Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 16th, 2005, 8:41 am

I came across this item this morning. I thought it my be interesting in understanding the importance of maintaining close to even splits throughout an exercise piece as well as understanding why changing stroke rate and pace feels harder (because it is harder) than maintaining the same stroke rate and pace. 10. Indicated Power v. Indicated Speed (Splits) Even if the damping factor k were to remain constant (Eq.9.1), there would not be a fixed relation between the average power for a piece and the mean split or speed. This arises from the non-linear relationship between power and speed (i.e. P = c.u^3 rather than P = c.u), operating both from one stroke to the next and within individual strokes. Take the case of rowing a 1000m piece in 4 minutes, either 1) at a uniform rate of 2:00/500m splits, or 2) rowing the first 500m at a steady 1:50 pace and the second half at a steady 2:10. Using Eq.9.1) The average power for each of these two pieces will be (10.1) (1): P = c.(500/120)^3 = 72.34c (10.2) (2): P = (110c/240).(500/110)^3 + (130c/240).(500/130)^3 = 73.86c Thus more power is required for the same average speed if the splits are uneven (this is also true for boats: see Basics (Section 5)). For a given average speed the indicated average power for a piece will be higher if is rowed with uneven splits than with even splits However, even maintaining a constant split, there is not a fixed relationship between power and speed due to the variation of speed during the stroke itself. The split is derived from the mean fan rotational velocity w through the stroke (Eq.9.2), while the power is proportional to an average of w^3. So, for example, rowing a lower rate will lead to a wider variation in w throughout the stroke cycle, so that the average of w^3 will be larger, and more power is required to maintain the same average speed. (In boat terms, this is why `sliding-rigger' boats were developed to reduce hull-speed variation during the stroke cycle). For a given split, the indicated power (but not necessarily the rower's actual power output) will be lower for a high rate than a low rate See section13 for the effect of rating on the actual power output of the rower. • Power v Split Conversion Chart (PDF file, Triton, Utrecht) • Back to Content The Physics of Ergometers <a href='http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/ ... #section10' target='_blank'>The Physics of Ergometers</a> Ralph Giarnella PS: Mike say hello to Italy for me. If you will be in the area between Latina and Napoli, let me know- I have relatives in the town of Scauri on the Via Appia. RG

[old] tennstrike · Post by **[old] tennstrike** » December 16th, 2005, 8:46 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 16 2005, 06:20 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I had an 11:30 flight so I got in a short 40' L4 with 1K warmup and cool down. I'm at the Rome airport right now, after a late arrival. Waiting on my (rescheduled) connecting flight. I've found a club about 20 to 30 minutes away from where I'm staying that looks like it has relatively new model Ds, so I hope to at least maintain while here. I'm on some personal business, so I do have some free time and my schedule is my own. My next 8 x 500 is planned for 1:49 average, which will be an improvement of about 1.5 seconds, if I can pull it off. I think the L4 60' pieces really do help with shorter distances. To me, the workouts often feel more like weight training than pure aerobic training - supporting the whole "power per stroke" aspect. -- Mark </td></tr></table> Mark: Have fun. Never been to Italy. Great that you were able to find the equipment. I'm going to be out west after Christmas. Guess I'd better start looking now. I'm not doing 500's again for three weeks, with pyramid and 1K in between. I'm not dropping to 1:49, though. I'll see how 1:49.5 goes. Steady incremental progress feels great. I'm a little surprised you are dropping down 1.5 seconds. (Baby steps?) I think 1:49 will not be a problem with your 2K, it's just quite a drop. Jeff

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » December 16th, 2005, 9:16 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(holm188 @ Dec 16 2005, 05:51 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Carla, You cannot try to fix too many variables and then hope it fits together. For your L4 workout, the pace is given, the stroke rate is given, the damper setting stays the same, your technique should not change too much. With all that set the drive recovery ratio will take care of itself. Generally, he drive recovery ratio gets smaller as you increase the SR. Hope that helps, Holm </td></tr></table> That's what I mean. The drive recovery ratio does tend to get smaller as you increase SR. But, isn't it beneficial to work to keep that from happening until you just can't help it? I think it would. I'm tempted to think you shouldn't do L4 workouts at stroke rates where you can't keep the ratio the same until you are strong enough to do them and keep the ratio the same; this would be keeping your technique from changing too much between stroke rates. Allowing the ratio to shrink is changing your technique. It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen. It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 10:51 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Dec 16 2005, 05:16 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen. It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace. Anyone else have thoughts on this? </td></tr></table> Sure, fix your meters/stroke and this takes care of ratio as long as the DF is the same. The first sign of "Trading Rate for Pace" is a decrease in meters/stroke, regardless of the specific number of meters/stroke that had been decided on as the baseline. Follow-up Questions: 1) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at the same ratio? 2) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at different ratios?

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » December 16th, 2005, 1:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 16 2005, 06:20 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Jeff: I had an 11:30 flight so I got in a short 40' L4 with 1K warmup and cool down. I'm at the Rome airport right now, after a late arrival. Waiting on my (rescheduled) connecting flight. I've found a club about 20 to 30 minutes away from where I'm staying that looks like it has relatively new model Ds, so I hope to at least maintain while here. I'm on some personal business, so I do have some free time and my schedule is my own. My next 8 x 500 is planned for 1:49 average, which will be an improvement of about 1.5 seconds, if I can pull it off. I think the L4 60' pieces really do help with shorter distances. To me, the workouts often feel more like weight training than pure aerobic training - supporting the whole "power per stroke" aspect. -- Mark </td></tr></table> Mark, Do they have PBR in Italy?

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » December 16th, 2005, 1:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 07:51 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Dec 16 2005, 05:16 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen. It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace. Anyone else have thoughts on this? </td></tr></table> Sure, fix your meters/stroke and this takes care of ratio as long as the DF is the same. The first sign of "Trading Rate for Pace" is a decrease in meters/stroke, regardless of the specific number of meters/stroke that had been decided on as the baseline. Follow-up Questions: 1) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at the same ratio? 2) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at different ratios? </td></tr></table> Answer: 0:30 But how long can you hold pace? For arbitrarily increasing ratio, you just need ever increasing brute strength. At the ultimate ratio, how many meters can you get in one single pull? A very anaerobic event by the way. Maybe for highly reduced stroke rates we should all be eating more creatine. At the other end, the same pace needs less and less force per stroke. Aerobic system more and more sufficient it seems. (I'm referring to fixed pace remember) But then there's a pure inefficiency of throwing our center of mass back and forth on the non-sliding erg, which contributes nothing to the flywheel, but gobbles up oxygen anyway, at the high stroke rate. So where is the optimal, where these effects cross? Training to attain more strength available is always a net positive, enabling more efficient rowing. But given the strength that you actually have, the most effective ratio in a race is going to be a personal thing, just found by rowing the ratio that works best for you. I think it's worth time finding out what that is. A reason I agree that L1 and L2 sessions should be truly open rate, and whatever ratio works best for you. It won't be far off the numbers others mention. Carla, you just asked for thoughts. Hope these aren't too random.

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 16th, 2005, 4:55 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>That's what I mean. The drive recovery ratio does tend to get smaller as you increase SR. But, isn't it beneficial to work to keep that from happening until you just can't help it? I think it would. I'm tempted to think you shouldn't do L4 workouts at stroke rates where you can't keep the ratio the same until you are strong enough to do them and keep the ratio the same; this would be keeping your technique from changing too much between stroke rates. Allowing the ratio to shrink is changing your technique. It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen. It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace. Anyone else have thoughts on this? </td></tr></table> You make a great point. I believe the very purpose of the L4 sessions is to develop the ability to maintain good technique and form while builiding strength and endurance. The alternating stroke rate is a way of carrying through to ever increasing rates the same form and strength. I know that we all want to see progress from week to week and it is tempting to increase to stroke rate to get more strokes and meters/training session. However I think that you are right when you state: "I'm tempted to think you shouldn't do L4 workouts at stroke rates where you can't keep the ratio the same until you are strong enough to do them and keep the ratio the same" And it is harder, but to parphrase Mike Caviston- who said training is easy. If it is easy it isn't training. I have decided that whatever the stroke sequence I chose I will keep a 16 spm in every sequence even though the 16 spm will decrease the number of meters and the number of total strokes for the training session. Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 5:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Dec 16 2005, 09:48 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 07:51 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Dec 16 2005, 05:16 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen. It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace. Anyone else have thoughts on this? </td></tr></table> Sure, fix your meters/stroke and this takes care of ratio as long as the DF is the same. The first sign of "Trading Rate for Pace" is a decrease in meters/stroke, regardless of the specific number of meters/stroke that had been decided on as the baseline. Follow-up Questions: 1) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at the same ratio? 2) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at different ratios? </td></tr></table> Answer: 0:30 But how long can you hold pace? For arbitrarily increasing ratio, you just need ever increasing brute strength. At the ultimate ratio, how many meters can you get in one single pull? A very anaerobic event by the way. Maybe for highly reduced stroke rates we should all be eating more creatine. At the other end, the same pace needs less and less force per stroke. Aerobic system more and more sufficient it seems. (I'm referring to fixed pace remember) But then there's a pure inefficiency of throwing our center of mass back and forth on the non-sliding erg, which contributes nothing to the flywheel, but gobbles up oxygen anyway, at the high stroke rate. So where is the optimal, where these effects cross? Training to attain more strength available is always a net positive, enabling more efficient rowing. But given the strength that you actually have, the most effective ratio in a race is going to be a personal thing, just found by rowing the ratio that works best for you. I think it's worth time finding out what that is. A reason I agree that L1 and L2 sessions should be truly open rate, and whatever ratio works best for you. It won't be far off the numbers others mention. Carla, you just asked for thoughts. Hope these aren't too random. </td></tr></table> Doug, Clever answer, also a pretty good one. Let's just say the 2:00 can be held for about 64 times as long as the 1:30 according to "Paul's Law" (30sec/5 = 6 so 2^6 times the distance or time.). The number of meters for a single pull on the Erg is tough to determine, because once 6 seconds pass without a drive the meters stop counting, but it is possible to exceed 15m/stroke, i.e. 1:40 @ SR=20 or a 0:50 @ SR=40 (one is easier than the other - BTW) Of course there needs to be a balance between brute strength and endurance for the optimal Erg 2k performance. In fact, to maintain ratio and move to a faster pace is what requires increasing brute strength, or holding pace and increasing ratio, as you mention. No one is really concerned with the later, mostly for the reason that overall speed is not increasing and that is the whole point of training, isn't it. On water examples would show that we are capable of continuing performance at ratios in the 1:1 range, but this often isn't the most efficient boat speed producer, in fact it's not uncommon to see a rate increase appear to be the cause of the system speed decrease. But even that is complicated by the way in which the power is being applied through the stroke, and the nature of the resistance due to hull speed variations caused by momentum exchange. Boats are a much more complicated issue than Ergs, usually having less objective immediate feedback telling us how fast we are going, though there are several good solutions for that. Since we are in an Erging forum, it is probably best to limit the discussion. We do not really "throw our weight back and forth", more like only "forth", as when throwing it "back" the flywheel does directly absorb that energy. The quicker we throw it "forth", the more we have to stop before the next drive and that does consume more ineffective energy depending on the technique involved (as well as if we are on slides or not). Ever seen two rowers where you would swear that the one rating higher was actually rating lower, or even two at the same rate but one looks considerably higher in spite of the catch happening at the same time for both? Where do these effects cross? Well the work by Kleshnev seems to suggest that it is at about 10m/stroke, but that's just my interpretation and someone like Mel Harbour would say that it was just a coincidence. Regardless, we could conlude that it is at some fixed meters/stroke figure and the way to move faster is to increase the speed at which we can accomplish that number of meters/stroke for a given period of time. A certain amount of efficiency can be given up during a sprint, but there is usually a lot of work that needs to be done prior to the sprint taking place and it must keep us within striking distance and fresh enough that the sprint will be effective by the finish line.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 16th, 2005, 7:10 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ragiarn @ Dec 16 2005, 08:41 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I came across this item this morning. I thought it my be interesting in understanding the importance of maintaining close to even splits throughout an exercise piece as well as understanding why changing stroke rate and pace feels harder (because it is harder) than maintaining the same stroke rate and pace. </td></tr></table> Of course, which is why I discuss the concept regarding Level 4 training. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Sep 25 2005, 10:08 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> 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. [right] </td></tr></table> The following is a snippet from a post I made on the old forum back in 2002, just to muddy the waters regarding stroke rate a little further. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>MORE THOUGHTS ON STROKE RATE Something that always gets me thinking about how stroke rate might affect performance is the relationship between cycling cadence and performance. It’s well-documented that the most efficient cadence for a given power output (e.g., 250W) is around 50-60 rpm. That is, there are multiple combinations of resistance and cadence to achieve 250W (low rpm-high resistance vs. high rpm-low resistance), but the cadence that results in the least amount of oxygen consumption (the lowest energy expenditure) is 50-60 rpm. It is also well-documented that experienced cyclists, when asked to work at a given output and allowed to select their own cadence and resistance, will just about always select a lower resistance and a cadence of around 90-100 rpm. They do this EVEN THOUGH IT RESULTS IN GREATER OXYGEN CONSUMPTION AND ENERGY EXPENDITURE. Furthermore, in controlled studies to determine the effects of cadence on endurance, subjects are able to sustain a given power output for significantly longer periods of time using the higher rather than the lower cadence. (Recognize that this is DESPITE the fact that more energy must be expended using the higher cadence.) What researchers have concluded is, in this case PERCEPTION of effort has a bigger impact on performance than ACTUAL effort. More revolutions against a lower resistance feel easier, so cyclists can do it longer. What does all that have to do with rowing? Well, maybe nothing. The relationship between cadence and efficiency is different for rowing. It is quite inefficient to row at low ratings because the flywheel decelerates so much. It is more efficient to bring the rating up a bit so the wheel has less time to slow down. So it would be more efficient to row a given split at, say, 22 spm vs. 16. (At some point, rowing at still higher ratings would become inefficient due to the cost of reversing the body’s mass so often.) But what I find after lots and lots of Level 4 work is, I bring the rating up slightly for Level 3 (say 24-25 spm) and feel very comfortable rowing for 20 or 30K at a pace I would normally row @ 20-22 spm during Level 4. I think my endurance is enhanced not only by the greater efficiency of the slightly higher rating, but by the reduced PERCEPTION of effort. </td></tr></table> Regards, Mike Caviston

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 16th, 2005, 7:55 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Dec 16 2005, 01:40 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>L4 tonight. I used ref pace 1:49 and this really felt like a workout. 176 188 196 176 188 196... Here's a question: I have been trying to always have the drive be one third of the time and the recovery 2/3s no matter what the spm. This is challenging, because instead of just speeding up the recovery to increase the stroke rate, you have to drive more explosively to keep it at the same ratio. Am I supposed to be doing this? [right] </td></tr></table> Carla, I don’t want to offend you, but I really have to question why you are following the Wolverine Plan at all. What is your objective? What do you hope to get out of it? If you’ll recall, I tried to answer a lot of your questions about the WP 2 ½ years ago during a lengthy series of posts on the old forum. I’ve been covering a lot of the same ground on this thread. From your own posts, you seem to me to be a poster child for how not to follow the WP. Some general observations: 1) Training with the WP should include 6 workouts per week or more to get the full balance of the different training levels. Doing only 5 or 4 workouts per week will still produce a training effect, but there won’t be enough Level 4 meters and probably some sacrifice of L1/L2 as well. You can’t really expect long-term development to proceed smoothly with insufficient training volume. OTOH – when you increase volume, do it slowly. Don’t jump from 40’ to 60’ for a session. 2) A consistent weekly schedule needs to be followed. If life gets in the way and you have to constantly disrupt your training, you can’t expect the adaptations to occur anyway. 3) Level 4 Reference pace should be based on 2K ability. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. No exceptions. Do you really feel you have the ability to do a 7:16 2K? If you feel you have to use a Ref Pace that much faster than your 2K, something is wrong – with your technique, with how you are structuring the workouts, with something . (If you think that “something” is the plan itself, then you shouldn’t be following it.) Level 4 is meant to be high volume, low-moderate intensity training – not low volume, high-intensity training! 4) Some specific advice I’ve given regarding Level 4 includes not micro-managing the workouts by 2-minute increments (because of the inherent inaccuracies with recording stroke rate and pace for such short intervals); just compare performance against the 10’ meter totals in the L4 tables. Don’t only use sequences that follow 2’/2’/2’ patterns. The 4’/3’/2’/1’ formats are probably the most useful overall. Utilize odd-number sequences (e.g., 178, 186, 190) in conjunction with even numbered ratings. Don’t rely on external cues for following stroke rate (i.e., a metronome); develop your own internal sense of rating. 5) Accept that all parameters (pace, stroke rate, meters/stroke, ratio etc.) can’t remain in perfect harmony all the time. The premise of the WP isn’t built around maintaining a constant ratio. If you feel a constant ratio is important, why aren’t you simply doing all 10mps training? To repeat a crucial point: no one is obligated to follow the WP to the letter. Anyone can make whatever adjustments or alterations they feel is appropriate for their personal situation. But it doesn’t make sense to ignore my advice and then question why things don’t seem to be going the way you want them to. IMHO. Mike Caviston

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » December 16th, 2005, 10:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Sure, fix your meters/stroke and this takes care of ratio as long as the DF is the same. The first sign of "Trading Rate for Pace" is a decrease in meters/stroke, regardless of the specific number of meters/stroke that had been decided on as the baseline. Follow-up Questions: 1) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at the same ratio? 2) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at different ratios? </td></tr></table> I think I will take the 5th on this one. One of my two brain cells went on vacation. I took all the 2 min. intervals and worked out the average mps for each one and from that, the average mps for each spm: 16: goal was 13.78, my av. 14.0 18: goal was 12.6, my av. 12.8 20: goal was 11.8, my av. 11.8 22: goal was 11.0, my av. 11.11 So even though I worked as hard as I could to keep the ratio the same, the mps still went down a lot. I hadn't realized till I did all this entertaining math that the way the rates and paces are planned in the WP the mps does just go down. So you are just plain trading rate for pace anyway, even if you about kill yourself not to. I think I will stop thinking now!

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » December 16th, 2005, 10:56 pm

Carla, I don’t want to offend you, but I really have to question why you are following the Wolverine Plan at all. What is your objective? What do you hope to get out of it? If you’ll recall, I tried to answer a lot of your questions about the WP 2 ½ years ago during a lengthy series of posts on the old forum. I’ve been covering a lot of the same ground on this thread. From your own posts, you seem to me to be a poster child for how not to follow the WP. Some general observations: 1) Training with the WP should include 6 workouts per week or more to get the full balance of the different training levels. Doing only 5 or 4 workouts per week will still produce a training effect, but there won’t be enough Level 4 meters and probably some sacrifice of L1/L2 as well. You can’t really expect long-term development to proceed smoothly with insufficient training volume. OTOH – when you increase volume, do it slowly. Don’t jump from 40’ to 60’ for a session. 2) A consistent weekly schedule needs to be followed. If life gets in the way and you have to constantly disrupt your training, you can’t expect the adaptations to occur anyway. 3) Level 4 Reference pace should be based on 2K ability. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. No exceptions. Do you really feel you have the ability to do a 7:16 2K? If you feel you have to use a Ref Pace that much faster than your 2K, something is wrong – with your technique, with how you are structuring the workouts, with something . (If you think that “something” is the plan itself, then you shouldn’t be following it.) Level 4 is meant to be high volume, low-moderate intensity training – not low volume, high-intensity training! 4) Some specific advice I’ve given regarding Level 4 includes not micro-managing the workouts by 2-minute increments (because of the inherent inaccuracies with recording stroke rate and pace for such short intervals); just compare performance against the 10’ meter totals in the L4 tables. Don’t only use sequences that follow 2’/2’/2’ patterns. The 4’/3’/2’/1’ formats are probably the most useful overall. Utilize odd-number sequences (e.g., 178, 186, 190) in conjunction with even numbered ratings. Don’t rely on external cues for following stroke rate (i.e., a metronome); develop your own internal sense of rating. 5) Accept that all parameters (pace, stroke rate, meters/stroke, ratio etc.) can’t remain in perfect harmony all the time. The premise of the WP isn’t built around maintaining a constant ratio. If you feel a constant ratio is important, why aren’t you simply doing all 10mps training? To repeat a crucial point: no one is obligated to follow the WP to the letter. Anyone can make whatever adjustments or alterations they feel is appropriate for their personal situation. But it doesn’t make sense to ignore my advice and then question why things don’t seem to be going the way you want them to. IMHO. Mike Caviston [/quote] I'm not offended! Yes, there is something definitely wrong, and I know it's not the plan. Also, I know it is frustrating for you to give good advice and feel like someone is just screwing around or trying to aggravate you--but really, I'm not. For years I did just row S10MPS and that brought me this far. Since I didn't follow any plan at all but just did willy nilly whatever came along, of course I got better at what was easy for me and neglected what was harder. So "following" the WP even as poorly as I am at least is forcing me to do some of this other work and may help me get to the point where I'm interested in actually racing a 2K, which I've never done. By the way, I gave up in frustration 2 1/2 years ago because with the PM1 it was even harder to have any idea what I was accomplishing. Probably I just didn't know how to use it. On Level 4, part of the trouble with trying to get the rates and paces internalized so that I don't need a metrenome or anything is the whole thing with what reference pace to use. Even with the reference pace ridiculously low for the pace of my miserable 2K it's almost irresistable to do better than the pace required. So then I can't even remember what pace goes with each rate without checking on a board frequently, and can't remember what rate I'm supposed to be at, either. If I'm supposed to be at 2:16 at 16 mps, but end up doing 2:12, I can't just look at the monitor and say, "Oh, I'm at 2:12, so I'm supposed to be on 16--it's reading 17 so I should slow the rate back down" because I'm just as likely to think it's supposed to be 18 and speed it up, since 2:12 is actually the prescribed pace for 18. So I have been using a metrenome and setting the PM2 for 30 min and then checking the meters and spm for each 2 minutesl to see how I did. (the thing doesn't remember enough intervals, so I have to do 2 x 30 min and take about 2 min in the middle to jot it down). It's progress that at least I'm bang on the strokes now usually. You probably can't relate to someone who seems to get so easily confused over what seems very simple and routine to you, but there it is. I will try it next time without and see if I can keep my head straight; I have tried it before and it was a complete failure as far as knowing where I was in the workout, so that I screwed up which stroke rate I was at and messed up the whole thing. Sorry--I'll just read this thread now and not post. It must make you crazy. Thanks for taking the time to answer...

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 16th, 2005, 10:57 pm

Todays workout L3 12k continuous- This is my second time this week at attempting to complete a L3 continuous 12k. Tuesday was a recovery day and Wednesdy I completed my L1 4x1000 m. 11K total including warmup and cool down as well as recovery meters between 1k intervals. Yesterday (Thurs) I completed 2x40 L4 workout - total M 21000 including warmup, cooldown and recovery meters. In the evening before supper I attempted a L3 continous 12K. I was going great until I hit the 9000m mark. I wanted continue but my muscles called it quits. I bonked and rowed another 1000 meters as cooldown. In review I realized that I probably started out at a pace that was not sustainable. Total meters for the Thursday was 33,500. I slept in late this am. I did not get up until 5:30 am. Skipped my morning workout. I decided to retry my Level 3 12K again this evening. In planning this evenings training session I reread some Mikes posts and I came across the following under the heading 4) Pacing is critical “But my training strategy is considerably different, and I’ve developed a system where I divide each piece into 5 segments (inspired by the default setting of the PM3) and accelerate the pace 4-5 sec/500m over the duration of the piece. This is true for pieces as short as 1000m all the way up to 25K. I’ve put together a series of tables that allow me to determine quickly the pace for, as an example, each segment of a 4 x 2K workout. I determine the desired pace for the entire workout, which dictates the pace for each 2K (each one the same pace or slightly faster than the previous) and the pace for each 400m segment within each 2K (negative split). I emphasize that this rather extreme format is a training tool and not my idea of the optimal way of pacing workouts for the fastest possible session.” Mike Caviston After reading Mikes posting on planning pace for training I decided on a to start a pace of 130w(I prefer to use watts instead of time). I had set up the monitor for 4’ splits and set the timer for 60’. But for some reason the computer gave me everything in 8’ splits. I started at a pace of 130 watts (2:18) at a spm of 24 and and increased the pace in increments of 4’. The results are below. I actually began to feel stronger as the training session went on. I probably could have continued for the entire 60’ but since my original goal was to do a 12k, even though my muscles weren’t quite ready to call it quits today my brain said that’s enough so I shut it down after 54 minutes. I probably should have completed the full 60 minutes. I figure I can save that as a goal for next time. Based on my 2k Ref. my level 3 workouts should be between 2:11.7-2:17.7. Stroke rate recommended : 24-28. For kicks I calculated my MPS as well. With regards to the Heart rate -Mike I do not use my HR monitor to dictate my training session. However after 20 years of experience using a heart rate monitor and recording each and every bike race, training session and recreational ride during the course of the 20 years I find it very helpful to gauge my exercise. (Mike you are not the only compulsive record keeper). My theoretical HR for my age (65) is 155 however in an all out 2k I consistently hit 163 at the end of the race. A HR of 145 represents 85% of my calculated VO2 max-. 8' splits-- ... 8'...........16'.......24'.........32'.......40'.........48'..........54' DIST'.......1728.......1746.....1756......1768......1785......1796......1439 (6') Watts .....131 .........135......137........140.......144........147........154 Pace .......2:18.8......2:17.4....2:16.6...2:15.7....2:14.4...2:13.6....2:11.4 spm .........25....,,,,,...26....,,,,,.27....,,,,,28....,,,,,.28....,,,,,.29....,,,,,28 MPS ....,,,,,.8.6....,,,,,.8.4....,,,,,.8.13....,,7.9....,,,,7.9....,,,, 7.7....,,,,8.5 HR....,,,,,...135....,,,, .138....,,,,,.144....,,,148....,,,152 ....,,157....,,,159 Tomorrow I plan to do at least one L4 60' training session in the early am. I am on call for my medical group and if I am not too busy I will try to get in another L4 training session for the PM. Sunday I have a L2 5x1500 scheduled. Monday another L4. Tues is recovery day. Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 11:13 pm

Trading rate for pace doesn't mean anything anyway, except that you're getting a faster time. Even if you keep the same meters per stroke all the way, you still need to increase the rating to go faster. Thus if you never pick up the rating and your meters per stroke is always the same, then you will always row the same speed and never improve.

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 16th, 2005, 11:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>On Level 4, part of the trouble with trying to get the rates and paces internalized so that I don't need a metrenome or anything is the whole thing with what reference pace to use. Even with the reference pace ridiculously low for the pace of my miserable 2K it's almost irresistable to do better than the pace required. So then I can't even remember what pace goes with each rate without checking on a board frequently, and can't remember what rate I'm supposed to be at, either. If I'm supposed to be at 2:16 at 16 mps, but end up doing 2:12, I can't just look at the monitor and say, "Oh, I'm at 2:12, so I'm supposed to be on 16--it's reading 17 so I should slow the rate back down" because I'm just as likely to think it's supposed to be 18 and speed it up, since 2:12 is actually the prescribed pace for 18. So I have been using a metrenome and setting the PM2 for 30 min and then checking the meters and spm for each 2 minutesl to see how I did. (the thing doesn't remember enough intervals, so I have to do 2 x 30 min and take about 2 min in the middle to jot it down). It's progress that at least I'm bang on the strokes now usually. You probably can't relate to someone who seems to get so easily confused over what seems very simple and routine to you, but there it is </td></tr></table> Carla I too have had the same problem with keeping track of the stroke rate. As a cyclist I am accustomed to high cadence pedaling. When I started to use the ERG last year I consistently had a stroke rate between 32-36 and have been as high as the mid 40s during an all out effort. I was going fast but my pace was slow. Trying to get my stroke rate down to 24 was an effort. 16 was unthinkable. I spent quite a bit of time working on getting the stroke and rowing mechanics worked out. I think it is beginning to pay dividends. In the past two weeks I have been able to consistently change stroke rates according to plan. The method I came up with is as follows. 16 stroke rate is 4 strokes /15sec. I know that I have to do 4 strokes by 45" 8 at the 30" 12 at 15" and 16 before the end of the minute. 18 stroke rate 3 strokes / 10 seconds-- 3 strokes by 50" 6 strokes at 40" 9 at 30" 12 at 20" 15 at 10 " and 18 before the end of the minute. 20 stroke rate is 5 strokes/45 sec-- 10/30 15/15 20/0 For my overall timing I use 18 spm as a base and the 16 spm is a little slower and the 20 spm is a little faster. I generally try to keep the catch and drive portion consistent irrespective of stroke rate and either speed up the recovery or slow down the recovery. For now I am consistently getting 11.5-12 meters per stroke for level 4 no matter which stroke rate I use. I may be wrong but I think that the drive portion should be the same irrespective of spm and the recovery phase should change. At least that's what works for me. Rowing strapless has been a big help for me. I have no trouble rowing strapless up to 32 spm. Initially I did not pay too much attention to the pace. However generally the pace was consistent with the stroke rate and the meters generally come out as planned. Now that I have the stroke rate figured out I can pay more attention to the actual pace. I am still working on the mechanics of my stroke so I am not consistent from one stroke to the next however I am able to consistently hit my mark for a given time span. If you look at my pace for the 12K I posted today I was able to hit the pace increments I had set out for myself before the training session. I am not sure if this is of any help to you. If not perhaps another novice might be helped by my experience. Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT