Wolverine....or just erg hard....always.

[Bob S.]

How about the "Wolverine Infantile Maintenance Plan"?
Iain

Ouch!

Bob S.

[mike365]

Thanks for all of the replys, they have been very interesting and helpfull.

I think as most of you have pointed out, erging is probably more fun when starting from a low level of fitness, so I'm going to let the good times roll for now, and wait for the palteau to happen. I'll worry about keeping my motivation up at that point. In the interim, I'm going to change one of my workouts to a Wolverine inspired low stroke rate endurance session, keeping my 10k, 5k, pyramid, and 30 minute workouts as they are for now.

I'm going to take a closer look at the Pete Plan, as it seems to be more in line with what I've been doing so far, and seems less complicated than the Wolverine.

Pete...Thanks for your comments. Do you think the fact that I'm 6'5" may mean that even though my stroke rates were relatively low for my 10K and 1K PB's, that my strength could still be a major issue along with fitness, and therefore lower stroke rate workouts would be helpfull?

Can anyone guess when my good times of weekly PB's will end given my workout plan and results so far? I will have to get mentally prepared for it!

These forums are a great inspiration for newcomers...

thanks again

Mike

[Nosmo]

....In the interim, I'm going to change one of my workouts to a Wolverine inspired low stroke rate endurance session...

This is a good idea. If I were coaching a serious novice, I would start them on the Pete plan and slowly transition to the Wolverine Plan.
The Pete Plan essentially are the L1, L2, and L3 from the WP, with steady distance instead of the L4 workouts. The defining characteristics of the WP L4 workouts are the length (~90 minutes) the varying of the stroke rating every couple of minutes, and the prescribed pace and stroke ratings.

At first just target the stroke ratings and let the pace fall where it will. After a few cycles of intervals you can use your 1x4K intervals as an estimate of the 2K time and then use the pace charts from the WP.

I would be curious to hear Mike Caviston's take on this (actually probably I just need to re-read his posts), but I think for those who only erg, the main advantage of the pace and stroke ratings guidelines of the WP L4 workouts are to avoid boredom and limit the effort of the endurance workouts. For on the water rowing, particularly in boats with other people the pace/rate guides have many other advantages.

I'm going to take a closer look at the Pete Plan, as it seems to be more in line with what I've been doing so far, and seems less complicated than the Wolverine.

The Pete Plan big plus is its simplicity and short time requirements, as such it is a really good plan for beginners. Also I really like that it is a continuous rather then periodized plan. Its disadvantage is the lack of longer endurance efforts--but not everyone needs that or can put in the required time commitment. Even if you

Pete...Thanks for your comments. Do you think the fact that I'm 6'5" may mean that even though my stroke rates were relatively low for my 10K and 1K PB's, that my strength could still be a major issue along with fitness, and therefore lower stroke rate workouts would be helpfull?

The fact that you are 6'5" means that the stroke ratings are not as low as they appear at first glance. Bigger people generally row at lower ratings. There is nothing wrong with starting out at low ratings.

Can anyone guess when my good times of weekly PB's will end given my workout plan and results so far? I will have to get mentally prepared for it!

You should see it coming. It will get harder and harder to get PBs every week, and the increase in time will start diminishing. On a continuous training program like the PP or WP it is possible to be continually setting PBs for many years. What you can do is cycle through the standard distances for the hard distance efforts: 5K, 60 minutes, 30 minutes, half marathon, 10K. Then if you are consistent you will can more or less continually get PB every week, having another 5 weeks of training before going back to the same distance. If that gets hard to maintain mentally, you can try for a PB every other week so you are on a 10 week cycle for the hard distances.

[Mike Caviston]

No, what I'm saying is that if you're aiming for a fast 2k time from your training, as most of us are, then you want to get the best possible 2k time in comparison to your training paces. Therefore it could be argued that the most successful training plan is the one that produces the fastest 2k time from the training paces of the athlete

As Mike has pointed out, when you're new to erging pretty much any training method will bring about improvement. Gaining those improvements in people who are already performing at a high level and have been training for many years is more difficult. The Pete Plan has given a number of athletes in this group a great training boost, and brought new personal best times for some athletes who had been training and competing at a very high level for a number of years.

I’m not sure what the best 2K time “in comparison to your training paces” is supposed to mean. Either your 2K is faster than someone else's, or it isn’t. Maybe the “Pete Plan” has led to improvement for “some athletes who had been training and competing at a very high level for a number of years”, though I’m not aware of any. I have provided many specific examples of the effectiveness of the Wolverine Plan in advancing fitness of experienced rowers who had already achieved high levels of performance. The WP has been used by athletes of both genders and weight classes, from junior to veteran age groups, resulting in numerous medal performances and even world records at championship indoor races. Several OTW rowers who were trained using the WP during their college careers not only achieved impressive 2K erg times but went on to compete internationally in the World Championships and Olympics, including half a dozen in Munich last year. The best evidence of the WP’s effectiveness is by the improvement of teams that have adopted the WP in place of previous training programs. The team model is useful because it provides multiple subjects from which an average improvement can be calculated, and makes it possible to exercise control over key variables such as training time, facilities, and coaching. I have previously documented the effects of the addition (and subsequent removal) of the WP on the University of Michigan’s women’s rowing team. Several other men’s and women’s programs at the junior and college level have modeled their training on my program and achieved significant, quantifiable improvement. One ironic example is the University of Minnesota, whose women won the 2007 Big 10 Championship (the same conference as Michigan). The 2007 CRASH-B collegiate winner (3rd overall) was an athlete form Minnesota.

It seems unlikely that the “Pete Plan” can come close to this level of achievement. But comparison of the Wolverine Plan and the “Pete Plan” should be made with the understanding that the “Pete Plan” is nothing more than an early version of the WP. The “Pete Plan” wasn’t “modeled after” or “inspired by” the WP. It was copied directly from the WP, using the WP’s Level 1-3 formats and simply omitting Level 4. I developed those formats after years of education, research, personal experimentation, and hands-on coaching. Pete merely copied them from me. The rationale for and benefits of controlled low-rate training have been debated endlessly and my opinions are readily available. I’ll simply mention again the documented effectiveness of adding Level 4 to the training mix, if WP = PP + L4. My training for years and that of athletes I coached was simply a weekly L1 & L2 session with additional sessions consisting of various distances (5-20K) of L3 rowing. Incorporating Level 4 into the mix produced a quantum leap in performance. As simply one example, I have documented my own achievement of maximum lifetime fitness at age 40, beyond even the fitness I had when I set the Open LW record at 2500m when I was in my 20s. After following the “Pete Plan” for years, Pete has not shown any 2K improvement. Note that when I speak of adding Level 4 to the training mix, I am not talking about simply increasing training volume by adding L4 to an existing schedule (which does of course produce substantial improvement). I am talking about changing the training mix within a defined number of sessions and time spent raining (as validated by the junior & college training model, where total work is strictly regulated by organizations such as the NCAA).

I’ve been declining personal coaching offers for years and confine myself to acting as a consultant to select teams. Many individuals and teams benefit from my material free of charge based on what I’ve written on the internet. Pete has begun charging for his services and advice based on his branding of the “Pete Plan” name. Good luck and more power to him. But there should be a clear understanding of where the “Pete Plan” came from and who developed its principles and formats. Pete has a history of stating positions contrary to my own and then, with the passage of time, quietly stating my positions as if they were his own (pacing for 2K and recovery during race-pace intervals, for example).

I would caution against any training method where you do too much low rate, high power rowing though, or that is what you will train yourself to be good at.

Pete is no novice and has a fair amount of experience training himself as well as advising others, so his opinions have credibility and there are clearly people who attribute their performances to his help. This thread was begun by someone specifically seeking advice regarding WP Level 4 training. Anyone considering the benefits of low rate training and confronted with conflicting opinions will have to sort things out for themselves and make their own decisions. Pete may now consider himself a professional coach. My professional resume is a little more extensive. Make of that what you will.

[adambalogh]

Mike
i would appreciate if you would speak to the physiological stress from an L4 workout. does combining bouts of higher threshold intensity during an L4 workout diminish the utilization benefit from the longer bouts of low intensity? Is it beneficial to 'combine into one training session' different intensities? Are the human physiological systems capable of differentiating different stresses from the various intensities in a way that promotes benefit to each system...all in the same workout?
thanks

[Mike Caviston]

i would appreciate if you would speak to the physiological stress from an L4 workout. does combining bouts of higher threshold intensity during an L4 workout diminish the utilization benefit from the longer bouts of low intensity?

Well, I can tell you that in the past I’ve experimented with following Level 1 workouts with up to 40’ of Level 4 work as active recovery. I’ve been able to perform the L4 work just fine, which reinforces for me the concept that L1 and L4 are completely different, complementary workouts that stress different aspects of physiology. OTOH, I wouldn’t do that much L4 work prior to doing Level 1. Warming up thoroughly is a good thing, but that’s a bit much.

Is it beneficial to 'combine into one training session' different intensities?

I’ve done it from time to time as a matter of necessity when training time is limited, but in my opinion it’s not the optimal situation. I don’t think one training band will necessarily interfere with another (except for the accumulated fatigue), but trying to focus on two (or more) variables in one session tends to minimize your ability to do justice to each of those variables. For example, doing a weight circuit with light weights and lots of reps with minimal rest between exercises can stimulate some strength and endurance adaptations. That might be fine if you only have an hour to train and you’re not worried about peak performance. But you’d get more strength and endurance by designing two separate workouts, one focusing on strength and one focusing on endurance. I prefer to keep the focus of my rowing workouts distinct as well, rather than trying to achieve too many benefits in the same workout.

Are the human physiological systems capable of differentiating different stresses from the various intensities in a way that promotes benefit to each system...all in the same workout?

Going back to the above, I guess I’d say yes, but not optimally. Which is not to say I think of the training bands in the Wolverine Plan as being totally “pure” or not without some overlap, but they’re generally intended to focus on different variables.

Hope that answered your questions.

[Marius]

@ Mike


First of all: Hi. My name is Marius, and I'm an addict.

At least I have been ever since my work place got a couple of model D for us to abuse. I've never thought I'd love endurance training (something I've always viewed as a necessary evil to enable me to run around kicking a ball without collapsing), but man, I'm hooked.


Anyhow, my question to you Mike: Since I'm a geek by heart, I tend to do a lot of research regarding, well, everything, but sports in particular. So ever since I've decided to actually take up erging as a sport in its own right, I've spent (too) much time on the web reading up on different philosophies regarding training and inevitably came across your plan (or rather principles), which I've now based my training on. In the course of research i stumbled across this site http: //home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm . I'm just curious as to your professional opinion, especially about the second part. It does seem to confirm most of what you've written It would also suggest that at a certain point, 8x500 become largly useless.

[ancho]

Hallo, Marius!
I can't get acces to that URL!

[Marius]

There is a space between http: and // as new users cant post urls. just delete it manually after copy&pasting it

[Nosmo]

.....It would also suggest that at a certain point, 8x500 become largly useless.

Actually it doesn't. He does say:

For a period of intermittent exercise that approximates a max VO2 workload to overload the cardiovascular system effectively, it needs to be of at least 2 minutes duration

So if you want to approximate a max VO2 workload then more the 2 minutes is ideal, but if you want anaerobic training (which you do for a 2K race or less), then less then 2 minutes is important. He goes on to say:

Is there ever a place for the really short, fast stuff ?

Yes, if your event duration is in the 3-4 minute range (1000 meters for rowers), then ANAEROBIC CAPACITY will play a contributing role. Even in these short events, aerobic endurance is still the foundation of success, but your ability to tolerate very high lactic acid levels and maintain good technique (rowers, swimmers) is critical over the concluding moments of the race. In this case we employ Anaerobic Intervals ....In these sprint intervals, 30 seconds to 2 minutes in length, ...
.... These adaptations are also achieved much faster than aerobic adaptations, so sprint training need not be implemented before 4-6 weeks out from a specific competition.

Mike does recommend the 8x500 year round, so he does disagree with the last sentence quoted above. I will also point out that Greg Lemond recommends doing sprints year round, even in the off season and his big race was training for a 3 week 2000mile bike race! I think his reasoning was to maintain and build strength. (Sprints on the bike at typically less then 30 seconds and they are often required many times during most bike races, even very long ones.)

Both Steve Seiler and Mike Caviston, are definitely worth listening to, but as I've read and thought about what they both say, the differences between their thinking are not as big as they appear at first.

[Mike Caviston]

Level 1 workouts are definitely not “anaerobic intervals”. Description of training as “aerobic” or “anaerobic” is simplistic and misleading. Also, Level 1 workouts are designed to improve 2K performance rather than any isolated physiological variable such as VO2 max. See my guidelines for Level 1 workouts:

What should total work distance be?
What should the average distance for each interval be?
What should the shortest and longest intervals be?
What is the appropriate work-to-recovery ratio?

[Nosmo]

Level 1 workouts are definitely not “anaerobic intervals”. Description of training as “aerobic” or “anaerobic” is simplistic and misleading. Also, Level 1 workouts are designed to improve 2K performance rather than any isolated physiological variable such as VO2 max. See my guidelines for Level 1 workouts:

What should total work distance be?
What should the average distance for each interval be?
What should the shortest and longest intervals be?
What is the appropriate work-to-recovery ratio?

Agreed, I was sloppy with the language. So was Steve, when he described "sprints" as 30 seconds to 2 minutes.

[Marius]

.. but as I've read and thought about what they both say, the differences between their thinking are not as big as they appear at first.

Actually, it was the similarity that caught my attention, not the differences.
Thx about the 8x500 comment, i overlooked that part.

[Marius]

After some more digging (and a bit of luck) I stumbled across the WP on the old forums and found my questions answered (numerous, numerous times ), so for other newbies like me here's the link http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... &start=465
(links to somewhat of a summary post, there's more relevant stuff before and after of course)

[Mike Caviston]

Sometimes I'm so friggin' smart it's scary! Too bad hardly anyone ever bothered to read that.