes who refer to this as the “Level 2 from h3ll”, because the paces get pretty fast and it just goes on and on. In my training, by the end of the season my L3I pace surpasses my initial Level 2 pace from the start of the season. It might be called “Level 2.5”.
8) I find this to be a very valuable workout but I have become increasingly cautious when it comes to advancing the pace. For years I did this workout on a weekly basis, but now I do it only on alternate weeks (alternating with 6K/5K/4K, which I have mentioned previously).
9) Again, this L3I workout is in addition to my Continuous Level 3. As with the 4 x 10’ (L4) workout, many people look at this and say “Ooh, that looks like fun, I’ll do that instead of the Continuous workout!” The WP already has L1 & L2 for intervals and intensity. Make sure to TCB first with plenty of continuous L3 & L4 training before adding another interval session.
Enjoy!
Warming Up
As I have previously written, in my experience there are two things that come as close as anything to providing “free speed” when training or racing. These are proper pacing and warm-up . These have been confirmed for me by personal experience, by having worked with hundreds of athletes over the past 25 years, and having read an extensive amount of published scientific research on these topics. Yet amazingly many athletes are unwilling to consider alternate pacing or warm-up strategies as a means of enhancing performance. I have discussed pacing already on this thread. I have discussed warm-up many times in the past, but it is time to revisit the topic again.
The purpose of warming up is to prepare the body for the physical (and mental) demands of the task at hand. Some of the physiological effects of properly warming up include dilating blood vessels supplying the active muscles; increasing sympathetic neural drive to the heart so HR will be able to reach max values; beginning the sweating response to keep the body cool; beginning the process of activating the appropriate energy pathways; mobilizing adequate fuel sources (i.e., breakdown and release of fatty acids for longer sessions); and allowing the muscles & joints to reach the full Range Of Motion required during the session. Many people behave as if all of this can be accomplished with a few minutes of low-moderate intensity preparation prior to their training session (or race!) In fact, a proper warm-up needs to be longer and more intense than many people apparently realize.
Many people fear an intense/extended warm-up will leave them too exhausted to perform well during a workout or race. Ironically, failing to warm up long enough with sufficient intensity will limit performance! I find that during a Level 1 or Level 2 interval workout, the first interval is generally the hardest and slowest (even after what I consider a complete warm-up). The next interval feels significantly easier, and throughout the workout, even as fatigue progressively becomes more of a limiting factor, the later intervals are more relaxed. Clearly, the body requires time to become prepared and acclimated for hard work. I have heard or read many people recount experiences where they performed unexpectedly well after a tough initial work period (e.g., doing better on the second 2K at a venue race even though the first 2K was supposed to be “all-out”.) An anecdote I have related before illustrates the point. Several years ago while coaching at Michigan in the pre-erg era, a staple workout was to have the team run a dozen times up (and down) a dozen flights of stairs in the tallest building on campus. Cumulative time for all 12 trips up & down would typically be in the 30-35’ range. The standard warm-up I required was to jog to the top & back at least twice before beginning the actual workout on the clock. Some athletes, as a penalty for various infractions during the previous week (late to practice, etc.) would also have to do two fast “penalty flights” within a specific time limit (or do more penalties), and within a couple minutes start the actual workout. So that meant 2 jog + 2 penalty + 12 workout flights. It quickly became apparent that not only were the athletes given the penalty flights NOT too tired to perform well – they took huge chunks off their best overall times; they performed MUCH better relative to past performances than their non-penalized teammates.
With that in mind, for the past several years I have repeated a little experiment with many different squads of rowers (similar to the “pacing” experiment I described in a previous post). Part of the season would go by and athletes would be given some general guidelines for warming up but would have quite a bit of flexibility in determining their own formats and intensities. Then at some point before a tough workout (e.g., 4 x 1K) I would require a more specific and demanding warm-up – something that when they saw it written on the white board would cause their jaws to drop a little and you could tell they were thinking something like, “I’m going to do THAT warm-up and THEN do 4 x 1K? I don’t THINK so!” [I think that’s the hallmark of a good warm-up: it should be intense enough that outsiders will mistake it for the actual workout.] So the athletes would be afraid they wouldn’t be able to complete the workout. But they always did, and in almost every case they did it significantly faster than previously and with less perceived effort. (Inexplicably, when the specifically intense guidelines for warm-up were removed, most athletes reverted back to an easier but less successful format. Someone could devote an entire thread to the topic of athletes’ psychology and why they tend to resist things that have proven to be effective.)
So, warm-ups need to be longer & more intense than performed by many people. I don’t have a blanket formula (I doubt if there is one), but I can offer examples of warm-ups I use for my own training. Like all aspects of training, I prefer quite a bit of structure with my warm-ups. I follow specific formats for specific workouts. The formats aren’t quite as strict as for Levels 1-4, and a slight amount of variation may occur from one day to the next, but by-and-large I follow pretty scripted scenarios. I do so for a few reasons. In the first place, following a routine is a good way to encourage consistency. People who get inconsistent results for different types of workouts might benefit from re-examining their preparations before the workout. One of the guiding principles of the Wolverine Plan is to slowly, gradually, and systematically increase the overall training load week by week. What many fail to realize is that warm-up is part of the training load. I perform a set routine every week (i.e., 1 L1, 1 L2, 2 L3, and 6 L4 workouts every week). The intensity and duration of each workout is controlled to keep an overall balance and pace for the entire week’s training. The warm-ups are also part of the training load and I keep the duration and intensity of the warm-ups controlled as well. Essentially, warm-ups can be thought of as “Level 5” in the WP framework, and account for over 25K of my training meters every week. These are not “junk” meters, but quality meters with a specific training effect essential to the overall process.
Here is a basic description of my warm-ups:
I begin with about 15 firm strokes to check my drag factor; this is sort of a “pre-warm-up” warm-up. For the actual warm-up, I set the monitor for Just Row (for all workouts, I pre-set a time or distance and count down, so this is a chance for a little variety in how I look at the monitor). The warm-ups themselves have evolved after a period of trial-and-error and attempting many different things. The current formats have their logic but some aspects are there “just because” they have been working for me. So I’m not presenting these as fixed ideals , but as illustrations that demonstrate some of the key factors in warming up.
My standard warm-up distance for Level 4 workouts is 2000m.
1st 200m (about 20 strokes) @ 70% of 2K Watts (a solid Level 3 pace).
From 200-850m, @14-16spm; minimal pace is the Recovery Pace defined for my 2K in the WP (37% of 2K Watts), but the actual Recovery Pace I use will often be faster by 2-4 sec/500m.
At 850m, I firm up so that my rate is 28-30spm and pace is 90% of 2K Watts (a fast Level 2 pace) and hold this for 12-15 strokespace is until I reach 1000m.
At 1000m, I drop back down to Recovery Pace and rate.
At 1450m, I firm up to 26-27spm and a pace 80% of 2K Watts (a slow Level 2 pace) and hold it for 12-15 strokes.
The final 400m or so is done at Recovery Pace and rate.
From one warm-up to the next, the exact number of firm strokes or the exact pace for each one might vary slightly, but at the end the average pace for the 2000m ends up being remarkably consistent (within a couple tenths of a sec per 500m), at 45% of 2K Watts.
When I finish the 2000m, I take a couple minutes to take care of such business as making sure my water bottle is full, my towel is handy, use the bathroom if necessary, maybe do a few brief stretches, etc. I partly do this to simulate the transition from the warm-up erg to race erg that occurs at venue races. To finish, I’ll take a few more strokes, some easy, some firm, for another 30-90 seconds (depending on how much I’ve cooled), then set the monitor and begin the actual workout.
My standard warm-up for Level 3 workouts is 2500m. The first 2000m is identical to the Level 4 warm-up. The final 500m is done at Recovery Pace except for an additional 10 strokes at 80% of 2K Watts (slow Level 2). The average pace for the whole warm-up is 45% of 2K Watts.
The standard warm-up for Level 2 is 4000m long. It begins with 100m (about 10 strokes) @ 26-27spm, 70% 2K Watts.
From 100m-1000m, 14-16spm and Recovery Pace.
From 1000m-2000m, 26-27spm and at least 80% of 2K Watts. NOTE: this is perceived as hard work, and takes a little mental toughness. For the desired physiological effect, it is important that the pace be maintained continuously (not in short bursts) for the entire distance.
From 2000m-2500m, settle to 18spm @ L4 16 pace (i.e., the pace usually prescribed for rowing at 16spm according to the WP charts).
At 2500m, shift down to 14-16spm @ Recovery Pace. At about 2800m, firm up to 28-30spm at 90% 2K Watts for 15-20 strokes, then drop back to Recovery Pace and rate at about 3000m. At about 3450m, firm up for 10-15 more strokes at 90% 2K Watts, then finish the remainder of the 4000m @ Recovery Pace.
The warm-up for Level 1 workouts is identical to that for Level 2, except the 90% 2K Watts becomes 105% 2K Watts (@32-33spm). The average pace for the L1-2 warm-ups works out to 51-2% of 2K Watts.
Warm-ups also serve a diagnostic purpose for me (i.e., Am I ready to perform?) Some days the first 20 strokes just seem a little harder than normal, and the desired pace doesn’t appear as quickly as it usually does. Or other portions might be more difficult than usual or it might take longer than usual to reach the half-way point. Things like this tell me that I’ll need to expend a little extra effort to get prepared, or take a little more time, or in a worst-case scenario, maybe adjust my goal for the workout a little.
In my training journal I record the times and distances for all workouts, and the distances for each warm-up. (I don’t record the paces for the warm-ups but as I have said, they are very consistent and I know for all intents and purposes what they are.) The percent of total training volume distributed among warm-ups and the various training bands is pretty consistent. Warm-up is about 15-17% of total weekly volume; Level 1 is 2-3%; Level 2 is 4-6%; Level 3 is 20-25%; and level 4 is 50-55%. For warm-up, I only record the standard allotted distances, ignoring any additional or supplemental warm-up meters. I also neglect to record my active recovery meters for interval sessions and my cool-down meters after workouts are completed. This means several thousand meters per week go unrecorded, but I find I get a more accurate and meaningful portrait of my training that way.
My standard race warm-up is 7500m. It begins with a 4000m block that is identical to the Level 1 warm-up. Then, after a 1-2 minute break, I set the monitor for 2000m. I break this 2K portion of the warm-up into 400m segments. The 1st 400m is 14-16spm/Recovery Pace; 2nd 400m is 18spm/L4 16 pace; middle 400m is 32-33spm/sub-2K pace; 4th 400m same as 2nd; 5th 400m same as 1st. Yes, the middle 400m is sub -2K pace, faster than I expect to go in the actual race. A mental component to this 2K portion is to review and visualize my race plan for the day (and to prove to myself that a monitor will indeed count down to zero from 2000m!) After another 1-2 minute break, I do a final 1500m at recovery Pace, with two 12-15 stroke bursts at near-2K pace. Ideally, I finish the warm-up 5-10 minutes before the scheduled start of the race, which leaves me enough time to leave the warm-up area, find a men’s room if necessary, report to the race area, and begin adjusting my race erg as soon as I’m allowed. Prior to the start of the race, I alternate light strokes with short bursts at firm pressure to maintain the proper muscle temperature. The analogy I use is to think of a kettle on the stove just getting ready to boil. I don’t want to start boiling before the race starts but I want the flame to be high enough so that when I see “ROW” on my monitor I begin boiling in the shortest time possible. Incidentally, it is important to know how long the entire warm-up routine will take. I go through the entire routine at least a couple times in the days leading up to the race, so I know exactly when to begin (relative to my race time) on race day. Once I begin the warm-up, I am also prepared to shorten or extend the process as necessary if I receive word the original schedule has changed. Often races fall behind schedule and you must handle a delay (e.g., Paris EIRC 2003), but I’ve also been at races where lost time is unexpectedly made up and a race begins sooner than originally anticipated (e.g., Amsterdam EIRC 2004).
To sum up my major point, warm-up is a crucial aspect of the training/racing process and needs to be attended with as much planning and scientific validation as other aspects of training. Most people will benefit significantly from longer and more intense warm-ups. This will probably take some mental conditioning as well. That is, it may take you a while to get your head around the idea that working harder before a race will make you faster, not slower. I suggest gradually adjusting your warm-up procedures under controlled conditions during training to see what formats are most physically and mentally beneficial.
One final matter related to warm-up for anyone who trains more than once per day. I have come across several published research articles describing the benefits of prior exercise on subsequent workouts. This refers to the lingering warm-up effects of a first session on a second session performed a few hours later. For example, vasodilators remain active, allowing a quicker more efficient distribution of blood flow to active muscles, and metabolic enzymes are in a more ready state. With proper nutrition between workouts, there is more efficient and effective glycogen synthesis and storage in the fibers utilized during the first session, leaving them favorably primed for the second session. I have long known from personal experience that when I add a second session to my daily routine I appear to become more rather than less energetic. It’s good to see my experiences validated under experimental circumstances.
Speaking of second workouts, it is that time once again…
The Myth of Lactate Tolerance
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 th
Last edited by dougsurf on March 16th, 2006, 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And hopefully the last?
----------------------------------
The Myth of Lactate Tolerance
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., HERE). 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 active recovery , to promote as complete recuperation as possible between work intervals. Intensity 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 too 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 all feel like the first one.)
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 macho , and longer recovery is for wimps. This actually cracks me up, because adequate recovery means you go faster during the work intervals, which hurts more . Part of the so-called “logic” of shorter recovery intervals is too 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.
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 aerobic capacity (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”.
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 monocarboxylate transporters (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 not improving “lactate tolerance” – it is enhancing the removal 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.
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 active recovery . 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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANAEROBIC THRESHOLD - A RELATIVELY USELESS CONCEPT FOR COACHING
Billat, L. V. (1996). Use of blood lactate measurements for prediction of exercise performance and for control of training: Recommendations for long-distance running. Sports Medicine, 22, 157-175.
This article contains a very concise summary of the concept of anaerobic threshold and how it is depicted in the literature. The implications of each individual statement are particularly important given the pre-occupation of many coaches with this concept. The major points of the article are discussed below. Further features are introduced in the "Implications" section.
The concept of anaerobic threshold itself is not universally consistent. Long dynamic exercise that is predominantly aerobic ranges between two extremes of physiological dynamics resulting in very different blood lactate levels.
* At the lowest level, an exercise can be sustained for a very long time. After 2-5 min a state of overall oxidative energy supply is established where lactate production is balanced by lactate elimination at a low level. Fat (lipid)metabolism is the primary source of fuel. Exercise limits are mainly associated with eventual increases in internal temperature. Potential dehydration can be prevented by supplementation of water and substrate (carbohydrate and electrolytes) during performance. (p. 158)
* At the highest extreme, the workload requires an additional formation and accumulation of lactate to maintain power output. Exhaustion results through the disturbance of the internal biochemical environment of the working muscles and whole body caused by a high or maximal acidosis. Generally, accumulation of lactate limits performance to periods from 30 sec to 15 min. For example, the average time to exhaustion at the minimal velocity that elicits VO2max is 6:30 and is not correlated with the blood lactate level developed during the task. (p. 159)
Between these two extremes are transition stages, several of which are labeled
similarly as "anaerobic threshold" or "lactate threshold." Thus, the same label is
used for different concepts and their assessment protocols which lead to different
values and training implications. Billat displays the various implications of this
confusing situation. According to a variety of "authorities," changes in blood
lactate accumulation are termed and defined differently as well as being associated
with different levels and characteristics of accumulated lactate. They are also
differentiated by the protocols used to measure them. Some examples are listed
below.
* "Onset of plasma lactate accumulation" is established as being exercise induced
levels which are 1 mM/l above baseline lactate values. [Farrel, P. E., Wilmore,
J. H., Coyle, E. F., et al. (1979). Plasma lactate accumulation and distance
running performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 11, 338-344.]
* "Maximal steady-state" is displayed when oxygen, heart rate, and/or treadmill
velocity produce a lactate level that is 2.2 mM/l. [Londeree, B. R., & Ames, A.
(1975). Maximal steady state versus state of conditioning. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 34, 269-278.]
* "Onset of blood lactate accumulation" (OBLA) occurs when continuous incremental
exercise produces a lactate level of 4 mM/l. [Sjodin, B., & Jacobs, I. (1981).
Onset of blood lactate accumulation and marathon running performance.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2, 23-26.]
* "Individual anaerobic threshold" is the state where the increase of blood
lactate is maximal and equal to the rate of diffusion of lactate from the
exercising muscle. Values range from 2-7 mM/l. [Stegemann. H., & Kindermann, W.
(1982). Comparison of prolonged exercise tests at the individual anaerobic
threshold and the fixed anaerobic threshold of 4 mM/l. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 3, 105-110.]
* "Lactate threshold" is the starting point of an accelerated lactate
accumulation and is usually around 4 mM/l and is expressed as %VO2max. [Aunola,
S., & Rusko, H. (1984). Reproducibility of aerobic and anaerobic thresholds in
20-25 year old men. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 69, 196-202.
* "Maximal steady-state of blood lactate level" is the exercise intensity that
produces the maximal steady-state of blood lactate level and ranges from
2.2-6.8 mM/l. [Billat, V., Dalmay, F., Antonini, M. T., et al. (1994). A method
for determining the maximal steady state of blood lactate concentration from
two levels of submaximal exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 69,
196-202.
Many scientists and coaches use the label "anaerobic threshold" interchangeably
with these concepts confusing what is supposed to be a scientific coaching
principle. Just because the same label is used does not mean analogous concepts are
being discussed. Since there would be different coaching and performance
implications from each of the above concepts, the blanket use of this term will
foster many erroneous coaching prescriptions and procedures.
Lactate accumulation indicates a shift from solely oxidative to an additional
glycolytic energy supply. Lactic acid production is due to the activation of
glycolysis that is more rapid than activation of oxidative phosphorylation. This is
indicated by a steep non-linear increase of blood lactate in relation to power
output and time. That accumulation can be attributed to disparities in the rate of
lactate production and removal, even for work intensities under those which elicit
VO2max. Lactate production is not related to oxygen deficit but rather to the
increase of the glycolysis flux. (p. 159)
Lactate is produced constantly, not just during hard exercise. It may be the most
dynamic metabolite produced during exercise since its appearance exceeds that of
any other metabolite studied. The constancy of the blood lactate level means that
entry into and removal of lactate from the blood are in balance.
The turnover of lactic acid during exercise is several times greater for a given
blood lactate level than at rest. For a given blood lactate level, lactate removal
is several times greater in trained than in untrained persons.
Several factors are responsible for the lactate inflection point during graded
exercise.
* Contraction stimulates glycogenolysis and lactate production.
* Hormone recruitment affects both glycogenolysis and glycolysis.
* Recruitment of glycolytic fast-twitch fibers increases lactate production.
* Blood-flow redistribution from lactate-removing gluconeogenic tissues to
lactate-producing glycolytic tissues causes lactate levels to rise as exercise
requires continually increasing power output.
Lactate values differ according to several variables: the activity being performed,
the site from where the blood sample is taken, the environment itself (both
physical and its effect on the athlete's psychology), and the state of glycogen
stores prior to testing. Unless these variables and others, such as day-to-day
cycles in general physiology, as well as variations in test administration and
athlete performance of each test segment, can be controlled and made consistent
between test administrations it is likely that score differences will be
unreliable. The practice of attributing any observed lactate-test differences, no
matter how small, to training effects or as revealing the trained state is
extremely dubious at best.
Practical Implications
When scientists cannot agree upon a concept's definition, let alone the appropriate
label to use, as well as the appropriate method/protocol of assessment, then the
practical use of the "general implications" of the concept is foundationally
prohibited. Until this situation is clarified and discrepancies removed, field
testing for "lactate-threshold" should be avoided. There are more profitable and
useful activities for athletes and coaches to be engaged in.
Of significance to coaching is the concept itself. The common misunderstanding that
the anaerobic threshold is the state where aerobic activity is dominant and maximal
and anaerobic activity constant but "insignificant" is very prevalent. There are
few competitive activities or events where such a circumstance is desirable.
Most activities do not require all body parts to be involved in an activity at the
same intensity level. A cyclist will work the legs extremely hard but, by
comparison, the rest of the body will function comfortably in an aerobic zone of
metabolic activity. A swimmer pounding out stroke after stroke in a 1500 m race
works the arms at an intensity that employs a high level of anaerobic energy supply
but the rest of the body is "relaxed" and functioning at quite a basic aerobic
level. Even in running, in a marathon the legs work hard while the arms and upper
body "save energy." In these activities, lactate is produced by the primary working
muscles and resynthesized by the muscles engaged in mild supportive activity. Those
muscles cleanse or "sponge" out lactate so that the blood supply to the hard
working muscles is quite low in acidity when returned to those muscles. Thus, any
lactate measure is a measure of the "general functioning" of the body, not the
actual work performed by the primary sporting muscles. Differences in technique
most probably would account for a significant portion of many inter-individual
differences in lactate assessments than work levels or movement economy.
In many "aerobic" sports the actual prime mover muscle groups work at an anaerobic
level rather than aerobically as is inferred from anaerobic threshold testing. The
common perception of anaerobic threshold does not give any information or
understanding of what actually is happening in important aspects of a performance.
Even the slightest improvement in movement economy (technique) in the "anaerobic
prime movers" could make a significant difference to performance.
Of all the concepts of anaerobic-type thresholds or measures that are proposed
perhaps the maximum lactate steady-state (MLSS) is the one that is most applicable
to the field of sports. In cycling events of one hour, athletes have been measured
to "tolerate" and demonstrate sustained lactate levels in the region of 7 mM/l. In
most events where "effort" is required as part of the competitive strategy, lactate
levels will be sustained in a competitive performance in excess of the anaerobic
threshold (if one can be demonstrated). There is a much greater proportion of many
competitive performances that is more anaerobic than is generally acknowledged. If
appropriate and sane anaerobic training is ignored then an athlete will not be
trained optimally and a theoretically "best" performance will not be possible.
How can one test for maximum lactate steady state? Simply ask trained, experienced
athletes to perform a task equal to the duration of their competitive event and
they are likely to produce a performance that is close to demonstrating the MLSS.
To be sure of this, if performance intensities, usually velocities, are performed
at an increment above and below the first trial, verification should be
forthcoming. Repeating many trials usually is not necessary. Is this too simple of
a concept for complicated science? In practical circumstances it works. But since
this could be a procedure that is implemented by coaches would it be endorsed by
scientists which would seemingly remove a coach's dependence on them?
But a central perplexing question still remains: what does one get from measures of
lactate and performance? What do they tell more than is already known? If lactate
values are specific to the task/testing-protocol/event there can be no inference
beyond the observations themselves.
When two athletes with the same physiological capacities perform the same activity,
one using arms only the other using arms and legs, the performance results are
often different, particularly when energy supply is an important aspect of the task
demands. In this case, it is not the "anaerobic threshold" that differentiates the
two but the movement economies, one using more muscle mass to produce a performance
outcome. An attempt to shift the anaerobic threshold by further training of a
particular type in an hypothesized metabolic zone with appropriate heart rates is
clearly the wrong approach to solving the less-efficient athlete's problem. A skill
element change to reduce unnecessary movements would result in greater movement
economy and would shift the velocity that supports the MLSS to the right.
It is dubious to attribute shifts in anaerobic threshold values to physical
training. Given that so many variables render field tests of this phenomenon
practically unreliable, what is attributed to score differences obtained between
two tests is more of a guess than an informed judgment.
Sport scientists can produce graphs of swimmers, runners, rowers, etc. showing an
"inflection point" that occurs in a region of performance velocity. Equally, other
athletes tested with the same protocol do not show any inflection or exhibit
measures which cannot be interpreted in terms of a traditional anaerobic threshold.
A few selected demonstrations do not prove the existence of a phenomenon that can
be applied universally. The trend in field testing is rather one of more people not
demonstrating a clear "anaerobic threshold" than doing so. Complicate that further
with deciding upon which threshold protocol fits the sport from the existing array
of definitions and confusion results rather than a clearly usable training tool.
Anaerobic threshold results must be reliable, that is, capable of replication. When
a particular protocol is used for a series of periodic assessments, as is commonly
followed in "sport science testing" programs, if that protocol is altered, the
previous results cannot be used for comparison purposes. A protocol change will
produce unrelated results, often different response phenomena, and above all
different implications and interpretations. The definitions and discrepancies
listed above all originate from different testing protocols. Thus, results from one
protocol to the next, no matter how small the change is explained to be, should not
be compared. Essentially, a new database is developed.
An unavoidable dilemma. Sport scientists are ethically bound to represent the worth
of lactate testing and the inferences that are commonly proposed. This is what is
known.
1. Lactate concepts and measures are limited/specific to each testing protocol.
1. Results from one protocol cannot be used to generalize or infer values to other
testing protocols.
2. If one cannot infer from one lactate testing protocol to another then it is
illogical to generalize lactate testing results to a competitive performance.
3. It is a greater stretch of the imagination to leap conceptually from an
inferentially-limited measure under controlled conditions to the dynamic
circumstances of a competitive or practice setting.
4. At most, lactate and lactate threshold measurements reveal changes but have
limited to possibly non-existent inferential capacities about future
performances (even training performances let alone competitive performances).
5. Lactate and lactate threshold measurements can reveal that they have changed as
a result of training, but if those changes are unrelated to competitive
performances what is their value?
6. There are no national or international competitive events that reward medals
for lactate threshold changes, levels, or testing protocols.
A story. During the spring of 1996, this writer attended the ARCO Training Center
in Chula Vista, California. One day a USOC testing group had completed lactate
threshold and aerobic parameter testing sessions on the US men's heavyweight rowing
eight that was to compete later that year at the Atlanta Olympic Games.
The eight had just completed a European tour and performed worse than at any time
in the previous three years. Based on comparative racing performances, it was a
boat in trouble.
The head USOC scientist related that the members of the eight were still improving
in fitness as the measures that were taken were better than previous test results.
Despite improved "fitness measures" the eight recorded a performance that was worse
than any in the previous four Olympic Games, and compared to the boats that it had
raced during the recent European tour, it had also degraded in racing capability.
The fitness measures indicated that training was progressing satisfactorily.
Unfortunately, racing performances were declining. Training improvements in
physiological indices were negatively correlated with racing achievements. In 1994,
the eight were world champions, in 1995 world bronze medalists, and in 1996, when
they had the best testing results, were fifth out of six at the Olympic Games.
Just what is the value of lactate and lactate threshold/MLSS testing for making
coaching decisions that relate to competitive performances?
________________________________________
References
1. coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol46/billat.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on Pace ‘n Rates
In my view, pace is the criterion for judging performance (including the effectiveness of training), and stroke rate is one of the variables that affect pace (other variables include amount of force applied per stroke and length of stroke). There should always be a pretty strong (negative) correlation between rate & pace – as rate increases, pace should drop (i.e., get faster). But I don’t think the correlation will be perfect, or the same correlation will hold true for every person. During Level 4 workouts, the relationship between rate & pace is intended to be very strict. Even so, even I fudge the relationship just a bit from time to time. On a good day if I get into a groove and I’m just naturally pulling a little faster than intended for a given rate, I don’t fight it too much. I just don’t make a point of striving to go faster than the intended pace. (If the pace starts to slip a little bit, I fight to make sure I’m not going slower than my intended pace). For Level 1-3 workouts, I am aware of rate as it relates to pace, and I want the rates to be within certain limits, but I don’t let rate drive the workouts.
Here is a table I put together to give the athletes I’ve worked with a frame of reference for Level 1-3 workouts (they always ask, What rate? What rate?). I call them “Suggested Rates”. They all happen to be in the ballpark of 10 meters/stroke.
Pace : Rate :
2:15-2:11 22-23
2:10-2:06 23-24
2:05-2:01 24-25
2:00-1:56 25-26
1:55-1:52 26-27
1:51-1:48 27-28
1:47-1:44 28-29
1:43-1:41 29-30
1:40-1:38 30-31
1:37-1:35 31-32
1:34-1:32 32-33
1:31-1:29 33-34
This is just a guideline, and there may be numerous exceptions. For example, in my own training, my Recovery/Warm-up Pace is 2:14, and according to the above table the suggested rate is 22-23. Nuts to that! At that slow a pace, that rate seems wildly out of control; I use about 15spm. When I am rowing Level 3 workouts in the 1:51-1:48 range, my rate is 24-25spm (slower than the suggested 27-28). That works out to a little over 11mps. That sort of thing doesn’t bother me. It’s good to have a bit of a power reserve. For Level 2 work, my paces/rates work out to 10mps almost exactly. I don’t choose the rate to fit that number; it just works out naturally. For Level 1 work, at the slower end of the spectrum, I also row just about 10mps. But as I approach my top-end speed, the relationship breaks down, and to hit the fastest paces I use for various L1 formats, I have to jack the rate up to about 9mps or I couldn’t hit the paces. I need to hit those paces to continue developing my top-end speed, so I don’t artificially restrict the rate. What I find, after several weeks in a given training season, is that as my top-end speed improves, the rates I use at what used to be my top-end speed fall more in line with the 10mps model. Back in August to hit 1:34-1:33 would require rates of 35-36; now I can do it in 33-34. Right now, to do 250m @ 1:30 requires at least 38spm; that’s okay.
When monitoring others’ training, the warning sign I look for is people with exceptionally high ratings for a given pace during L3, L2, or low-end L1 work – especially earlier in the season. There needs to be room to grow into faster rates as the season advances, so I encourage them to take the rate down a bit and focus on developing the necessary power per stroke. Occasionally, people with excellent power per stroke need to be encouraged to get the rate up higher to push their top-end speed. When an athlete reaches a plateau in Level 1 training, rather than being limited by strength, they may just be limited by the ability to handle the mechanics of rowing at very high rates. Once they master that, they will be better able to apply the proper force. In these cases (contrary to the general WP paradigm of strength preceding rate), I don’t worry too much if the top-end paces drop a little bit before improving again.
When considering the optimal rate for maximum speed, there are many things to ponder – probably more than have occurred to me. Up to a point, a higher rate should mean more speed if the athlete has developed the necessary technique and fitness. A greater cadence means less time for the flywheel to decelerate between strokes and less energy to accelerate it back up to the required rotational velocity. OTOH, it takes energy to reverse the body’s momentum at the front and back end of every stroke, so doing it more times per minute (and with ever-increasing velocity) requires more energy. Each person (or, for OTW crews, each boat) has to experiment a bit to find what works best. Another variable (especially over longer distances than 2K) is how much work we perceive is being done – as opposed to the amount of work actually being done! For me personally, I find that a stroke rate that is probably a little lower than would be mechanically most efficient actually feels easier (more relaxed, more time to breath, etc.) and seems to improve my endurance. A couple years ago I wrote a post about some of my insights into efficiency and cadence based on research done with professional cyclists. I’ll dig into my archives and see if I can find it.
----------------------------------
The Myth of Lactate Tolerance
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., HERE). 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 active recovery , to promote as complete recuperation as possible between work intervals. Intensity 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 too 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 all feel like the first one.)
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 macho , and longer recovery is for wimps. This actually cracks me up, because adequate recovery means you go faster during the work intervals, which hurts more . Part of the so-called “logic” of shorter recovery intervals is too 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.
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 aerobic capacity (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”.
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 monocarboxylate transporters (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 not improving “lactate tolerance” – it is enhancing the removal 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.
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 active recovery . 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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANAEROBIC THRESHOLD - A RELATIVELY USELESS CONCEPT FOR COACHING
Billat, L. V. (1996). Use of blood lactate measurements for prediction of exercise performance and for control of training: Recommendations for long-distance running. Sports Medicine, 22, 157-175.
This article contains a very concise summary of the concept of anaerobic threshold and how it is depicted in the literature. The implications of each individual statement are particularly important given the pre-occupation of many coaches with this concept. The major points of the article are discussed below. Further features are introduced in the "Implications" section.
The concept of anaerobic threshold itself is not universally consistent. Long dynamic exercise that is predominantly aerobic ranges between two extremes of physiological dynamics resulting in very different blood lactate levels.
* At the lowest level, an exercise can be sustained for a very long time. After 2-5 min a state of overall oxidative energy supply is established where lactate production is balanced by lactate elimination at a low level. Fat (lipid)metabolism is the primary source of fuel. Exercise limits are mainly associated with eventual increases in internal temperature. Potential dehydration can be prevented by supplementation of water and substrate (carbohydrate and electrolytes) during performance. (p. 158)
* At the highest extreme, the workload requires an additional formation and accumulation of lactate to maintain power output. Exhaustion results through the disturbance of the internal biochemical environment of the working muscles and whole body caused by a high or maximal acidosis. Generally, accumulation of lactate limits performance to periods from 30 sec to 15 min. For example, the average time to exhaustion at the minimal velocity that elicits VO2max is 6:30 and is not correlated with the blood lactate level developed during the task. (p. 159)
Between these two extremes are transition stages, several of which are labeled
similarly as "anaerobic threshold" or "lactate threshold." Thus, the same label is
used for different concepts and their assessment protocols which lead to different
values and training implications. Billat displays the various implications of this
confusing situation. According to a variety of "authorities," changes in blood
lactate accumulation are termed and defined differently as well as being associated
with different levels and characteristics of accumulated lactate. They are also
differentiated by the protocols used to measure them. Some examples are listed
below.
* "Onset of plasma lactate accumulation" is established as being exercise induced
levels which are 1 mM/l above baseline lactate values. [Farrel, P. E., Wilmore,
J. H., Coyle, E. F., et al. (1979). Plasma lactate accumulation and distance
running performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 11, 338-344.]
* "Maximal steady-state" is displayed when oxygen, heart rate, and/or treadmill
velocity produce a lactate level that is 2.2 mM/l. [Londeree, B. R., & Ames, A.
(1975). Maximal steady state versus state of conditioning. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 34, 269-278.]
* "Onset of blood lactate accumulation" (OBLA) occurs when continuous incremental
exercise produces a lactate level of 4 mM/l. [Sjodin, B., & Jacobs, I. (1981).
Onset of blood lactate accumulation and marathon running performance.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2, 23-26.]
* "Individual anaerobic threshold" is the state where the increase of blood
lactate is maximal and equal to the rate of diffusion of lactate from the
exercising muscle. Values range from 2-7 mM/l. [Stegemann. H., & Kindermann, W.
(1982). Comparison of prolonged exercise tests at the individual anaerobic
threshold and the fixed anaerobic threshold of 4 mM/l. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 3, 105-110.]
* "Lactate threshold" is the starting point of an accelerated lactate
accumulation and is usually around 4 mM/l and is expressed as %VO2max. [Aunola,
S., & Rusko, H. (1984). Reproducibility of aerobic and anaerobic thresholds in
20-25 year old men. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 69, 196-202.
* "Maximal steady-state of blood lactate level" is the exercise intensity that
produces the maximal steady-state of blood lactate level and ranges from
2.2-6.8 mM/l. [Billat, V., Dalmay, F., Antonini, M. T., et al. (1994). A method
for determining the maximal steady state of blood lactate concentration from
two levels of submaximal exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 69,
196-202.
Many scientists and coaches use the label "anaerobic threshold" interchangeably
with these concepts confusing what is supposed to be a scientific coaching
principle. Just because the same label is used does not mean analogous concepts are
being discussed. Since there would be different coaching and performance
implications from each of the above concepts, the blanket use of this term will
foster many erroneous coaching prescriptions and procedures.
Lactate accumulation indicates a shift from solely oxidative to an additional
glycolytic energy supply. Lactic acid production is due to the activation of
glycolysis that is more rapid than activation of oxidative phosphorylation. This is
indicated by a steep non-linear increase of blood lactate in relation to power
output and time. That accumulation can be attributed to disparities in the rate of
lactate production and removal, even for work intensities under those which elicit
VO2max. Lactate production is not related to oxygen deficit but rather to the
increase of the glycolysis flux. (p. 159)
Lactate is produced constantly, not just during hard exercise. It may be the most
dynamic metabolite produced during exercise since its appearance exceeds that of
any other metabolite studied. The constancy of the blood lactate level means that
entry into and removal of lactate from the blood are in balance.
The turnover of lactic acid during exercise is several times greater for a given
blood lactate level than at rest. For a given blood lactate level, lactate removal
is several times greater in trained than in untrained persons.
Several factors are responsible for the lactate inflection point during graded
exercise.
* Contraction stimulates glycogenolysis and lactate production.
* Hormone recruitment affects both glycogenolysis and glycolysis.
* Recruitment of glycolytic fast-twitch fibers increases lactate production.
* Blood-flow redistribution from lactate-removing gluconeogenic tissues to
lactate-producing glycolytic tissues causes lactate levels to rise as exercise
requires continually increasing power output.
Lactate values differ according to several variables: the activity being performed,
the site from where the blood sample is taken, the environment itself (both
physical and its effect on the athlete's psychology), and the state of glycogen
stores prior to testing. Unless these variables and others, such as day-to-day
cycles in general physiology, as well as variations in test administration and
athlete performance of each test segment, can be controlled and made consistent
between test administrations it is likely that score differences will be
unreliable. The practice of attributing any observed lactate-test differences, no
matter how small, to training effects or as revealing the trained state is
extremely dubious at best.
Practical Implications
When scientists cannot agree upon a concept's definition, let alone the appropriate
label to use, as well as the appropriate method/protocol of assessment, then the
practical use of the "general implications" of the concept is foundationally
prohibited. Until this situation is clarified and discrepancies removed, field
testing for "lactate-threshold" should be avoided. There are more profitable and
useful activities for athletes and coaches to be engaged in.
Of significance to coaching is the concept itself. The common misunderstanding that
the anaerobic threshold is the state where aerobic activity is dominant and maximal
and anaerobic activity constant but "insignificant" is very prevalent. There are
few competitive activities or events where such a circumstance is desirable.
Most activities do not require all body parts to be involved in an activity at the
same intensity level. A cyclist will work the legs extremely hard but, by
comparison, the rest of the body will function comfortably in an aerobic zone of
metabolic activity. A swimmer pounding out stroke after stroke in a 1500 m race
works the arms at an intensity that employs a high level of anaerobic energy supply
but the rest of the body is "relaxed" and functioning at quite a basic aerobic
level. Even in running, in a marathon the legs work hard while the arms and upper
body "save energy." In these activities, lactate is produced by the primary working
muscles and resynthesized by the muscles engaged in mild supportive activity. Those
muscles cleanse or "sponge" out lactate so that the blood supply to the hard
working muscles is quite low in acidity when returned to those muscles. Thus, any
lactate measure is a measure of the "general functioning" of the body, not the
actual work performed by the primary sporting muscles. Differences in technique
most probably would account for a significant portion of many inter-individual
differences in lactate assessments than work levels or movement economy.
In many "aerobic" sports the actual prime mover muscle groups work at an anaerobic
level rather than aerobically as is inferred from anaerobic threshold testing. The
common perception of anaerobic threshold does not give any information or
understanding of what actually is happening in important aspects of a performance.
Even the slightest improvement in movement economy (technique) in the "anaerobic
prime movers" could make a significant difference to performance.
Of all the concepts of anaerobic-type thresholds or measures that are proposed
perhaps the maximum lactate steady-state (MLSS) is the one that is most applicable
to the field of sports. In cycling events of one hour, athletes have been measured
to "tolerate" and demonstrate sustained lactate levels in the region of 7 mM/l. In
most events where "effort" is required as part of the competitive strategy, lactate
levels will be sustained in a competitive performance in excess of the anaerobic
threshold (if one can be demonstrated). There is a much greater proportion of many
competitive performances that is more anaerobic than is generally acknowledged. If
appropriate and sane anaerobic training is ignored then an athlete will not be
trained optimally and a theoretically "best" performance will not be possible.
How can one test for maximum lactate steady state? Simply ask trained, experienced
athletes to perform a task equal to the duration of their competitive event and
they are likely to produce a performance that is close to demonstrating the MLSS.
To be sure of this, if performance intensities, usually velocities, are performed
at an increment above and below the first trial, verification should be
forthcoming. Repeating many trials usually is not necessary. Is this too simple of
a concept for complicated science? In practical circumstances it works. But since
this could be a procedure that is implemented by coaches would it be endorsed by
scientists which would seemingly remove a coach's dependence on them?
But a central perplexing question still remains: what does one get from measures of
lactate and performance? What do they tell more than is already known? If lactate
values are specific to the task/testing-protocol/event there can be no inference
beyond the observations themselves.
When two athletes with the same physiological capacities perform the same activity,
one using arms only the other using arms and legs, the performance results are
often different, particularly when energy supply is an important aspect of the task
demands. In this case, it is not the "anaerobic threshold" that differentiates the
two but the movement economies, one using more muscle mass to produce a performance
outcome. An attempt to shift the anaerobic threshold by further training of a
particular type in an hypothesized metabolic zone with appropriate heart rates is
clearly the wrong approach to solving the less-efficient athlete's problem. A skill
element change to reduce unnecessary movements would result in greater movement
economy and would shift the velocity that supports the MLSS to the right.
It is dubious to attribute shifts in anaerobic threshold values to physical
training. Given that so many variables render field tests of this phenomenon
practically unreliable, what is attributed to score differences obtained between
two tests is more of a guess than an informed judgment.
Sport scientists can produce graphs of swimmers, runners, rowers, etc. showing an
"inflection point" that occurs in a region of performance velocity. Equally, other
athletes tested with the same protocol do not show any inflection or exhibit
measures which cannot be interpreted in terms of a traditional anaerobic threshold.
A few selected demonstrations do not prove the existence of a phenomenon that can
be applied universally. The trend in field testing is rather one of more people not
demonstrating a clear "anaerobic threshold" than doing so. Complicate that further
with deciding upon which threshold protocol fits the sport from the existing array
of definitions and confusion results rather than a clearly usable training tool.
Anaerobic threshold results must be reliable, that is, capable of replication. When
a particular protocol is used for a series of periodic assessments, as is commonly
followed in "sport science testing" programs, if that protocol is altered, the
previous results cannot be used for comparison purposes. A protocol change will
produce unrelated results, often different response phenomena, and above all
different implications and interpretations. The definitions and discrepancies
listed above all originate from different testing protocols. Thus, results from one
protocol to the next, no matter how small the change is explained to be, should not
be compared. Essentially, a new database is developed.
An unavoidable dilemma. Sport scientists are ethically bound to represent the worth
of lactate testing and the inferences that are commonly proposed. This is what is
known.
1. Lactate concepts and measures are limited/specific to each testing protocol.
1. Results from one protocol cannot be used to generalize or infer values to other
testing protocols.
2. If one cannot infer from one lactate testing protocol to another then it is
illogical to generalize lactate testing results to a competitive performance.
3. It is a greater stretch of the imagination to leap conceptually from an
inferentially-limited measure under controlled conditions to the dynamic
circumstances of a competitive or practice setting.
4. At most, lactate and lactate threshold measurements reveal changes but have
limited to possibly non-existent inferential capacities about future
performances (even training performances let alone competitive performances).
5. Lactate and lactate threshold measurements can reveal that they have changed as
a result of training, but if those changes are unrelated to competitive
performances what is their value?
6. There are no national or international competitive events that reward medals
for lactate threshold changes, levels, or testing protocols.
A story. During the spring of 1996, this writer attended the ARCO Training Center
in Chula Vista, California. One day a USOC testing group had completed lactate
threshold and aerobic parameter testing sessions on the US men's heavyweight rowing
eight that was to compete later that year at the Atlanta Olympic Games.
The eight had just completed a European tour and performed worse than at any time
in the previous three years. Based on comparative racing performances, it was a
boat in trouble.
The head USOC scientist related that the members of the eight were still improving
in fitness as the measures that were taken were better than previous test results.
Despite improved "fitness measures" the eight recorded a performance that was worse
than any in the previous four Olympic Games, and compared to the boats that it had
raced during the recent European tour, it had also degraded in racing capability.
The fitness measures indicated that training was progressing satisfactorily.
Unfortunately, racing performances were declining. Training improvements in
physiological indices were negatively correlated with racing achievements. In 1994,
the eight were world champions, in 1995 world bronze medalists, and in 1996, when
they had the best testing results, were fifth out of six at the Olympic Games.
Just what is the value of lactate and lactate threshold/MLSS testing for making
coaching decisions that relate to competitive performances?
________________________________________
References
1. coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol46/billat.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on Pace ‘n Rates
In my view, pace is the criterion for judging performance (including the effectiveness of training), and stroke rate is one of the variables that affect pace (other variables include amount of force applied per stroke and length of stroke). There should always be a pretty strong (negative) correlation between rate & pace – as rate increases, pace should drop (i.e., get faster). But I don’t think the correlation will be perfect, or the same correlation will hold true for every person. During Level 4 workouts, the relationship between rate & pace is intended to be very strict. Even so, even I fudge the relationship just a bit from time to time. On a good day if I get into a groove and I’m just naturally pulling a little faster than intended for a given rate, I don’t fight it too much. I just don’t make a point of striving to go faster than the intended pace. (If the pace starts to slip a little bit, I fight to make sure I’m not going slower than my intended pace). For Level 1-3 workouts, I am aware of rate as it relates to pace, and I want the rates to be within certain limits, but I don’t let rate drive the workouts.
Here is a table I put together to give the athletes I’ve worked with a frame of reference for Level 1-3 workouts (they always ask, What rate? What rate?). I call them “Suggested Rates”. They all happen to be in the ballpark of 10 meters/stroke.
Pace : Rate :
2:15-2:11 22-23
2:10-2:06 23-24
2:05-2:01 24-25
2:00-1:56 25-26
1:55-1:52 26-27
1:51-1:48 27-28
1:47-1:44 28-29
1:43-1:41 29-30
1:40-1:38 30-31
1:37-1:35 31-32
1:34-1:32 32-33
1:31-1:29 33-34
This is just a guideline, and there may be numerous exceptions. For example, in my own training, my Recovery/Warm-up Pace is 2:14, and according to the above table the suggested rate is 22-23. Nuts to that! At that slow a pace, that rate seems wildly out of control; I use about 15spm. When I am rowing Level 3 workouts in the 1:51-1:48 range, my rate is 24-25spm (slower than the suggested 27-28). That works out to a little over 11mps. That sort of thing doesn’t bother me. It’s good to have a bit of a power reserve. For Level 2 work, my paces/rates work out to 10mps almost exactly. I don’t choose the rate to fit that number; it just works out naturally. For Level 1 work, at the slower end of the spectrum, I also row just about 10mps. But as I approach my top-end speed, the relationship breaks down, and to hit the fastest paces I use for various L1 formats, I have to jack the rate up to about 9mps or I couldn’t hit the paces. I need to hit those paces to continue developing my top-end speed, so I don’t artificially restrict the rate. What I find, after several weeks in a given training season, is that as my top-end speed improves, the rates I use at what used to be my top-end speed fall more in line with the 10mps model. Back in August to hit 1:34-1:33 would require rates of 35-36; now I can do it in 33-34. Right now, to do 250m @ 1:30 requires at least 38spm; that’s okay.
When monitoring others’ training, the warning sign I look for is people with exceptionally high ratings for a given pace during L3, L2, or low-end L1 work – especially earlier in the season. There needs to be room to grow into faster rates as the season advances, so I encourage them to take the rate down a bit and focus on developing the necessary power per stroke. Occasionally, people with excellent power per stroke need to be encouraged to get the rate up higher to push their top-end speed. When an athlete reaches a plateau in Level 1 training, rather than being limited by strength, they may just be limited by the ability to handle the mechanics of rowing at very high rates. Once they master that, they will be better able to apply the proper force. In these cases (contrary to the general WP paradigm of strength preceding rate), I don’t worry too much if the top-end paces drop a little bit before improving again.
When considering the optimal rate for maximum speed, there are many things to ponder – probably more than have occurred to me. Up to a point, a higher rate should mean more speed if the athlete has developed the necessary technique and fitness. A greater cadence means less time for the flywheel to decelerate between strokes and less energy to accelerate it back up to the required rotational velocity. OTOH, it takes energy to reverse the body’s momentum at the front and back end of every stroke, so doing it more times per minute (and with ever-increasing velocity) requires more energy. Each person (or, for OTW crews, each boat) has to experiment a bit to find what works best. Another variable (especially over longer distances than 2K) is how much work we perceive is being done – as opposed to the amount of work actually being done! For me personally, I find that a stroke rate that is probably a little lower than would be mechanically most efficient actually feels easier (more relaxed, more time to breath, etc.) and seems to improve my endurance. A couple years ago I wrote a post about some of my insights into efficiency and cadence based on research done with professional cyclists. I’ll dig into my archives and see if I can find it.
Last edited by dougsurf on March 16th, 2006, 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
tennstrike
- 1k Poster
- Posts: 122
- Joined: March 16th, 2006, 8:48 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Thanks
Another thanks for posting all of that. I do have all of Mike's posts, but they are in a single Word document. Unfortunately, I did not save the post date, but they are all in order. If anyone knows where I could put these and then link, I would be happy to do so. I can also convert the posts into a pdf file as well.
Glad to have the forum back up. The U.K. was up but somehow it was not the same.
Jeff
Glad to have the forum back up. The U.K. was up but somehow it was not the same.
Jeff
6'1" 192lb 60
500 1:38.7 | 1K 3:29.2 | 2K 7:16.9 | 5K 19:14.0 | 6K 23:12.3 | 10K 39:40.5 | Started rowing June05
500 1:38.7 | 1K 3:29.2 | 2K 7:16.9 | 5K 19:14.0 | 6K 23:12.3 | 10K 39:40.5 | Started rowing June05
-
Bill Moore
- Paddler
- Posts: 49
- Joined: March 16th, 2006, 11:02 pm
- Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Isn't there a short cut to this training plan? Just tell me what to do!!! (I couldn't resist).
I take some time off to go buy a company and the forum self-destructs!!! Yikes. I'm looking forward to getting back into the swing of those lovely L1 workouts. I'm sorry I missed you guys at CRASH-Bs but am looking forward to seeing where the training will take me for next February. Throw in a couple of Saturday morning Sandbagger races and it will feel like old times.
My latest accomplishment took 912 days to complete. It was definitely a long L4 sequence with a bunch of 8x500s thrown in at the end while surrounded by sharks (attorneys). To translate for everyone not named Pukita, I'm now the owner of Festive Occasions in Woburn, MA. (www.festiveoccasions.com. I'll get to changing the website in the coming months). I know there are a few more business owners out there who can appreciate this and probably use the erg as a stress relief like I did.
But now I need to get off my lazy butt and start getting the energy back that I had during the fall racing series. Chasing Mark and Krysta was quite fun, and I still have that sub-7 goal to hit. I just cleared my home office of all of the due diligence junk I've accumulated and found my training book that I set up to do the WP over a season with RowPro. It has a lot of the older posts from Mike, a detailed training plan with 6 workouts per week, and copies of the RowPro outputs for each workout where I tracked the progress. It must have been a flash back to my old swimming coach to be this organized.
I'll keep snooping around and see what's new and perhaps even start posting a few races in the coming weeks.
I take some time off to go buy a company and the forum self-destructs!!! Yikes. I'm looking forward to getting back into the swing of those lovely L1 workouts. I'm sorry I missed you guys at CRASH-Bs but am looking forward to seeing where the training will take me for next February. Throw in a couple of Saturday morning Sandbagger races and it will feel like old times.
My latest accomplishment took 912 days to complete. It was definitely a long L4 sequence with a bunch of 8x500s thrown in at the end while surrounded by sharks (attorneys). To translate for everyone not named Pukita, I'm now the owner of Festive Occasions in Woburn, MA. (www.festiveoccasions.com. I'll get to changing the website in the coming months). I know there are a few more business owners out there who can appreciate this and probably use the erg as a stress relief like I did.
But now I need to get off my lazy butt and start getting the energy back that I had during the fall racing series. Chasing Mark and Krysta was quite fun, and I still have that sub-7 goal to hit. I just cleared my home office of all of the due diligence junk I've accumulated and found my training book that I set up to do the WP over a season with RowPro. It has a lot of the older posts from Mike, a detailed training plan with 6 workouts per week, and copies of the RowPro outputs for each workout where I tracked the progress. It must have been a flash back to my old swimming coach to be this organized.
I'll keep snooping around and see what's new and perhaps even start posting a few races in the coming weeks.
Saved posts from old forum :
Wolverine Plan Discussion 01
Wolverine Plan Discussion 02
Wolverine Plan Discussion 03
Wolverine Plan Discussion 04
Wolverine Plan Discussion 05
Wolverine Plan Discussion 06
Wolverine Plan Discussion 07
Wolverine Plan Discussion 08
Wolverine Plan Discussion 09
Wolverine Plan Discussion 10
Wolverine Plan Discussion 11
Wolverine Plan Discussion 12
Wolverine Plan Discussion 13
Wolverine Plan Discussion 14
Pictures will be added later.
The links (at the top of the pages) to page 1 through 14 may be used , do not use the other links in the old forum pages.
Wolverine Plan Discussion 01
Wolverine Plan Discussion 02
Wolverine Plan Discussion 03
Wolverine Plan Discussion 04
Wolverine Plan Discussion 05
Wolverine Plan Discussion 06
Wolverine Plan Discussion 07
Wolverine Plan Discussion 08
Wolverine Plan Discussion 09
Wolverine Plan Discussion 10
Wolverine Plan Discussion 11
Wolverine Plan Discussion 12
Wolverine Plan Discussion 13
Wolverine Plan Discussion 14
Pictures will be added later.
The links (at the top of the pages) to page 1 through 14 may be used , do not use the other links in the old forum pages.
Thanks a ton, Godfried. Once a gain providing a valuable service to our community.Godfried wrote:Saved posts from old forum :
andy m44y 78kg(172lbs) 1.76m(5'9") see [url=http://andyarvid.infogami.com/exercise_log]my training log[/url] or [url=http://decenturl.com/spreadsheets.google/andys-exercise-log]spreadsheet training log[/url]
-
togacrew77
- Paddler
- Posts: 4
- Joined: March 21st, 2006, 5:07 pm
I have a question for those of you using the Wolverine Plan. I understand that Mike uses active rest, and so do I, but what should my total rest be for each of the workouts?
I do 3:30 rest for the 8x500, but what should I do for the others?
Thanks.
I do 3:30 rest for the 8x500, but what should I do for the others?
Thanks.
500m - 1:32.2
2k - 6:49.6
6k - 22:41
10k - 38:09.1
Weight: 164 lb
Height: 6'1"
Age: 16
Saratoga Rowing Association
2k - 6:49.6
6k - 22:41
10k - 38:09.1
Weight: 164 lb
Height: 6'1"
Age: 16
Saratoga Rowing Association
For level 1 workouts, Mike described two methods for determining amount of active rests:togacrew77 wrote:I have a question for those of you using the Wolverine Plan. I understand that Mike uses active rest, and so do I, but what should my total rest be for each of the workouts?
I do 3:30 rest for the 8x500, but what should I do for the others?
Thanks.
- the same distance as the previous work interval
- enough time so that the sum of the work interval duration and the active rest duration is 5 minutes per 500 m.
For level 2 workouts, the active recovery interval distance is three-quarters of the work interval distance. So, if you're doing a 4x2k, your active recovery interval distances are 1500 m.
For level 3 interval workouts, the active recovery interval time is one-third of the work interval time. So, if you're doing a 15x3', your active recovery interval durations are 1'.
Posts from old forum:Wolverine Plan Discussion
Adding this link so I don't need to go searching for it any longer.
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... erine+plan
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... erine+plan