Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 25th, 2005, 10:08 pm

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 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. Which 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 form 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]). Best wishes, Mike Caviston

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » September 26th, 2005, 12:54 am

Great post Mike. Thanks for taking the time to write in such detail.

[old] Polaco · Post by **[old] Polaco** » September 26th, 2005, 7:26 am

Thanks Mike!! This season I will try to follow the WP and your comments and advice are a big help for me. What I find difficult to follow is L4 training on water, as I don't have a PM3 in front of me . I can and I do monitor the rate but not the pace. I try to 'fix' in my mind the stroke I perform on the erg when doing L4 and translate it to the boat. Is it the right way or maybe is there any better way??

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » September 26th, 2005, 12:48 pm

As to LVL4 Progression ... With a 5x10' format (not including warmup/cooldown) where the LVL4 workout is done every other day (mingling the other 3 workouts into the remaining days) I have had long progressions if I jump one interval 4 strokes higher each time. So if Monday were 172/172/172/172/172 then Wednesday would be 172/172/176/172/172 and Friday would be 172/176/172/176/172. I generally try to have the lower (less strokes) intervals first and higher last or the lower intervals at both ends. I don't have a lot of luck with the fastest one last, it is the hardest approach according to perceived effort. I also take some intervals down so that others can go higher ... going from a 172/172/172/172/172 to a 168/172/176/176/172 so that while my stokes go up 4 (from 860 to 864). And if 2 sessions in a row seem too easy I will go up 8 strokes. But then I would have to have two too easy sessions in a row again before I jump 8. While I find there are periods I can progress a little faster I don't try to go nuts. Rules of thumb that seem to work for me and daughter ... JimR

[old] ancho · Post by **[old] ancho** » September 26th, 2005, 7:11 pm

Mike: Thanks once again for sharing your valuable information. I wonder if after your posts there are any letters left in your computer... Now seriousely: Actually we are prepairing to run a marathon. As our main target is to continue rowing and competing on the water, we are making some sort of experiment (row as much as posiible, run as much as necessary, but as less as possible). We are basing on WP, and rowing as some sort of x-training for running. We will try to do the L3 and L4 running 2-3 times a week. No idea how that's going to end, I will inform accordingly in a separate thread. After the marathon we will pick up the rowing trainig focusing again on a maximum performance for the 2k. I know you are not a big friend fo x-training, but I'd appreciate any comments/experiences.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 26th, 2005, 7:55 pm

Polaco: I’ll revisit my observations about using the WP for workouts on the water sometime in the future. Changing conditions and less accurate feedback make it harder to implement the WP (or any structured program), but I think the results are worth it. Jim: You are on the right track (or at least, the track I would take), and I’ll give you some more thoughts when I get more time. One thing I try to do, though, is make sure I have at least a 4 spm spread in every workout. E.g., instead of 172/172/172/172 (which merely alternates between 16-18spm), I would want something like 168/172/176/172. Same number of strokes, but higher peak and more rates/paces to work with. ancho: it sounds like you are doing the right thing for someone who wants to row AND run. Strictly from a rowing perspective, you will be in better shape than if you didn’t do ANY long, continuous training – but not in as good shape as if you did those longer workouts on the erg. When I was coaching and we could only do a couple workouts per week on the erg, I had the team do higher intensity interval work on the erg and assigned longer runs for endurance. Thanks to those giving me encouragement for these posts. Don’t want to spend the time if no one’s interested. Back in a few days with more. Mike Caviston

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » September 26th, 2005, 8:38 pm

Mike, Keep it coming. We're sponges. I'm reading, rowing, reading again, and really learning how to pull this training program together. Thank you so much for the clarifications.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » September 27th, 2005, 12:28 am

Thanks for all the updates Mike. I can not afford (time-wise) the full blown WP and so select from it as I can to make the best out of what I can give. I took on an L4 session once a week July to Jan 2003 (w/ progression up the ladder etc) and however it gets weighed, it is an inextricable part of my PB's. These updates just made me question why I ever left. It's clear in my log I was making progress from someone who could not do L4 at all to finally settling comfortably at 18/20 sequences (no grunting). I never made it to mixing in the 22 spm elements, but would bet the reward would be proportional to the effort to get there. --Jim

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » September 30th, 2005, 10:49 am

Mike, Any thoughts on re-testing on the 2k to adjust my reference pace? I pulled a 7:14.9 in July after 1 month of 50k weeks and 1 month of 80-100k weeks while integrating WP elements. Here's my average pace best efforts so far on the workouts: 8 x 500 - 1:39.4 on 9/26 4 x 1k - 1:46.0 on 9/19 L1 Pyramid - 1:45.4 on 9/12 4 x 2k - 1:53.2 on 9/15 5 x 1.5k - 1:51.6 on 9/29 L2 Pyramid - 1:52.9 on 9/22 L3 - 14k @ 2:01. I've been building 500m per week from 12k. 6k - 22:26.8 on 9/24 10k - 38:14.0 on 9/17 5k - 18:56.9 on 9/12 My goal was to get the 4x1k under 1:44 before attempting another 2k. The Sub-7 goal is tempting, but the bigger goal of being in the best shape possible for the rest of my life is the real goal. Should I try a 2k or wait for it to come up in the online fall race series in 9-10 weeks? Since I'm on an upswing in training and performance, how should I work in a new reference pace? Thanks in advance.

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » September 30th, 2005, 2:41 pm

Mike, Thanks for the great elaboration on level 4 and answering so many questions.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 30th, 2005, 3:06 pm

Bill, The WP & L4 work especially well for people with an established 2K history. For people who have reached a plateau and are looking to build a foundation on which to reach a higher peak, I think Level 4 training can be very helpful. But the trickiest thing about the Wolverine Plan is determining the correct Ref Pace for a novice, or someone with rapidly advancing fitness. For someone with an established training history, the procedure may simply be to start a training season with a Ref Pace one second faster than the previous year. In my own case, I’ve been working with the same Ref Pace for four years, but I’ve been making small progress by starting each season with a slightly higher volume and/or at a slightly higher average stroke rate (and therefore advancing farther by the end of the season). You are in the position of someone whose fitness is improving at a rate that may be too great to be accommodated by a single Reference Pace. Your workouts indicate that you are getting close to a sub-7 2K. (BTW, to answer your question, I would wait the 8-10 weeks or so before attempting a full-out 2K. To break 7:00, I would suggest you can be pretty confident once your 4 x 1K gets to 1:45 or better; 1:44 would be great but I’m not aware of many people who can do 4 x 1K @ sub-2K pace. But I would also want your 4 x 2K to get down to 1:50 or better.) As for your Ref Pace, I don’t think you have mentioned what you are currently using. I would also want to know your weekly Level 4 volume (in minutes). Do the workouts you are doing now seem appropriately challenging (hard, but not TOO hard)? Given your current Level 4 workouts and formats, is there room to progress with the established L4 progressions for the next several weeks? If not, then you should readjust based on what you estimate your 2K to be based on your Level 1-2 training history. But if the workouts seem to be at the correct intensity, then just keep steadily building until this season is over and think about planning with more precision next year. For Levels 1-3, I propose guidelines for relationship between workout intensity and 2K pace. But I also encourage people not to become overly obsessed about the relationship (“If I pull x:xx for 2K, what should I pull for 4 x 1K, 10K, etc. etc.?”) The most important thing is to start where you can start and gradually, steadily, consistently build on that. Good luck! Mike Caviston

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » September 30th, 2005, 3:07 pm

Mike: Thanks for the great information. I have a question on behalf of us folks that have jobs, families, marriages, and businesses that take priority (gasp) over rowing from time-to-time. When using the Wolverine plan, and unable to stick to the strict schedule of 9 workouts each week, how should one plan the next workout after a missed day (or two)? Is it better to add an additional day of L4/L3 to kind of "make up" for missing a day and keep one's aerobic fitness as high as possible, or is it best to just go to the next workout as prescribed by the plan as if the day was not missed? Also, with 9 workouts a week, there are two days (or maybe more with an "off" day each week) with double workouts without even considering weight work. How do you combine these rowing workouts? As in, L1 in AM, and L4 in PM? Or, L2 in AM, L3 in PM? Etc. Sorry if this is a redundant question, or if it's been posted somewhere and I missed it. Thanks again ... Mark

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 30th, 2005, 3:26 pm

Mark, Yes – you are being redundant, and the answers have been posted before. But that’s okay, I’m sure a lot of people missed it the first couple times around. I’ll revisit all your queries in the upcoming weeks. But I will point out that by no means does the Wolverine Plan have a “strict schedule of 9 workouts per week”, though I would recommend a minimum of 5 (I even wrote out a schedule once based on 4). I keep my weights sessions short (15-30’) and fit them in at the end of my rowing sessions. I don’t count them as separate workouts. Mike Caviston

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » September 30th, 2005, 4:33 pm

Mike, I have started the WP three weeks ago at 4 workouts/week, with the objective of eventually doing 6 per week. I am also doing 6 x 2 hours of swimming with the varsity, so I use erging as cross-training. I have found that swimming and erging complement each other very nicely. So far: L1: 8 x 500m at 1:40.6 (brutal! especially on same day as "L1" swimming) L1: 4 x 1000m at 1:44.8 (hard) L2: 4 x 2000m at 1:50.2 (a lot easier than L1) L3: 10K at 1:56 (easy) L4: 176,172,176,172 at 1:43 reference pace, adding 4 strokes every workout and 2-4 minutes every week to reach 60 min. I find the last 10 minutes hard, eventhough HR is low (< 140). I think that I have to work on strength since I have never been able to pull better than 1:36 for three consecutive strokes! Objectives for this year: 2K: 6:45, 5K:17:30, 10K:36:10 Am I on the right path? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Regards

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » September 30th, 2005, 6:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 30 2005, 03:26 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mark, Yes – you are being redundant, and the answers have been posted before. But that’s okay, I’m sure a lot of people missed it the first couple times around. I’ll revisit all your queries in the upcoming weeks. But I will point out that by no means does the Wolverine Plan have a “strict schedule of 9 workouts per week”, though I would recommend a minimum of 5 (I even wrote out a schedule once based on 4). I keep my weights sessions short (15-30’) and fit them in at the end of my rowing sessions. I don’t count them as separate workouts. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Mike: Great, thanks. Sorry for the redundancy, I probably haven't searched the archives the right way to find the anwers! I look forward to the next few weeks to pull together a WP schedule that works for me. Warm regards, and thanks, -- Mark