Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] nharrigan · Post by **[old] nharrigan** » December 12th, 2005, 2:51 pm

Question about Level 1 pacing Are all the level 1 intervals done at the same pace or are the 4x1k's a bit slower than the 8x500. I've reread all of the posts on this thread, but haven't been able to determine if there is any variation. I'm planning on a 4x1k tomorrow and was wondering if I will have to row as hard as the 8x500 that I did last week. Thanks for your help. Neil

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 12th, 2005, 3:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 12 2005, 12:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I know everyone is different, and that the +4/-1 may not work for me, but I'm trying to make sure I maximize the benefit of the plan, while still taking an incremental progress approach to avoid quick gains and then a sharp plateau -- or worse yet, injury. </td></tr></table> I always hesitate to give correlations between workout paces or to project 2K paces from any given workout. People tend to take me too literally or focus only on the numbers I give while ignoring all the qualifying statements that go along with them. For me personally, over the past five years or so, my 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K results have very accurately predicted my 2K ability. Part of the reason is that my training is pretty consistent (in terms of workload, intensity, balance of speed vs. endurance, etc.) I have the experience and discipline to give nearly the same level of effort most of the time. Not everyone has reached that level in their training, and for them workout results might not predict 2K performance quite as accurately – though I would always encourage anyone to look at their recent training history when planning a 2K strategy. Furthermore, the correlations between 4 x 1K/2K workouts and a 2K race are probably skewed by my experience with the formats and my overall endurance base. For the majority of people, even those pretty well-trained, a more reasonable 2K correlation for 4 x 2K is + 5, and 4 x 1K = 2K. That is, take your best 4 x 2K pace and subtract 5 seconds to determine your likely 2K. Your best 4 x 1K pace will be pretty close to your 2K pace. A standard deviation for both these relationships is probably something like half a second. Regarding the decision about whether or not to push the workout pace a little harder as racing season approaches – it depends on a few factors, and each individual has to weigh the options. Beginners do improve more rapidly, and if things are going well and you feel like you can up the intensity and sustain a higher level for the rest of the season, then you should probably go for it. OTOH, people without a certain amount of experience are sometimes a little optimistic when it comes to assessing how long they can sustain a certain level of effort. One thing to consider is how much you are prioritizing results this year . If there’s no tomorrow, then I guess I’d rather try and fail than look back later and wonder “what if”. Mike Caviston

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 12th, 2005, 3:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(nharrigan @ Dec 12 2005, 06:51 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Question about Level 1 pacing Are all the level 1 intervals done at the same pace or are the 4x1k's a bit slower than the 8x500. I've reread all of the posts on this thread, but haven't been able to determine if there is any variation. I'm planning on a 4x1k tomorrow and was wondering if I will have to row as hard as the 8x500 that I did last week. Thanks for your help. Neil </td></tr></table> Neil, You will have to row as hard, but you should be slower at the 4 x 1000m. If that is not the case, then you didn't do the 8 x 500m hard enough! I am about 3 sec slower on the 1000m compared to the 500m. Regards Francois

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 12th, 2005, 3:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 12 2005, 03:13 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 12 2005, 12:11 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I know everyone is different, and that the +4/-1 may not work for me, but I'm trying to make sure I maximize the benefit of the plan, while still taking an incremental progress approach to avoid quick gains and then a sharp plateau -- or worse yet, injury. </td></tr></table> I always hesitate to give correlations between workout paces or to project 2K paces from any given workout. People tend to take me too literally or focus only on the numbers I give while ignoring all the qualifying statements that go along with them. For me personally, over the past five years or so, my 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K results have very accurately predicted my 2K ability. Part of the reason is that my training is pretty consistent (in terms of workload, intensity, balance of speed vs. endurance, etc.) I have the experience and discipline to give nearly the same level of effort most of the time. Not everyone has reached that level in their training, and for them workout results might not predict 2K performance quite as accurately – though I would always encourage anyone to look at their recent training history when planning a 2K strategy. Furthermore, the correlations between 4 x 1K/2K workouts and a 2K race are probably skewed by my experience with the formats and my overall endurance base. For the majority of people, even those pretty well-trained, a more reasonable 2K correlation for 4 x 2K is + 5, and 4 x 1K = 2K. That is, take your best 4 x 2K pace and subtract 5 seconds to determine your likely 2K. Your best 4 x 1K pace will be pretty close to your 2K pace. A standard deviation for both these relationships is probably something like half a second. Regarding the decision about whether or not to push the workout pace a little harder as racing season approaches – it depends on a few factors, and each individual has to weigh the options. Beginners do improve more rapidly, and if things are going well and you feel like you can up the intensity and sustain a higher level for the rest of the season, then you should probably go for it. OTOH, people without a certain amount of experience are sometimes a little optimistic when it comes to assessing how long they can sustain a certain level of effort. One thing to consider is how much you are prioritizing results this year . If there’s no tomorrow, then I guess I’d rather try and fail than look back later and wonder “what if”. Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> Thanks Mike. You've encapsulated the nagging question for me ... how hard to push for this year vs. steady improvement for the long term. With a 7:26.1 PB, and a target to go under 7:20.0 this season, I don't feel like I'm pushing myself that hard that this would be foolish. On the other hand, looking at my PBs going up in distance, it's clear I have lots of work to do on continuing to build my aerobic base ... so that base may be the governing factor here -- not my L1 and L2 paces. It's all a very delicate balancing act, isn't it? It might be best to "split the difference" and see what happens. Regards -- Mark

[old] nharrigan · Post by **[old] nharrigan** » December 12th, 2005, 5:00 pm

Thanks Francois. That helps a lot. Is your typical 1k pace faster than your 2k PB pace? Thanks, Neil

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 12th, 2005, 5:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(nharrigan @ Dec 12 2005, 09:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Is your typical 1k pace faster than your 2k PB pace? </td></tr></table> No, it is about the same.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » December 13th, 2005, 2:13 am

I did the dreaded 8 x 500 today and decided to let the rate go as it felt comfortable. As a result my average split was faster by almost 2 seconds, but it was also about 2 strokes/minute faster than Mike's guidelines for the pace (1:53.43,should have been 26-27 spm and I did them at mostly 29). It wasn't as hateful a workout and it was faster, but probably not very good training. Bummer!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 13th, 2005, 2:28 am

Carla

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 13th, 2005, 2:28 am

Nice session anyway.

[old] ancho · Post by **[old] ancho** » December 13th, 2005, 4:28 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Dec 13 2005, 07:13 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I did the dreaded 8 x 500 today and decided to let the rate go as it felt comfortable. As a result my average split was faster by almost 2 seconds, but it was also about 2 strokes/minute faster than Mike's guidelines for the pace (1:53.43,should have been 26-27 spm and I did them at mostly 29). It wasn't as hateful a workout and it was faster, but probably not very good training. Bummer! </td></tr></table> I am only occasionally entering this thread, so pls excuse me if I'm being redundant or correct me if I'm wrong: As far as I know, the stroke rate is only prescribed for L4 workouts, L1-3 only indicates the splits, and leaves the stroke rate to your choice. I don't think your workout has been bad at all.

[old] ragiarn · Post by **[old] ragiarn** » December 13th, 2005, 6:02 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(seat5 @ Dec 13 2005, 02:13 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I did the dreaded 8 x 500 today and decided to let the rate go as it felt comfortable. As a result my average split was faster by almost 2 seconds, but it was also about 2 strokes/minute faster than Mike's guidelines for the pace (1:53.43,should have been 26-27 spm and I did them at mostly 29). It wasn't as hateful a workout and it was faster, but probably not very good training. Bummer! </td></tr></table> Carla Great workout out ! According to Mike's recommendations your stroke rate was excellent for Level 1 training session. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Stroke Rate: Ratings during Level 4 are designated as part of the workout, but for Levels 1-3 athletes should select ratings most comfortable for them and allow ratings to develop naturally, without too much conscious thought. In general, ratings for Level 3 will probably be in the range of 24-28; Level 2, 26-32; and Level 1, 30-36. These numbers may be even higher at the end of the year as maximum fitness is reached. A general rule of thumb is if an athlete can reach his/her goal at a lower rather than a higher rating, good. That leaves more room to improve. If an athlete must row excessively high to reach his/her goal early in the season, there will be problems later. Lack of strength is probably a factor and could be addressed specifically during other conditioning portions of the overall training season.) - from the Wolverine Plan -Mike Caviston <a href='http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm</a> </td></tr></table> Ralph Giarnella Southington, CT

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » December 13th, 2005, 6:36 am

Mike, I have always been interested in the question of how to set work recovery ratios in speedwork at 2K race pace and faster but I have no understanding of exercise physiology. What is a good way of thinking about this problem (work -- how long?, recovery --how long?). A crucial pace for a rower is 2K race pace and that is also close to speed at VO2max. So one way of thinking about an interval is the total time spent at VO2max (as expounded in articles by Billat). I have found some information that VO2max can be reached at all sorts of paces (down to even 5K pace) and that the time it takes to reach VO2max is about half the time to exhaustion at any given pace. So at 2K pace VO2max is reached at about 1K. Thus, if we make time spent at VO2max the criterion we have to limit the breaks in a 4 times 1K interval. On the other hand if we do 3 times 4 mins at 2K pace we should be at least 3 mins at VO2max even if we take long breaks. What do you think of these possibly misguided ideas? What other considerations are there in designing a Level 1 interval workout? Why would you prefer 4 times 1K (at 2K pace with suitable breaks) to 3 times 4 mins slightly faster than 2K pace with unlimited breaks?

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 13th, 2005, 8:31 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(holm188 @ Dec 12 2005, 01:36 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 13 2005, 12:14 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>So you'd say give it a try and see what happens? I have a 4 x 2000 scheduled for tomorrow and I need to settle on a target pace for that. </td></tr></table> Mark, I don't want to seem to give better recommendations than Mike or others who are actually following the WP. But if you have a 4x2k tomorrow, then your last one is probably 2-3 weeks old and given your recent fast improvements a 4x2k well below 2:00 split average is possible, I think. I would go for 1:58 for the first and then see from there: If I feel good enough I would drop a second for the 2nd 2k then another for the 3rd and then see what's left. This is just what I would do and as I said I do not follow the WP (I do the 8x500, 4x1k, 5x1.5 and 4x2k plus the pyramids according to the Pete plan). Good luck, Holm </td></tr></table> Holm: RE: LEVEL 2 WP WORKOUT - 4 x 2K I tried your suggestion. Was planning either 1:58/1:57/1:56/1:55 or, if not feeling up to it, 1:58.0, 1:57.9, 1:57.8, 1:57.7. After the first interval, I knew that the first option was not going to happen. I did: 1:58.0 1:57.8 1:57.7 1:58.7 AVG: 1:58.05 This was 4.58 seconds, on average, better than my last 4 x 2000. And, it was the first time I was unable to get negative splits for every interval in the workout. I think it was good to crank this up to get more "work" out of the "work"out. Now, time to go to the "real" work. This was painful, but fun, work. Thanks! -- Mark

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » December 13th, 2005, 9:16 am

Mark, That looks like it has been tough. Sometimes to find your limit you need to go beyond. By always trying to neg. split you need a lot of experience to always stay close to your limit. I think your next time at 4x2k you will be able to get 1:57 av split (starting the same way but then getting faster and faster!!) Good luck, Holm

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 13th, 2005, 10:20 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 13 2005, 12:31 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I did: 1:58.0 1:57.8 1:57.7 1:58.7 AVG: 1:58.05 This was 4.58 seconds, on average, better than my last 4 x 2000. And, it was the first time I was unable to get negative splits for every interval in the workout. I think it was good to crank this up to get more "work" out of the "work"out. Now, time to go to the "real" work. This was painful, but fun, work. </td></tr></table> Good work Mark! It wasn't so bad to "embrace the pain", was it ? Good suggestion by Holm for your next 4 x 2K. Cheers, Francois

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training