As I read the new posts (and re-read the old ones) here on this thread, I get feelings of both sadness and pleasure. Pleasure because there are people who are taking the WP seriously and getting some benefit from it. But sadness because it is clear I will never be able to express myself completely and address all the issues I’d like to address as thoroughly as I’d like. I began this thread a couple months ago with a bare-bones outline of what I’d like to cover but as the weeks go by I meander a bit or get tugged off to discuss some unanticipated (but completely valid) topic. Some good questions I pretty much have to ignore just to stay on some sort of linear track.

The subject of Exercise Physiology is not just my profession, it is my passion. I voraciously collect all the published research I can on all topics even peripherally related to any aspect of athletes and performance. Other commitments (and my lack of typing skills) make it impossible for me to do more than occasionally go into much detail when it comes to discussing the WP, however. I need to keep my primary focus on explaining how to actually do the training before I can completely outline my physiological rationale. Still I am extremely interested in the physiology! But I generally tend to look at a workout as a “black box” – effort goes in, and results come out, and I don’t necessarily have to know what goes on in-between. The more I know – the better I understand the physiological processes involved – the better I should be at designing workouts and getting the very results I want. But I observe many people obsessing about details that aren’t that relevant, or coming up with interpretations that actually obscure the pertinent details. There is currently a discussion on the UK forum about the use of heart rate in determining training intensity and the boundaries of different training bands. I just have to roll my eyes. Actually, one season I think it might be interesting to gather my HR data and look at long-term trends once sufficient information has been gathered (as if I don’t tinker with enough data already). But I would never alter the pace of a given workout based on HR response. I’ve already explained why to some extent. A couple other ExPhys topics that raise my hackles are “muscle fiber type” (just not relevant to training) and “anaerobic threshold” (there’s no such thing). Please don’t ask me to explain, since it’s not directly relevant to the WP. Maybe someday when I’ve covered other topics more completely.

On the other hand, I hope in the near future to continue to discuss the physiological relevance of intensity in driving physiological adaptations to training. Also some of the various factors implicated in muscular fatigue during a 2K (“lactate” is a gross oversimplification). BTW, I have looked at Stephen Seiler’s website a couple times. He is a respected authority and provides a lot of valuable information. But we don’t agree on every point. The past few seasons while coaching at U of M, athletes would sometimes question the purpose of a workout (a good thing, if done at the right time) and respond to my explanation with “But Seiler says…” (or, “But Hagerman says…”) In my introductory Kinesiology course, I have a lecture that talks about where we get information (textbooks, the internet, various experts, hearsay, etc.) and what to do if we get conflicting information from two established, respected authorities. My recommendation is to trace each person’s argument back to its roots and see who has the firmest ground based on logic and especially on the amount of well-controlled, fully documented scientific research.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I am fascinated by Exercise Physiology and I hope to see more discussion related to the WP. I just want to make clear that I probably can’t personally commit to a full-scale scientific analysis of the WP at this time.

Mike Caviston

Mike,

To balance things out there are undoubtedly athletes around the world who are telling their coaches "....But Caviston says......"

Vive la difference. It keeps the journey interesting.

Rick

When it comes to athletes and training, the grass is always greener. If you’re doing X, they want to do Y, and if you give in and do Y, they want to go back to doing X or maybe try Z instead.


I’d sure like to hear about one. It would brighten up my day!

Mike

Mark, you are fast improving while my improvements are microscopic!

Regarding the L3 pace and spm, do you find it hard to deviate from the high spi done during L4 training?

Mike mentioned that he does his L4 at 16 mps and his L3 at almost 11 mps; that is a drop of almost 5 mps.

Francois:

My L3 pace is usually around 2:08, and my goal is to add distance every L3 workout while keeping the pace in that range (about 500M/workout). My next L3 will be a 13.5K continuous. At some point, I'll take the pace up and leave the distance where it is -- maybe when I get to 15K continuous? SPM is typically 23-24. I also want to add some variety to the L3s as well -- like the 15 x 3' (or whatever it is that Mike recommends, I may have it wrong from memory).

My L4 average pace is now down to about 2:18 (as I've progressed through the sequences), using an average SPM across the 60' of about 17-18. I started from the rock bottom on the chart, and have added the recommended 4 - 8 strokes every workout. I've missed or shortened a few L4s for various reasons, so I've not progressed as fast on these as I should have (lower back tightness, etc.). I don't add the strokes until I do the full 60' workout at the goal. If I don't get it in, I repeat it next workout. I'm going to add a few more L4s into the mix to see if I can get back on track.

Remember, my reference pace is 1:54.0, which I would guess is significantly slower than yours. I'm just getting started.



So, I do let the stroke rate find a natural level with the L3s, but I will say that the SPM has come down from 26 in just a couple of months. Probably as a result of the L4 work and the power/stroke they appear to help build.

-- Mark

Ranger says that very thing quite often...

Sorry Mike, I couldn't help it, you can smack me at CRASH-B's...

Mike, as was suggested already, you should write a book about training. I am sure it would be very successfull.

I have benefited considerably from your all posts. The training principles you have exposed are applicable to other sports. As an example, I followed your pre race warm up suggestions at a swim meet two weeks ago, and it made a huge difference (my 400m free dropped 10 sec. to 4:55)!

My son and daughter are also erging and they are following the Wolverine Plan.

Thanks a lot Mike!

Regards,

Francois

In case anyone missed it, somebody in another thread posted a link to some information about the “anaerobic threshold” and lactate testing HERE. This outlines many of my objections (I have a few others). It brings to mind one of my major philosophies regarding training. I’m sure I’ve explained this to some extent but it’s good to repeat & clarify.

When I train, I’m not training to increase my aerobic capacity, or raise my lactate threshold, or lower my resting heart rate, or improve my muscular strength or endurance, or increase my capillary or mitochondrial density, or enhance my lipid metabolism, or do anything except lower my 2K time. Lowering my 2K is my focus and everything else is secondary, a consequence or byproduct or symptom of training, not a goal. There are no medals for greatest VO2 max or most mmol of lactate (though it might be fun to watch that competition!) There is only performance as measured by the C2 monitor. So all of my training is centered around the monitor’s display. Pace is the relevant variable. Some people focus on one factor (e.g., VO2 max or TLACT) and gear training towards maximizing that variable. Performance is much more complex and integrates multiple variables, some of which are known and some which aren’t. The exact connection or relative importance of each variable isn’t perfectly clear. Focusing exclusively on one variable may potentially be detrimental to another critical variable, although this might not be immediately obvious. I am interested in improving my performance on workouts that have been shown to positively affect my 2K time. I don’t have to worry about what percentage of the workout is aerobic vs. anaerobic or what my HR response is or how much lactate I’m producing or which muscle fibers are being activated. My performance as measured by pace for the various workouts is the best and most accurate information available to insure steady progress without overtraining. Anything else would just provide incomplete or conflicting or misleading information.

Mike Caviston

If you do have the time please elaborate on intensity as the crucial variable.
Also how we should balance volume, rest and intensity.

I know that the Wolverine Plan already makes the prescriptions but it is always good to know the rationale behind it.

From your previous posts I gathered that it is not crucial to limit resting time (at L1, 4 times 1K), rather make sure you don't lose your warmup and are able to hit the pace target. Or maybe I did not understand this right.

Another question would be why we do the 1K four times at 2K pace.
How would this compare to a workout of 2 times 1K at 2K pace - 2
which is at a higher intensity.

I just did my first 60 minute L4 workout. Finally I have found a way to do this successfully! I have had several frustrating workouts where I forgot which segment I was in and screwed up what stroke rate I was supposed to be doing, etc., so that the results were way off what I was aiming for. I found what I had to do was list out the segments so that I knew what number of minutes left on the monitor clock I was to stay at each stroke rate and that solved the problem.

I did 176, 188, 176, 188, 176, 188. My used 1:52 as my reference pace even though my 2k pb pace is actually 1:57, but still ended 277 meters over. However, I was perfect on the number of strokes. Basically this means I was doing this workout at a reference pace of 148.5 or so--about 9 seconds faster than I can do a 2K. I was really excited about being perfect on the number of strokes, that's a first!

I know I'm not doing this plan at all perfectly--my level 1 workouts are at 1:54--1:55; level 4 is coming out as if I was using 1:48.5 as a reference; level 3s I've been doing at around 2:05. I am not sure how to figure out what reference pace that goes with but if I worked things out correctly before I'm supposed to be doing level 3 around 2:14 or something (if basing it on a 1:57 2K pace).

Basically I'm hopelessly out of balance as far as the long distance stuff vs. the sprints. But it seems to me that doing the L4s at the higher paces will make me a lot stronger so that my sprints will improve? I can't see any sense in doing the L4s and L3s at what the charts say I should be doing--it's not a work out and I don't see how it will help me improve. So I am just doing my best at each kind of workout, and trying not to be bothered that my sprint workouts aren't as fast as they should be.

I wish I had started this program before I got so screwed up!!!

Carla--

One question: Do your level 3 and 4 workouts leave you whipped, so you've compromised your ability to do your faster workouts? Asked differently, would your overall training be more effective if you were to ease off a bit on the pace of the longer stuff, so you could pick up the pace of the shorter stuff?

That may not be the case w/ you, but on occasion I have found that my enthusiasm for a longer workout can leave me w/ less snort for a subsequent level 1 or level 2.

Tom

Maybe that's true. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I don't row every day, usually 4--5 times a week, and it's because I feel I need more recovery time than an every day schedule would give me. So maybe if I went lighter on the long workout days I'd be faster at the sprints. It just feels so silly to piddaddle along at 16 spm and 2:20, 18 spm and 2:15, and 20 spm and 2:11 when it takes hardly more effort to do 16 spm at 2:15, 18 spm at 2:10 or 2:11 and 18 spm at 2:06. I feel like I might as well be knitting for all the good it's doing me. If I'm going to make the time to work out, eat dinner late to fit it in, take two showers that day and generate heaps of stinking laundry I might as well walk away feeling like I've done the best I can.

I was good and tired when I finished that level 4 today but have lots of energy for all the other stuff I have to do. I'll do a Level 1 on Sunday and it will feel awful the way it always does...

Carla--

It does sound like you're getting adequate recovery. I guess you've just got to commit yourself to an awfuller level 1 experience.

Tom

OK, are we now saying:

"The more awfuller rows the better."?

Might make a good T-shirt design.

Maybe something like:

ROW AWFULLY

Well, this morning I am somewhat sore, which must be because 60 minutes is 20 mintes longer than 40.

My level 1's are definitely Rowing Awfully--not only ridiculously slow, but painfully completed, and always accompanied by internal mental bullying! I never feel successful when I'm done and the results are always inconsistent and mediocre. Most hateful workout of the week. "I hates it forever!" (--Gollum, in Lord of the Rings) All I can hope for is that if I stick to doing all the other workouts faithfully that these will improve. If they would just improve to the extent that they are the same speed but don't feel as miserable it will be progress.

I've always done all my rowing (before level 4s came along) at 10MPS and so I find myself doing the level 1's this way. Should I just be throwing caution to the winds and really do it free rate? I remember reading somewhere in the WP that only level 4 is restricted, but that doing 10mps on the other workouts was sensible. I'm sort of fixated on doing 10mps on Level 3 and longer workouts and it carries over. I wonder if I would do better at Level 1 if I just thrashed away however it came.

Carla,

At what spm are you doing your L1? It should be in the range of 30-36.
Also, what is the fastest pace you can hold for three consecutive strokes? If it is anywhere near your current 1:54 L1 pace, that would indicate a weakness in strength compared to your aerobic capacity.
When doing L1, I make sure my spm is in the 32-34 and I pull as hard as necessary, no matter what, to maintain my target pace. Of course, it hurts!

Regards

Francois

Paul has always indicated that when race day or test time comes that trading a little rate for pace is perfectly acceptable. The S10MPS is a training tool, and probably fine with Level 3 and even Level 2. I think that he would consider Level 1 to be one of those situations where trading rate for pace is called for. Going to unrestriced on Level 1 might well bring that in line with your other WP levels.


Rick

P.S. I hope that you'll let Doug Smith talk you into coming to the NE2KC in January.
Rick

I get no sense from reading the WP, and from Mike's narratives, that rate is an issue for any Level except Level 4. Maybe I missed something?

Oops. I didn't mean to be confusing. My answer to Carla was meant to be in the context of someone used to doing PaulS's S10MPS and trying to combine elements of it with the WP.

My words, not Mike's. (I probably shouldn't have the audacity to be interpreting Paul either )

Rick

Ahhh, my error. Sorry!

Concerning Mike Cavistons recommendation of spm for the various levels:



Carla: your numbers may not be as far off as you think.
Have you figured out your MPS for the level 4.


I calculated you MPS for you level 4 workout:
188 2249m =11.96 MPS
176 2204m =12.5 MPS -
Whether you realize it or not your level 4 workout is giving you longer MPS than
your previous workouts. That means at 17.6 spm you will average 220 meters/min. If you can now maintain that same MPS at 30 spm you would cover 375 meters/min or you would complete 2000 m in 5:33 minutes.

To quote Mike:


Another quote:


Another item to remember is the 2K pace. At the moment I don't recall where the exact quote is however Mike indicates that in novices where there is not a long history of rowing to fall back on the 2K reference pace can be recalculated if performance warrants it. I assume that you like myself are a novice at rowing just trying to find your correct pace.

Also and most importantly the level 4 session are really supposed to be recovery pieces during which you work on your rowing mechanics. Since you are apparently very versed in music I will use an analogy. When you are first learning a new music score you undoubtedly practice very carefully being sure to get each note in the right sequence and tempo. During this period you are concentrating on each note and sequence. As you become more acquainted with the piece you think less and let your fingers play the notes. Finally when you have mastered the piece you can play it at full tempo without the score and you do not even think of the notes but the music just flows. The thinking process is taken out of the equation.

The same goes in rowing. In doing the 16 spm you are trying to perfect your technique and rhythm and may have to think of the various steps from the catch to the recovery phase and getting the most out of each phase. As you become more comfortable at that pace you can increase the pace and maintain the same intensity per stroke. With luck you can carry most of the same intensity per stroke all the way up to a 30 spm.

Finally you must be careful not to try and peak too soon. You want to be able to get you best times just as you are entering the last week prior to the most important race of the season. If you peak a month earlier you may not be able to sustain that same level intensity for the rest of the month. You don't want to crash and burn during your training. You run the risk of leaving your PB 2k in the training room instead of the race. I could give you a number of examples of athletes who peaked too soon and failed to meet expectations when the real competition was at hand.

I,like you, am still trying to find my pace and have had to change my entire rowing mechanics in the past 3 weeks because I was doing it incorrectly.

Ralph Giarnella
Southington, CT

Mike & All,

What presently attracts me to the Wolverine plan the most, are a collection of underlying principles which, right or wrong, I like. An example is the very linear, baby step approach to progress, as opposed to the concept of periodization heard elsewhere. Periodization always struck me as little more than a hedge against overtraining, which was symptomatic of some major mistake in the program not properly addressed. I think periodization also flies in the face of the principle of detraining which, as I understand it, takes place at a rate something like 3x the rate of training progress.

Here Mike comes out swinging for the principle of specificity, applied here to physiological effects. If 2k is your goal, train for that, period. The same principle applies to training activity. I have put in lots of time running, for example, to find little benefit applied to my erg score. Case was closed when I hadn't run in several months when erging very hard, went out for a brisk 5 miler one day, and almost couldn't walk for several of the next days. I think running and rowing have almost zero in common.

Question (finally): Does your specific focus on rowing, and the Wolverine Plan, actually discourage other supplemental training? I mention running, but let's say, in addition to The Plan, do you ever recommend an occasional once/week circuit with free weights, a session of core exercises (very trendy), or anything else for the sake of "balance"? Or, if we have time for one more session, would it be better to just add one more L4 workout, esp. if we're doing less than nine erg sessions per week?

Comments from Mike or anyone else greatly appreciated. Thanks!

No, not at all. I currently do a 20-30’ weights/core stability session 2-3 days per week, daily pushups and sit-ups, and 30-40’ on the stationary bike every day. But the key word is supplemental – I like these activities to round out my total fitness and provide a little variety, but they can’t replace my erg workouts. If you have a specific 2K performance goal on the erg, a certain amount of erg work has to be done to achieve the goal. I add additional work with careful consideration for total training volume & intensity, and try to be as consistent as possible across the season – but when I’m pressed for time the supplemental work is the first to go.

Mike Caviston

Stroke rate:
Where is the point of diminishing returns.

I am wondering if one in this group knows where the point of diminishing returns is when it comes to increasing stroke rate? I have been trying to figure this out lately and I suspect that it might be somewhere in the 36+ range.

As was pointed out in an earlier posts the ratio of recovery to drive at the slower rates is roughly 2:1 but may change to 1:1 at the the higher rates.

As we increase the stroke rate something has to give. Let me explain.


At a stroke rate of 15 spm each stroke takes 4 seconds. If we theoretically break that down into the components drive to recovery we get 1.33 seconds for drive and 2.66 seconds for recovery. If we are in a boat the boat is continuously moving for a full 2.66 seconds after the drive is completed. It takes a certain amount of force during the drive to propel the boat the full 10 meters.

Now lets take a look at 30 spm. Each stroke takes 2 seconds. If we were follow the 1:2 ration that would be .67 seconds for the drive and 1.34 sec for recovery.

We now have 1/2 the time to produce the appropriate force to propel the boat and since power is measured as a product of force and time we have to produce twice the force in half the time to propel the boat the same 10 meters (I am not a physics major). That is fine however we now have 1/2 the time for recovery. The problem now is that the muscles have 1/2 the time to recover and recharge before the next stroke. The ability of the muscles to recover in the shortened time will depend on many factors including the heart’s ability to pump enough blood to the muscles, the lungs capacity to remove CO2 from the blood. The capacity of the blood cells to deliver enough O2 to the muscle cells to remove the H+ ions and prevent a drop in pH etc, etc etc.

Now let us look at 48 spm: at 45 spm each stroke takes 1.25 seconds.
Assuming at this point a 1:1 ratio the drive takes .625 seconds and the recovery .625 seconds.

We might be able to produce the same power at this pace however we have significantly less time to allow the muscle fibers to recover before the next stroke comes due. Something has to give. If the blood supply cannot provide the right 02 etc the muscles will soon run out of steam and power production will soon decline. (Crash and burn anyone!!).


It now becomes obvious that the rate of work per stroke is not linear. In other words doubling or tripling the stroke rate does not double or triple the work output.

There is a tradeoff between stroke rate and power production. The question is where does this occur? You would not attempt to race at 16 spm, but what about 48 or 60 spm?
Somewhere in between these extremes there is and ideal compromise. This ideal spm rate by the way is also a variable and will depend on many factors. Mike makes it a point that if you can get the same result at a lower spm you are better off. If your previous PB was achieved at a spm rate of 36 and now you can accomplish the same PB at a spm of 30 spm you have improved.

If your present PB is achieved at a stroke rate of 36 the only way to improve your PB is to either increase your stroke rate or increase the amount of work done per stroke.

The whole purpose, in my opinion, of the Level 4 workouts is to improve the amount of work down per stroke at 16 spm and then translate that same work per stroke to 18 spm and then 20 spm and 22 spm. Hopefully over the course of the training session you will be able to translate that to your optimal racing stroke rate.

To repeat my question: Does anyone know where the point of diminishing returns is? What is the ideal racing spm generally speaking and for you as an individual.

Ralph Giarnella
Southington, CT

Your level 1 workouts show very close to your 2K; If your 2K split is 1:57, your 500 split will be 1:54-1:55 (right where yours is). THE WHOLE POINT OF THE WP PLAN IS TO IMPROVE 2K. THE LEVEL 2-4 WORKOUTS SUPPORT THE LEVEL 1 WORKOUT WHICH IS THE GREATEST PREDICTOR OF 2K PERFORMANCE (quotes from the WP).

So, if you want to improve your 2K you need to improve the level 1 scores. Going fast in level 3 and 4 will not improve the 2K score (my words, not Mike's).

How are the level 2 workouts going? They are also a necessary component of being able to go fast at 2K.

Also, here is something to consider. Is your ultimate goal to improve your 2K score or to excel at longer distances? If you are after a fast 2K score then the WP is perfect because it targets 2K improvement. If your goal is to be fast at the longer distances, then it may not be for you. The longer distances are not the focus of the WP, they play a supporting role.

On a different note, you were mentioning mps. I don't know where I got the numbers but they are in my journal like this: Level 1, less than 10 mps, level 2, 10mps, level 3 11 mps. I don't train this way, but I have written down most of the info I could find and I must've gotten it from somewhere in the literature.

Carla,

At what spm are you doing your L1? It should be in the range of 30-36.
Also, what is the fastest pace you can hold for three consecutive strokes? If it is anywhere near your current 1:54 L1 pace, that would indicate a weakness in strength compared to your aerobic capacity.
When doing L1, I make sure my spm is in the 32-34 and I pull as hard as necessary, no matter what, to maintain my target pace. Of course, it hurts!

Regards

Francois

[/quote]

I don't know what spm it is, it close to whatever it takes to get 10mps at 1:54 or so. I don't know the spm because I'm watching the meters and pulling on the same number to hold it, not watching the spm.

I don't know what the fastest pace I can do for 3 strokes is. I think it is about 1:37. But the day after I first did some power 10s at that pace I found I had really wrecked my back and it took me almost a month to heal. There is a lower back problem involved.

Paul has always indicated that when race day or test time comes that trading a little rate for pace is perfectly acceptable. The S10MPS is a training tool, and probably fine with Level 3 and even Level 2. I think that he would consider Level 1 to be one of those situations where trading rate for pace is called for. Going to unrestriced on Level 1 might well bring that in line with your other WP levels.


Rick

P.S. I hope that you'll let Doug Smith talk you into coming to the NE2KC in January.
Rick

[/quote]


I figured that free rate was really for pb attempts--you know, seeing how fast you can really do a single 500m, as opposed to 8 in a row--and that doing 8 x 500 was training, so you don't get stronger just zipping up and down faster.

I hope this is wrong, though, because I'd love not have such pokey 500s intervals.

Re: race in January.....ewewwew You're more likely to talk me into it than Doug, since I only have talked to him a few times, and that was about biking stuff. Yuck, just thinking about it now, my stomach goes all floooey. I'll have to think of a really good thing to reward myself with for trying it.

I'll think about it...tomorrow....

I have finally found the bit I was looking for:
"What about stroke rate?
I am frequently asked about the importance of following a specific rate while training. Clearly, for Level 4 rating is specified. for other training levels, I don't feel there is any optimal or ideal rate for a given workout or individual. So I tolerate a certain amount of variance. However, I wholly subscribe to the notion that you must not over-inflate the rate to reach a faster pace. I definitely don't want to see anyone rowing a t a high rate without a correspondingly high power output. I think a figure like 10mps is a very good approximate rate in most situations. I would rarely like to see anyojne at LESS than 10 mps, but have no problem seeing more. For myself, I do a lot of rowing at 16 mps for much of my Level 4 rowoing, almost 11 mps for level 3, maybe a fraction more than 10 mps for Level 2, and just a hair under for Level 1. "
That was in a post by Mike Caviston on 7/13/2003...

So, I think I should not just increase the rate on my Level 1's unless I'm still getting close to 10mps.

sigh...

Carla,

You are a strong woman
Strength is definitely not a problem.
As a comparison, my fastest pace for three consecutive strokes is 1:36. I have seen 1:35 at times but only for one stroke. On the other hand, my reference pace is 1:43, and I can average 1:39.5 (on a good day!) for my L1.

IMHO, just row your L1 at 30-36 spm, while pulling as hard as you can for the the duration of your 500m, trying to be consistent in terms of pace and spm. I would not try holding 10mps for L1, since this corresponds to the mps of someone doing a 2k in 6:00 at about 34 spm!

Francois,
I looked up that fateful workout just to make sure I wasn't remembering wrongly. It was last May and it was a 10K done in 49 min, with 100 meter sprints every 500 meters. I noted that the sprints ranged from 1:50 pace to 1:37. The record isn't very detailed. I don't know if I meant that I actually held the 1:37 all 100m in any particular sprint or if it was just a few strokes. Probably a few random strokes were at 1:37. I know that was at an unrestriced rate, which felt gleefully naughty at the time. I do, however, remember not walking well for days and wearing a back support belt for over a month....

In any case, since I'm not interested in that experience ever again if I can help it, I doubt I'll ever pull that hard again unless I'm confident that my abs and technique can support it.

( 500 / 10 ) x ( 60 / 114 ) = 26.3 spm

In my view, pace is the criterion for judging performance (including the effectiveness of training), and stroke rate is one of the variables that affect pace (other variables include amount of force applied per stroke and length of stroke). There should always be a pretty strong (negative) correlation between rate & pace – as rate increases, pace should drop (i.e., get faster). But I don’t think the correlation will be perfect, or the same correlation will hold true for every person. During Level 4 workouts, the relationship between rate & pace is intended to be very strict. Even so, even I fudge the relationship just a bit from time to time. On a good day if I get into a groove and I’m just naturally pulling a little faster than intended for a given rate, I don’t fight it too much. I just don’t make a point of striving to go faster than the intended pace. (If the pace starts to slip a little bit, I fight to make sure I’m not going slower than my intended pace). For Level 1-3 workouts, I am aware of rate as it relates to pace, and I want the rates to be within certain limits, but I don’t let rate drive the workouts.

Here is a table I put together to give the athletes I’ve worked with a frame of reference for Level 1-3 workouts (they always ask, What rate? What rate?). I call them “Suggested Rates”. They all happen to be in the ballpark of 10 meters/stroke.

Pace : Rate :
2:15-2:11 22-23
2:10-2:06 23-24
2:05-2:01 24-25
2:00-1:56 25-26
1:55-1:52 26-27
1:51-1:48 27-28
1:47-1:44 28-29
1:43-1:41 29-30
1:40-1:38 30-31
1:37-1:35 31-32
1:34-1:32 32-33
1:31-1:29 33-34

This is just a guideline, and there may be numerous exceptions. For example, in my own training, my Recovery/Warm-up Pace is 2:14, and according to the above table the suggested rate is 22-23. Nuts to that! At that slow a pace, that rate seems wildly out of control; I use about 15spm. When I am rowing Level 3 workouts in the 1:51-1:48 range, my rate is 24-25spm (slower than the suggested 27-28). That works out to a little over 11mps. That sort of thing doesn’t bother me. It’s good to have a bit of a power reserve. For Level 2 work, my paces/rates work out to 10mps almost exactly. I don’t choose the rate to fit that number; it just works out naturally. For Level 1 work, at the slower end of the spectrum, I also row just about 10mps. But as I approach my top-end speed, the relationship breaks down, and to hit the fastest paces I use for various L1 formats, I have to jack the rate up to about 9mps or I couldn’t hit the paces. I need to hit those paces to continue developing my top-end speed, so I don’t artificially restrict the rate. What I find, after several weeks in a given training season, is that as my top-end speed improves, the rates I use at what used to be my top-end speed fall more in line with the 10mps model. Back in August to hit 1:34-1:33 would require rates of 35-36; now I can do it in 33-34. Right now, to do 250m @ 1:30 requires at least 38spm; that’s okay.

When monitoring others’ training, the warning sign I look for is people with exceptionally high ratings for a given pace during L3, L2, or low-end L1 work – especially earlier in the season. There needs to be room to grow into faster rates as the season advances, so I encourage them to take the rate down a bit and focus on developing the necessary power per stroke. Occasionally, people with excellent power per stroke need to be encouraged to get the rate up higher to push their top-end speed. When an athlete reaches a plateau in Level 1 training, rather than being limited by strength, they may just be limited by the ability to handle the mechanics of rowing at very high rates. Once they master that, they will be better able to apply the proper force. In these cases (contrary to the general WP paradigm of strength preceding rate), I don’t worry too much if the top-end paces drop a little bit before improving again.

When considering the optimal rate for maximum speed, there are many things to ponder – probably more than have occurred to me. Up to a point, a higher rate should mean more speed if the athlete has developed the necessary technique and fitness. A greater cadence means less time for the flywheel to decelerate between strokes and less energy to accelerate it back up to the required rotational velocity. OTOH, it takes energy to reverse the body’s momentum at the front and back end of every stroke, so doing it more times per minute (and with ever-increasing velocity) requires more energy. Each person (or, for OTW crews, each boat) has to experiment a bit to find what works best. Another variable (especially over longer distances than 2K) is how much work we perceive is being done – as opposed to the amount of work actually being done! For me personally, I find that a stroke rate that is probably a little lower than would be mechanically most efficient actually feels easier (more relaxed, more time to breath, etc.) and seems to improve my endurance. A couple years ago I wrote a post about some of my insights into efficiency and cadence based on research done with professional cyclists. I’ll dig into my archives and see if I can find it.

Mike Caviston

Thanks, Mike.

So, I think what I should be doing, is yes, go ahead and up my rate on the Level 1 workouts from 26-27 to say 27-28 and see if that brings me down from 1:54 to something faster than 1:51. If it does, than that's good, because I'll be doing a harder Level 1, but still keeping the 10mps or thereabouts. If it doesn't get me about 3 seconds per 500 faster, than all I'm doing is weakening the drive, and I should stay at 26 until I can speed it up and still get the same 10mps.

I have not done very much work at faster rates at all, though I know that my 3 year old 2K pb of 7:48 (stop sniggering!!!) was unrestricted because when I did it I had only been rowing about a month and didn't even really know what rate was.

I printed out that chart. Thanks again.

Did a 2K time trial this afternoon. I followed Mike's recommendations regarding proper warm up and pacing. I was aiming to simply break 7:00 and ended up with a time of 6:55.7
My splits were as follow:
500m 1:45.9 @ 29 spm
1000m 1.44.9 @ 29 spm
1500m 1:43.7 @ 30 spm
2000m 1:41.3 @ 31 spm

The last 200m were done at close to 1:38, so there is room for improvement.

The pacing Mike suggested made a huge difference. It is far less stressful both physically and psychologically to concentrate on 400m segments and to start at GP+2.

I think I could have gone about 4 sec faster, but next time I will aim for a 2 sec improvement; baby steps...

Now, regarding L4, I am currently doing 50 min of 200 and 204 sequences at ref pace of 1:43. I think I might alternate L4 sessions consisting of sequences in the 180 range at a ref pace of 1:42 (or 1:41) with my current L4 sessions at 1:43. What do you think?

Eventually, when Mike has the time, it would be interesting to have his views on strength training.
I am particularly lacking in that department!

Cheers,

Francois

TODAY'S WORKOUT ...

1K warm up 2:25 pace
60' - L4 - 176,180,176,180,176,180
1K cool down 2:20 pace

... over by 23M or about 2 strokes. I was very happy with this ... especially since I only started to notice a tight lower back during the last 8 minutes.

QUESTION:

My latest 2K PB is 7:26.1 -- or 1:51.5 pace.

I have seen Mike write about his desire, when preparing for a race, to do his 4 x 2K workout at race pace +4, and his 4 x 1000 at race pace -1, prior to racing. If he can do this, my sense is that he feels he's prepared and in the condition he'd like to be to accomplish his race objective.

My last 4 x 2000 workout was done at 2:02.6 pace.

My last 4 x 1000 workout was done at 1:52.5 pace.

I built the following table of pace +4 and pace -1 for the corresponding workouts:

7:40
pace: 1:55.00
4 x 2000 = 1:59.00
4 x 1000 = 1:54.00

7:35
pace: 1:53.75
4 x 2000 = 1:57.75
4 x 1000 = 1:52.75

7:30
pace: 1:52.50
4 x 2000 = 1:56.50
4 x 1000 = 1:51.50

7:26.1
(4 x 2000 would be 1:55.5)
(4 x 1000 would be 1:50.5)

7:25
pace: 1:51.25
4 x 2000 = 1:55.25
4 x 1000 = 1:50.25

7:20
pace: 1:50.00
4 x 2000 = 1:54.00
4 x 1000 = 1:49.00

It seems my L1 & L2 workout paces are still well below (slower than) my PB or race pace at this time. Since I'm relatively new to the WP, I've been tying to conservatively settle into the proper paces for the different levels without blowing up. Looking at this, it would seem to me that I could ratchet up the pace of my L1 and L2 workouts to get more in line with the +4/-1 projections.

To get in line with the "formula", I'd need to take 7.1 seconds off my 4 x 2K pace, which is a bunch. For the 4 x 1K, it's 2 seconds, which is not so bad, although not much better. And this would only get these workouts in line with my current 2K best, not a pace for improving on this (to, let's say, something under 7:20 by 1/29/06).

I know everyone is different, and that the +4/-1 may not work for me, but I'm trying to make sure I maximize the benefit of the plan, while still taking an incremental progress approach to avoid quick gains and then a sharp plateau -- or worse yet, injury.

I'd be very interested in your comments on this as you've been through this (if you have), and how your PBs/SBs correlate to these two workouts. I'd also be interested in your perspective on whether it would make sense to speed up the pace of these workouts at a more rapid rate than Mike suggests, due to the fact that I'm new to this game and improvements come fast and furious early in one's training history.

Thanks ... and sorry for another long post.

Regards -- Mark

Mark, if you aim for -1 for the 4x1k you need "only" to drop 3 secs not 5. Or did I not understand?

I'm not following the WP, but from what I read: the 4x1k is as hard or harder than a 2k, I think you will just have to suffer!

Good Luck!!!!

Cheers, Holm

Holm:

My math error ... good catch. Fixed it with a quick edit.

So you'd say give it a try and see what happens? I have a 4 x 2000 scheduled for tomorrow and I need to settle on a target pace for that. I may just go for it, and see what transpires.



-- Mark

Mark,
I don't want to seem to give better recommendations than Mike or others who are actually following the WP.
But if you have a 4x2k tomorrow, then your last one is probably 2-3 weeks old and given your recent fast improvements a 4x2k well below 2:00 split average is possible, I think.
I would go for 1:58 for the first and then see from there: If I feel good enough I would drop a second for the 2nd 2k then another for the 3rd and then see what's left.

This is just what I would do and as I said I do not follow the WP (I do the 8x500, 4x1k, 5x1.5 and 4x2k plus the pyramids according to the Pete plan).

Good luck, Holm

Mark,

I think you have to put more intensity in your L1 and L2 ( and L3) training!
You have to "embrace the pain", as our swim coach keeps telling us when we do quality workouts!

My reference pace of 1:43 is quite in line with my current racing ability.
Currently, the 4 x 1000 are at done at ref pace, and the 4 x 2000 at ref pace + 5.
L3 is at ref pace + 12.

I sometimes do 10 x 1000m with 30 sec rest at ref pace + 6. This is very hard, but it does wonder to your endurance, especially if you are interested in racing the 5k or 10k.

Hope this help.

Francois

Mark:

First, you and I are on the same reference pace, 1:54. Unfortunately for me, you are moving much faster and are now down to 7:26 which is, of course, a different reference pace.

The first time I did the X x 2000 I figured I'd start at 1:58.5. (I am only doing 3) I did 1:58.0 1:57.8 and 1:57.5 and on each piece, I'd followed Mike's racing advice on 1200 meters, then 600 meters then 200 meters. I was able to pull 1:48 or slightly better for the last 500 meters of each. This is today's workout so we'll see if it works again. I think you'd find taking 4 seconds off your 2:02 would be a good workout and fun. I do my 3 x 1000 at 1:53.5 target so the 5 seconds from your table is what I arrived at also.

I don't know what you are using for a drag factor. I started on what turns out to be 152 (before I knew how to measure it, this was just 5 on my erg). From Mike's previous SPM vs. Pace, his numbers are almost exactly what I can do. The problem is I simply can't row any faster than 30 with perhaps occasionally the display showing 31.

Question about Level 1 pacing

Are all the level 1 intervals done at the same pace or are the 4x1k's a bit slower than the 8x500. I've reread all of the posts on this thread, but haven't been able to determine if there is any variation.

I'm planning on a 4x1k tomorrow and was wondering if I will have to row as hard as the 8x500 that I did last week.

Thanks for your help.

Neil

I always hesitate to give correlations between workout paces or to project 2K paces from any given workout. People tend to take me too literally or focus only on the numbers I give while ignoring all the qualifying statements that go along with them. For me personally, over the past five years or so, my 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K results have very accurately predicted my 2K ability. Part of the reason is that my training is pretty consistent (in terms of workload, intensity, balance of speed vs. endurance, etc.) I have the experience and discipline to give nearly the same level of effort most of the time. Not everyone has reached that level in their training, and for them workout results might not predict 2K performance quite as accurately – though I would always encourage anyone to look at their recent training history when planning a 2K strategy.

Furthermore, the correlations between 4 x 1K/2K workouts and a 2K race are probably skewed by my experience with the formats and my overall endurance base. For the majority of people, even those pretty well-trained, a more reasonable 2K correlation for 4 x 2K is + 5, and 4 x 1K = 2K. That is, take your best 4 x 2K pace and subtract 5 seconds to determine your likely 2K. Your best 4 x 1K pace will be pretty close to your 2K pace. A standard deviation for both these relationships is probably something like half a second.

Regarding the decision about whether or not to push the workout pace a little harder as racing season approaches – it depends on a few factors, and each individual has to weigh the options. Beginners do improve more rapidly, and if things are going well and you feel like you can up the intensity and sustain a higher level for the rest of the season, then you should probably go for it. OTOH, people without a certain amount of experience are sometimes a little optimistic when it comes to assessing how long they can sustain a certain level of effort. One thing to consider is how much you are prioritizing results this year . If there’s no tomorrow, then I guess I’d rather try and fail than look back later and wonder “what if”.

Mike Caviston

Neil,

You will have to row as hard, but you should be slower at the 4 x 1000m. If that is not the case, then you didn't do the 8 x 500m hard enough!

I am about 3 sec slower on the 1000m compared to the 500m.

Regards

Francois

Thanks Mike.

You've encapsulated the nagging question for me ... how hard to push for this year vs. steady improvement for the long term.

With a 7:26.1 PB, and a target to go under 7:20.0 this season, I don't feel like I'm pushing myself that hard that this would be foolish. On the other hand, looking at my PBs going up in distance, it's clear I have lots of work to do on continuing to build my aerobic base ... so that base may be the governing factor here -- not my L1 and L2 paces. It's all a very delicate balancing act, isn't it?

It might be best to "split the difference" and see what happens.

Regards -- Mark

Thanks Francois.

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

Thanks,

Neil

No, it is about the same.

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

Bummer!

Carla

Nice session anyway.

I am only occasionally entering this thread, so pls excuse me if I'm being redundant or correct me if I'm wrong:

As far as I know, the stroke rate is only prescribed for L4 workouts, L1-3 only indicates the splits, and leaves the stroke rate to your choice.

I don't think your workout has been bad at all.