Doug wrote: "It also stipulates 9 workouts per week, which doesn't sound consistent with some of what's here."

I should have noted in which post Mike gave schedules for various numbers of workouts per week, but instead I just saved the text for future reference (below).

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
By far the most common question I get regarding the WP is something like, "Okay, I think I understand all this Level 1-2-3-4 business. But how the heck do I put it together into a weekly program? The Plan says something about 9 workouts a week, and I ain't doing that! So what gives?" Hey, the 9 per week is an ideal we've never really achieved at Michigan. Our team generally does 8 per week in season (that means during the fall and spring outdoor seasons, and includes 2 erg sessions along with 6 H2O workouts) and 6 erg sessions per week in the winter. I myself usually do 11 workouts per week for about half the year, and 7-9 per week the other half. At the lower end of the spectrum, I could see people making gains on 4 workouts per week. The first thing you need to do is decide how many workouts a week you will realistically commit to. A general rule is to always include a Level 1 workout and usually a Level 2, and then to supplement them with as much Level 3 & 4 as is practical or you are willing to do. Do them in roughly a ratio of twice as much Level 4 as Level 3. This refers to total meters more so than number of workouts. Now, bearing in mind the format can be flexible and these aren't carved in stone, here are some examples of possible plans using 4-8 session per week:

4 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1 OR Level 2 (alternate each week)
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day 3: Level 3 (12K)
Day 4: Level 4 (60')
• Alternate the Level 1 or 2 workouts until about 4 weeks before your big race. Then, while keeping Level 1, replace the Level 3 or one of the Level 4s with Level 2.
• You might occasionally use an interval format rather than a continuous format for Level 3 or 4 (see the Wolverine Plan for details).

5 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day 3: Level 2
Day 4: Level 4 (60')
Day 5: Level 3 (12K)

6 Workouts/Week: Day 1: Level 1
Day 2: Level 4 (40')
Day3: Level 2
Day 4: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 5: Level 3 (15K)
Day 6: Level 4 (60')

7 Workouts/Week: Day 1, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 1, PM: Level 3 (10 x 3')
Day 2: Level 1
Day 3: Level 4 (2 x 40')
Day 4: Level 2
Day 5: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 6: Level 3 (12K)

8 Workouts/Week: Day 1, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 1, PM: Level 3 (12 x 3')
Day 2: Level 1
Day 3, AM: Level 4 (40') Day 3, PM: Level 4 (60')
Day 4: Level 2
Day 5: Level 4 (4 x 10')
Day 6: Level 3 (15K)
• If doing more than one Level 3 or more than 2 Level 4s per week, do one using the interval format on a regular basis.
• The amounts listed for Level 3 & 4 may need to be built gradually over several weeks.

So the general idea is to separate the high-intensity workouts with slower, more continuous workouts. It is possible to work hard on a daily basis within the framework of each type of workout by alternating workouts of different type. Level 1 doesn't have to be at the beginning of the week (I personally do mine in the middle of the week), but it's a good place if you need some extra recovery to be well rested and ready to perform at a high level. You may also periodically want to do time trials (such as a 95%-effort 2K or an all-out 6K) in place of the workout scheduled for the end of the week, and doing Level 1 early in the week allows you to recover without compromising your training. (Alternately, you may want to do a time trial at the beginning of the week, in place of the Level 1 workout, but I prefer not to go that route.)

A REGULAR FORMAT OR SCHEDULE IS KEY
It is very important to develop a schedule you are comfortable with and then stick to it as closely as possible over the duration of your training cycle. I don't think that the exact order of workouts is a crucial factor but keeping the workouts in the same order on a weekly basis is necessary to allow consistent and reproducible improvement. Occasionally something will come up and you will have to use your best judgement about what alterations to make, but do your best to keep your schedule as consistent as possible. I don't have a hard and fast rule about which workout(s) to toss if you know you can't complete an entire week, but a couple general rules would be: 1) drop Level 1 if you are far away from competition and drop Level 3 if you are close to competition; and 2) all other things being equal, the workout you struggle with most is the last one you should drop. One of our biggest challenges at Michigan (and I imagine for all college crews) is to maintain a consistent schedule despite multiple variables like competitions and the associated travel, seasonal changes, facility availability, exams, class schedules, holidays etc.

Several of us (Bill Moore, Mark Pukita, and myself, among others) have started using the WP recently and have posted our training plans in this forum topic. I suggest you look at them, along with the comments about them, as examples of how to set yours up.

There is a lot to read, but those of us really interested in executing the WP as Mike Caviston intended have read most, if not all, of it several times, along with all of the detailed comments he's made along the way. He likes the motto "If you don't have the discipline to READ it, you don't have the discipline to USE it."

Doug: If you go back to the beginning of this thread and cut and paste the posts that Mike has made into a continuous word document, omitting the comments and replies that others have made you will get a pretty comprehensive and in-order document. Read that and supplement with the original document. Then, as Mike posts new information (such as the recent post on warm-ups) add it to the back of your document and you will have the pamphlet you were looking for

Thanks guys. Got it. Wish me a quick catch at the front end.

- Doug

Mark: Appreciated your running comments. Plan on using this weekend to restructure my current workout to bring it more in line with the WP. I think I've been doing 2 of my 5 weekly workouts at Level I and that's probably why my thighs always hurt. I'm going to be interested in your next 4 weeks. You seem pretty aggressive. I'll post anything positive.

I guess I need to repeat my Standard Disclaimer about the original Wolverine Plan document. It was never intended to stand alone or to cover every aspect of training in detail. It was originally written as a supplement for athletes with whom I worked hands-on. Someday, if I should be lucky enough to live so long, I hope to revise the original WP document and make it a comprehensive training guide for the beginner as well as the experienced rower. Until that day, I have tried off and on over the past couple years to address many points related to training with the WP here on the C2 forum.


This is true. I don’t have the time or energy to repeat past explanations on demand, so I encourage everyone to keep reading and re-reading the available discussions. That being said, I hope to continue to clarify and expand on my previous statements, and I’m sure there are many pertinent questions waiting to be asked. Best wishes,

Mike Caviston

This is an interesting hypothetical situation. When I was with the UM women’s team, we coaches always talked about having a series of 2K tests that mimicked the NCAA championship format (heats, reps, semis, finals = 4 races). But that would actually require three days to perform and the logistics (not to mention the psychological stress on the athletes) just weren’t practical. But your four races in one day format would be a tough but fair contest. Given the emphasis on endurance in the WP, I’d like my chances with that format. I’d certainly be watching my opponents a lot more than usual, since I wouldn’t want to expend any more effort in the early rounds than necessary! If I had say an hour between the first three rounds, and knowing that I might have to give a max effort in the next round, I would probably spend the 15-20’ immediately after each race just cooling down properly (and this is actually the next topic related to the WP that I hope to address in the near future). Then I’d take 20-25’ to sit/lie/stretch and stay pretty inactive physically (but very active mentally – rehearse plans for the next race, get psyched up, etc.) Then about 20’ to warm up before the second and third races (having done a full warm-up before the first, which generally takes me about 40’). Off the top of my head I don’t know exactly how I’d truncate these shorter warm-ups, but probably a lot of low-spm, moderate-intensity strokes with a couple 250m bursts at 2k pace. If I had as much as two hours between the semis and the finals, I’d probably want to do my complete warm-up routine before the final race. Or maybe I’d have crawled off into a corner somewhere to die after the third race. If you want to know what kind of pace I think I might hold for four 2Ks with this format vs. one time all-out – I really don’t know! Maybe within two seconds per 500m, certainly within three, but don’t expect me to ever prove it!

As for your wrestlers, without enough personal experience I can’t comment too much about the parallels between a match and a 2K race. But a general rule of thumb is, the more intense the contest, the longer and more intense both the warm-up and cool-down need to be. But that might be accomplished in 10’ on either side of the match, still leaving plenty of time for the kids to goof around and enjoy themselves too. Good luck!

Mike Caviston

By the way, are there topics on the C2 UK forum in which you discuss the WP? Or will I find basically all of your writings on this forum (and the old archived one, which keeps timing out when I try to search it!)?

There are a couple, but not many. I find that on the UK forum I tend to get ignored, ridiculed, or ripped off, so I don’t stay too active over there. There are some UK regulars interested in the WP, but they know to come here for the direct information. My total posts on the UK site is small enough that you could do an author search and find them all pretty quickly, but I don’t think there’s anything that hasn’t been covered here.

Mike Caviston

Re: Running. If I could find a watch (or something "wearable") that had some GPS capability to register true speed -- actually pace -- I can only imagine how I could structure my training that much better. I've got to believe there's a device out there now that does this. I was never a great track interval runner because I had no sense of pace, so unless we were getting splits shouted by one of the timers/assistants, I just went with the pack until I tied up. Now, running on my own, I just use heart rate, which isn't as manageable (for me) as pace.

Re: The WP. I wouldn't call myself aggressive ... more like committed. And, by posting here I help that. I need all the motivation (and fear of criticism) as I can get to keep it up. There is always an excuse not to row (or run, or whatever). I've found the plan, as well as all the support here, superb for staying at it at a much higher level of intensity than anything else I've done recently. My running comes in spurts ... due to all sorts of excuses ... weather, treadmill malfunctions and failure, races, etc. etc. There's none of this with the erg. It's there and waiting no matter what! Plus, the specificity of the plan is right up my alley as a driving analytic (electrical engineer by degree, salesperson and now business owner by profession).



I'd say that with your times now, and with your size, if you try the plan, and get in more of the longer continuous rows (L3 & L4), you'll be blowing my doors off in no time flat. And I'll be the first to congratulate you!

If you can, I also suggest racing and training online using RowPro. It's just one more tool (and reason) to just row. I feel obligated, once I sign up for a race, to be there ... and I am usually very glad I showed up after the fact ... even if I don't set a PB (forget winning!).

Mike, if you have the time and inclination to answer a couple of questions on 2 aspects at opposite ends of the WP spectrum, i would really appreciate it. If anyone else has any ideas or opinions, feel free to express them.

The first is recovery rate. You have mentioned that the Lev 4 recovery rate is a minimum. What is the number referencing? I can never get even close to it. Even pulling at 14 spm I will be under it by anywhere from 8-12 spm. If I try and use it between intervals I lose my warm-up. I am most comfortable about 20 sec below it at about 18-19 spm. I

The second question involves starts on level 1 (and to a much lesser extent level 2) workouts. I do not have a particularly fast leg drive and am a slow starter. Using level 1's and 2's to practice starts has helped immensely and I can get to GP in 3 strokes usually. However (and bear with me this is a little convoluted), when pulling a 1K piece I have a set goal for the first 200m. Because of the start I can usually hit my GP for the first 200 if I pull the GP for the second 200 from after the start until about the end of the first 100-125m. However, doesn't this defeat the point of having the GP be different for the first and second 200? I know this will happen at the start of a race (and after all is the whole point about getting to race pace as quickly as possible) and you have addressed it somewhat in the discussions but the crux of the matter is how not to pull faster than the target GP for the first 200 and yet hit the GP by the end of it (which is, of course, impossible). You have mentioned that in a race you try to get to the target pace by the first few strokes and then no faster. However there has to be a number of strokes at a somewhat faster pace in order to reach the desired average by the end of the interval (in the case of a 2K perhaps that interval would be the end of the first 600m). Perhaps the balance is to practice how many strokes at what pace below the desired GP will get you there by the end of the desired sub-interval most efficiently.

If this makes any sense at all and you have any ideas, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,

After the first 200 you might be behind goal pace noticeably but at the end of the race, after 200+ strokes the discrepancy will be negligible.

Thanksgiving Day Wolverine Plan Pre-Meal Workout:

1,000 w/u

LEVEL 4: 60' - target 12,996 - actual 13,016 - (20 meters/approx. 2 stroke miss).
* 180/176/180/172/176/172 *

1,000 c/d

w/u & c/d not to Mike's recommendation, but I'm getting better since I was doing NONE on LEVEL 4's before!

Might have to row another hour after the meal to work off the calories!!!

Regarding your first question, I’m not sure I understand it completely, so you might want to rephrase it for me. My guidelines for recovery refer specifically to pace , and the values listed in the WP Level 4 tables represent the slowest pace I want to see during recovery; it’s not unusual for me to go as much as 10”/500m faster for short stretches during a recovery interval without even thinking about it, and I sometimes bring the pace down to L3/L2 territory for a few strokes if I feel I need it. Regarding stroke rate during recovery, I much prefer a low (14-16spm) rate for most of the recovery. Many people I’ve worked with, however, prefer to recover in the 18-22spm range. I never fought them on it too much, but I think it is less effective, for reasons I hope to elaborate on soon. The main point is that people actually become as recovered as much as possible during the recovery interval, and if they’ve given my way an honest evaluation and still prefer another way, then I have to assume they know best what works for them.

Regarding your second question, I think I understand what you’re asking but let me paraphrase it and you can correct me if I’m wrong. You’re saying that you are so slow in the first 100m or so, that you have to go faster than planned for the next 100m so that you’ll be at your planned GP by 200m, correct? I think that’s about all you can do under the circumstances, and as long as you are exercising enough control to be where you want to be by the start of the second 200m – and you are still in position to continue negative splitting for the rest of the interval – you are in good shape. The mistake most people make is to fail to stop accelerating early enough to avoid getting too far ahead of GP too soon. Like you, I am a pretty slow starter, but for a 1K piece I can usually get to my GP for the first 200m by the half-way point (100m). My first couple strokes are pretty slow, then I get to where my instantaneous splits on the monitor are at GP but my average is still above GP, so I’ll take a few hard strokes a couple seconds below GP, and ease up back to GP just as the average is settling to the pace I want. It takes a little practice but it’s not too difficult. Every once in a while I botch it, muff a stroke somewhere and have to readjust by taking a harder stroke here or an easier stroke there. It’s good practice, because such things happen in races from time to time (at least, they do to me). Now, someone might be reading this and thinking, That’s way too much thought to be putting into the first 200m. Just hammer it for a while and then settle down to the body of the race, f’rgodsake! But, if possible, I want to control the race and not let the race control me. One advantage to starting a race at something like GP + 1 is that it takes less effort and fewer strokes to accelerate to that pace. It’s getting harder and harder for me to do 8 x 500m workouts, because I try to do each piece with roughly an even split, which at this point is roughly 2K – 3. Because my first few strokes are pretty slow, I have to compensate with several sub-GP strokes just to get down to pace, which sometimes takes me half the piece. Once I actually get to GP, my goal is to finish the piece with as little variation between strokes as possible.

Hope that’s what you were looking for. If I don’t get a chance to do so again, I want to wish you and the rest of the USIRT a wonderful time in Denmark. Like everyone else, I’ll eagerly be waiting for results and personal accounts. Good luck!

Mike Caviston

Mike: Thanks so much for replying; in spite of not being very clear in my questions you did provide the answers I needed. I have been doing what you are suggesting at the beginning of the interval: I can get to GP in about 3 strokes and then it takes about the first 100 to get the GP average as long as I pull a second or two under the average for the first 100.

I have the same difficulty with the 500m pieces for the same reason. I had been doing them in a continuous format with rest in between and a rolling start. That compensated for slow strokes at the start and I could even split the whole piece. I quit doing them that way so I could practice starts. I also feel I have better control over the workout when I do them individually. For me the start adds about a half second to the the first half of the piece. I break the interval in half and work the reference pace off the second half split. The first half splits are consistent with each other and consistently a half second slower than the second sub-interval. For now I am going to live with it and just consider it a part of doing such a short interval.

Thanks again for the response and encouragement. Hope you had a good holiday.

KJG

Wolverine Plan

I have been reading with great interest the posts in this discussion topic and decided it is time that I jump in on the conversation.

I am new to rowing. I was introduced to the sport last fall and like most of you became hooked on the this exercise because of the completeness of the work out. I was introduced to racing on the erg in December and got my feet wet at the Crash-B in February.

My other exercise interest is bicycle riding and racing. I am a physician when I am not erging. I began riding bicycles 20 years ago to get myself back into shape and I began racing 19 years ago to encourage my then young teenage daughter to participate in a sport. I began coaching teenage boys and girls 18 years ago because I could not find a competent coach for my daughter.

I have spent most of my adult life studying and treating illness and the biochemistry and altered physiology which goes along with the diseased state. Coaching young athletes introduced me to the biochemistry and physiology of training in the competitive athlete. I have been studying the biochemistry, nutrition and physiology of competitive training as it pertains to cycling in particular as well as sports overall.

What has impressed me the most about the Wolverine Plan as outlined by Mike Caviston is the sound physiological basis on which the entire plan has been devised and in particular the level 4 plan.

I am in my third week of trying to learn the intricacies of the plan. The posts of the various contributors in this group has been immensely helpful. The posting of your workouts and the results have also been very enlightening especially when Mike has corrected some of the mistakes made in interpreting his plan.

I went to the Wolverine Plan web site and download the entire program with all the tables, studied the program and outlined it for myself. I have also download all of Mikes posts and studied them as well.

Level 4, I must confess, was the most baffling at first and all the tables and various strokes and numbers seemed unnecessarily confusing. However once I put the time in to understand what Mike has been trying to tell us and tried the level workouts on the erg exactly step by step as outlined a light went on in my and the whole program came together and I marveled at the “genius” of level 4.

Level 4 is undoubtedly the heart of this program. Everyone, myself included, wants to improved quickly and reach our peak performance in as short a time as possible but Mike’s advice to take baby steps and proceed patiently and slowly practice to practice and week to week is based on sound physiological basis. My erging, especially my technique and form, has improved tremendously in just the 3 weeks that I have trying to convert over to WP program. I tried the Pyramid 3 weeks ago when I first became aware of the WP program and again this week after cycling through the various levels and workouts as outlined in the WP program. I have reduced my av/500m pace by almost 5 sec/500 m for the entire Pyramid workout and at the same time dropped my average spm from about 35 to about 30. my distance per stroke has improved dramatically.

I attribute this improvement to the 16 spm part of the Level 4 plan. This stroke rate gives me time to concentrate on my form and technique and in my opinion is the hardest but most important part of the program.

Now here comes the most important question I have concerning the WP program. How to perform the 16 spm. I will describe what I am doing and will wait for corrections and advice. I start my stroke in the recovery position and move forward to the catch quickly pull through the power phase as quickly and evenly as possible. I pause in the recovery position and wait for the flywheel to slowdown and time my strokes in this manner. If the gym is quiet enough the flywheel has a certain pitch which tells me when to start the next stroke sequence. It takes a few strokes to get the timing down but once I get the rhythm it gets easier to get pretty much close to the 16 spm. I do not pay too much attention to the pace because I have found that if I am getting my technique correct the pace will take care of itself.

The 18 spm is easier than the 16 spm because the flywheel does not slow down as much and it is easier to get a higher pace due to decreased inertia of the flywheel. The 20 spm becomes even easier for the same reason. Once I get the 16 spm right the rest becomes easier.

I have several other questions but I will save them for another post.

Looking forward to your comments

Ralph Giarnella MD - Master 64 soon to be 65.
Southington, CT

Ralph,

In the section on using proper technique for L4, Mike mentioned:


Hope this helps!

Regards

Ralph:

Regarding the LEVEL 4 sequences with 16 SPM sections ... I've had a rough time slowing down the stroke enough to get to 16 SPM, keep the proper pace, AND keep the handle moving constantly. I chalk this up to poor form that needs to get better, as well as more controlled power within that improved stroke. I can slow it down (the stroke that is), keep the handle moving, but not get the proper time (and every other possible permutation and combination of the 3 variables in the equation). I have a bit of a "hitch" between the recovery slide and the catch.

18+ SPM is no problem to make smooth, on pace, and on rate (until I'm really weary that is).

Someone out there might have some insight on specific practice exercises/workouts that might help with this.

BTW, I agree with your assessment of the plan, and saw like improvements ... quickly. I now see that the rate of improvement is starting to slow down, as one would expect. I'm a few weeks ahead of you.

Regards -- Mark

During my warmups and active recovery pieces, I make sure to keep my stroke rates at or below 16 SPM, sometimes averaging as low as 13 SPM. What I do is put two breaths into the recovery portion of my stroke, and concentrate on moving myself towards the catch slowly so I'm not stopping in the catch position while breathing. When I start my active recovery piece immediately after a really fast Level 1 interval (e.g. the last 250 m of a pyramid), my stroke rate sometimes ends up being 16 or 17 SPM even when I breathe twice on the recovery (and once during the drive) because I need to breathe so much.

Anyway, the point of all this really slow rate warmup or recovery is that, when I actually get to my work pieces, 16 SPM feels like either the right stroke rate (since I've been doing it for several minutes) or even too fast.

I believe the WP calls for active recovery to be done at stroke rates of 16-18 SPM. Mike also recently elaborated on his warmup routines, where certain portions are done at stroke rates of 14-16 SPM. I'm guessing these really low stroke rates help you to get used to the idea of having a smooth and continuous stroke while keeping the stroke rate really low.

I ended up actually understroking my last Level 4 60' continuous (17.9 SPM average) by 11 strokes (out of about 1100 total). Be advised - I don' think the WP endorses understroking any more than it endorses overstroking. Anyway, I attribute my ability to keep my stroke rates down to acclimatizing myself to low stroke rates during warmups and recoveries.

Dr. Giarnella, thanks for the kind words. I think you have touched on two different issues both related to rowing at 16spm. One issue is how to maintain good technique while slowing everything down to the appropriate speed. I’ve talked about that a few times and I see others have good advice as well. Another issue is how to deal with the heavy flywheel that has lost so much rotational inertia, and I think this is an important skill component many people overlook. OTW (On The Water) rowers deal with issues like matching the speed of the oar to the speed of the boat. The same issues apply on the erg when matching the speed of the handle to the speed of the flywheel. Clearly, at high rates when the flywheel doesn’t have as much time to decelerate between strokes, handle speed at the beginning of the drive needs to be pretty quick to be able to catch up to the flywheel. And as the flywheel accelerates during the drive the handle needs to accelerate as well, or the rower will stop doing work on the flywheel. But at low rates when the flywheel has considerably slowed down, the absolute rate of handle speed at the beginning of the drive doesn’t need to be so fast. In fact, if it’s too fast, the flywheel will feel much heavier! So at low rates, at the very beginning of the drive, don’t move the handle quite so quickly. This may sound contradictory to standard advice, but it’s not. At the beginning of the drive, you want to begin applying force to the handle as soon as possible. But the absolute amount of force, or rate of handle speed, needs to be in proportion to the flywheel – which begins its period of acceleration from a relatively slow rotational velocity. Hope that helps. For me, rowing at 16spm is always easier than 18, 18 is easier than 20, and so on. Best of luck with your training.

Mike Caviston

I appreciate the constructive suggestions by all concerning the 16 spm rate.

If I understand the process correctly the idea is that the entire sequencing of the stroke (catch-pull-recover) should be the same irrespective of stroke rate. For each stroke rate the sequence is the same but all elements are either done at a slower rate or faster rate to match the timing.

This seems to make more sense than what I have been doing up to now. I plan on concentrating this weekend on Level 4 workouts, instead of progressing through the other levels, in an effort to get this stroke sequence perfected.

It is all about learning the proper recruitment and neurological sequencing correctly so that when the rate is increased the proper recruitment and sequencing will follow naturally.

I have no other choice but to do level 4 this weekend. I strained some intercostal muscles on Wednesday (probably due to poor stroke technique) so I will have to take it easy for a couple of days while I recuperate.

Again thanks for the advice. I will post my progress over the coming weeks. Perhaps others can learn from my efforts as well.

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington, CT

I think I got it!!!!. After reading the posts by Mike et al. I put in about 2 hours on the ERG this morning experimenting with my stroke mechanics. After putting in 18k I think I finally got the hang of the stroke. I followed the advice to keep the handle moving at all times.(well most of the time). I found that slowing down the handle at the beginning of the drive put less strain and the fly wheel felt lighter. Whereas I was using a low drag yesterday to ease the strain on my ribs today I was found I had trouble getting a good feel for the drive until I raised the drag to 168 and to my surprise there was almost no strain on my ribs and by the end of the session I was able to pull significantly higher wattage (I like to use watts instead of AV/500 for my training) at 16 spm with almost no strain. My ribs felt better at the end of 18k than they did in the beginning. Prior to this I obviously was trying to accelerate the flywheel too quickly and the excessive strain caused my injury. The injury occurred during a L4 workout and not during the Level 1 when I pulled my PB times the previous day .

Now for the question I was pondering while experimenting with my stroke. What is the proper ratio of time in the stroke cycle between drive and recovery? Initially I was trying to keep the drive and recovery times roughly equal but that did not feel right. At the end I settled on a recovery time that was roughly twice as long as the drive. I would appreciate any input.

I plan on going to the Y again this afternoon for another Level 4 session in an attempt to reinforce this mornings experience. I will likewise plan to spend time tomorrow doing the same. I think it is important for me to get the proper stroke mechanics straightened out before proceeding with the other levels.

Ralph Giarnella (call me Doc)

While I am in the asking mode, I have another question regarding the stroke rate-

I am 5'6" (vertically challenged) with an inseam of 29". Obviously my drive travel and my recovery travel are both going to much shorter than some one who is 6' plus. How is this going to affect my stroke rate?

I realize that to compensate for a shorter stroke I will have to increase my stroke rate but the real question is to what degree?

And how does this affect my 16 spm rate. With the same rate of acceleration as someone taller I will finish my drive sooner than someone taller therefore my recovery rate will have to be longer than the recovery rate of a taller rower. A 16 spm takes 3.75 sec/stroke. If my stroke rate takes (for the sake of discussion) 1.5 sec and a taller rower with the same rate of acceleration takes 1.75 sec my recovery rate has to be 2.25 sec vs his 2.0 rate.

Perhaps I need to use a 17 spm to equal his 16 spm. (A 17 spm takes 3.53 sec). Any Ideas or am I totally off base with this train of thought.

Ralph Giarnella

Doc -

Although I can't find anything right now that will support my next statement, I believe a one-to-two ratio of drive to recovery is recommended for most people. In other words, your recovery should take twice as much time as your drive.

I want to say that rowing strapless also helps enforce a good ratio (and a more efficient stroke), but I know almost nothing about rowing strapless (the last time I did it, I almost fell off the erg).

Respectfully, I disagree. You can maintain the same pace (i.e. time per 500m) as a taller person with a longer stroke by increasing the force applied to the handle (while maintaining the same stroke rate).

In the Level 4 section of his WP document, Mike Caviston writes

I interpret this as meaning you learn to put out a certain amount of energy X per stroke when rowing at a low stroke rate during a Level 4 workout. Then, during a race, when your stroke rate is allowed to go much higher, you put out the same amount of energy X per stroke but you have more strokes per minute, resulting in a higher power output and thus higher speed. If you put out X joules per stroke at 16 SPM, you put out the same X joules per stroke at 32 SPM, but you have twice the power output (and a 26% increase in speed).


I haven't searched through the WP literature to find out if Mike addresses your question specifically. However, from my past readings, I do not recall any mention of Level 4 stroke rate allowances based on height.

If I may be allowed to offer my opinion, I would say that you should make no adjustments to stroke rates based on height. The WP was originally written for the University of Michigan's women's rowing team (as opposed to men's rowing team), and women are, on average, five inches shorter than men. Furthermore, if you increase your stroke rate to try to get a faster pace for a particular Level 4 workout, you're diminishing one of the effect that Mike sought - to develop strength and power per stroke.

Thanks for the input. I have been trying Strapless during my warm ups and cooldown and while it felt awkward at first, I am quickly becoming accustomed to rowing strapless. However I am still not sure what the advantage is. I had seen this recommendation not only in this discussion but in others as well. I am always willing to try something new if will help might training.

Thnanks again

Ralph Giarnella

I just finished planning my L4 workout for today. I have decided on the following format:

10-12' warm up - 2x42'- 6-8 minute cool down
I will stick to the shorter continuous workouts until I can get a better rhythm for the changing stroke rates. I find that as the workout gets longer I tend to become distracted and lose my rhythm. Perhaps it is due to a lack of oxygen to the brain cells, not enough sugar for the brain or just as some of my patients call it Old Timer's disease (Alzheimers). I have done 30-20-10 , or 30-18-12 with 6' sequences. I feel that if I cannot get the continuous row in I will break it down for now and at least get the proper volume in. As time goes on I will increase the first sequence and shorten or eliminate the 3rd sequence. Eventually I should be able to get the goal of 60' continous L4.

17-19-21 stroke rate: I am still having trouble hitting the rhythm consistently for the 16 spm. I will continue to work on the 16 spm during warm up and cool down. Once I can hit 16 spm consistently I will incorporate it into my workout. Another consideration is that 17 spm feels more natural for now- perhaps because of my shorter arms and legs (remembar at 5'6" I am vertically challenged when it comes to rowing and basketball).

Splits: 3' splits- The longer splits give me more time to get into the rhythm of the stroke before I have to change again. I have set up a spread sheet program to be able to calculate my estimated distance goals for each 3' stroke sequence based on my calculated distance per stroke rate. I used Mike's level 4 distance chart and pace chart, as they relate to my most recent 2K, to arrive at the appropriate goals for 3' splits at the various rates. I simply broke down Mike's tables to 1' splits and the multiplied by 3. In this manner I can set goals for 3' sequences, 9' sequences and 42' sequences etc.

This leads me to a question for Mike. I noted that in your table based on your distance for the different sequences (168-172-176 etc) the distance per stroke decreases sequentially by a factor of -.25 m/stroke. Example: 1:27 2k pace-- 168 is 16.63 dps whereas 204 is 14.59 dps. Is this by design or by observtion? Does this mean that as the the stroke rate increases the drive distance is shortened more than the recovery time? The change in ratio holds true in the other paces I have checked. The 2:00 pace for example changes in a similiar rate throughout the sequences.

Before looking at your sequences I was under the impression that the distance per stroke should remain the same as the stroke rate increases. Is this unrealistic? I realize that the power curve is not a straight line as the pace intensifies. Is this fact reflected in the decreasing dps as the pace increases?

Ralph Giarnella

One comment, and one question, for the Wolverine "Team" ...

Comment: Doing the 16 SPM work the way Mike explained now makes total sense after trying it for an entire L4 workout ... the whole aspect of accelerating during the stroke, and starting (relatively) slow to be (in my words) somewhat "in synch" with the flywheel, and then increasing power worked well for me. I could keep the handle moving, albeit slowly but at about the same speed, the entire stroke. And, the stroke seemed easier than rates greater than 16, when previously it actually seemed harder (because it likely was!). It also made staying on pace and rate much easier than my previous bad form manner of pulling 16 SPM (with the delay or "hitch"). Thanks to Mike, and all who commented on similar aspects of the 16 SPM stroke. I've got to try this with higher stroke rates as well ... it seemed like less exertion for same resulting work, as I believe Mike was communicating (if I read his post correctly).

Question: Regarding L4 workouts. Better to do one 60' L4, or 2 x 40' L4s (perhaps AM and PM)? I'd love to work up to two 60' L4s in a day, but that's not in the cards for me right now. I do feel I could do two 40' pieces, but would not want to sacrifice the benefit if one continuous 60' piece would be better than 2 x 40' L4 pieces.

Thoughts?

Thanks -- Mark

I did this workout in 1962!

Others did it long before me. This workout and similar have been around at least through two turns of the century!

What is really funny is that Caviston used to criticise my ideas and now I see he has adopted several of them in his "Wolverine Plan", for example using progressive pace through the reps.

What will Mike Caviston "invent" next???

overhead rack squats? The Internet? Hard to imagine, as it seems you must have invented the Erg nearly 20 years prior to it's introduction. (along with barefoot running, no doubt.)

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that most everything has been done at sometime in the past (I'm talking about Rowing here), but assembling it into something useful for a lot of individuals is where the real skill is. It's obvious that Mike has been able to accomplish this.

Mark: Did my first planned L4 last night as 176 180 176 180. Overstroked by 12 and overmetered by 9. Never really got down to 16. Afterwards, I used my recovery time to try at 14 and think I finally found something that will work. A little extra pull at the end. My trouble was not being able to hit 2:22 at 16. That slow, it wanted to be 2:30, and I wound up going 17 to hit my pace. Funny though, at 22 I had problems holding it down to 2:08. Wanted to be 2:04 or so. But it was a great workout. Time flew and I only got lost once. Just kept going and was 30 seconds beyond my switch.

Doc: Anyone who can erg continuously for 2 hours doesn't need my newbie two cents, but to get 16 to work, use the charts to find your pace at 14 and try that 14 spm pace for ten minutes or so.

Anyone: I found this thread because I felt like I was getting burned out after five months and wanted a more structured plan than the one I'd cobbled together. My question concerns my most intensive day of my five. It started as three 4' pieces and I'd worked down from an initial start of 2:05 to 1:52. When I got down to the 1:52 pace, I found I simply could not stay with it for the last piece. Maybe I moved too quickly. I'd struggle with the second to keep it below 1:53 and the third was just really tough. I'd even occasionally just settle for something under 2:00. Anyway instead of going back, I switched to a 4' then 3' then 3' then 2'. I've done this for two weeks. Instead of feeling lousy at the end, I feel pretty good and I didn't have to go backwards. My most recent paces were 1:51.8, 1:51.5, 151.4 for the 4' and subsequent 3' pieces. For the last, I decided to turn it into a 500 m and pulled 1:43.8. My previous best had been 1:48.5. Question: Should I stay with this or go back to 3 - 4' pieces at something like 1:52.7. (Another day is 3 - 6' pieces now at 1:54.8)

Mark: I don't know which post of Mike's this is from because I've pasted them into a Word document. But I think the answer is one 60' because:
"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."

Trying to deal with a few recent and not-so-recent questions re: the WP –

How I arrived at the specific paces for different rates in the Level 4 progressions has been previously explained. Pace is the variable being manipulated. Other variables like work performed in Joules/stroke, or distance covered in meters/stroke, are just artifacts. No conscious attempt has been made to either manipulate those variables or hold them constant. For simplicity, the paces increase linearly but the other variables do not necessarily increase in the same proportions. So it is not surprising that from time to time someone might perceive that the pace for a given stroke rate is “out of whack”. In this case the choices are to either ignore the slight discrepancies (my preference), or recalculate stroke rates and/or goal paces using fractions rather than whole numbers.

A good technical focus with Level 4 workouts is to develop and maintain optimal length for the stroke. Then attempt to maintain this length as rates increase (even beyond the upper limits of L4 workouts into L3, L2, and L1). Personally, I think I’ve made some progress this year hanging onto my full length at higher rates. Like most people, when it comes to the last couple hundred meters of a Level 1 piece I’ll pretty much do whatever is necessary to hang onto my split. But I try not to get too short and too ugly and to work on expanding the upper rating limit for good technique as my fitness improves. (This is one application of ErgMonitor that I would definitely like to have available if I could train in the proximity of a computer.) Training needs to prioritize long-term steady gains over short-term performance.

The Wolverine Plan and the pace recommendations for the various training bands, including the L4 Ref paces, are based on previous 2K performance. There is no need to make any adjustments for height, weight, age, gender, religion, whether your belly button is an “innie” or an “outie”, etc.

A general rule of thumb for ratio is to spend more time on the recovery than on the drive. A recovery:drive ratio of 2:1 is commonly recommended. That’s pretty good for the middle rates. Low rates (in the teens) will probably require even more time on the recovery (unless you have an outrageously slow drive); at rates of 40 or more the ratio will be about 1:1. I think the key thing to focus on is to be “relaxed” at any rate – though I don’t feel like discussing the definition of “relaxed” at the moment. But recognize it is possible to be rushed with a 2:1 recovery:drive ratio, and relaxed with a 1:1 ratio. It depends on how technically sound you are.

I am occasionally asked about how drag factor affects the Wolverine Plan. There are so many variable in training that I prefer to keep DF constant during all workouts so I don’t have to worry about even more permutations than already exist considering possible variations in rate and pace. I use a drag of 120-122 for everything I do on the erg, from warm-up to 2K. (Why? I don’t know, it just seems to work best.) Still, in my experience a wide range of drag factors (say, from 105-165) seem to have little if any effect on my performance, at least in the short term. For example, I’ve performed workouts where the lever shakes loose in the middle of 25K and drops down to the bottom, radically reducing the drag. Or I’m in a rush to get started and jump on an erg (I train in either a campus fitness facility or the rowing team’s indoor facility, and can go for more than a month without sitting on the same machine twice) and forget to check the drag. Later I remember and find the drag was much higher than I normally use. Within a pretty wide range of light to heavy DFs I seem to be able to make some sort of neurological adjustment so that the workout really doesn’t feel any different and I have no trouble achieving the paces I had planned. Now, what the long-term effect of using a lower or higher drag might be, I can’t say. There may well be some rationale for changing drag for different workouts. What I am saying is that I haven’t personally seen any evidence along those lines so far, and don’t plan to spend the necessary time to systematically investigate the effects of different drags.

Regarding the question about 2 x 40’ vs. 60’ Level 4 workouts in a program, I’d go with the 60’ for the continuity – unless your Level 3 workout also meets or exceeds 60’.

As for this question:

I can’t tell from your description what type of workout you are describing or what training effect you are trying to achieve. If you want to invent your own workouts, or incorporate workouts from some other training plan, you run the risk of throwing your training out of balance (if you are trying to progress according to the guidelines of the WP).

Happy training,

Mike Caviston

All I can say about staying long consistently is AMEN. For whatever reason, I've been focusing on this and BOY, does it make a difference ... a very positive difference. Stroke rate dropped and pace improved (or stroke rate dropped and pace stayed the same, but sure felt like much less work). I almost felt like I had been leaving part of the stroke and work "on the table" -- wasted -- never to be recaptured.

Hi all,

Still cutting and pasting and trying to put together what the whole plan actually is. I like the idea k had of collecting Mike's major articles into one document. Am greatly looking forward to the future installment that will tie it all together. But the erging season is on in earnest, so I guess this year I'll have to settle for being just somewhat obliquely influenced by the plan.

I did a google search and was disappointed in how little it turned up. But now I see that there is actually a web site devoted to the Wolverine Plan?? Could you please share with us where this web site can be found?

I haven't yet decided whether this club would rather spread the news, or keep it to itself, at least through the next erg contest.

Thanks,
Doug

A physiological question.......for Mike but pleased to have any input - including anything based on 'feel' rather than technical knowledge.

Level 4
I understand that this is first and foremost endurance work. However, since you are required to 'pull harder' I presume the fibre recruitment involves more of those fibres more suited to strength work and correspondingly less aerobic. Does this therefore increase the likelyhood that they will be involved in adaptation that improves them aerobically rather than 'normal' unrestricted work that (because of lower fibre recruitment numbers) utilises the more aerobic fibres to a greater extent?
I hope that makes sense - if not then a more simple version would be.........
Does restricted rate work improve endurance faster than a similar volume of unrestricted work?
D.

It this what you were looking for http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm?

Thanks. Actually I don't know. It's a question for ragiarn, who mentioned "The Wolverine Plan Website", or anyone else who knows of such a thing. Mike? Do you operate a website devoted to the Wolverine Plan?

The link here is close to what I originally got, but it has tables which my original find did not. I've also gotten the newer tables that Mike posted above.

- Doug

Mike,

Could you elaborate a bit on the physiological goals and which workouts target which goal.
I found your remark on another thread very interesting that "Lactate tolerance" is not a valid physiological goal.

Couple of articles on Lactate tolerance - Lactic Acid - Threshold Training for Improved Lactate Tolerance

George

Unrestricted rate rowing develops your endurance more quickly and more thoroughly.

On what evidence do you base this rather bold assertion?

Delilah:

In case you are new to this forum and do not know John, I'd affectionately classify him as our forum "jester".

In some cases, back in the middle ages, a jester would have been called the court's "fool" ... if you get my drift.

There's a real neat "ignore user" feature that I've found particulary helpful. Let me know if you need help finding it.



Regards -- Mark

Today’s L4 workout
I set today to accomplish several goals.
1- full 60’ continuous rowing
2- Strapless rowing
3- trying to achieve 16 spm= 16/18 2’ split
4 the least of my concerns was pace and meters rowed.

Accomplished
rowed for an entire L4 for 60 minutes- I could have rowed another 20-30 minutes however I had set the timer at 60’ and I have to go to work today.
I was able to row the entire 60’ strapless.
In the first 40 minutes I was unable to row an entire 2 min. split at 16 spm average. However in the last 12 minutes I was able to row consecutively 16-18-16-18-16-18. My average for the entire 60’ was 17 spm.

I had a lot of consecutive 17 spm splits however many of the 17 spm were supposed to be 16 spm but more often than not of the 34+/- strokes during the 2’ splits there were more 17spm than 16spm- I suspect the avg. spm for those splits was probably 16.6 or 16.7 spm - The monitor rounds or down to the nearest whole number so these became 17 spm. And some of the 17spm were supposed to be 18 spm but again there were probably more 17spm than 18 spm so perhaps the average was 17.4 spm rounded down to 17. When I look at the string of 17 spm splits and compare the pace and meters there is a definite alternating of pace and meters between the 17spm avg. which indicate that the paces were actually above and below the 17 spm.

Technique: I had been able to row 16 spm in the past, however as Mike noted, that was accomplished with bad rowing technique. I have spent the last 7 days trying to learn what constitutes a good stroke and analyze where the flaws in my stroke.

I reviewed Mikes comments on technique and I reviewed the topic of strapless rowing. I also reviewed Rowing Technique- The Mike Spracklen Method. http://home.hia.no/~stephens/sprack.htm

What was wrong with my technique.
1- I was pulling too hard at the very beginning of the stroke- basically jumping out of the starting block- Mike noted that it is important to match the effort with the speed of the fly wheel. Jumping at the start made 16 spm seem harder that 18 spm because the flywheel is slower and I was trying to accelerate the flywheel too quickly.

In reviewing Mike Spracklen’s technique I tried to visualize being in a boat. (I have never had the pleasure of trying a real racing boat but have had some experience in a regular row boat).

In the first part of the stroke the blade enters the water and the first thing to do is match the speed of the blade to the speed of the boat (flywheel)- Mike Spracklen then talks of finding the “post” - I imagine a post in the water against which you apply maximum force to propel the boat fast. I imagine that this is the point where the blade is at its deepest point and is completely vertical and therefore finding the highest resistance. This is the “catch” on the flywheel.
This is the point at which the leg drive should be at the maximum drive and the back comes into play.

2. The second problem with my technique was that my stroke was not long enough. I was not going forward enough and at the end of the stroke I was not leaning far enough back. I found that I could reach low spm when I reached forward enough to get on the balls of my feet just before initiating the stroke. Mike Spracklen explains this position well.
 ”To achieve optimum position for the application of power and good forward length. Note the following points.
 1. Head High- encourages good posture for body and spine
 2. Chest against thighs- Rotation should be centered around the hip joint, not the upper or lower back.
 3. Shins vertical- strong position for the quadriceps
 4. Relaxed but alert- poised like a cat ready to spring”

By following the above recommendation I could reach further and by leaning a little bit more at the end I could lengthen my stroke. Whenever I accomplished all of these in perfect harmony the stroke felt smooth and almost effortless and I was able to get a slower spm.

3. The third problem was the beginning of the recovery. I was pausing to time my return and then rushing towards the flywheel to start my next stroke. Wrong!!!!!!.
Rowing strapless helped me correct this serious flaw. I was using the straps to pull myself towards the flywheel.

Without the straps I am forced to use the momentum of pushing my hands forward and leaning my torso forward (pushing the oars back to the starting position), to bring me back to the flywheel.
I have found this actually to be the hardest part to learn. I needed a full 40 minutes of experimenting to begin to get proper feel for the this aspect of the stroke. Once I got the hang of it I was able to run off a series of 16-18-16 for the last 12 minutes.

Mark Spracklen speaks of a “poise” during the recovery phase and he describes it:

 ”Rhythm-Where to Poise
 It is always necessary to compose before any dynamic action (i.e. throwing a discuss, lifting a weight, hitting a ball, or rowing a stroke). The question is, Where is the best place to "poise" prior to the action? There are different schools of thought in rowing on where the poise should be and currently, it is popular that it be during the first half of the recovery. The attack on the stroke begins before well before the slide has reached front stops. The seat accelerates forward from the poise position into the stroke and is thought to be the best way of achieving a fast catch. The poise can be at the backstops or it can be halfway forwards.
 The disadvantages are.... The movement is robust and energy consuming.
 The method taught by me is to poise during the last part of the movement towards the front stops. The inertia created by the draw at the finish is used to carry the hands away from the body, the trunk into the catch angle and the seat from backstops. The rower has time to relax, let the boat run under the seat, and to prepare for the next stroke. The poise just before blade entry is sufficient to achieve a very fast catch.”

I suspect it will take me at least another week of concentration on technique before I can begin to consistently hit the 16 spm with good form. But I think that in the long run I will benefit if I can carry that through to the faster spm.

After all the purpose of the 16 spm is to perfect the rowing technique and it is obvious to me that it is easy to hide bad technique at faster paces.

A note about rowing strapless. I noted during my workout that to compensate for going strapless I was still digging my heels in the help pull me forward somewhat. During my cool down I experiment with lower to heels of the support so that I could not rest my heels on the support. This forced me to use the momentum of pushing my arms and torso forwad to propel the seat back to flywheel. I will try this on My next L4 workout.

My L4 workout was slower than usuall but I accomplished what I set out to do. With time I will be able to pick up the pace.

Thanks to Mike especially for pointing out the importance of long stroke, and matching the effort at the beginning of the stroke to spin of the flywheel.

Comments for the other members of this group have also been appreciated.

I hope someone can benefit from my experience in trying to improve my technique and achieve a 16spm with good form.

Your comments and corrections are welcomed.

Ralph Giarnella

It is my hypothesis that the nature of L4 rowing aerobically targets glycolytic fibers more effectively than free-rate rowing. Of course, I don’t have the technological resources to test this hypothesis. I think unrestricted/free-rate work will improve endurance faster than restricted/L4 work – in the short run. Level 4 provides a framework for continuing to improve endurance, slowly but surely, for a much greater period of time. Of course, the Wolverine Plan also includes a free-rate endurance training band (i.e., Level 3).

Mike Caviston

Interesting quote from that page:

"All the muscles are working through their middle range and the blade is at its most efficient point in the stroke. Make full use of this advantage by beginning the draw with the arms before midway. The arms must start to draw well before the legs reach the backstops. "

If this is supposed to increase maximum force allowed when legs are bent then here's a simple physical analogy: A chain is not stronger than it's weakest link. Straight arms are stronger than bent arms (try doing a deadlift PB with bent arms) and if you want to keep the weakest link as strong as possible the arms should be straight when driving with the legs.

OTH, If your legs hit the backstops before the optimal angle then you can not apply maximum force (legs are stronger than back) there and you will be limited to backstrength. In order to shift the leg power to a later angle you could start contracting your arms prior to hitting the backstops and then push with legs pass the midangle. Still you are limited by the force sustainable by bent arms. The legs,however, produce more force than the back and by bending arms early you could let the legs apply more force than the back could over the midangle if the static max strength of your arms were stronger than your contractive max strength of the back at this speed.

The confounding factor is that maximum force is not what is the goal when rowing. It would be the case if you were only allowed to do 1 stroke during a race but that's not the way races are set up now. You do many strokes and the leg power in them are far from maximum in order to keep an efficient force profile, so low that the weaker link of bent arms is still strong enough, the contractive back power is strong enough as well over the midangle. If you can gain efficiency by bending the arms early than that's a reason for it. You will be able to generate an equally efficient force profile during the drive with bending the arms after the backstops. The reason for bending them early would be how easy internally this profile was conceived (smoothness) and quickness of water pressure contact. Anyway that's my view. Feel free to disagree!

CONFESSIONS still ...

LEVEL 2 Pyramid today for the first time:

1000M warm up - about 2:30 pace with spurts below 2:00 pace

1) 3000M target 2:02.4 actual 2:01.9

1500M active recovery about 2:30 pace and low SPM

2) 2500M target 2:02.0 actual 2:01.1

1500M active recovery about 2:30 pace and low SPM

3) 2000M target 2:01.4 actual 2:00.4

Average Pace: TARGET 2:02.0 ACTUAL 2:01.2

Completed 100K leg of the Holiday Challenge in the midst of this.

Could have worked harder, but wanted to be careful. Patience has not been a virtue of mine in the past. I'm trying to change this.



Now that I've completed the entire variety of workouts suggested for Levels 1 & 2, I will begin to cycle through them again picking up the paces based on past performance. To date, my paces have been set based on my reference pace (1:54) and Mike's suggestions on *slowest* recommended starting pace ... to be safe and start slowly and (hopefully) improve surely.

We'll see how it's going in Saturday's 2K "test" during the Fall Series 2K handicap race. I will say that total weekly meters have increased substantially (to 90-100K+ each week) following the Plan. Looks like the second million meters will come at least twice as fast as the first million.

Row well ...

The Myth of Lactate Tolerance
Interval training is very integral to the Wolverine Plan. The Level 1 (sub-2K pace) workouts are the most critical and everything else is designed to support these workouts by developing the necessary endurance, speed, strength, technique, etc. Periodically when training is discussed there is debate about the format of interval programs. I have previously discussed the thinking behind the format of Level 1 workouts (e.g., HERE). A subject that has been perpetually debated is the recovery interval between work periods (e.g., 8 x 500m). My preference is to take enough recovery time, and utilize active recovery , to promote as complete recuperation as possible between work intervals. Intensity is the most important of the many training variables, and training should be structured to protect intensity as much as possible. All things considered, I think more rather than less recovery is preferred. Still, there are some practical considerations and recovery must be limited to a reasonable period. Many people train within a defined time limit (such as their lunch hour). I used to run team workouts within time limits – e.g., 60’ max for one group before the next group arrives. Recovery can’t go on forever. For me the most practical consideration is that if I spend too much time on recovery, I begin to lose my warm-up, and the next interval is proportionately harder. (For 8 x 500m, even after a thorough warm-up, the first interval usually feels pretty difficult and the second one feels significantly easier. With too much time off between intervals, they all feel like the first one.)

Another school of thought regarding interval training is to keep the recovery period relatively short. Some people apparently feel that shorter recovery periods are more macho , and longer recovery is for wimps. This actually cracks me up, because adequate recovery means you go faster during the work intervals, which hurts more . Part of the so-called “logic” of shorter recovery intervals is to increase the lactate load and force the body to improve its “lactate tolerance”. “Lactate tolerance” is a fallacy, and I will explain why.

Ideally, training for an event such as 2K will result in improved energy production (via both aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways) as well as increased resistance to fatigue. Briefly stated, the stimulus for increased energy production comes from systematically increasing the training intensity across the various training bands. Following a training paradigm that hinders increased intensity is counterproductive to the goal of enhancing energy production. Meanwhile, “lactate tolerance” is not being enhanced either. The body deals with reduced pH, or neutralizes excess acid, with a combination of bicarbonate, phosphate, and protein chemical buffers (including hemoglobin). I know of no compelling scientific evidence to suggest that training has any effect on the body’s buffering systems. I have at hand a half dozen of the leading Exercise Physiology texts that all say the same thing. For example, from McArdle, Katch, and Katch: “It is tempting to speculate that anaerobic training has a positive effect on the body’s capacity for acid-base regulation, perhaps through the enhancement of chemical buffers or the alkaline reserve. However, it has never been shown that buffering capacity becomes enhanced through exercise training.” Before anyone starts posting links to different web sites that talk about improved “lactate tolerance”, take some time to investigate what if any scientific evidence is offered. For example, a physiological variable like aerobic capacity (VO2 max) is well-defined, easily measured in a laboratory, results are reproducible, normal values exist for untrained and well-trained individuals, standardized units exist for expressing those values, there is an established relationship between training intensity/duration and increased VO2 max, there are other measurable physiological correlates to explain the enhanced aerobic capacity (e.g., increased stroke volume and mitochondrial density), and so on, and so on. Try finding such information for “lactate tolerance”. If you want to defend it as a viable training objective, then you must 1) give it a clear clinical definition; 2) describe how it is measured in a laboratory; 3) provide pre-training and post-training values, in proper units; and 4) give examples of research investigations that have clearly shown a training effect on “lactate tolerance”.

The Lactate Threshold, on the other hand, can be measured, is affected by training, and has been shown to correlate highly with endurance performance. [There is some subjectivity in determining exactly where the TLACT occurs, and many people confuse the TLACT with the so-called “anaerobic threshold”, which is another fallacy that I won’t go into now.] Improving the TLACT is accomplished with LSD-style training to stimulate such changes as increased mitochondrial and capillary density in the skeletal muscles, resulting in a greater ability to remove lactate from the muscle and dispose of it elsewhere. A buzzword in the training literature is monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs), which transport lactate across the muscle sarcolemma. Endurance training increases MCTs, making it easier for lactate to leave the muscle and enter the circulation, where it can be transported to oxidative muscle fibers or organs such as the heart, liver, or kidneys for removal. Note that improving the Lactate Threshold is not improving “lactate tolerance” – it is enhancing the removal of lactate from the muscle so the muscle doesn’t have to tolerate it! Since high lactate values are associated with conditions that are known to increase fatigue and reduce intensity, removing lactate allows the muscle fibers to continue working at a higher intensity for a longer time.

Balanced training incorporates both high-intensity interval training to enhance energy production, and low/moderate intensity sessions of longer duration to enhance endurance (i.e., the ability to resist fatigue). In the Wolverine Plan, the intent is to use greater endurance to allow a sustained higher intensity and more rapid recovery during interval sessions. To facilitate more rapid/complete recovery, I utilize active recovery . This is distinct from passive recovery. The idea is to engage in enough work to stimulate greater circulation, so that excess lactate (and other fatiguing metabolic byproducts) will be removed and disposed of more quickly and efficiently. The correct intensity maximizes waste disposal without producing any more fatiguing agents. Research using different recovery protocols suggests that optimal recovery intensity is around 40% of VO2 max. Since several studies indicate that 2K pace is just about equal to VO2 max for many individuals, it is interesting that the Recovery Paces listed in the WP Level 4 tables are just about 40% of 2K pace (in Watts). I initially determined the Rec Pace by feel, but there appears to be some scientific support for why it “feels” right.

Soon I will revisit my guidelines for recovery for the different WP interval workouts. I’ve covered this before, but I’ll try to be even more clear and explicit.

Mike Caviston