Since interest has been expressed regarding the Wolverine Plan, this thread is for occasional posts on that topic in an effort to clarify and expand some of my previous comments. For those who have followed the WP from the beginning, much of this information may be repetitive. For others, it will be more information than you want, so stop now. But hopefully for those interested it will help put things in better perspective. I’ll begin with some background about how and why I developed the plan and what its track record has been.

HISTORY OF THE WOLVERINE PLAN

I began rowing in 1979 and being somewhat of a perfectionist was interested from the beginning in maximizing my performance as a rower. In the earlier days quantification of rowing physiology was a little more dubious than it is today, since ergometers were rare instruments and were available only occasionally for testing, let alone training. We didn’t have anything at Michigan during the time I competed, but during various trips to different boathouses (e.g., Jacksonville, Wisconsin, and MIT) I had a few opportunities to take a crack at tests on either Gamut ergs or the new C2 Model As. When not on the water, the bulk of my training involved running (lots of hills and stairs), lifting, and cycling (during the summer). I shifted from competing to coaching in the early 80s, and became responsible for structuring the training of other athletes. Meanwhile, I continued to train and use myself as a guinea pig when developing team workouts. Three things to consider were availability of equipment (few if any ergs available till the late 80s/early 90s); time (club athletes couldn’t or wouldn’t devote that much of it to training); and effectiveness (given the first two realities, what would provide the greatest results?) The basic training template involved a variety of short sessions centered on intervals or moderately long continuous activities at higher intensity. This might translate as six-seven sessions per week ranging from 40-60 minutes each (including warm-up/cool-down).

It’s hard to say precisely how effective the training was. Our program was moderately successful (we didn’t suck outright and we didn’t dominate), but so many other factors besides the training program were involved (such as lack of funds and the various things they buy, like equipment and truly professional coaches). My personal motivation for training at that point was simply to stay in shape and set a good example for the troops. I didn’t have any competitive aspirations. But in 1987 I ended up entering my first indoor race through a series of slightly improbable events. The U of M program was taking a number of athletes to the CRASH-B satellite race in Cincinnati, though originally I wasn’t able to go myself. But my plans changed and at the last minute I decided to go and to enter a race myself. Discovering there was a lightweight category and realizing I wasn’t too far over the limit, I starved for a couple days and ran off the last couple pounds the morning of the event and made the competitive weight. I had no knowledge of or interest in ergometer records at that time, and didn’t really know what I was capable of, but 8:00 flat [for 2500m on a Model B] seemed like a nice round number and at least possible based on some of the workouts I had been doing. I struggled a bit in the 4th 500m, but finished in 8:02. To my surprise, I was informed afterwards that that was the fastest any lightweight so far had ever rowed 2500m – in other words, a world record. I was also informed I won a free plane ticket to Boston and the CRASH-Bs the following week. So I went, but it wasn’t a great performance. I certainly didn’t have the technique of making weight down to a science, so that was stressful. And the event itself required heats as well as a final, so two 2500m races within three hours was a bit more of both a physical and mental challenge than I was prepared for. I got 8:06 in the final, good enough for 5th place, while the winning time was 7:57. So my first world record stood for a whole week. I was 27 years old at the time.

Over the next 5 years or so, (having purchased my own erg) I was able to train more consistently and with a view towards maximizing my 2500m performance. Since U of M’s spring break often coincides with the weekend of the CRASH-Bs in February, as a coach I was with the team in Tampa, FL on it’s annual training trip and so unable to return to Boston for another crack at a hammer. But on various attempts over that period I pulled 7:57-8 for 2500m, which if memory serves would have been good enough for either first or second place in the Open Lightweight category during that stretch (though meanwhile the world record had been lowered to about 7:51). But I wasn’t getting any faster and it didn’t seem like I would make any major jumps, so from about the age of 32 I stopped training specifically to get faster on the erg. I still used it frequently, and I still trained hard, but I got more involved in alternate activities and stopped doing test pieces on the erg.

But I’m the sort who doesn’t really enjoy training as much without some sort of goal or target to shoot for, and running or cycling generally aren’t as readily quantifiable as the erg. So by the time I was 35 or 36 years old, I was thinking about reorganizing my training towards a specific goal involving rowing. During this time I had continued to refine and tweak the training program I was using for the athletes I was coaching, and also making use of information I was getting since I entered the graduate program in Kinesiology at Michigan (I entered in ’89, got my degree in ’93 and began as a teaching assistant in ’94, eventually becoming a Lecturer in ‘96). I had followed results from the WIRC and was aware of what times were competitive in my age bracket, and also in the next (over 40). So I had some specific times to shoot for and just needed a specific plan of attack for achieving my goals. And so began what would eventually be called the Wolverine Plan.

Much of the new plan simply incorporated workouts I had been doing for years. I invented 8 x 500m (and its Level 1 variations like 4 x 1K and the 250/500/750/1000/750/500/250 pyramid). We were doing them at Michigan the first week the Model B (and the metric PM1) was released. [If anybody else independently invented those workouts, they are Alfred Russel Wallace while I am Charles Darwin.] I hadn’t done much 4 x 2K (or a similar workout, 5 x 5’), but both were popular with other coaches at Michigan and I had some experience with them so I decided to create the workout category that would eventually be called Level 2. Long, continuous (Level 3) rows had been a staple of my erging workouts and were easy to incorporate. The one workout category that was considerably different from anything I’d done before was the category that would be called Level 4. I’ll talk about that more in a future post. Some aspects that distinguish the WP from other training programs designed for rowing include limiting cross- training, and no real periodization (all types of workouts in similar proportions year-round; no “endurance” phase followed by a “sharpening” phase.) Another characteristic of the WP, which I will discuss more later, is a strong emphasis on mental discipline. My rationale being that I couldn’t realistically train with much more volume, or intensityr, so I had to be even smarter and more productive with the time I had. I created a system, started recording and analyzing scores, experimented with different formats of similar workouts, tried to find the optimum order of different types of workouts, determined how hard I could work and how long I’d need to recover from various workouts, noted how much improvement for various workouts was realistic during a training season, etc., etc. This began in the fall-winter of 1997-1998. I was 36 years old, and in that first training season of the WP my fastest 2K was 6:26. The next year saw 6:24, then 6:21, then 6:20, and finally, in February 2002, during my 40th year on Earth, I set a lifetime PR (and WR in my age group) of 6:18.

Any discussion about whether the Wolverine Plan is an effective training program would begin with my own results. Obviously, I’ve been pretty successful (3 hammers and a 2nd at CRASH-B, as well as gold medals at 2 European IRCs and 1 BIRC.) Besides a record and championships won, what impresses me most about my accomplishments (if I can be excused for such an immodest comment) is the fact that I was the fastest I’ve ever been in my life at 40 years old. Bear in mind that I wasn’t some inactive couch potato that finally saw the light, or even some successful athlete coming to rowing from a different sport. I had been training specifically, relentlessly, and successfully for rowing since I was 18 years old. But the WP was effective enough so that even with my background, I was able to keep improving up to the start of my fourth decade. For reference, other senior/master athletes are faster than me relative to the Open standards; Eskild Ebbesen comes to mind as does Lisa Schlenker. Last year at 40 Lisa won the Open Lightweight category at WIRC (my record-setting time in 2002 would have placed 11th in the Open) – but well off her record pace of a few years ago.

So the WP has been (and continues to be) successful for me. But so what, I’m just one person, what does that prove? One person might win a championship in spite of their training, not because of it (though in my case you’d have to ignore my careful records of training for the pre- and post-WP years). Has anyone else benefited from the WP? I’ve certainly heard from a number of relative beginners, via e-mail or in person at various indoor events, who have told me they’ve benefited from the Wolverine Plan. But, beginners are pretty easy to help. What about experienced and competitive athletes? You could start by talking to some of my former USIRT teammates such as Joan Van Blom, Luanne Mills, and Mary Perrot (all multiple hammer winners). Also Nancii Bernard, who placed 2nd in 2004 and first in 2005 in the women’s senior category. Michigan alum and former Olympian Steve Warner was coached by me when he got his first CRASH-B medal as a UM freshman (second as a J18LW); Steve went on to win a couple hammers and many more medals in Boston.

The greatest opportunity to evaluate the Wolverine Plan would be the 4 seasons I spent as conditioning coach for the U of M women’s team. Women’s rowing became a varsity sport at Michigan in 1996. The test of success of a women’s program is how well it does at the NCAA championship. In its first four years of existence, the women placed 5th as a team at the NCAA championship three straight years (failing to be selected for the regatta in its first year). That is certainly not a record to be ashamed of. But the Michigan head coach, looking to shake things up and get an edge, brought me aboard before the 2000-2001 season to design the overall training plan for the team, to oversee indoor training, and to help the coaches coordinate outdoor training more effectively. Prior to my involvement, the team had trained as many college programs do, with a variety of demanding and grueling workouts but without any particular structure or plan for systematic improvement. Some of the features that I would eventually discourage or eliminate included lots of cross training (track sprinting or Indian-file runs were popular); training paces based on heart rates; and competitive workouts (athletes seated next to one another with the simple goal of beating the other, rather than following a personal season-long progression). Initially, the new program was simply called The Training Plan; it wasn’t till I eventually began posting on this forum and referred to the program that I had to give it a specific name. But whatever it was called, evidence that it worked came pretty quickly and decisively. (A rowing team is the closest thing there is to an actual laboratory for testing training. I’ve worked with hundreds of athletes over the years, with opportunities to try new things, subtle variations, and compare with previous results.) In collegiate rowing each athlete is tested periodically during the season for 6K and 2K performance, and over a four year period lots of data becomes available for individuals as well as team averages and trends. In my first year with the team, every single athlete in the program (with one exception) set PRs at both 6K and 2K. Some did so by quite large amounts, and interestingly some of the biggest gainers had already been the fastest athletes on the team. Two examples were particularly striking. That year Kate Johnson was a senior. Kate was a three-time All-American (and won silver in last year’s Olympic 8) and had entered UM as the most-recruited high school rower in the country. She was extremely talented and among the most dedicated athletes I’ve ever met. But despite all her desire and hard work she hadn’t really improved her 2K time in her three years at Michigan. But by the end of her senior year she had dropped 8 seconds, down to 6:49. Another senior, Bernadette Marten (eventual national team member and gold medal winner in the 8 at the 2002 World Championships, along with Johnson and Michigan alum Kate MacKenzie) also made a big jump. Bernadette had transferred to Michigan from another program and her best 2K to date had been 6:59. By year’s end she had a school-record 6:40. A 19-second drop by a woman who is already sub-7 is pretty dramatic. What benefited these two hard-working athletes most was the structure and organization of the new training plan.

Overall, many athletes set new standards for erging at Michigan following the introduction of the Wolverine Plan. As you enter the team’s erg room, practically the first thing you see is a large board that records the names and times of the fastest twenty 2K erg scores in the history of the program. After the program’s eighth year, 17 of the top score had been recorded in the 4-year period since the introduction of the WP. Still, for a college rowing program of Michigan’s stature, the only real measure of success is at the national championship. Did the fast erg scores translate into races won? Many factors contribute to the success of a crew on the water, and it’s hard to say that any one factor was dominant. But Michigan had the same equipment, the same coaches, and probably a tougher schedule (more women’s programs are getting faster every year) – and still managed to finish better than ever before (2nd as a team in 2001). We slipped to 8th in 2002, but that is deceiving, as all teams were separated by small margins and Michigan was actually closer to first on points than in the years when they finished 5th. In 2003 we finished 4th and in 2004 3rd. During those four years, the only teams to score more points than Michigan at the NCAA championship were Brown and Washington.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the team took it up a notch the year I started working with them. Maybe they just had good athletes who worked hard and the training program wasn’t much of a factor. Last year I was let go by the UM women’s program midway through the year. I won’t go into specifics, except to say that the head coach wanted to get back to being more hands-on with the team (it had been an unprecedented move for a head coach to let someone else have so much input in those areas where I was involved), and the athletes had become increasingly dissatisfied with the structure and inflexibility of the WP (they had forgotten what the WP says about negotiating the price of success). They changed the focus of their training more towards variety and what they thought of as stimulation, and away from pre-determined paces or set goals. I doubt if they were satisfied with the ultimate results (lowest finishes ever at the Big 10, Central Regional, and NCAA regattas). Last year’s team probably never had enough depth to be a serious championship contender, but there were high hopes for the first varsity 8. Michigan’s 1V had finished 2nd in the country in 2003 and 3rd in 2004, and five athletes in the 2005 1V had rowed in both those boats, while a sixth had rowed for part of 1 year. So it was a very successful and experienced crew, and beat a number of ranked crews early in the year, but struggled at the end and finished 9th at NCAAs. The major problems I saw with Michigan’s fitness at the end of last season was that they peaked too early, and several experienced athletes failed to improve their erg scores or in some cases finished slower than the year before (many younger athletes did improve, but as I’ve said that’s less impressive when evaluating a training program). Time will tell whether last year was just an aberration, and I wish this year’s team all the success in the world. But I’d be lying if I said I thought their current training was as effective as it can be.

Many people who read the forums have heard of the Wolverine Plan but proportionally few really understand it. I have read accounts from or have corresponded with several people who thought they were following the WP but were not (based on faulty second-hand accounts, or by not reading the available information carefully enough). Some people have taken a perverse pleasure in deliberately misrepresenting the WP or my subsequent comments, no matter how many times I correct them. I’ll provide some generic examples in the future. Still other people are happy to rip off the WP and promote its workouts and principles as their own. Well, I don’t have a copyright, so I guess I can’t complain, and the important thing is that people who want it get help with their training. The WP clearly isn’t for everybody, and maybe not for many at all. It takes a lot of physical and mental toughness, and more dedication and discipline than even many so-called serious athletes are willing to invest. Some people think it is very complicated, but it’s actually very simple once you learn the terminology and a few basic rules. It boils down to gradual, systematic progression over time. You don’t have to be fast to start using it, but if you stick with it long enough, you’ll be fast before you’re finished with it.

Mike Caviston

Mike,

Thank you for that very enlightening post (and your other posts, as well).

As the father of two female high school rowers, I'm very interested in helping them improve. I've been struggling a bit translating what I have gleaned from the various Wolverine Plan documents and discussions into offseason training advice and plans for them.

I, for one, really appreciate the time you have spent in this and other threads making your program comprehensible to us novices.

Very interesting history Mike!

I think I would be one that follows the WP "loosely" but had the daughter setup to be a little closer to the intent of the plan. She is off rowing at college now but I can look back at her high school rowing and note that thanks to the information in the WP she improved more than any other rower in 4 years!

The plan works ... sadly it only gives you back what you put into it ;O) My daughter and I have a saying, posted right by the erg in the basement ...

If you don't do the hard work, you don't get the fast time.

The WP structures the hard work. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts going forward ... and thanks for all the shared knowledge!

JimR

Mike,

I take it both these women are heavyweights? Both really very good 2k times anyway. I notice that apart from these two (assuming they are both hwt) all the people you mention are lwts? Certainly no hwt men that I noticed reading through.

My question is this - if you were to coach a hwt male, would you adapt the Wolverine plan at all, or have them follow it as is? I'm talking big hwt males, people such as Jamie, Pavel, Matthius (apologies for first names, but I'll spell the surnames wrongly). Or would you have them do less level 4 rowing, for example, with something else in it's place?

If you wouldn't change it, do you think this is something a lot of hwt male ergers are lacking in their training, the lower rate distance training? Do you think this is holding them back?

People I know who row for big clubs like Leander over here, as younger hwts, seem to do a lot of r18 and r20 rowing, and some of their times are amazing. As far as I know Nik Fleming, to name one successful hwt male erger, doesn't do much low rate rowing at all. His distance times are awesome. Maybe he'd have been faster over 2k with more low rate training, who knows.

I'm just wondering really whether big hwts men, who are naturally very powerful, don't need the lower rate rowing so much as lighter people, who might have more of a weakness in their stroking power.

Pete

Mike,

Very interesting background and very informative in helping to put the potential benefits into context.

I may well adopt the Wolverine plan after BIRC this year as my training progamme towards 2008 when I will enter the 50+ category.

One question at the moment; how did it come to be called "Wolverine". I am familar with the animal of that name (although I don't think we have any here in England) but curious as to how the name came about.

Neil B.

Neil - I think all US universities have a name / mascot for their sporting teams, such as Washington State are the Cougars. Michigan I guess are the Wolverines - and I would guess that is the name given to their sporting teams.

Mike,

Sorry to bother you with a lateral question, but I cannot find any other source to answer it. Do you know how to convert Gamut outputs to C2? For example, a guy who could pull 3500 rotations in 7' in a Gamut ergometer, how many "meters" would he have rowed in a C2 model C?

Sorry again, but since I came back to rowing, I could not have an idea of how much I was pulling 15 years ago, yet.


Thanks,

AM

Mike,

Thanks for this informative background, and above all, thanks for making the Wolverine Plan available to the rowing community.

I am curious to know if you would modify the WP for people who would like to optimize their 5k and 10k performances.

Also, as a weak lwt with good endurance, should I put more emphasis on Level 4 or on Level 1? The fastest pace I have been able to hold for 3 consecutive strokes is 1:36, yet I did the 500m Level 1 last night with an average of 1:40.6 with the last one at 1:39.2.

Thanks

Has anybody written a plan out consisting of wolverine workouts for each day of the week.

I have done one for the pete plan.

http://uk.msnusers.com/CONCEPT2INDOORROWING/Documents/THEPETEPLAN.doc (Click refresh)

I am just hoping somebody has done the same thing to save me the trouble of doing it myself

John

Here's my current training with 10 weekly workouts.

M (PM) - Level 1 (Rotate between 3 workouts - 8x500, 4x1k, and 250/500/750/1k/750/500/250 Pyramid)
T (AM) - Lift (Legs, Back, Biceps, Abs)
T (PM) - Level 4 - 70'
W (AM) - Lift (Chest, Shoulders, Triceps, Abs)
W (PM) - Level 2 (Rotate 5x1.5k, 4x2k, 3k/2.5k/2k Pyramid)
Th (PM) - Level 3 (13k - Adding 500 per week and maintaining same pace)
F - Off
Sa (AM) Lift (Legs, Back, Biceps, Abs)
Sa (PM) - Level 3 (15x3')
Su (AM) - Lift (Chest, Shoulders, Triceps, Abs)
Su (PM) - Level 4 - 2x40'

I'm in the third week of this buildup phase. Next week, I'll add 2x6k on Monday mornings. Three weeks later, I'll add L4-60' on Thursday mornings. And finally, another three weeks later, I'll add another L4-60' on Friday mornings. This will be 13 workouts - 9 rows & 4 lifts. This will take me through November. I'll follow up the buildup with an 8 week strength/speed phase, before the final 6 week period before the CRASH-Bs. I took the phases from a book called Serious Training for Endurance Athletes.

Regards,

As I get time, some of the specific topics I hope to address in the near future:
1. General Training Concepts (structure, progression, specificity etc.)
2. Level 4 (addressing the many myths & misconceptions, plus new charts)
3. Levels 1-3 Pacing (benefits of pacing; new charts)
4. Warm-Up/Active Recovery
5. Overall Training Schedule (generic, plus my personal schedule)
6. Off-Season vs. In-Season Training (and the transitions back & forth)

Mike Caviston

Interesting to combine the ideas in the WP (steady progression with no "phasing") and the "phases from a book called Serious Training for Endurance Athletes". If you are steadly increasing the workouts (by either going faster or going longer) according to the WP what would you do differently in these last two phases (8 weeks and 6 weeks)?

JimR

I'm building up now because I just added weights. I wanted to give my body a chance to adjust to the new additions before increasing the number of rowing sessions.

Some of this will focus around weight lifting, and not the rowing sessions. I anticipate the strength/speed phase to be lower rep, heavier lifting and a strong focus on the level 1 & 2 interval performances. I should have good baselines set for my L4 & L3 paces and would stick to those during this period. Although I'd still add 500m per week to my long L3.

In the 6 week taper, I'd lighten up on the weights for the first 4 weeks, and go very light in the last two weeks. I'd probably give myself the full Friday off for the first four weeks, and then take out one of the other morning sessions the last two weeks to get plenty of rest. I think Mike talked about the last week taper in another thread, and would look to that for the last week plan.

Since I live in Boston, I may do a light morning row at home the day of the race and then head to the location to watch. Hopefully, I'll be able to catch a warm-up machine within the 30 minutes before the race, and then run a good race. I don't have a time goal for this, I'll just let the training dictate what my time will be.

I'm just a rookie at this, but I'm incorporating my time as a personal trainer and as a swimmer in high school and college. It's all very much one day at a time, but I wanted to have this "vision" of how the next 24 weeks would proceed in order to actually show up and run my best possible race, without excuses. It may be 7 minutes, it may be 6:30. We'll see.

The most important thing for me was to have a training plan. This plan clicked with my other experience. I'm still learning some of the details, but I'm seeing lots of progress, am not bored, and am not over-worked. My wife loves the changes in my body, and my confidence is very high. (I'm raising capital to start a company, so the confidence thing is very important right now). It's a whole lot better than eating or watching TV late at night and carrying 30 extra pounds around all the time. Now I can be an athlete again.

I turn 40 on Friday. I'm very inspired by Mike's progress through the years and that his fastest time ever was at age 40. And that was for someone who held the world record in his 20s! Amazing.

Anyway, that's the plan for now.

A quick update to this...I'm switching Wednesdays and Thursdays around. This makes my lifting not be on consecutive days, but that's really not a big issue. The big change is to put another day between the L1 & L2 workouts. This extra recovery will make the L2 workouts on Thursday more effective than they would be on Wednesday, only 2 days after an L1 workout.

Before diving deeper into specific portions of the Wolverine Plan (Level 4, etc.), I want to spend a little time clarifying my position on several general training concepts. Again, much of this will be repetitive to anyone who has read my previous posts, but I think people will understand the WP a little better if they realize where I am coming from in my understanding of physiology, biomechanics, and even psychology. To begin, I’m always careful to make a distinction between Training as a means of maximizing performance in an athletic event or contest, and Exercise as a means of maintaining overall health & fitness. The WP is a Training Plan, and its primary intent is to allow rowers (indoor and outdoor) to maximize their performance while racing the collegiate & international competitive distance of 2000 meters. As such, the WP requires more commitment, discipline, and effort than a simple Exercise routine (though I know of many non-competitive exercise enthusiasts who have gotten ideas for variety and structure for their workouts from the WP).

Training must address the specific physiological and biomechanical demands of the event for which one is training. Rowing requires a high level of performance from both the aerobic and rapid glycolytic metabolic energy pathways, and the appropriate training will be a mixture of workouts of longer duration (e.g., 40-60’) at low-moderate intensity, as well as briefer workouts of higher intensity (approaching and even exceeding race pace). A training plan for rowers will therefore be quite different from plans for athletes in other sports (marathon runners, multi-stage cyclists, track or pool sprinters, etc.) A training plan needs the proper balance between higher and lower intensity workouts. Race-pace training is stressful and fatiguing and requires greater recovery between sessions. Such sessions should only be performed once or twice per week if an athlete hopes to continue developing over an extended period without showing signs of overtraining or staleness. Endurance training, on the other hand, can (and in an idealized plan, should) be performed several times per week. A key point that I reiterate frequently, is that everyone should build their training volume slowly & carefully. But even untrained or unfit individuals have a remarkable capacity for improving endurance, given time. As a frame of reference, in my own training the combined meters of Level 1 & 2 workouts make up <10% of my total training volume; the other categories (warm-up, Level 3, Level 4) make up the other 90+%. For those whose total volume doesn’t approach my own, meters at an intensity that is near 2K pace should still be <20% of the weekly total.

I believe the most effective training is holistic when it comes to integrating different training bands throughout the season. I don’t believe in periodizing my training, such as an early season “endurance phase”, and a pre-competition “sharpening” or “interval” phase. Variables such as strength, endurance, speed, and power are interdependent and should be developed simultaneously and in roughly the proportions requires in competition. This makes sense to me based on my understanding of both the biochemistry of energy metabolism in skeletal muscle, as well as the neural control of multi-joint movements such as a rowing stroke. Another point I make regarding effective training is the limited value of cross training. Variety (in the form of activities such as running, swimming, cycling, stairclimbing, etc.) is nice to relieve the monotony of long sessions or to take some of the stress off those overworked muscles and joints, but specificity is necessary to maximize the unique adaptations required for rowing. I like to do 3-4 hours of stationary cycling per week, mostly to cool down from my rowing workouts, but this is supplementary to my regular routine. [I don’t need any more clear proof of the limits of cross training than I received this summer. I had the opportunity to do some traveling and had access to excellent fitness facilities but no erg. For 15 consecutive days, I followed a routine that combined cycling and stairclimbing, performing more than 120’ of work per day, which is more than my normal rowing volume. I mimicked the format and intensities of my normal rowing workouts as well as I could. I made substantial gains on the alternate equipment; I lost weight as a result of the extra calories expended; but when I got back on the erg my rowing performance had declined considerably. It is exactly eight weeks since the end of the trip, and I am only now getting back to the level I had attained before the start of the trip.] Still another key point I address regarding successful training is the need to accurately measure performance. This means keeping detailed records of every session (warm-up, total meters, total time, sub-interval splits, stroke rate, drag factor, notes about temperature & humidity or any other factor that would affect performance). This information is vital if you hope to accurately gauge your progress, isolate the key performance variables, and identify any training errors. I continually look back over records from past years and make judgments like “This went well… this needs to be modified slightly… this didn’t work at all… in order for this to work, I need to _______...”

When it comes to assessing performance, or determining the target intensity for workouts, the one variable I use is pace. Not heart rate, not perceived exertion, not lactate levels, or anything else. Indoor rowing is a unique activity in that the environment is about as stable as any in sport. Temperature may vary, but there are no hills and no headwinds to deal with. So for a cyclist, 20mph might require more or less effort depending on the wind & terrain, and an additional index of intensity such as HR might be useful, but on an erg a given pace pretty much tells the story. The C2 monitor gives instant and accurate feedback on every stroke. Why on earth disregard that for something as variable or unstable as HR, which is affected not only by effort but also temperature, hydration, caffeination, body position, emotional state, and God knows what else? The same is true for lactate levels, assuming you have the means of taking and analyzing samples. Many factors besides effort affect lactate values, and many variables besides lactate (e.g., ammonia, potassium, and calcium) are involved in muscle fatigue and vary as a function of intensity. The view of performance as seen through the lens of HR- or lactate-based training is always going to be fuzzy, so it’s actually more accurate as well as simpler to focus on pace (the per-500m split on the erg’s monitor).

The major benefit of a Training Plan is to provide structure, and a framework for consistent performance. The plan should include some format for systematic progression over time. A common error among athletes preparing for competition is to jump from workout to workout without any regard for the eventual long-term outcome. They select workouts randomly (or by avoiding the types of workouts they least enjoy), make up their minds about what to do on the spur of the moment, change formats in the middle of a session, do a workout based on somebody else’s challenge, etc. They may have no idea about the appropriate pace for a particular workout, the best strategy for completing the workout, or what pace for the workout is appropriate when pursuing specific goals in competition. It is not enough (though it is certainly crucial) to simply “work hard” day after day. There needs to be a framework for determining how hard is “hard”, and whether the workout serves the specific physiological needs of the athlete, and what the effects will be on subsequent workouts (i.e., leave you so tired and sore you must take time off). Athletes may do well or poorly on a particular workout, but take the results out of the context of a stable routine and incorrectly assume they are in better or worse shape than they are. My goal with the Wolverine plan is to create a consistent, structured, progressive format for improving gradually over time. I have checks and balances for quantifying the relevant variables (pace & stroke rate for each segment of each piece within each workout) to make sure that the appropriate intensity is being reached but not exceeded. I can be confident my gains are real and not an artifact of an artificially accommodating schedule, and I can be reasonably certain I will be able to reach the same level of performance or better in a race. There are alternate means of structuring training; keeping HR within certain bands is one example (though not as effective, in my opinion). Another viable plan has been built around the premise of systematically increasing stroke rate while keeping the distance covered per stroke fixed at 10 meters. Other structured formats are no doubt possible.

Progress is the goal of training and my recommendation is to proceed in a slow, steady, fairly linear manner. Avoid trying to gain too much too soon. My analogy is with the fly-and-die approach to a 2K race. Pick a training pace for the season that will let you finish strong, not burn out several weeks before the big race. I quantify my weekly intensity and volume (meters, time, pace, Watts, and Joules for each training band as well as all workouts combined) and plan my workout goals to keep my rates of increase smooth, steady, and appropriate for my current fitness level. The weekly overall intensity increase from week to week averages a little over one tenth of a second per 500m, or just under 1 Watt average power per week. Not very impressive. But over 30 weeks or so, it’s a pretty dramatic improvement. If I add volume, I add it very slowly. Sports physicians recommend no more than a 10% increase in volume from one week to the next, but I keep it at maybe 2-3%, which generally means an increase in overall distance of 500m-1K (Level 3), or 4-6’ of time (Level 4).

The Wolverine Plan recommends a fairly high volume of training for optimal results. I work up to 160-180K per week total, though people have made significant improvements with half that distance. The endurance sessions include long, continuous Level 3 rows (I’ve gone as long as 32K), and Level 4 sessions of 60-70’. Many people can’t or won’t row that long continuously, and question whether it is necessary or prudent. I myself haven’t rowed 32K continuously in a few years, but my target for this year is 25K (currently at 23K, taking about 84’). I do 60’ Level 4 rows twice a week, and eventually will extend one of those to 70’. But many people prefer to break longer sessions into shorter segments (e.g., 3 x 20’ or 3 x 5K), and wonder how that fits into the Wolverine Plan. The answer would depend on how serious you are about maximizing your performance and exactly what you hope to accomplish with training. In terms of cardiovascular adaptation, there is probably minimal difference between doing 60 consecutive minutes vs. 3 x 20’, with short (3-5’) breaks, at the same overall intensity. But besides strengthening the heart, another desired training adaptation is to make the skeletal muscles more efficient at extracting oxygen and sparing glycogen. The nature of our muscles’ strategy for dealing with prolonged, steady work is to activate motor units with muscle fibers that are primarily adapted for endurance; relatively speaking, the fibers that are primarily adapted for speed and strength remain unselected. However, in a 2K race ALL fibers will be recruited and I know in that situation I want every single fiber to have as much endurance as possible. If we take breaks every 20’ or so, those fibers most subject to fatigue will probably never get called upon, because it doesn’t take the fatigue-resistant fibers long to rest up. They may be nearly recovered for the next 20’ piece. To activate the most fatigue-susceptible fibers (“fast-twitch”, if you prefer), we must first tire out the fatigue-resistant (“slow-twitch”) fibers – which is going to take longer than 20’. How long? Probably somewhere between 60-90’ of continual activation. So I recommend at least one 60’ session per week – meaning 60’ of continuous, uninterrupted rowing. If you can’t manage that at the start of a training season, that’s fine – just work to progressively bring at least one session to an hour’s length. That might mean starting at 30’ and adding a few minutes per week, or starting at 8K and building to 16K in 500m increments. The Wolverine Plan mentions 4x 10’ Level 4 workouts, and 2 x 6K Level 3 workouts, and some people seize on this as permission to break everything down into shorter segments. Read more closely: 4 x 10’ is an advanced workout for those already doing 2 or more continuous sessions, and the 2 x 6K refers to outdoor training when the body of water doesn’t allow longer rows (I’d prefer a straight 12K).

An extremely important aspect of training with the Wolverine Plan is to master the specific skills required to hold the specified rates and paces in the various training bands, and to develop mental skills as well as physical. Unfortunately it is this structure and these strict guidelines that turn many people off from the WP – even though they are what have made the plan so effective. Some have tried to modify the plan by keeping the same general formats but eliminating specific guidelines (e.g., doing Level 4 sequences without guidelines for pace). This is an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It turns out that such attention to detail while working hard is at least as important as the work itself. For example, data I collected from the women’s team at Michigan consistently showed that such things as accuracy when performing Level 4 or consistent pacing for interval work were better predictors of who would row in the first boat than were raw 2K scores! Faster rowers (erg and water) tended to have much better “erg skills” than slower rowers. Athletes and coaches both were too quick to dismiss this, rationalizing that some athletes had better skill on the erg because they had better skill on the water, and didn’t prioritize developing skills on the erg. I am not talking about eliminating gross mechanical deficiencies like losing connection on the drive or opening the back too early; I’m talking about things like being able to hold a stable rate and pace for an extended period of time, or being able to shift from one rate to another quickly and accurately. I encourage people not to let themselves be sidetracked by outside stimuli that would reduce concentration. Only listen to music if it doesn’t distract. (It was a source of frustration to me when athletes would be mouthing the lyrics to Eminem during workouts, or asking the cox’n to skip the CD ahead to their favorite track, when they didn’t know what sequence they were supposed to be doing or what stroke rate or split they should be following.) It is my belief that high concentration and overall attention to detail will facilitate optimal neurological as well as physiological improvement. This summer, I happened to read two interesting books that talked about something called the “broken windows” phenomenon. The phenomenon, essentially, is this: when a window is broken in an abandoned building and is not fixed, soon more windows will be broken. The fact that the window wasn’t fixed sends a signal that it’s okay to break more windows. In Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner), crime statistics in New York City were examined and it was determined that a significant factor in reducing crime rates in the 90s was the policy of focusing police attention on lesser crimes such as turnstile jumpers, public urinators, panhandlers, and so on. Some complained that this was a waste of resources and the cops should be out catching real crooks, but it apparently sent the message that ALL crime would be targeted, and serious crime fell as well. In Dumbing Down Our Kids, Charles Sykes looked at trends in education that lead to poor academic performance, and provided examples where school districts that make student discipline a priority (e.g., dress codes; no chewing gum in class) get better results. All of this really fits well with my priorities when it comes to training. Hard work is essential, but it needs to be focused and directed to lead to the greatest gains. Details like a structured warm-up, a firm goal pace, a specified plan for stroke rate and pace during each portion of the workout, an overall plan for improvement, etc. aren’t just incidental but critical for success. For years I have watched as athletes disregard relatively minor details, until it eventually seems okay to quit during pieces, skip workouts, abandon goals, etc.

Finally, for this installment, a reminder that training isn’t supposed to be easy. If it was, it wouldn’t be doing its job. That seems so remarkably obvious, yet in the midst of training athletes frequently look for ways to cut corners or find the path of least resistance or renegotiate the terms for improvement. Is the full warm-up really necessary? I don’t want to row strapless, it’s harder to get my splits. Do I have to do the whole piece? Can’t I take a break? Can I take tomorrow off? If I have to keep changing the rate, I can’t get into a groove. This is hard…

There is a Zen saying: “The obstacle is the path”.

Mike Caviston

Mike--

Two questions--

1) Re periodization. While the WP trains all energy systems simultaneously thru the year w/ steadily increasing load (pace and distance), have you ever incorporated micro-cycles in the WP? By micro-cycle I mean, for example, a 3-week cycle of workouts that are light, medium, hard, progressivly building the load during the cycle and then starting the next cycle with a relatively (but not absolutely) easy week for adaptation? All endurance plans but the WP seem to rely on this sort of periodizaiton. I'm curious why you don't use this approach.

2) Re long workouts (60+ min). I've read some of Hagerman's popular writings (short pieces for web sites). If I understand what he has written, he says that muscle biopsies show no difference between those who do workouts of approx 30 minutes and those who do workouts of more than an hour. He appears to argue that a brisk 10k will provide all the endurance work needed for someone whose race distance is 2k. Perhaps these writings are aimed at recreational athletes, but still, the biopsies sound conclusive. (I do a couple of 60-min pieces per week, and a half-marathon every 2d or 3d week, but my focus isn't solely on racing a 2k.)

Thanx for the helpful posts and any light you can shed on these matters.

Tom

Mike,

Thanks for this posting. As I work through the plan and re-read your other postings, I'm able to figure out the plan a bit better each day. Perhaps because I'm new, I didn't get some of the things you said on the first or second read.

I'll probably change my weekly workout further to have the Monday morning workout be another L4-60' instead of a L3-2x6k. This will leave 2 L3s in the week, a 15x3' and a steady distance (currently at 13.5k and going up 500m each week).

The level 4 has been the hardest to grasp. I misunderstood the plan in regards to keeping a reference pace throughout a cycle, and thought this was something to increase as well. (Of course, I'm recording PBs everytime I do one of the set distances, so there may be some reference pace changes whenever I do a 2k PB).

My question now is what to concentrate on to get the feel for the pace/rate combination. (I'm starting to see and feel the subtle changes needed for each shift). Should I be feeling the the pace or thinking about it? I tend to watch the monitor and make adjustments to each stroke to keep pace/rate constant. There's a particular feel that I sometimes get when I'm able to hold a constant pace and rate for 4-5 strokes, but I'm not able to hold it for much further than that. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Regards,

BM
Level 4: I did some sums based on the paces in the L4 tables, calculating Watts, and Watt-minutes per stroke.
For any given 2k pace, the L4 Watt-minutes per stroke are nearly constant (+/-2-3%) within the 16-26 spm range.
These constant Wmin/stroke values also correspond to 2k Watts assuming a race rating of 31-32.

So all we need do is think of a number, multiply it by rating, and then stick to that Watt level. 10 is very handy.

In practical terms it means every single stroke is pulled equally long and hard, and we can change only the rating. That no doubt is what the waterborne coaches will want to see their crews do, when at last they're allowed to learn to row.

Dear Mike,

First off, thank you for providing a forum to discuss your training plan. I trust it will be most edifying to a lot of people that visit this site.

I have three questions:

1. How do you/ or can you reconcile the WP (particularly) Level 4 training with the principles espoused by Xeno in regards to long distance training with a certain lactate baseline. (sort of how the East Germans used to train, if I'm not mistaken). Anyway, given the correlation you provide between splits for L4 and your 2K performance - judging from personal experience, it seems like they would mesh perfectly - I have no idea if you've ever experimented with this - but I think that L4 once you adapt to it, is well in line, to Xeno's lactate training parameters. Or do you disregard lactate accumulation completely?

I guess the question is this: how exactly did you extrapolate the L4 splits from a 2K standard - and is it possible that for some people using the correlation you provide increase lactate levels over what Xeno (and others) would believe to be adequate, and lead to overtraining as the weeks add up?

2. I am curious as to the amount of calories you are putting away in the course of a day. If possible, please provide macronutrient break down. All I know is that I have a BMR of about 3200 as it is - and that each 60' L4 according to the erg is at least 1100 cals, not to mention the elevation in cals due to the "after burn" effect of exercise - especially a sport as physiologically demanding as rowing. So let's assume at least 1600 all things considered.

I am assuming you have to eat a ton to not only fuel the workout, but to aid in recovery. Am I off base on this or not?

3. Thoughts on weight training as a complement to the WP? Good idea or bad?

Thanks for the input,

D

Gentlemen, thanks for your comments and questions, and I hope to continue to respond to them in the future. Fairly quickly for now:

Tom, some day I’ll make the WP a total scholarly document, complete with footnotes and references. For now I’m pretty much saying, “This is what I believe – trust in my knowledge and experience, or not.” My first priority is making clear HOW I train, and I’ll clarify the WHY as best I can without writing an encyclopedia. My mission isn’t necessarily to convert people to my way of thinking. But I realize you aren’t necessarily challenging me, but just asking reasonable questions out of curiosity. Regarding periodization, historically the concept was popularized by the success of Communist bloc countries that had the social structure and resources to train athletes around 4-year Olympic cycles. Also a factor was the cycling of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Certainly a lot of coaches and athletes have used some form of periodization successfully. That’s not the same as proving that periodizing is the most effective way to train, and there is surprisingly little hard scientific data to support the concept, in my view. So when you ask “I’m curious why you don’t use this approach”, the answer is because it doesn’t work as well as my own method. Regarding longer workouts and the articles by Hagerman, I know his views have influenced a lot of people. I think some of the conclusions are based on misinterpretations of what Dr.Hagerman has found, and the fact that many of his studies seem to have been performed on relatively untrained or moderately fit subjects for relatively short periods of time. Also, measurements such as muscle biopsies (or VO2 max or lactate threshold or hematocrit, etc.) aren’t the relevant variable – performance is (according to the criterion of time to row 2K). What I can say definitively is that I have trained using primarily brisk 10Ks and 40-min rows (and only occasionally anything as long as 60’), and I have trained with a program that includes weekly sessions in the 60-90’ range – and my 2K has been considerably faster when training includes the longer sessions.

Bill, I’ll be taking on Level 4 in my next post (this weekend?) and addressing a lot of the FAQs I hear. Regarding the ability to get the right pace/rate combination, my most immediate advice is simply keep working at it. Practice, practice. It’s such a normal part of my training (second nature) that I’m not sure I can remember what strategy I used to make it that way. I do find that for Level 4, since the amount of force per stroke is almost a constant, all I have to do is find the right rate and the pace follows. For Levels 1-3, I focus on pace first and then fine-tune the rate up or down a beat as necessary to fit my plan for the workout. Occasionally during sessions where I can’t find the right combo as quickly as I want, I start to count consecutive strokes where I get it right; some days it takes a lot of concentration just to get to “three”, and other days I get in the zone and get to twenty or more before I lose interest in counting.

Diesel, I have definite views about nutrition and strength training, which I plan to get to eventually. As for how I correlated L4 pace to 2K pace – next time. Regarding the Level 4 and lactate – as I said in my last post, I just don’t think of monitoring lactate as a productive way to train. I’m not on a mission to get others to throw away their analyzers, but that’s just what I believe. My premise is to start with a reasonable baseline and systematically increase the workload at a rate that easily allows my body to adapt; if and when I overtrain (not likely), my signal will be an inability to improve my performance despite increasing the workload. It would be an interesting study in physiology to monitor VO2 and lactate levels during Level 4 training. I suspect lactate production is actually quite high, but removal is almost complete so that there is no accumulation. I can do 1-2 hours of Level 4 work the day before a 2K and still perform well. Level 4 removes excess lactate, and is a great recovery workout following Level 1. Level 4 always makes me feel stronger, and is a great transition between other workouts. I’ll continue this discussion soon.

Thanks again for your interest and feedback.

Mike Caviston

Mike--

Thanks for the historical context on periodization. As for Hagerman, I keep looking for an authority who can prove that doing less is a virtue, thus transforming a short-cut into a virtue, rather like the alchemical conversion of lead into gold.

Tom

Mike,

Thanks for this valuable information. Think about writing a book
(even a short one, the short ones are better anyway) otherwise your stuff will be lost.
Maybe we can be useful as feedback with the difficulties that we have.

I am most interested in your detailed views on L4 rowing.

For me the stroke rate / pace targets are very hard even if I make a conservative estimate of 2K performance.
I am rowing on very low drag (95) and to keep the pace I have to pull fairly fast
and then have to slow down the recovery considerably to get a low stroke rate.
For stroke rates under 21 the work recovery ratio becomes awkward, that's why I am gravitating to 22-23 SPM
which calls for a pace of 1:48 - 1:46.
To maintain this for 60 -90 minutes is daunting to say the least.

So my first question is:

1. Is it possible that rowing at very low spm such as 16 - 18 alters the work / recovery time ratio. If so should we worry about it?

When we slow down the stroke rate we get fewer breaths per minute, less air ventilated.
This seems to somewhat cancel the effect of the slower pace.

Questions:

2. How does this effect you? Ie. does your heart rate go down if you move at L4 with say 16 spm versus L4 at 22 spm?
3.What heart rates do you have at 16 spm versus 22 spm?
How would you describe your perceived effort? Does 16 spm feel much easier than 22 spm?
4. How hard was it for your rowers to deliver on the L4 targets?
5. Should low spm L4 sessions eventually become quite easy?

Thanks,

Michael

When I was starting to build 60 min rows I found that matching watts output to spm was a way to bring interest and concentration to wwhat I was doing. So, the 60 mins passed "more quickly" and I also gained the benefit of a fairly smooth and even force per stroke.

I no longer use this particular way to train but I do find that if I focus on the right stroke I can hold fairly steady spm consistently and also that the specifc pace for that spm is there (more or less!). So, I can start to increase pace simply by varying the spm rather than resorting to harder pull!

I take the view that this is good because now for the lower rated work (20-26 spm) the stroke is nice and smooth and efficient. Introducing 4X1k and 4x2k is starting to develop the higher ratings.

My initial approach was to use 20, 22, 24, 22, 20 spm in 5 min intervals trying to maintain spm and also watts as a constant factor. So say 200, 220, 240, 220, 200 watts for example.

Tryiing to keep watts and spm at desired level required a lot of concentration on the stroke and as a result technique also improves. I guess it starts to help ingrain the stroke so it becomes automatic.

Mel Harbour has commented before about how he is not in favour of working to maintain same force per stroke across a range of spm and I gues there are a range of views on this but for me I can now see that it did benefit my actual stroke/technique (and helps pass 60 min as with one eye on watts and the other on spm there is little opportunity to worry. Also there is always the point that every 5 mins the rate changes so there is variety.)

Neil

Mike--

Sorry to hear you are no longer training the Michigam women. S..t happens, I guess.

By and large, I am with you that the undisciplined can benefit greatly from a pervasive discipline, even down to minutia. Raising three children to adulthood has reinforced this view!

I'm not sure how discipline helps or hinders the already disciplined, though. For the already disciplined, I think experimentation, creativity, and other sorts of freedom from discipline and rigid documentation and scheduling can be very beneficial, especially when the work load is high and demanding, as it is in competitive rowing. For instance, you yourself seem to benefit quite a bit from experimenting with your training, although you don't seem to allow those that you train/advise comparable liberties.

I find your comments on exercise vs. training interesting. Yes, you certainly have to erg/row a lot to be good at erging/rowing, and if you don't erg at all, but just cross-train, your erging declines. What about agressively combining the two, though? Yes, 120' or so is a nice erging session. But what if you add another 120' on a stepper (say, at 300 watts). The more, the merrier, I think. The stepping is great for general aeorobic fitness (not just burning weight), and the additional work for the legs, the major rowing levers, seems to be beneficial, too. On the other hand, because stepping doesn't use the upper body, it gives the minor rowing levers (arms, back, etc.) an appreciated rest.

A particularly nice schedule, I think, especially for beginners, is two two-hour sessions a day, with each session consisting of an hour row on the erg and an hour on the stepper. This is what I did when I began rowing. Over a couple of years of this, I brought my time for an hour row down 15/seconds or so per 500 (from 2:05 to 1:50). During this time, I didn't pay any attention to pace; I rowed by the calorie counter. I didn't know anything about rowing. I didn't do any intervals or low spm rowing at all. After a little sharpening, at 50 years old, I rowed 6:27.5 in my first race, and I have a lightweight frame (although I wasn't a lightweight for a few months after this first race). At that time, 6:27.5 was four seconds under the world record for 50s lwts (6:31.6).

ranger

Ranger

Maybe you rowed a 6.27.5 despite the additional cardio training that you performed. Maybe a little less time on the stepper or whatever might even be good for your erging? Just a thought.

Also, I think that "two 2-hour sessions a day" for a beginner is bad advice. Maybe you, or at a guess, less than 1% of beginners can handle such training. For the remainder who may read this forum such advice is a certain route to overtraining and burnout. I doubt even the WP is that difficult!!

Cheers
RichardT

P.S. Ranger - Have you ever considered using the services of a coach? If you have managed world class results to date from your own training regime, it would seem sensible to me to investigate whether there is a way to obtain some ''free speed'' through a review of your training approach.

I'm going to have to agree with RichardT on this one Rich. You are an exception to the rule as far as beginners go. As far as advanced rowers go too.

Realize that not everyone out here holds a WR. There can be only one for that. And it's a special breed that can achieve that. So your beginner training had a special breed edge to it as well.

Dwayne

Ranger,

Don't forget that you came to erging with a strong background as a marathoner. It takes years of gradual increased workloads to be able to train 4 hours a day, 6 days a week. This is typical training at the elite level by athletes in their twenties; definitely not recommended for a sedentary beginner!

With your background as a runner, I am surprised that you were only holding a 2:05 for the hour. By comparison, after 2 months of training only 3 times a week for 40 minutes, I was holding 1:54.5 (I was only 148 lbs at that time). With good technique from the start, you would have done at least 1:55. Now, if you allow me this reinterpretation, you effectively went from 1:55 to 1:50 after years of that training regimen. This is not what could be called an unqualified successful training plan!

I think that you are an exceptionally gifted and dedicated athlete, and that you have succeeded in spite of you're training plan (almost no intervals, DF at 10, a perfectible stroke, etc.).

Regards

How do you know? Have you tried it?

The "plan," if you want to call it that, is just relaxation, enjoyment, and quantity over quality (for quite some time, to begin with), not "racing" anything, albeit on a very regular schedule (I rarely miss a day in my physical training, whatever that might be), with negative splitting (more effort toward the ends of rows), a varied work load (erging plus extensive cross-training), and a slight increase in quality from month to month and year to year. All of the training was clearly UT2 (and slower). I suspect my heart rate was around 130 bpm-140bpm.

Yes, you have to work up to whatever quantity of exercise you do, but how you do this exercise is also important, especially as a beginner.

In really very short shrift, we are all capable of a _great_ deal of mild exercise. Gven our driven, competitive, clock-timed world, almost none of us these days do this sort of thing, though. We go too short too fast too soon. We slight our training _base_.

At least, that's my approach to these things.

A lot of physical performance, I think, is just complete and utter habituation to the specific task. At base, our physical life is unconscious, passive, habitual, automatic, not wildly obsessed with performance, numbers, pbs, racing, attention to minutia, etc., like our higher cognitive powers, thought and volition. And when it comes to habituation, the more you do, the better you get. The more you do, the easier it is.

ranger

Years? Yes. But only two.

I got so that I could row the hour at 1:50 in my daily workouts. When I finally "raced" an hour, I rowed at 1:48.

Going from 1:55 to 1:48 in the hour row for a 50s lwt does not indicate successful training? Don't know where that's coming from. A drop of seven seconds per 500 is the stuff that dreams are made of. These seven seconds per 500 are just what most 50s lwts are trying to shed--but repeatedly fail.

As it turns out, to my knowledge, only one 50s lwt in the history of the sport has done over 16700m for an hour, Rod Freed.

If you can row 16700 for an hour, you can probably row a 2K around 6:40 without even training for it (i.e., sharpening). In fact, that's exactly what I did. One day I got curious about the 2K and, without sharpening, rowed 6:42. Only a handful of 50s lwts in the history of the sport have rowed under 6:40 for a 2K.

If you do only extensive endurance work for most of your training, sharpening for a 2K usually brings your 2K time down about 10 seconds. So, if you can row 16700m for an hour and 6:40 for 2K without sharpening, with a month or two of dedicated sharpening, you can probably row 6:30 (or under) for 2K.

Besides me, only one other 50s lwt in the history of the sport has ever rowed under 6:30 for 2K, the current WR holder, Graham Watt.

You have an odd definition of "success." You don't seem to either recognize it or value it.

ranger

Just to add my observations to this debate ............

Whilst not advocating the kinds of volume that Ranger cites, I think there is considerable merit in his premise that daily training should be based on long, continuous rowing at low intensity to create both physical conditioning and (for performance) a substantial base.

This was the premise that underlined the training programmes of Arthur Lydiard that so transformed middle and long distance running performances in the early 1960s, and has become the basis for all successful training (at elite level) for endurance (aerobic)-based sports (running, rowing, cycling, swimming etc.)

The wider the base the higher the peak!!

If the principle applies at the elite (performance) level, it must by default apply at all levels.

Interesting to see that Mike C. states that his performance improved once he started doing individual rows in excess of one hour.

Two additional points about these things.

First, I think everyone is wildly underestimating the extent and effect of the difference between what I am doing (have done, and will continue to be trying to do) in my training and what many other folks are doing. For me, it is much more important task in my training to get so that I can row a marathon at 1:48 and 22 spm with a nicely controlled heart rate (150-160 bpm or so) than to get so that I can row 6K at 1:47 at 26 spm with a maximal heart rate, as Dennis H. has just done. These are _very_ different tasks! I am just doing a kind of maximal quantity of UT2 rowing--day after day--getting better and better at it as time goes on. This rowing is not at all "harder" than doing fast 5K rows at 30 spm, or 8 x 500m at 40 spm, or whatever. It is just different. _Way_ different.

Second, if you follow standard training plans, having high standards for UT2 rowing is given first priority. Therefore, while my approach to these things is more extensive and demanding and exclusive than these training plans, in many other ways, it is not idiosyncratic, much less unique. It is the wisdom of the ages.

Nonetheless, almost no one does it.

Why?

Seems odd.

ranger

The long-distance approach seems good, as far as I am concerned. As Dr. Seiler states, it is the kind of training that gives long-term benefits, by increasing the rowing efficiency of your rowing muscles and cardio-respiratory machine.

My personal experience: when I practiced competitive rowing, 15 years ago, there was a group of senior athletes in my club. The training was about 80% long, steady-state workouts (on water, we had no erg's) + weight-training + long runs (10-15km). Nowadays, I am a director in the same club: the coache's approach is much more based on interval training. Differences in results: those boys back there won, for several times, the national championships (rowing was more competitive in my country, back then); nowadays, guys struggle to keep the same performance level of the last season. The former guys are still rowing, and two of them got two single-scull world titles (masters), a silver and a bronze medal. I doubt any of the latter will win even a masters' national title.

AM

Indeed.

And if I read Mike right, I think he implies that he moved to this longer training _in spite of_ how he was coached, what he used to think and do (40' is all you need!), and the customary practice of most of the others who were rowing parallel to him at the time (and now).

Result: Mike holds the 40s lwt WR, not them!

Dang. There's that baffling, idiosyncratic, accidental "success" again.

Or, from another perspective, we might say: there's that _evidence_. _Empirical_ evidence.

"Science."

I suppose we can continue to ignore the evidence, but if we do, I assume that we will get what we deserve.

Blindness and insight lead to pretty different results.

ranger

According to the C2 manual, 1:48 @ 22 spm is UT2 rowing for a 6:16 2K.

Yep, you have it exactly right, Alan.

The bigger the base, the bigger the peak.

Interestingly, if I remember right, just before Mike rowed in 6:18 40s lwt WR, he rowed 32K at 1:48 for his level 3 rowing (and said at the time that he could probably continue to a full marathon, if he pushed it).

Drat!

DRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRAT!

THERE'S THAT "EVIDENCE" AGAIN!

ranger

P.S. You probably can't row 32K with a heart rate over about 160-165 bpm or so and remain at all comfortable. Therefore, this rowing is just upper level UT2 or basement UT1.

ranger

Mike wasn't a marathon _runner_ before he took up rowing. But to do his best in rowing, he indeed became a marathoner--a marathon _rower_. When he did, even though he was 40 years old, he achieved an all time personal best and set a world record in the 2K, one that still stands, even though Mike is now almost 45.

Evidence!!

Fact!!

ranger

P.S. Most marathon runners also do a day or two a week of fast running, although it would be a stretch to call this sharpening (or whatever). It is just work on leg speed, quickness, lightness, etc. I usually did one day of short intervals (in a 15 mile fartlek road run) and one day of long intervals (half miles, miles, etc.) on the track--just as Mike WP suggests. The other 80% of the time/distance is taken up with long, steady state endurance work, as long as possible.

In all due respect, this thread is in danger of being usurped.

What had started as a discussion of the Wolverine Plan, and had progressed reasonably in that direction, has turning into another "ranger is great" thread with a few needles at Mike along the way. Giving you the benefit of a doubt that this has happened inadvertently (you just can't help yourself), I'll start a new thread for you to put forth your ideas and for others to respond.

Cheers,

Rick

Bayko,

Thank you for pointing out the hijacking. I'm a bit perplexed by this and wonder what the point is.

I'm very interested in the Wolverine Plan discussion and implementation. I've been using it since June, and am seeing some great results. Having structure to my training is important for me, and I truly appreciate everything Mike is putting out on this topic.

Regards,

Hey Bill,

One of the things that kept coming up a few years ago when the L4 sequences were posted was that most people found that 40' seemingly whizzed by much faster than 40' of steady erging. That can be a great benefit all by itself.

Rick

P.S. I'll be targeting you later for participation in my little 2km race in Newburyport in January. You're only about an hour away.

1) Let's not forget that this tread is about the Wolverine Plan!

2) The WP purpose is to optimize your performance at the 2K distance, not the hour row or the marathon.

3) training four hours a day is not for beginner!

4) Going from 1:55 to 1:48 (was 1:50 before!) by doing 4 hours of training every day for two years is not phenomenal with regard to the training volume. I believe that such improvements can be reached (exceeded?) with the WP with at most 2 hours of training a day. Let me elaborate: my main physical activity is swimming, and in the past 2 years my pace for the 1500m went from 1:26 to 1:18 per 100m. That is the equivalent of going from 1:55 to 1:44.3 (as in rowing the resistance increases in a quadratic way with speed). These improvements were achieved with at most 12 hours of training a week, following a training plan quite similar to the WP. Our coach has been holding the world record for the 1500m for the past four years in the 40-44 age group, and she also follows a non periodized training plan quite similar to the WP.

5) In the world of running, one training plan that has been quite successful is Daniels' Running Formula, by Dr Jack Daniels (PhD in exercise physiology and World's Best Running Coach according to Runner's World). Daniels' training plan, although periodized, is quite similar to the WP. It consists in four phases of ideally 6 weeks. In all phases, except for the first phase (foundation and injury prevention), you will find the equivalent of the WP levels 1, 2 and 3. And like the WP it relies exclusively on pace, not on HR.

6) What I find quite original in the WP is the level 4. At 20 and 24 spm there are equivalent to UT2 and UT1. The change in spm and consequently in pace parallels fartlek training. They are quite demanding in terms of precision, technique and power, yet paradoxically, they help recover from level 1 and 2 training!

Thanks again Mike for sharing your Wolverine Plan with the rowing community.

The L4s are more fun. They're really a bunch of 2, 3, or 4 minute challenges. I'm just trying to get the feel for more accuracy down now. By the end of the workout, I'm amazed at how much work is done by accumulating a bunch of little pieces.

A race in January? Cool. Hopefully it will help to relieve any anxiety for February in Boston.

Training four hours a day is not for most people with jobs and families. Those who able to schedule that amount of training time are very, very fortunate. (Not that I would give up either my job or my family in exchange for an additional uncommitted four hours each day.) I suspect that most of the participants in these forums do not have four hours available to train each day.

Ranger, my hat is off to you for your accomplishments, but I don't think many of us could undertake a training program like yours, simply for want of time. Perhaps (speaking with certainty only for myself) even fewer of us would be capable of the perseverance you have shown.

What I look for in a training plan is one that gives me most efficiently the results I want in the time I have available. In my case that usually averages about an hour for all aspects of training, i.e., rowing and everything else. Some variation of the Wolverine Program might fit that timeframe, keeping in mind that I am "exercising" rather than "training."

I suggest that this thread ought to be separated into two -- the first, to discuss the details of the Wolverine Plan and the second to discuss whether it is the "optimum" training plan for any particular purpose, which seems to be the general thrust of the immediately preceding messages -- the hijack portion of the thread.

For those interested in the Wolverine Plan, I am going to see if I can reproduce my updated Level 4 tables here. For the past couple years, I have been using Level 4 sequences that are built around odd-numbered stroke rates, in addition to the even-numbered sequences of the original WP. The advantages include more variety as well as a greater level of precision (rate and pace) required to execute the workouts. I’ll give more observations on Level 4 rowing in the near future.

Mike Caviston

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I forgot to include the new Level 4 “pace vs. stroke rate” table. This tells which pace to hold for each stroke rate (16-26spm) for a given Reference Pace. I also have an Excel file with all Level 4 information, for those who prefer it. But I don’t have any more file space available on the site (C2Bill arranged for me to have some; maybe I can get more).

Mike Caviston

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

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

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??

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

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.

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

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.