Pete's Plan Spreadsheet

[Mike Caviston]

So called adherents to PP vary on their actual workouts. I have seen some incorporate Level 4 workouts to essentially transitioning closer to the WP and certainly many exceed the 1 hour sessions that characterise the initial PP.

Yes, it seems that virtually nobody follows the PP as written for more than a short time (few make it past the beginner PP). Low-rate workouts and extended endurance sessions are two things about the WP that Pete specifically criticized, though the vast majority of elite athletes include them in training. But many on the forum keep promoting and recommending the Pete Plan.

[Mike Caviston]

Wow, you really do take things seriously, dont you? ...how is it even the slightest bit important that there's verifiable evidence to confirm my recollection?

I may be wasting my time (you’re very full of yourself), but I’ll try to explain. Yes, I take training very seriously and have for a long time. I’ve been a competitive rower for over 45 years. I was a rowing coach for 22 years, and pretty seriously focused on training. (After that I spent 15 years with the military developing physical fitness, so I was still focused on training. Now I’m retired, but I’m still rowing and still serious about training.) I spent years developing my training methodology, starting with the programs my coaches used with me and gradually expanding and modifying as I gained experience and education. While I was a graduate student and eventually a Lecturer in Kinesiology at UMich, I spent hundreds of hours researching specific topics that became part of the Wolverine Plan. At that time, research required physically going into the library stacks to pull journal volumes off shelves and making photocopies to take articles home to read. I still have a closet full of binders packed with articles and a bookcase full of textbooks that I used when formulating the Wolverine Plan. I used that material to answer many questions. Why 8 x 500m, and not 16 x 250m? Why 8, and not 6 or 10? Why 4 x 1K, and not 3 x 1250m? What is the most effective way to recover between intervals? What about warming up? How can doing 90’ of continuous rowing be more effective than 3 x 30’ or simply 60’? I found research-based answers to all of these questions and more. In addition to that, as a coach, I spent hundreds more hours working hands-on with young men and women aspiring to be among the best rowers in the country (and for some, eventually the world). I conducted natural experiments to get more data on what interval formats and warm-ups were most effective, what rates of increase in fitness were reasonable to expect, what the relationships were between the paces of various workouts, and on and on.

A little more history... When the original version of the Concept2 Training Forum went live in about 2000 or so, I was a lurker for the first couple years. I was busy doing my rowing and coaching and teaching thing, and content to read the comments of others without participating myself. But then a strange thing happened... A bizarre individual who taught at the same University as me (in a different department) who was also interested in indoor rowing began making posts on the C2 forum. Not only was he making pretty bold claims about his own ability and technique, he was making comments about my training and technique. He was watching me train at the campus recreation facility and reporting to the world at large while I had no idea who he was. I had to address him on the forum and ask him to kindly STFU. What happened after that can hardly be believed even by those of us who lived through it. But why I bring this up is, now I was out there as a live person on the forum, recognized as being at the time a very successful rower and coach. So I got many, many requests for information about training and specific questions relating to my performances. I didn’t and still don’t have the time or inclination to spend as much time on line as some people. I had never intended to promote myself or my training program, but I was happy to share information (as I always had with other coaches at regattas and conferences). So I made available a document I had put together recently for the team I was coaching at the time that is now known as “The Wolverine Plan”. It summarizes a lot of the training concepts I think are essential for competitive rowers, and gave examples of workouts that would be used. But I made clear from the outset it was not really a “plan” (there are no workout schedules, for example), just a CliffsNotes rough guide. Over the next couple years I made a significant effort to provide more details and answer specific questions on both this forum and the then-active UK version. Eventually I said enough is enough, but almost everything I wrote is still available in archived form and I’ve provided links many times so that anyone interested can read for themselves.

After the WP entered the public domain, it had its critics and detractors, of which Pete was one. Probably the best summary of criticism of the WP is “too many details, but at the same time not enough details”. Of course, I never made a comprehensive training plan; I just provided the raw materials to DIY. But people want things simple and fast, and that’s what Pete provided: a three-week rotation of “speed intervals” (directly copied from the Level 1 examples from the Wolverine Plan), “endurance intervals” (directly copied from Level 2 examples from the WP), and “Distance” sessions (as described in the WP as Level 3). And even that format was copied almost directly from me, as I had previously described how I used to train in the 80s and early 90s when I had limited access to ergometers and hadn’t yet finalized the Level 4 format. I don’t care if people recommend the Pete Plan to beginners who just want some basic structure and aren’t interested in competition (in fact, I encourage it; the WP is for serious athletes pursuing racing success). I get offended when people credit Pete with creating the workouts I developed (there is no Pete Plan Pyramid; there’s the pyramid workout Pete copied from the Wolverine Plan). Pete didn’t understand my concept of the gradual progression of “speed intervals” from shorter (8 x 500m) to longer (4 x 1K) over time targeting specific paces to reach a 2K goal. And so on. And I get very offended when people claim the PP is actually more effective than the WP. Simpler to follow, easier to understand – maybe. But the WP is clearly more effective for developing a competitive 2K. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact. Steering someone towards the PP with exaggerated claims of success (yes, the term “hyperbole” applies) is not helping them. Constantly praising Pete for my work is insulting to me.

[p_b82]

While it's a bit OT - and I can understand why with your success and experience you would get annoyed about comments you read online. The one major things is:

Times have changed - people now both expect and demand that information is made more available - and because of the internet it is. (hell the OP is asking for a spreadsheet of something that is online in a bullet-pointed web form!)

If all your info is supplied in disparate posts buried in a an archived forum - it's essentially "not easily available" and so people that look online find sources are are easily digestible - even if inferior.
Just look at all the crap you find on tiktok as "truth" nowadays.

I know from your previous posts and the one above you had no desire to share your info more widely - and also no reason you should without recompense - but if you did, people would have got to a point where your method is the referenced one and the others are side comments.

In a very similar fashion, even while it's all open source (and so public domain), a family member wrote a scripting language, that a highly popular modern one took a huge amount from - he gets very little recognition for the fact that without his language the modern one probably wouldn't have been born (certainly not in the fashion it exists now)

[Mike Caviston]

I can understand why with your success and experience you would get annoyed about comments you read online. The one major things is: Times have changed - people now both expect and demand that information is made more available - and because of the internet it is... If all your info is supplied in disparate posts buried in a an archived forum - it's essentially "not easily available" and so people that look online find sources are are easily digestible - even if inferior.

I can accept that, or at least acknowledge it. If I look at Reddit I don’t expect people born five years after I put my program out there to understand the history or even care. But on this forum, people do know the history. For a place that prides itself on being so welcoming and supportive, I get tired of my contributions being marginalized or ignored (as another example, many still refuse to acknowledge the original and groundbreaking work I did analyzing 2K race results and discussing effective race strategies).

[Dangerscouse]

Wow, you really do take things seriously, dont you? ...how is it even the slightest bit important that there's verifiable evidence to confirm my recollection?

I may be wasting my time (you’re very full of yourself), but I’ll try to explain. Yes, I take training very seriously and have for a long time. I’ve been a competitive rower for over 45 years. I was a rowing coach for 22 years, and pretty seriously focused on training. (After that I spent 15 years with the military developing physical fitness, so I was still focused on training. Now I’m retired, but I’m still rowing and still serious about training.) I spent years developing my training methodology, starting with the programs my coaches used with me and gradually expanding and modifying as I gained experience and education. While I was a graduate student and eventually a Lecturer in Kinesiology at UMich, I spent hundreds of hours researching specific topics that became part of the Wolverine Plan. At that time, research required physically going into the library stacks to pull journal volumes off shelves and making photocopies to take articles home to read. I still have a closet full of binders packed with articles and a bookcase full of textbooks that I used when formulating the Wolverine Plan. I used that material to answer many questions. Why 8 x 500m, and not 16 x 250m? Why 8, and not 6 or 10? Why 4 x 1K, and not 3 x 1250m? What is the most effective way to recover between intervals? What about warming up? How can doing 90’ of continuous rowing be more effective than 3 x 30’ or simply 60’? I found research-based answers to all of these questions and more. In addition to that, as a coach, I spent hundreds more hours working hands-on with young men and women aspiring to be among the best rowers in the country (and for some, eventually the world). I conducted natural experiments to get more data on what interval formats and warm-ups were most effective, what rates of increase in fitness were reasonable to expect, what the relationships were between the paces of various workouts, and on and on.

A little more history... When the original version of the Concept2 Training Forum went live in about 2000 or so, I was a lurker for the first couple years. I was busy doing my rowing and coaching and teaching thing, and content to read the comments of others without participating myself. But then a strange thing happened... A bizarre individual who taught at the same University as me (in a different department) who was also interested in indoor rowing began making posts on the C2 forum. Not only was he making pretty bold claims about his own ability and technique, he was making comments about my training and technique. He was watching me train at the campus recreation facility and reporting to the world at large while I had no idea who he was. I had to address him on the forum and ask him to kindly STFU. What happened after that can hardly be believed even by those of us who lived through it. But why I bring this up is, now I was out there as a live person on the forum, recognized as being at the time a very successful rower and coach. So I got many, many requests for information about training and specific questions relating to my performances. I didn’t and still don’t have the time or inclination to spend as much time on line as some people. I had never intended to promote myself or my training program, but I was happy to share information (as I always had with other coaches at regattas and conferences). So I made available a document I had put together recently for the team I was coaching at the time that is now known as “The Wolverine Plan”. It summarizes a lot of the training concepts I think are essential for competitive rowers, and gave examples of workouts that would be used. But I made clear from the outset it was not really a “plan” (there are no workout schedules, for example), just a CliffsNotes rough guide. Over the next couple years I made a significant effort to provide more details and answer specific questions on both this forum and the then-active UK version. Eventually I said enough is enough, but almost everything I wrote is still available in archived form and I’ve provided links many times so that anyone interested can read for themselves.

After the WP entered the public domain, it had its critics and detractors, of which Pete was one. Probably the best summary of criticism of the WP is “too many details, but at the same time not enough details”. Of course, I never made a comprehensive training plan; I just provided the raw materials to DIY. But people want things simple and fast, and that’s what Pete provided: a three-week rotation of “speed intervals” (directly copied from the Level 1 examples from the Wolverine Plan), “endurance intervals” (directly copied from Level 2 examples from the WP), and “Distance” sessions (as described in the WP as Level 3). And even that format was copied almost directly from me, as I had previously described how I used to train in the 80s and early 90s when I had limited access to ergometers and hadn’t yet finalized the Level 4 format. I don’t care if people recommend the Pete Plan to beginners who just want some basic structure and aren’t interested in competition (in fact, I encourage it; the WP is for serious athletes pursuing racing success). I get offended when people credit Pete with creating the workouts I developed (there is no Pete Plan Pyramid; there’s the pyramid workout Pete copied from the Wolverine Plan). Pete didn’t understand my concept of the gradual progression of “speed intervals” from shorter (8 x 500m) to longer (4 x 1K) over time targeting specific paces to reach a 2K goal. And so on. And I get very offended when people claim the PP is actually more effective than the WP. Simpler to follow, easier to understand – maybe. But the WP is clearly more effective for developing a competitive 2K. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact. Steering someone towards the PP with exaggerated claims of success (yes, the term “hyperbole” applies) is not helping them. Constantly praising Pete for my work is insulting to me.

Seriously???!!! Have a word with yourself.

I've always held a dignfied silcence on BS but you've properly hit the button.

Anyone's body doesn't give two f**ks who wrote a plan as long as it works. You've wrote a convoluted elaborate plan, that does work, but when someone else writes a plan that, also works, you go bats**t crazy!!! Wtf is that all about????

I can't be arsed to read even 5% of what you wrote...possibly because I'm full of myself, which I'll happily own if it's true.

You constantly rail against anyone who dares suggest that the Pete Plan could possibly be even the slightest bit useful, as clearly the human body only responds to complexity and elaborate plans. If your PBs and success are all that matters for progress and no one else can ever succeed without following your instructions I'll stand corrected. But let's be brutally honest. I'm not wrong and your (massively over inflated) ego is talking.

You've succeeded. You're a winner, but that doesnt EVER give you licence to enforce your opinions on us, and from now on I'll happily reinforce my dignfied silcence from a position of strength, and not from your position of weakness.

[Mike Caviston]

I can't be arsed to read even 5% of what you wrote...possibly because I'm full of myself, which I'll happily own if it's true.

Which explains why you railed on while completely ignoring the actual points I made. So own this. Someone is said to be “full of themself” if “they have an unrealistic and exalted sense of their own worth, importance, accomplishments, status, or influence.” They overestimate the value of their own opinions. You have more than 11,000 posts on this forum. The only other person in that league is Ranger. Make your own inference. There is no topic too small or too obscure for you to weigh in and grace others with your take. You took umbrage that someone would dare question the accuracy of your recollection that you yourself said might not be accurate. You don’t need to actually read someone else’s comments before passionately rejecting them. I’ve wasted my time again since you won’t read this.

[MPx]

While hesitant to put my head above the parapit in this, I take a different view to both.

Mike set out clearly above his history and contribution to the sport - most of which is known to those of us who were around in the last millenia. Its a hugely strong position - unrivalled knowledge, reseach, and proven performance both personally and by those using his methods. Against that there's been relative infrequent posting on here, little encouragement of others, some antagonism whenever the WP is mentioned in any context unless 100% accurate - which is hard to get since the WP has not been made readily available to those with a less academic approach. Pete took (copied) some elements of the plan and adapted them for his own purposes. They worked for Pete. Others were impressed and asked for help. Pete made the effort to help, and literally thousands of people have been able to benefit from that - its set out on a public domain website. There's more to success than invention and patent - it needs an efficient manufacturing process, marketing, sales, and a back room - Pete put that in place. Hard to see why Pete should be criticsed for that.

Stu has been THE stalwart of this forum for ages. Once Henry stepped back from the erg and forum, it simply wouldn't be viable (let alone the valuable resource it is) without Stu. Always helpful, always encouraging, never any ego, always ready to help from newbies to seasoned vets. And with the personal experience of having done so much to draw on. Exactly what any discussion forum needs. I really don't understand what's not to like. Opinions based on experience are perfectly valid and helpful for others to hear. Its very rare for anything to be binary right or wrong and indeed what is right for one in one specific application may be entirely wrong for another in a different case. Stu's views are always set out as such and change as the evidence/experience dictates. Any "science" has been shown to be reasonable estimates based on guesses with small sample sets of mostly elite atheletes - not typical hobby ergers. Hence the "discussion" and people taking what they can from the info presented.

I really see no need to get worked up about it. Lets just enjoy what we do and share our perspectives with anyone who has an interest and be happy to listen to their take on it. We all get the opportunity to learn and all get better as a result.

[p_b82]

I can accept that, or at least acknowledge it. If I look at Reddit I don’t expect people born five years after I put my program out there to understand the history or even care. But on this forum, people do know the history. For a place that prides itself on being so welcoming and supportive, I get tired of my contributions being marginalized or ignored (as another example, many still refuse to acknowledge the original and groundbreaking work I did analyzing 2K race results and discussing effective race strategies).

I think it might also be a case of people having moved on? Short attention spans and all that.

I've read your posts here when you post them, but I have not dug into the archived forum posts (or done much searching within this one since I joined).
So while I'm aware that it is a very highly rated plan - with historic (race) proved success, I'm also aware that a lot find it difficult to apply to themselves to have a crack at it unsupported. And it is aimed at the elite level, and there aren't actually that many on here that classification appliest.

In my world it's a very similar thing with open-source vs proprietary; often people gravitate to the open-source version because it is widely available + has community support & documentation and thus it gets more recommendations; even when there's a paid for product out there that actually does the job better but is locked behind a paywall.

[Joris]

I can't be arsed to read even 5% of what you wrote...possibly because I'm full of myself, which I'll happily own if it's true.

Which explains why you railed on while completely ignoring the actual points I made. So own this. Someone is said to be “full of themself” if “they have an unrealistic and exalted sense of their own worth, importance, accomplishments, status, or influence.” They overestimate the value of their own opinions. You have more than 11,000 posts on this forum. The only other person in that league is Ranger. Make your own inference. There is no topic too small or too obscure for you to weigh in and grace others with your take. You took umbrage that someone would dare question the accuracy of your recollection that you yourself said might not be accurate. You don’t need to actually read someone else’s comments before passionately rejecting them. I’ve wasted my time again since you won’t read this.

Hello Mike,

I am only a novice who just finished the Beginner Pete Plan, so no idea if my opinion interests you, but I am saddened to read the above discussion where two reputable rowers are at each other's throats. And while I think I can understand your frustrations, I also think it's unfair for you to attack Dangerscouse this way. I do think you should be able to put yourself a little more in the place of non-elite/non-dedicated forum users and understand that at that level and via this channel conciseness and simplicity is more important than comprehensiveness and nuance. For that reason, I nevertheless took the time to write down my feelings as a novice.

First of all, thanks for explaining your background, and to explain how the Wolverine plan and the Pete Plan have been created.
It was a nice read and very insightfull for me. And much respect for all that you have accomplished.
If I ever manage to transcend the pre-written training programs I think the Wolverine plan can be a very rich source of information to take just that step further.

But fair is fair, I'll probably never get to that stage.
And as a beginner, I am very glad that there are pre-built programs like the Pete plan, so that I could easily and quickly learn the basics and start rowing right away without having to do a lot of prior study (newbies like me didn't even heard about the difference between steady state and intervals, about different types of intervals, etc.). Without such easy to digest plans, I probably never would have discovered the love of indoor rowing.

As I understand it, you deliberately chose not to present the Wolverine plan ready-made on the Internet. Maybe because it is geared more towards elite athletes, maybe because it is too time intensive for most recreational athletes, maybe because you don't like to spend time on the internet, ...

No matter what the reason is, Pete (and others) seemed to have filled that gap.
Pete has explained in his plan that his plan is based on your plan (and thanks you for that on his page), but he has made adjustments so that the barrier to entry is lower and so that it is also feasible for people who have less time to spend on rowing.

The original question in this topic was an excel sheet for the Pete Plan and OP also took little effort to provide some context. So it seems very likely that he does not have much experience in rowing and certainly is not an elite rower.

So for Dangerscouse to recommend him to follow the Pete Plan as a starting point (accompanied by an anecdote based on a recollection), seems like a legitimate recommendation. Dangerscouse also stressed that it is a recollection, so there seems to me no need to back that up with evidence? It's not a discussion between academics or between elite level rowers?
For that reason, I don't quite understand your outburst to Dangerscouse. In my experience, and as cited above, he always tries to help people, regardless of their level.

In brief, there is no reason to get so worked up? The elite rowers (or dedicated non-elite rowers you work with) will undoubtly appreciate your contribution, won't they? In addition, allow a larger mass of rowers who are less dedicated or have less time more easily digestible plans. Even though these plans may not be as good, they provide a decent base, and if that way more people start rowing or keep rowing, that is also a huge merit. It can even be a stepping stone to more sophisticated training plans. So Wolverine and Pete can coexist perfectly well in my humble opinion, each with their own target audience.
And also recommendations for one or the other seem justified to me, based on the context of the questioner.

[p_b82]

It's worth noting that the wolverine plan url that google repeated shows is now a dead link.

https://www.concept2.com/files/pdf/us/t ... nePlan.pdf

until they update the UK site, however it can be found here:
https://www.concept2.co.uk/files/pdf/us ... nePlan.pdf

On reading it I can quickly see why the L4 aspects are dropped by people that create plans "based on the WP" for use on the erg only.

I can however understand why these are the core of the WP - because that consistency in a boat is critical; and it needs to be achieved without conscious thought by all the bodies in the boat.

[Mike Caviston]

I also think it's unfair for you to attack Dangerscouse this way.

Thanks for your comments. A couple quick points. My initial comment was simply

Speaking of hyperbole...

and anything that escalated after that isn't solely my responsibility.

I do think you should be able to put yourself a little more in the place of non-elite/non-dedicated forum users and understand that at that level and via this channel conciseness and simplicity is more important than comprehensiveness and nuance.

The flip side of that coin is, I wish non-elite/non-dedicated users could put themselves in the place of someone who has devoted a lifetime to improving performance (their own and those they coach), and empathize with how seriously we value our contributions and creations.

So for Dangerscouse to recommend him to follow the Pete Plan as a starting point (accompanied by an anecdote based on a recollection), seems like a legitimate recommendation.

I already stated I'm fine with people recommending the Pete Plan to some people:

I don’t care if people recommend the Pete Plan to beginners who just want some basic structure and aren’t interested in competition (in fact, I encourage it; the WP is for serious athletes pursuing racing success).

We'll just have to disagree on whether it's okay to make exaggerated claims or not worry about accuracy just because it's not an academic paper; it is a forum that supposedly prides itself on presenting accurate information. As I think I made clear, my big issue with the Pete Plan is when people insist on framing it as some original creation.

On reading it I can quickly see why the L4 aspects are dropped by people that create plans "based on the WP" for use on the erg only.

Ignoring yet again my disclaimer about that being only a brief summary NOT originally intended for the general public, and that further information should be sought in archives such as
http://concept2.van-diepen.nl/forum/Wol ... ion_01.htm
or
https://quantifiedrowing.com/wp-content ... -notes.pdf
or
https://www.row2k.com/features/391/mike ... avy-seals/

Okay, that is all I have to say on this thread, except to offer a partial apology to Dangerscouse. I really wasn't trying to be quite as insulting as I came across.

[jamesg]

I am looking for a clear concise spreadsheet for the Pete's Plan. Does anyone have a link?

Whatever your target, first step is make sure your technique won't cause you injury: https://www.concept2.com/training/rowing-technique

Then use it to keep the work in each stroke high. This work value is Watts/Rating. If you want to pull a 7 minute 2k (so 300W) at rate 30, the number is 10. So work at rate 20 and 200W will be a good start.

I find even a 5-6 W-min stroke (100-120W at 20) is good enough to keep me fit (now 76kg). Can get to 160W but only on 150HR that the doc says is far too high (I'm closing in on 85y, so one guess at MaxHR gives 220-85 = 135). I use the WODs almost every day: a very effective plan.

[p_b82]

On reading it I can quickly see why the L4 aspects are dropped by people that create plans "based on the WP" for use on the erg only.

Ignoring yet again my disclaimer about that being only a brief summary NOT originally intended for the general public, and that further information should be sought in archives such as
http://concept2.van-diepen.nl/forum/Wol ... ion_01.htm
or
https://quantifiedrowing.com/wp-content ... -notes.pdf
or
https://www.row2k.com/features/391/mike ... avy-seals/

No I did not - they are very highly prescriptive very specific sessions/chunks that imo many non-competitive people just aren't interested in doing a session that way.

Exactly X strokes and go exactly Y meters in 10/6min block for some, I'm sure that challenge is fun, but not one for me.

[Tsnor]

The flip side of that coin is, I wish non-elite/non-dedicated users could put themselves in the place of someone who has devoted a lifetime to improving performance (their own and those they coach), and empathize with how seriously we value our contributions and creations.

.. As I think I made clear, my big issue with the Pete Plan is when people insist on framing it as some original creation.

Good luck with that.

Welcome to the world of MUSIC. Everyone builds on everyone. Often very successful bands credit their influences, however the world doesn't know who pioneered the bass style they use, they just like the music. Covers work the same way, some money flows but everyone thinks whoever played the most popular version of a song wrote it.

COMEDY is worse. If a joke gets used by a name brand comedian (say Johnny Carson) then the originator of the joke (1) gets no credit and (2) Can't use their own joke in their shows anymore because everyone knows its Carson's joke and (3) forget money flowing.

Re wolverine plan, I suspect if you started a thread for everyone actively using it that the thread would be pretty quiet. The people who struggled to understand/internalize WP reached their comfort level year ago. People newer to endurance training are following other training approaches and would not see either the mapping of those approaches to WP or how WP may have morphed into the training they are doing. It would be hard for them to credit WP for polarized or pyramid or sweetspot or PP or whatever training plan. Just like most music fans are hard pressed to list ANY of the artists that their favorite bands claims as influences.