Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[Joris]

The target was completely conservative. I managed 4:17.x r22, 4:16.x r23, and 4:10.x r23 at UT1 (the first 2 lower end, the last one upper end). I should increase my intensity to AT (can speak a couple words pace). Perhaps I start at 2:07 and go lower, or even be more ambitious and try a 2:05-2:06 target.

I agree that the targets for the interval sessions seem often very conservative, at least when you're a complete novice. The plan suggests to start the first sessions modestly with the instruction to do reps that you can certainly hold for the complete session.
But as a novice I had no idea which pace I could manage for a complete session so I started with (in retrospect) unambitious splits of 2:16 for the 500m sprints and 2:23 for the first '2 x 10 min' session.

This, combined with the fact that, as a complete novice, fitness improves much quicker than for someone who already has a decent base level make me feel that the evolution in the interval sessions feel to conservative for me.

In retrospect, my feeling is that the targets in this plan are rather meant for people who already surpassed the huge novice gains and who have an idea about which rate they can row at. So I don't regret to have already started the plan this early, on the contrary, but I adapt the goals a bit to my own personal situation.

Thereby I use the mantra: 'use the steady state sessions for recovery so you can work hard on the interval sessions'.
So I just try to go hard on the interval sessions, not considering heart rate targets, and going slow/medium slow (below ut2) on the steady distances.
This makes a huge gap in splits between the steady state sessions and the interval sessions, but I don't think that this should be a problem?

Day 3 I will keep a 2:18 split but progressively lower the stroke rate to 18 or even 17, in preparation for my 1:59.x 20-minute r20 ~2 months later. I don't have high hopes for it but I will continue rowing more and refining my technique. That's my only hope...

Keep it going! If you maintain a constant split while distances increases, that's also progress!

PS. Wow Nomark. Your SS is mid 2:20s and yet your intervals are nearly 2:00. What a huge differenve! Meanwhile my SS is 2:18 at UT2 while I am struggling to get my intervals to 2:05 let alone 2:00 (tho to be fair I did the 2:05 one at upper UT1, not above AT). Your 2k is a 8:10, meanwhile... I am not sure if I have a 8:10 2k right now.

While I am still significantly slower in SS (though to be fair I plan to stick at UT2 pace and lower my stroke rate to 18) and especially intervals (beginners going sub 2:00 or close on intervals, versus my lagging 2:07 now) I have now closed part of the gap, and at least 20 minute r20 in a bit over 2 months does not seem delusional for now.

Yes, Nomark has nice results so far, but use it as an inspiration, not as a discouragement.
Also, like you said, intensity levels might be different. Everyone is different, so don't compare to much with others and follow the plan according to what's best for your body.

[Joris]

Anyway, onto today - week 3 day 2. 2k x2, 4min rest. I had a feeling that SS-2 seconds would be too slow and it was. Since I managed a (too fast) 5.5k SS- 6 seconds last week, it didn't feel like an interval session at all, so I sped up the second one. I don't know if the intention is to prepare with a speed that you can cope with over 3 or 4 reps in the future. Managed to get a good sweat on nonetheless and I could barely have imagined doing back to back 2ks a few weeks ago, so maybe the purpose of the workout today was a confidence boost and a see-how-far-youve-come-already type thing.

Code: Select all

Metres  Time	Pace	Watts	S/M	
4,000m	17:49.6	2:13.7	146     25
2,000m	9:19.7	2:19.9	128     24
2,000m	8:29.9	2:07.4	169     26
DF 127
SS pace 2:24

Happy enough with that. Splits are usually my favourite workout of the week, but this felt a bit like falling between two stools. Not quite fast enough to feel good but not SS metres either.

As I posted above, I also feel that the interval sessions where a steady state pace 'minus x seconds' is used as a target is too slow for novices like us.
Probably SS-2 seconds is ambitious for someone having a good base condition, but has to work on muscles or speed for further improvement.
But for us, novices, we can (or should?) do our interval sessions much faster than the steady state sessions, if not, it's not a proper training. At least, that's how I feel about it.

So, for the moment, when doing interval sessions, I'm not following Pete's advice on pacing when it is based on a steady state pace minus x seconds, but rather use his advice which he gives on some other interval sessions, namely: taking the average of a previous similar 'hard' interval session and try to beat that average on the last repetition. Or if meantime, this average also feels to slow, I'll lower it a bit more.

Not sure if this is the right approach, but for me it seems to work so far.

[iain]

I also feel that the interval sessions where a steady state pace 'minus x seconds' is used as a target is too slow for novices like us.

Probably SS-2 seconds is ambitious for someone having a good base condition, but has to work on muscles or speed for further improvement.
But for us, novices, we can (or should?) do our interval sessions much faster than the steady state sessions, if not, it's not a proper training. At least, that's how I feel about it.

So, for the moment, when doing interval sessions, I'm not following Pete's advice on pacing when it is based on a steady state pace minus x seconds, but rather use his advice which he gives on some other interval sessions, namely: taking the average of a previous similar 'hard' interval session and try to beat that average on the last repetition. Or if meantime, this average also feels to slow, I'll lower it a bit more.

Not sure if this is the right approach, but for me it seems to work so far.

Quite the contrary, I do long interval sessions at between 11 and 18S quicker than SS, although my SS is usually over an hour and often 2. I think the BPP is largely aimed at those who feel 5k is a lot of rowing so it doesn't push too hard early on for sessions that are only slightly shorter and possibly longer when warm up and cool down is included. Probably assumes that a novice will go faster than ideal initially as well. You approach seems sensible.

The one thing to be careful of is to try and maintain technical improvements from SS in the interval sessions. That might be another reason for not pushing too hard too soon on the assumption that bad habits are too recent to allow a "no caution" approach to intervals given all of us find technique deteriorates as we get close to our limits.

[Nomark]

So, for the moment, when doing interval sessions, I'm not following Pete's advice on pacing when it is based on a steady state pace minus x seconds, but rather use his advice which he gives on some other interval sessions, namely: taking the average of a previous similar 'hard' interval session and try to beat that average on the last repetition. Or if meantime, this average also feels to slow, I'll lower it a bit more.

Not sure if this is the right approach, but for me it seems to work so far.

Yes, it's either that or the aim of the plan is to give us big gains week to week at the start as it's new and big gains = big motivation to carry on! It's working for me lol I think you have the right approach though and I'm going to use it too going forward.

I have also read ahead for future weeks which is why I try and do my last interval as fast as possible even though it hasn't said that in the descriptions yet. I think the 'slow' pace will only be a problem for the first few weeks as every interval is new. Once I have a baseline like you I can use it as an average for the next time and then try and beat it on the last run to get a new baseline.

On to today : Week 3.3. 6k again at a low/mid 2-20s pace. Happy with the result, although my brain finds the initial distances when they appear on the screen a little daunting at first. I decided to mix it up in the middle with a slow rate split and a quick rate split at the same pace back to back. Not sure if it messes with the aims of the exercise, I was just amusing myself. For now I figure it's all about technique so if I can rate up and down and get familiar with the force required, it's all good. I like watching the Watt bar graph as I row. It helps me spot when I'm putting too much in or slacking on the drive. Might try the force curve next time.

Code: Select all

Metres  Time	Pace	Watts	S/M	
6,000m	28:25.5	2:22.1	122     23
1,200m	5:50.1 	2:25.8	113     24
1,200m	5:39.1	2:21.2	124     24
1,200m	5:38.1	2:20.8	125     19
1,200m	5:37.6	2:20.6	126     26
1,200m	5:40.6	2:21.9	122     23
DF 127
HR 147

Well earned rest day tomorrow!

[iain]

...I decided to mix it up in the middle with a slow rate split and a quick rate split at the same pace back to back. Not sure if it messes with the aims of the exercise, I was just amusing myself. For now I figure it's all about technique so if I can rate up and down and get familiar with the force required, it's all good.

There are at least 2 views on how the stroke should vary at different ratings:

1) I find that I keep a similar drive and mostly change the slide back to the catch. This leads to a similar "Work per stroke" (AKA SPI) regardless of the rating.

2) Some (eg Elizabeth) increase the pace of all parts of the stroke to raise the rating. This means a higher SPI at higher ratings. This reaches its extreme in Paul's (of "Paul's Law fame) coaching where his training is all done at 10M/Stroke. The advantage of this is that by placing a greater load on your CV system at lower paces, you fatigue the skeletal muscles less and reduce the reliance on faster twitch fibres for longer distances. It also means that the proportions of the stroke stay the same.

What you are doing doesn't fit either of these as you are reducing the speed of the drive while increasing the rating, so the recovery is reduced by more than the reduction in the time of the whole stroke. Personally I find it hard to maintain the quality of strokes at the lower work per stroke as I can leak power but still produced what is required so it doesn't show up on the monitor. I appreciate that using the force curve will highlight many errors, so maybe you use this more than pace to identify poor strokes?

In short if it was me I would vary the pace as well as the rating (as in L4 workouts in the Wolverine Plan). I sometimes use this to shift to a faster pace on my SS following fitness gains, rather than doing the whole maybe 0.5S/500m faster, I will introduce a section 1-2SpM faster than usual at a commensurately faster pace with the rest as before so getting used to the faster pace for SS without having to do it for a whole session.

[Joris]

Week 8 Day 1 [8500m] – Technique, relaxation, and efficiency.

I maintained my usual 2:30 split but my average heartrate was significantly higher this time (140bpm) compared with previous steady state sessions (around 135bpm) which was quite surprisingly to me since I had a day of rest the day before. And the higher average wasn't because my heart rate peaked higher in the end, but rather because it raised much quicker in the beginning. 2k far in the session and I was already near AT level. And afterwards it kept fluctuating around this level, so my peak rate was barely higher than usual.

Not sure what to make of this, but earlier I read that heart rate can fluctuate for many different reasons, so I'm not going to put anything else behind it. But it does confirm my feeling that I shouldn't currently be aiming much faster than 2:30 at these long steady state sessions.

[Dangerscouse]

Not sure what to make of this, but earlier I read that heart rate can fluctuate for many different reasons, so I'm not going to put anything else behind it. But it does confirm my feeling that I shouldn't currently be aiming much faster than 2:30 at these long steady state sessions.

I wouldn't worry about it unless it becomes a trend. As you say, there's lots of possible reasons and HR shouldn't be something that you should strictly use, as you're only aiming for general zones that aren't based on strict facts either

[iain]

I maintained my usual 2:30 split but my average heartrate was significantly higher this time (140bpm) compared with previous steady state sessions (around 135bpm) which was quite surprisingly to me since I had a day of rest the day before. And the higher average wasn't because my heart rate peaked higher in the end, but rather because it raised much quicker in the beginning. 2k far in the session and I was already near AT level. And afterwards it kept fluctuating around this level, so my peak rate was barely higher than usual.

I'd agree with Stu, although it can be a sign that something is not quite right such as the start of an illness. Equally well it can be stress, poor sleep, eating at different times... Surprised it hit AT, how do you identify this? at a faster pace is there also a plateau around this value before continuing upwards? The other possibility is that you changed something in the stroke. If you are using a lower stroke rate than optimal this will lead to a higher HR (I have got to 98% at R20 before now), while sometimes my HR peaks because I have maintained 1 breath per stroke past where I really need 2. There is usually a hysteresis in the relationship of HR to power, so once HR has gone up it doesn't drop to where it would have been at that pace even if you start rowing "normally".

[PleaseLockIn]

So, for the moment, when doing interval sessions, I'm not following Pete's advice on pacing when it is based on a steady state pace minus x seconds, but rather use his advice which he gives on some other interval sessions, namely: taking the average of a previous similar 'hard' interval session and try to beat that average on the last repetition. Or if meantime, this average also feels to slow, I'll lower it a bit more.

Not sure if this is the right approach, but for me it seems to work so far.

Yes, it's either that or the aim of the plan is to give us big gains week to week at the start as it's new and big gains = big motivation to carry on! It's working for me lol I think you have the right approach though and I'm going to use it too going forward.

I have also read ahead for future weeks which is why I try and do my last interval as fast as possible even though it hasn't said that in the descriptions yet. I think the 'slow' pace will only be a problem for the first few weeks as every interval is new. Once I have a baseline like you I can use it as an average for the next time and then try and beat it on the last run to get a new baseline.

On to today : Week 3.3. 6k again at a low/mid 2-20s pace. Happy with the result, although my brain finds the initial distances when they appear on the screen a little daunting at first. I decided to mix it up in the middle with a slow rate split and a quick rate split at the same pace back to back. Not sure if it messes with the aims of the exercise, I was just amusing myself. For now I figure it's all about technique so if I can rate up and down and get familiar with the force required, it's all good. I like watching the Watt bar graph as I row. It helps me spot when I'm putting too much in or slacking on the drive. Might try the force curve next time.

Code: Select all

Metres  Time	Pace	Watts	S/M	
6,000m	28:25.5	2:22.1	122     23
1,200m	5:50.1 	2:25.8	113     24
1,200m	5:39.1	2:21.2	124     24
1,200m	5:38.1	2:20.8	125     19
1,200m	5:37.6	2:20.6	126     26
1,200m	5:40.6	2:21.9	122     23
DF 127
HR 147

Well earned rest day tomorrow!

I would use the force curve to fix any issues with technique. As for the long distance, I would break the strategy into smaller chunks. First, start the SS with some strong strokes, then "Settle" to your target pace for the first fifth.

The second to third fifths, attempt to maintain the pace while checking to see if you are in UT2. It will be tough, so check every 500m or 250m your progress.

Fourth fifth - start going a tiny bit faster, or reduce the stroke rate by a tiny bit. Nearly there!

The last bit - I would go very slightly faster, dig in, finish the SS with a few strong strokes, but keep at UT2.

I tend to use a drag factor of ~105 in my Concept 2. Interestingly enough some East Asian universities use this drag factor for the men's team, and it still adequately mimics water resistance. The only issue is that the handle can get very slippery...

Week 4 Day 4 - [6000m]
Mediocre session - 2:19.3 splits, I was hanging on to not drop to 2:20, but I could still speak 2-3 sentences so I was in UT2. I kept my stroke rate at 17 and improved my technique. These supplementary sessions I don't go hard on the SS, but focus on getting the most out of every stroke.

Next week is long intervals - i should up my rate to 21 and hang on, giving almost all.

[Joris]

I'd agree with Stu, although it can be a sign that something is not quite right such as the start of an illness. Equally well it can be stress, poor sleep, eating at different times...

As far as I can judge, I didn't change anything in the stroke. Same stroke rate, same technique.
My best guess is that I did the session a bit too quickly after dinner.

Surprised it hit AT, how do you identify this?

Like mentioning before: I don't know my max heart rate . Based on the '220-age formula' it's 179, while the maximum rate I achieved so far is 178.
Given these numbers I was fluctuating around the AT zone most of the session, and was in the AT zone a good part of the session.

But probably my real max heart rate is a bit higher I think. The fact that I still felt energetic after the session probably confirms that I wasn't in the AT zone much of the time? I hope future interval sessions will learn me more about what my real max heart rate is.

Meantime, I think it's not to conservative to continue my steady state sessions at the current pace. Even if my heart rate max appears to be higher, it's unlikly that I'm below UT1 here. And even then, better to risk being in UT2 during SS sessions than being in AT zone during during a big part of the session?

[p_b82]

I would break the strategy into smaller chunks. First, start the SS with some strong strokes, then "Settle" to your target pace for the first fifth.

The second to third fifths, attempt to maintain the pace while checking to see if you are in UT2. It will be tough, so check every 500m or 250m your progress.

Fourth fifth - start going a tiny bit faster, or reduce the stroke rate by a tiny bit. Nearly there!

The last bit - I would go very slightly faster, dig in, finish the SS with a few strong strokes, but keep at UT2.

Personally I think this is the wrong approach to SS rowing - sure to start 5/10 slightly stronger strokes, or slightly higher rate to settle in is absolutely fine, but the point is to flat pace the piece via consistency.

Your approach with -ve splits is fine for TT/race situations (even though energy wise a flat pace is more efficient; but mentally can be tougher)...

I could still speak 2-3 sentences so I was in UT2.

Are you using a HR monitor or are you basing your training bands purely on the speech aspect of the the bands?

If you haven't I'd suggest you do so - I think having at least some numerical data to make some estimates has more value than purely using the conversational aspects.

EG for me my max HR observed on the erg is 191 with a resting of ~62 (on a good day); so using the mean of my my HRreserve calc that puts (approx) upper end UT1 >160; AT >170, TR >180. (technically there +5bpm on all of those for the upper range values - but my experience corresponds more with this mean value)
I am still breathing once per stroke with my Hr at 170 on slower rate pieces (I tend towards a longer shallower exhale

[iain]

Are you using a HR monitor or are you basing your training bands purely on the speech aspect of the the bands?

If you haven't I'd suggest you do so - I think having at least some numerical data to make some estimates has more value than purely using the conversational aspects.

EG for me my max HR observed on the erg is 191 with a resting of ~62 (on a good day); so using the mean of my my HRreserve calc that puts (approx) upper end UT1 >160; AT >170, TR >180. (technically there +5bpm on all of those for the upper range values - but my experience corresponds more with this mean value)

I am still breathing once per stroke with my Hr at 170 on slower rate pieces (I tend towards a longer shallower exhale

As confirmed by Rocky on the "What Training" thread, HR bands are no panacea. Anaerobic threshold has been measured at 75% of HR Max, while Rocky had his Aerobic threshold determined at 89% HRMax! It seems that you have adapted the calculated rates for what works for you. While I agree that HRM helps to compensate for endorphins and over enthusiasm as well as picking up low grade illnesses, I think that there is merit in identifying the bands via RPE / Speech Test / inflections in HR data in the absence of lab tests.

On another point, anaerobic threshold outside of rowing can be determined from changes in breathing patterns (not helpful for rowing due to the necessity to coordinate breathing with the stroke). Several people have said that they do not use 2 breaths per stroke short of a VO2 max effort (ie 2k test). This only shows that there is variation over the values that will be obtained with the various measurements of the training bands!

But I digress, I would say that the best way to know the impact of different values is to see what happens with a range of caps. Going too hard on SS is not a disaster so long as we learn from it and adjust in the future!

[p_b82]

As confirmed by Rocky on the "What Training" thread, HR bands are no panacea. Anaerobic threshold has been measured at 75% of HR Max, while Rocky had his Aerobic threshold determined at 89% HRMax! It seems that you have adapted the calculated rates for what works for you. While I agree that HRM helps to compensate for endorphins and over enthusiasm as well as picking up low grade illnesses, I think that there is merit in identifying the bands via RPE / Speech Test / inflections in HR data in the absence of lab tests.

On another point, anaerobic threshold outside of rowing can be determined from changes in breathing patterns (not helpful for rowing due to the necessity to coordinate breathing with the stroke). Several people have said that they do not use 2 breaths per stroke short of a VO2 max effort (ie 2k test). This only shows that there is variation over the values that will be obtained with the various measurements of the training bands!

Agreed - without testing it is all an estimate - and ultimately it's more about recovery vs actual effort in the piece itself.

EG if you can work in a higher band (or HR zone etc) and recover from it properly on your next session there is nothing wrong with it. (which opens the questions on what is "recovered" etc etc - I don't train often enough to need to factor recovery into my pace, so everything is zone4/zone5 in the ergdata model pretty much)

breathing tangent... I def prefer to keep my breathing rate lower until it is "needed" I think mostly due to the way I exhale naturally - always had low peak flow test results at school - so a longer slower exhale works better for me until oxy debt triggers panting really; and breathing more quickly than I really need raises my Hr.
Whether I should/could train this aspect is another kettle of fish though!

[Nomark]

Personally I find it hard to maintain the quality of strokes at the lower work per stroke as I can leak power but still produced what is required so it doesn't show up on the monitor. I appreciate that using the force curve will highlight many errors, so maybe you use this more than pace to identify poor strokes?

In short if it was me I would vary the pace as well as the rating (as in L4 workouts in the Wolverine Plan). I sometimes use this to shift to a faster pace on my SS following fitness gains, rather than doing the whole maybe 0.5S/500m faster, I will introduce a section 1-2SpM faster than usual at a commensurately faster pace with the rest as before so getting used to the faster pace for SS without having to do it for a whole session.

Thanks for the guidance and suggestions.
I sometimes feel like I'm pausing before the drive or slowing down my legs in order to keep the times down. I guess it's something that comes with experience rather than clock watching. It sounds a bit like you describe , like I'm leaking power at the slower rates, albeit deliberately. I'll do my next row ignoring the splits and concentrating on the force curve. I have done it before and generally get a pretty good curve but I can imagine limiting my force and SR probably messes it up which isn't a good habit to get into.

I see what you mean about the two ways of correlating power and SR. I was definitely rowing light with the higher SR in the (mistaken) belief that I should keep my splits consistent. Lesson learned - I was just playing around with SRs but probably messed up my stroke while doing so in order to keep a consistent pace!

I like the idea of gently introducing a quicker SS 1 interval at a time, so next time I speed up I will just keep it natural and let the splits fall where they may

[Nomark]

As for the long distance, I would break the strategy into smaller chunks. First, start the SS with some strong strokes, then "Settle" to your target pace for the first fifth.

The second to third fifths, attempt to maintain the pace while checking to see if you are in UT2. It will be tough, so check every 500m or 250m your progress.

Fourth fifth - start going a tiny bit faster, or reduce the stroke rate by a tiny bit. Nearly there!

The last bit - I would go very slightly faster, dig in, finish the SS with a few strong strokes, but keep at UT2.

That sounds like a good TT strategy. Steady state I don't really struggle with too much physically, apart from the odd wobble where I wonder if I'm feeling too tired for someone who's only 1k in out of 6 lol

It's more the mental side as every week is further than I've ever been and seeing it up on the LCD just makes me think "how far???" before I start. It gets easier once I get going, especially when I get sub 5k as that's something my brain knows it can deal with, and then when the metres hit 3 figures I feel like I've finished.

It's not a huge problem it's just a minor bump that I wasn't expecting to faze me at all and I'm a bit curious why it does.