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!

Stroke Rate: Ratings during Level 4 are designated as part of the workout, but
for Levels 1-3 athletes should select ratings most comfortable for them and allow ratings to develop naturally, without too much conscious thought.

In general, ratings for Level 3 will probably be in the range of 24-28;
Level 2, 26-32; and
Level 1, 30-36.

These numbers may be even higher at the end of the year as maximum fitness is reached.
A general rule of thumb is if an athlete can reach his/her goal at a lower rather than a higher rating, good.   That leaves more room to improve. If an athlete must row excessively high to reach his/her goal early in the season, there will be problems later. Lack of strength is probably a factor and could be addressed specifically during other conditioning portions of the overall training season.) - from the Wolverine Plan -Mike Caviston  http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm

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

I did:

1:58.0
1:57.8
1:57.7
1:58.7

AVG:  1:58.05

This was 4.58 seconds, on average, better than my last 4 x 2000.  And, it was the first time I was unable to get negative splits for every interval in the workout.

I think it was good to crank this up to get more "work" out of the "work"out.

Now, time to go to the "real" work.  This was painful, but fun, work.

   

Good work Mark!
It wasn't so bad to "embrace the pain", was it ?

Good suggestion by Holm for your next 4 x 2K.

Cheers,

Francois

Carla Great workout out !

According to Mike's recommendations your stroke rate was excellent for Level 1 training session.



Ralph Giarnella
Southington, CT

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.

(Also to Ancho)
From post #382 in this thread


We had been discussing that whole thing--yes Levels 1-3 are your choice but should probably fall in the 10mps range--that's why it was a bummer workout because it was definitely more like 9 mps though I haven't done the math

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  Mike Caviston Dec 11 2005, 06:27 PM

When we increase our stroke rate initially it is the recovery rate which is shortened.  We therefore begin the next stroke before the "boat" (in the case of the ERG- the fan)  has finished  its glide.

To better illustrate this, next time you get on the erg (after you have had a good warm up) take one long hard stroke and see how many meters are measured before the fan slows down and no more meters are measured.  I would not be surpriesed if the meters would read 30-50 meters (depending on the DF).

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.

What’s all this, then?  A thread under the “Training” heading actually devoted to training?  You realize this is doomed and destined to fail?  (Sigh.)

I wish more people would analyze their training methods so completely.  I rarely do more than quickly skim the “What Training Have You Done Today?” threads because they primarily exist as a string of random and isolated examples taken out of context.  It would be more instructive to see discussions that deal with controlled manipulation of training variables like volume, intensity, frequency, etc.  It is very difficult to isolate variables with clinical precision but I continually make subtle adjustments in things like total meters, order of workouts, format (e.g., 8 x 500m vs. 4 x 1K), pacing strategies, warm-up routines, etc.  Then I note the results and compare them to past performances and decide if my changes were a step in the right direction or a false start.  My basic training program has been intact for years, but I’ve also made a number of useful tweaks and adjustments and if the me of today could communicate with the me of 15 years ago I’d have a number of useful tips and suggestions.  Anyway, I’d just like to put it out there to encourage people to relate experiences like “Last year I made this crucial change in my training with the following results…”

Since Training Plans are pretty much my business, here are a few things to think about that people might consider as they prepare for another season:

1) “Training” is distinct from “getting some exercise”.  The latter is done to maintain general health and fitness but the former is done with the explicit goal of improving performance in a specific sport or event.  Training and exercise have a lot in common but the criteria for training are more stringent.
2) Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.  And yet so many people put no thought into their daily workouts and jump randomly from one thing to the next.  Or blindly take up challenges from others.  Or endlessly repeat their favorite workouts to the exclusion of other needs.  A Training Plan needs to be a detailed, coherent set of instructions for achieving the desired physiological, neurological, and psychological adaptations required for success in the chosen sport or event.  Desirable adjectives for a Training Plan that come to mind include organized, structured, systematic, balanced, comprehensive.  And of course terms like effective and safe.  I’m sure I could list many more. 
3) Training should be goal-oriented, so set a clearly defined goal.  And be realistic.  Vague or unattainable goals aren’t very useful.  Some goals of people I’ve worked with include “Win a hammer”, “Be faster than last year”, “Be faster than [insert team or opponent here]”, “Be in the top 10% for my age/weight/gender”, etc.  For some of us, the goal has become “Be slower than last year by only a small amount.”
4) If you have more than one goal, prioritize.  Few athletes are extraordinary enough to win EVERY race or to perform at a peak for an extended period.  If you want to win BIRC, for example, don’t try to peak for every regional race as well.  A major challenge to my training for the past couple seasons has been to figure out how to get fast enough to qualify for the USIRT in October, race in Europe in December, and still try to retain some speed by the time February and the CRASH-Bs roll around.
5) Once the goal is set, COMMIT to it and plan the training to achieve that goal.  But remember that nothing is free.  The more lofty the goal, the more you’re going to have to pay.  One of the more frustrating aspects of what I do is “bargaining” with people who say they want to reach a certain level of performance but are unwilling to do the necessary work.  Joe Paterno said something like “Everybody wants to win, but few are willing to PREPARE to win.”
6) Keep records of training.  Review them.  Learn from them.  I am amazed at how many athletes I know that consider a training journal to be too much bother.  But you know what they say about history and those who are doomed to repeat it.

If 8 intervals are more than you can handle right now, do 4 or 5 or 6 (whatever seems comfortable) and perhaps eventually you’ll feel ready to expand to the full 8.  I can’t speak for the C2 plan, but the Level 1 workouts in the Wolverine Plan are based on my readings of the scientific literature devoted to interval training, as well as my practical experience as a coach and athlete.  Long story short, for an event of the intensity/duration of a 2K (i.e., all-out for 6-8 min), the “optimal” volume for the session is 150-250% race distance (3-5K in this case) broken up into intervals roughly ¼ - ½ race distance (500m-1K in this case).  I’m partial to a total volume of 4K (not only 8 x 500m but also 5 x 750m and 4 x 1K) because they fit comfortably into an hour training block (including warm-up and a brief cool-down).  If someone did a hard 10 x 500m the intensity would have to be less than a hard 8 x 500m, which again would be less intense than a hard 6 x 500m (for someone giving their best effort for each workout).  Because of the interplay between volume and intensity, I don’t have the final word on which format is “best”.  While I normally choose 8 x 500m, there have been situations where I was forced to limit the workout to 3 x 500m and I’ve still considered it a productive workout.  Just not optimal.

Quoting TomR:
“Would you offer your list of, say, the five best tweaks in your training regimen during the past 15 years? Perhaps you could also venture an explanation of why you think they worked.
I know I should plan the work and then work the plan, but for someone like me going nowhere slowly, part of the fun is tinkering w/ the plan.”

Tom, “plan the work and then work the plan” really says a lot.  I’m going to steal that for future reference.  I’ve been thinking about the best way to respond to your question, and I have to admit it’s kind of a challenge.  But here are a few simple rules I follow as a result of trying different strategies, with some brief explanations (I could get encyclopedic if I wasn’t careful).

1)  Warm up a lot.  For the typical athlete, however much they think they’re warming up, it’s probably not enough.  I’ve developed a very structured approach to warm-up (as I have to all aspects of my training) and follow a set routine before each workout (or race).  These routines still continue to evolve slowly as I experiment with slight variations, but I’m satisfied with the basic formats.  “Warm-up” essentially constitutes a fifth training band (in addition to Levels 1-4) in my program, and I regulate it almost as strictly as I do the other bands to control the overall training stimulus. But my main point about warm-ups is they need to be pretty intense, and leave you hot & sweaty and breathing pretty hard.  People who see me preparing to work out and don’t know any better are usually surprised when they find the warm-up wasn’t the actual workout.  I have consistently shown athletes I’ve worked with over the years that they’ll perform better if they warm up to the point where conventional thinking would lead them to believe they would be too tired to perform. 

2)  Develop a routine.  A consistent format is more beneficial than a random or constantly changing schedule.  Experiment to find a system that works but then stick to it.  I don’t believe in periodizing, and keep the same general format year-round.  Even if your training includes different phases, keep a consistent format within each phase.  Even the same workouts in a different order can affect performance in a way that makes it more difficult to determine true progress.  I spoke with an athlete recently who was disappointed her best 2K was a little slower this year than last, even though all of her standard workouts (8 x 500m, 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, 60’, etc.) were all greatly improved.  Turns out she had rearranged her schedule at various points in the year to specifically prepare for a season’s best attempt for each workout (varying the amount of speed work, tapering, etc.)  She incorrectly assumed that achieving better performances for her workouts in this manner would translate to a faster 2K.  The real key is to improve the various workouts within a consistent or stable training format.

3)  Work on consistency.  I have found it extremely helpful to develop skill in holding a desired stroke rate and split with minimal fluctuation.  I find it helpful to occasionally use combinations of rate and pace that aren’t necessarily optimal for performing the specific workout.  In my training, rate and pace are specified for Level 4 workouts and I attempt to stick to them as exactly as possible.  For other workouts, I have a range of rates that are appropriate for each pace.  The range is fairly narrow, but I don’t believe there is one optimal ratio for all workouts.  But whatever rate and pace I select for a given piece or workout, I attempt to hold those numbers with as much consistency as possible.  I think the ability to select and hold different rate/pace combinations while training makes it easier to find and hold the most optimal combination during a race.

4)  Pacing is critical.  There are several things to consider when deciding the best strategy for pacing a workout or race.  Mechanically, an even split is most efficient and requires the least expenditure of metabolic energy when averaging a given power output (watts).  But (without taking time to justify this with a lengthy physiological discussion), metabolically it is more effective to ease into things a little and gradually increase the intensity as the piece progress – in other words, it is more effective to negative split.  (From a metabolic standpoint, “even split” is actually a milder form of “fly and die”.)  The trick is not to negative split too much, and sacrifice the metabolic advantage by creating a race plan that reduces mechanical efficiency with too big a gap between the slowest and fastest pace.  So for me, the optimal race plan is to start out .5-1 sec/500m slower than my final target pace.  But my training strategy is considerably different, and I’ve developed a system where I divide each piece into 5 segments (inspired by the default setting of the PM3) and accelerate the pace 4-5 sec/500m over the duration of the piece.  This is true for pieces as short as 1000m all the way up to 25K.  I’ve put together a series of tables that allow me to determine quickly the pace for, as an example, each segment of a 4 x 2K workout.  I determine the desired pace for the entire workout, which dictates the pace for each 2K (each one the same pace or slightly faster than the previous) and the pace for each 400m segment within each 2K (negative split).  I emphasize that this rather extreme format is a training tool and not my idea of the optimal way of pacing workouts for the fastest possible session.  But I have created a consistent framework to improve incrementally in a measured way from week to week over the duration of the training period.  It also gives me something else to concentrate on, which makes the time go by that much quicker.  This has been especially helpful during the ever-demanding 4 x 1K workouts.  For some of my staple workouts, like 8 x 500m or 12 x 1250m, I stick to a constant pace for the entire workout.

5)  Patience is a virtue.  Not only is it critical to pace each workout; it is also critical to pace the season.  Just as in a race, it requires discipline to avoid the temptation to go too hard too soon and precipitate the dreaded “fly and die”.  I never try to make rapid gains in a short time, but am content to make slow, steady improvement over several months.  The glacier moves imperceptibly slow but given time can crush mountains.  At the beginning of the season, I determine my goal for CRASH-B, determine the corresponding paces I will need for my core workouts like 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K, then map out a schedule of improvement from the beginning of the training phase to the end [i.e., rate of improvement = (initial pace – final pace)/# of weeks to train.]  In the final few weeks before competition, if I think I have it in me, I can decide to up the intensity a bit more (just like deciding you have enough left to sprint the last 2-300m of a 2K).  Until recently, I had thought the optimal number of weeks to sustain a full training program was somewhere around 22-26 (using the other half of the year for active recovery and less structured activity), but I am coming to believe that year-round structure is better if the appropriate pacing is used.

Well, I have a very clear picture of what volume of training I need to reach certain levels of performance.  I’ve mapped it out over the last 10-15 years.  My optimal volume is around 180K per week.  200K per week doesn’t show any improvement and begins to show signs of decreased performance.  160K per week has given good performances but less consistent, so I feel more comfortable with 180K.  (I generally start a new training season at around 120K and gradually build up over several weeks.)  With as little as 120K I could still race within about 8 seconds of my full (180K) potential, though weight management is more difficult (at 180K per week I can make the lightweight cutoff with only minimal adjustments to my normal diet).

But all of this only makes sense within the context of my own particular training program.  For a typical week, my meters break down to roughly 17% warm-up, 3% Level 1, 7% Level 2, 23% Level 3, and 50% Level 4 (using Wolverine Plan terminology).  The paces for each training band are appropriate for the stage of the season in which I am training.  The overall pace for a week may be something like 1:52, but that is averaged from a range of paces that may go from 1:34 to 1:59.  This is certainly not the same thing as rowing 180K at a steady pace of 1:52. 

The short answer to the original question is, certainly there is a ceiling effect for a given volume of training.  Increasing the intensity of a given volume will induce further improvements, but of course there will be physiological and psychological barriers for intensity as well.  So still further improvements will require more volume. The trick (for the individual with enough time to train and the will to maximize performance) is to find just the right combination of volume and intensity before pushing things too far.

4 x 1K?  Let me tell you about 4 x 1K!  On the one hand, it is the single most valuable workout I do (in terms of preparing to row a competitive 2K). OTOH, it is also the single most physically and mentally demanding workout I do.  My best 4 x1Ks have all been harder than my best 2Ks.  Which of course is the point.  But over the long haul it is important to be smart about how you attack this workout, and how often you do it.

The Wolverine Plan is based on the premise that Level 1 workouts will provide the best training stimulus for 2K.  But such high-intensity work can only be done roughly once per week.  The remaining WP workouts are geared towards improving the endurance, power, technique etc. that will lead to improved Level 1 performance (more speed during each interval and more complete recovery between intervals).  There is a strong correlation between Level 1 pace and 2K pace, so I always have a good sense of what my current 2K ability is based on recent workouts.

The basic format of Level 1 workouts is 4K total work, divided into intervals of 500m-1K.  The paces generally range from a little slower than 2K to 2-3 seconds faster than 2K, depending on the exact format and how fit you are at the time.  8 x 500m is probably the simplest format to work with and appropriate for beginners.  Other variations include 5 x 750m (I do a hard 250m first just to keep the total at 4K, but that’s not really essential) and a pyramid format:  250m/500m/750m/1K/750m/500m/250m.  Once in a while I do a version based on time: 15 x 1’on/1’ off.  But I don’t think it’s very productive to do too much work with intervals <500m.  I wouldn’t, for example, do 16 x 250m.  Although it is possible to reach very fast paces and most people think of it as an easier format in terms of perceived effort, the metabolic demands are considerably different from what is used in a 2K, so the training crossover is small.  OTOH, intervals >1K are TOO demanding in terms of maintaining the appropriate pace for the entire workout.  So in my view, the BEST combination of interval length/intensity is 4 x 1K.

But 4 x 1K is a two-edged sword – it’s great training BUT it’s hard in every way imaginable.  In-season I do it every other week (on alternate weeks I do another format such as 8 x 500 or 5 x 750).  As I get further into the training process it gets mentally harder and harder to complete and I find myself starting to worry about it at least 2-3 days before I’m scheduled to do it.  It becomes somewhat stressful but I think it’s a good thing to learn how to deal with the stress, and if I pull it off then actual 2K races by comparison aren’t that stressful.  I haven’t done 4 x 1K since the week before CRASH-B, however, and am enjoying the time away from it.  I’ll stick it back in the rotation sometime in August and keep it there throughout the upcoming racing season.

For the actual workout, I begin with a thorough, extended warm-up.  I have a set goal for the entire workout and for each 1K interval.  My general advice for pacing is to be fairly consistent across all pieces, but to try to row the 4th piece a little faster than the others.  For someone who wanted to average 1:48.0 for the workout, I would suggest something like 1:48.2, 1:48.2, 1:48.0, and 1:47.6.  Within each piece, either attempt to even-split or negative-split (in other words, no fly-and die).  I have begun using a fairly extreme format of negative-splitting, but it’s a training tool and not the optimal way to do the workout for best results.  For myself, I structure the majority of my workouts around progressively getting faster within each piece.  (Ideally this carries over into racing.)  In terms of progress from session to session, I am happy to improve by .2 sec from one workout to the next (e.g., 1:36.0 and then 1:35.8 two weeks later), but newbies will probably progress at a slightly faster rate.  But for God’s sake don’t try to get too fast too soon.  Take the long view and chart out a realistic rate of progress for the season.  (I find that at the end of a training season I suspect I might have a little more room for physical gains, but mentally I’m shot.  My goal is to psyche myself up for the best possible 4 x 1K I can muster the week before my last race of the year.  If I nail the 4 x 1K, I can pretty much go ahead and write down my 2K score while I’m at it.)

Oh, and one more thing (sorry this is getting lengthy): recovery between intervals.  My rule of thumb is: work time + recovery time = 5’/500m.  In other words, 4 x 1K is done on 10’ centers.  I don’t set the monitor for recovery time because I like to start the intervals from a dead stop, as at the beginning of a race.  Don’t obsess about every last second of recovery but be fairly consistent.  The goal is to maintain a high intensity during the work periods so I’d rather rest a few seconds too long than not long enough.  Actually, I find too much recovery actually makes me slower because I begin to lose my warm-up.  My method is to finish a piece, take a moment to get reoriented and take a few breaths, then write down my splits, and grab a quick drink or a towel for a quick wipedown.  Then I reset the monitor for 1K and row at or slightly faster than my recovery pace (defined in the Level 4 pace charts) using a low rate.  Activity between pieces (active recovery) promotes faster/more complete recuperation than no activity (passive recovery).  I also use the time to mentally recover, and get into as relaxed a state as possible.  That means getting my breathing under control, reminding myself I’ve done this before and I can do it again, I’m fine, pain don’t hurt, etc. etc.  When I complete the active recovery, I take the final seconds to reset the monitor, get psyched up, and then start the next piece.

Jeez, people, you’re killin’ me here!  4 times 1K ....
Please keep the questions coming – just not the same questions over & over!

Mike Caviston

The forum has a function where you can click on a person’s name and view all posts by that person.  Click on my name, call up my posts and start from the beginning. 

"Few athletes are extraordinary enough to win EVERY race or to perform at a peak for an extended period.  If you want to win BIRC, for example, don’t try to peak for every regional race as well.  A major challenge to my training for the past couple seasons has been to figure out how to get fast enough to qualify for the USIRT in October, race in Europe in December, and still try to retain some speed by the time February and the CRASH-Bs roll around."

  "I don’t believe in periodizing, and keep the same general format year-round." 

Mechanically, an even split is most efficient and requires the least expenditure of metabolic energy when averaging a given power output (watts).  But (without taking time to justify this with a lengthy physiological discussion), metabolically it is more effective to ease into things a little and gradually increase the intensity as the piece progress – in other words, it is more effective to negative split. 

4 x 1K?  Let me tell you about 4 x 1K! 

recovery between intervals.  My rule of thumb is: work time + recovery time = 5’/500m.  In other words, 4 x 1K is done on 10’ centers. 

Everyone is different psychologically and one often wants to taylor the workouts to fit your own preference. ...
So, for a world class athlete 4 times 1K with 7 mins rest at 2K pace might be good enough.
...

Mike has commented on how "Lactate tolerance" is a myth, as some justification for why it does no good to punish one's self with short recovery periods. But just what is going on in these 5, 6, or 7 minutes that makes such a difference in a choice between them? I thought I heard somewhere that it takes hours to clear the lactate produced.

I suspect that part of the decision is based upon how well you want this 4x1k to model your 2k performance. If you give yourself 15 minute rests, are you equally confident in completing a 2k at this 4x1k pace?

I think maybe you undersell the 4x1k a bit? I mean I agree that it's tough, but if ever anyone asks me what is great about it, the first thing I tell them is that it's way easier than doing an all out 2k test, while giving the same information, and a longer more thorough workout. It is easier to me. The first 1k piece is a no brainer, the second an ego boost, the last part of the third definitely cause for concern about the next piece coming and then, after the first half of the last piece, which isn't really a problem, then yes, the last 500 of the last piece is as miserable as the same in a 2k, if I can even finish it. But heck, its a small part of the whole workout. Good deal.

Thanks for all of this. Trying not to be repetitive, but still new.

These two comments seem contradictory. I've understood periodization as having everything to do with easing off part, maybe half, of the year and then progressively ramping up madly before a targetted "peak". But then I thought you shunned that (periodization) in favor of a more gradual but ongoing pretty much linear progression all year round, without big peaks and ebbs. Which is it? Or what do I not understand?

If you ever get a chance, I'd like to understand a little about the physiology behind this

I think maybe you undersell the 4x1k a bit? I mean I agree that it's tough, but if ever anyone asks me what is great about it, the first thing I tell them is that it's way easier than doing an all out 2k test

If you can't row faster dan 1 k pace on a 2 k race your absolutely slacking    Doing a 2 k really hurts

If you can't row faster dan 1 k pace on a 2 k race your absolutely slacking    Doing a 2 k really hurts

TODAY'S WORKOUT

level 1 4x 1000

Goal Pace: 1:57.6 

Based on average of my first 4x1000 meters-  11/15/2005- 

1:57.6
1:57.6
1:57.4
2:08.9
I excluded the 4th 1k in my calculations.
My first attempt  at 4x 1K : The first 3x 1 K went well but on the 4th I managed to make it to 600 m before I totally ran out of steam.
Crashed and burned last 400 meters- just ran out of steam! My  brain said go but my legs said NO!.



Today:

Warm up  in 3 parts:
1- 2500 m at low stroke rate with increasing pace-

2- Power 10 -   1 minute intervals with 1 min. recovery,  at increasing Drag until Max. Drag 10      @ 14 spm
    # 5 intervals-  total  Meters 1500 M-  avg. MPS - 15 meters-
Purpose: get all the muscle fibers ready to work in sync - Max- power from the start.

3- Speed intervals : Practice start  0- to steady state-  app 10  strokes - repeat 5 times 500 M
Purpose: to judge how many strokes it will take to get to cruising speed - it takes 3-4 for me.


Total warm up  4500 M- 


12/14/05         
------------ 250m --- 500m --- 750 m ----  1000m ---- Avg Pace---- total time   

#1_____ 1:55.0  _ 1:55.0  __1:54.2 ____ 1:54.6 ___ 1:54.6 ____ 3:49.3

#2 ____ 1:55.2___1;55.4___1:55.2 ____ 1:55.2 ___ 1:55.2 ___ 3:50.2

#3 ____ 1:55.4___ 1:55.4___1:55.2 ___  1:54.4____1:55.1____3:50.2
 
#4_____1:54.4___1:54.4___ 1:56.4 ____1:59.6 ____156.1 ___ 3:52.4

Crashed and burned again during the  last 500 meters- started too fast on 4th 1000M  but i finished this time!
I was trying to get a faster time than #1. 

This session went smoother than my first session and while very strenuous felt much more manageable than my 11/15 session.  Could have been better if I had not messed up #4.  On #4 I felt great for the first 500 meters.  Half way trough the 3rd 250 m split I realized I was in trouble and might not be able to finish but unlike the first session I was able to gut it out.  Despite the poor pacing I still finished at a faster pace than my best 1k on 11/15.

What happened between 11/15 and 12/14.  The Wolverine plan kicked in!  I feel that  Level 4 sessions helped me improve my stroke.

After Mike pointed out that  my form was probably very poor I spent 4-5 days working on my mechanics.  Lots of L4 training sessions.  Since then I have been rowing all of my training session (Except for Level 1) strapless.  Rowing strapless while awkward at first forced me to improve my form.
I am almost tempted to try Level 1 strapless, however for now there is too much else going with Level 1 to have to worry about rowing strapless.

How does today’s level 1 compare to my PB 2k? Well the last 250  meters of my #4 1 K (the worst split of all) is still  faster that my personal best 2k which I set just 2 weeks ago.  I will have to plan my pace better next time so that I can finish my last 1K better than I did today.

Ralph Giarnella
Southington, CT

I agree that mental toughness is a huge part of the equation.
How did you manage to sustain such an intense program without a base of slow rowing. Where did you get your basic endurance from?

Ralph,

Thanks for sharing your progress.

I did the same level one workout on Monday.  My first interval was my fastest and my 4th was my slowest.  Not ideal.  I cracked towards the end of the third interval, which made no.4 torture. 

1.  3:14.6  1:37.4/500
2.  3:16.0  1:38.0/500
3.  3:18.5  1:39.3/500
4.  3:23.0  1:41.5/500

I'm going to try a more conservative approach next time.  I want to get negative splits.  I did the L2 yesterday with negative splits and mentally it seemed much easier.

I was curious as to why you set the damper to 10.  I always thought the damper was an adjustment for your weight and power.  I tend to set mine to 5 or 5.5.  Do you find the higher setting more efficient?

Regards,

Neil

2- Power 10 -  1 minute intervals with 1 min. recovery,  at increasing Drag until Max. Drag 10      @ 14 spm
    # 5 intervals-  total  Meters 1500 M-  avg. MPS - 15 meters-
Purpose: get all the muscle fibers ready to work in sync - Max- power from the start.

I am not yet sure what the ideal drag is at this point.  I view the drag as nothing more than a brake and I would think that the lower the drag the easier it would be to pull a faster time.  However I am not quite sure how the power rating is calculated on an erg.  If the C2 computer takes into consideration the drag setting when computing the power then it might not matter which drag is chosen.  If only the resistance of the fan is taken into consideration then I would think that the less the drag the better.

Ralph,

The C2 computer takes into account the drag factor when computing the power.
There was a thread recently about this topic.

I did 4 x 1k Level 1 training today. I was aiming for 1:43.3, 1:43.0, 1:42.8 and 1:42.5 to yield an average of 1:42.9.

What I did was:
1:43.1
1:42.8
1:42.5 so far so good
1:41.7 way too fast!

Average: 1:42.5. An improvement of 0.5 sec. I went too hard on the last one; it is going to be difficult to improve on that, the next time I do the 4 x 1k. Thanks God it's in two weeks!

If anyone needs an additional incentive for performing L2, L3 and L4 diligently, it would be to make the "baby steps" improvements in Level 1 less painful!

Cheers,

Francois

Mark:

Thought you had a trip leaving today? Bet you're glad not to miss the training.

I did my first set of 500's tonight. Since I only get in around 50,000 m/week, I only do 3,000 of L1 and 6,000 of L2 a week. That's already 18% and a little higher than Mike recommends. Anyway, my 6 x500 went (Goal of 1:50.0 average, using my reference pace of 1:54 not my recent PB)

1:50.5
1:50.3
1:50.1
1:49.6
1:49.3
1:39.4

My previous PB on a 500 had been 1:43.5. I'd been stroking 26-27 on the first five and just tried to nail the last one. I was able to hold 32 SPM for the first time ever. I held solid at 1:38 until about 90 meters and then kind of died with 1:39 and finally a 1:40. But not a hard death. It has to be the 2 - L4 per week for the last 3 weeks. Two more weeks of a 40 and a 50 and I'll move the 50 to 60.

Regards,
Jeff

I had an 11:30 flight so I got in a short 40' L4 with 1K warmup and cool down.  I'm at the Rome airport right now, after a late arrival.  Waiting on my (rescheduled) connecting flight.  I've found a club about 20 to 30 minutes away from where I'm staying that looks like it has relatively new model Ds, so I hope to at least maintain while here.  I'm on some personal business, so I do have some free time and my schedule is my own.

My next 8 x 500 is planned for 1:49 average, which will be an improvement of about 1.5 seconds, if I can pull it off.  I think the L4 60' pieces really do help with shorter distances.  To me, the workouts often feel more like weight training than pure aerobic training - supporting the whole "power per stroke" aspect.

-- Mark

Carla,
You cannot try to fix too many variables and then hope it fits together.
For your L4 workout, the pace is given, the stroke rate is given, the damper setting stays the same, your technique should not change too much. With all that set the drive recovery ratio will take care of itself.
Generally, he drive recovery ratio gets smaller as you increase the SR.

Hope that helps, Holm

It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen.  It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Jeff:

I had an 11:30 flight so I got in a short 40' L4 with 1K warmup and cool down.  I'm at the Rome airport right now, after a late arrival.  Waiting on my (rescheduled) connecting flight.  I've found a club about 20 to 30 minutes away from where I'm staying that looks like it has relatively new model Ds, so I hope to at least maintain while here.  I'm on some personal business, so I do have some free time and my schedule is my own.

My next 8 x 500 is planned for 1:49 average, which will be an improvement of about 1.5 seconds, if I can pull it off.  I think the L4 60' pieces really do help with shorter distances.  To me, the workouts often feel more like weight training than pure aerobic training - supporting the whole "power per stroke" aspect.

-- Mark

Sure, fix your meters/stroke and this takes care of ratio as long as the DF is the same.

The first sign of "Trading Rate for Pace" is a decrease in meters/stroke, regardless of the specific number of meters/stroke that had been decided on as the baseline.

Follow-up Questions:

1) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at the same ratio?
2) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at different ratios?

That's what I mean.  The drive recovery ratio does tend to get smaller as you increase SR.  But, isn't it  beneficial to work to keep that from happening until you just can't help it?  I think it would. I'm tempted to think you shouldn't do L4 workouts at stroke rates where you can't keep the ratio the same until you are strong enough to do them and keep the ratio the same; this would be  keeping your technique from changing too much between stroke rates. Allowing the ratio to shrink is changing your technique.  It seems to me that allowing the ratio to get smaller is where you really start "trading rate for pace", which is OK for races, but for actual training to improve eventual time trials you shouldn't let that happen.  It is much harder work, though, because you really have to drive harder and quicker to do it the faster the stroke rate and pace.


Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Answer: 0:30

But how long can you hold pace? For arbitrarily increasing ratio, you just need ever increasing brute strength. At the ultimate ratio, how many meters can you get in one single pull? A very anaerobic event by the way. Maybe for highly reduced stroke rates we should all be eating more creatine. At the other end, the same pace needs less and less force per stroke. Aerobic system more and more sufficient it seems. (I'm referring to fixed pace remember) But then there's a pure inefficiency of throwing our center of mass back and forth on the non-sliding erg, which contributes nothing to the flywheel, but gobbles up oxygen anyway, at the high stroke rate. So where is the optimal, where these effects cross?

Training to attain more strength available is always a net positive, enabling more efficient rowing. But given the strength that you actually have, the most effective ratio in a race is going to be a personal thing, just found by rowing the ratio that works best for you. I think it's worth time finding out what that is. A reason I agree that L1 and L2 sessions should be truly open rate, and whatever ratio works best for you. It won't be far off the numbers others mention.

Carla, you just asked for thoughts. Hope these aren't too random.

I came across this item this morning.  I thought it my be interesting in understanding the importance of maintaining close to even splits throughout an exercise piece as well as understanding why changing stroke rate and pace feels harder (because it is harder)  than maintaining the same stroke rate and pace.

In the first place, due to the relationship between velocity and power, the average watts for the varying rate sequences will be higher than for the steady rate, even though the total number of strokes taken is the same in both scenarios. 

MORE THOUGHTS ON STROKE RATE
Something that always gets me thinking about how stroke rate might affect performance is the relationship between cycling cadence and performance.  It’s well-documented that the most efficient cadence for a given power output (e.g., 250W) is around 50-60 rpm.  That is, there are multiple combinations of resistance and cadence to achieve 250W (low rpm-high resistance vs. high rpm-low resistance), but the cadence that results in the least amount of oxygen consumption (the lowest energy expenditure) is 50-60 rpm.  It is also well-documented that experienced cyclists, when asked to work at a given output and allowed to select their own cadence and resistance, will just about always select a lower resistance and a cadence of around 90-100 rpm.  They do this EVEN THOUGH IT RESULTS IN GREATER OXYGEN CONSUMPTION AND ENERGY EXPENDITURE.  Furthermore, in controlled studies to determine the effects of cadence on endurance, subjects are able to sustain a given power output for significantly longer periods of time using the higher rather than the lower cadence.  (Recognize that this is DESPITE the fact that more energy must be expended using the higher cadence.)  What researchers have concluded is, in this case PERCEPTION of effort has a bigger impact on performance than ACTUAL effort.  More revolutions against a lower resistance feel easier, so cyclists can do it longer.

What does all that have to do with rowing?  Well, maybe nothing.  The relationship between cadence and efficiency is different for rowing.  It is quite inefficient to row at low ratings because the flywheel decelerates so much.  It is more efficient to bring the rating up a bit so the wheel has less time to slow down. So it would be more efficient to row a given split at, say, 22 spm vs. 16.  (At some point, rowing at still higher ratings would become inefficient due to the cost of reversing the body’s mass so often.)  But what I find after lots and lots of Level 4 work is, I bring the rating up slightly for Level 3 (say 24-25 spm) and feel very comfortable rowing for 20 or 30K at a pace I would normally row @ 20-22 spm during Level 4.  I think my endurance is enhanced not only by the greater efficiency of the slightly higher rating, but by the reduced PERCEPTION of effort.

L4 tonight.  I used ref pace 1:49  and this really felt like a workout.  176 188 196 176 188 196... Here's a question: I have been trying to always have the drive be one third of the time and the recovery 2/3s no matter what the spm.  This is challenging, because instead of just speeding up the recovery to increase the stroke rate, you have to drive more explosively to keep it at the same ratio. 
Am I supposed to be doing this?

Sure, fix your meters/stroke and this takes care of ratio as long as the DF is the same.

The first sign of "Trading Rate for Pace" is a decrease in meters/stroke, regardless of the specific number of meters/stroke that had been decided on as the baseline.

Follow-up Questions: 

1) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at the same ratio?
2) What is the difference between a 2:00 and a 1:30 at different ratios?

On Level 4, part of the trouble with trying to get the rates and paces internalized so that I don't need a metrenome or anything is the whole thing with what reference pace to use.  Even with the reference pace ridiculously low for the pace of my miserable 2K it's almost irresistable to do better than the pace required.  So then I can't even remember what pace goes with each rate without checking on a board frequently, and can't remember what rate I'm supposed to be at, either. If I'm supposed to be at 2:16 at 16 mps, but end up doing 2:12, I can't just look at the monitor and say, "Oh, I'm at 2:12, so I'm supposed to be on 16--it's reading 17 so I should slow the rate back down" because I'm just as likely to think it's supposed to be 18 and speed it up, since 2:12 is actually the prescribed pace for 18.  So I have been using a metrenome and setting the PM2 for 30 min and then checking the meters and spm for each 2 minutesl to see how I did. (the thing doesn't remember enough intervals, so I have to do 2 x 30 min and take about 2 min in the middle to jot it down).  It's progress that at least I'm bang on the strokes now usually.  You probably can't relate to someone who seems to get so easily confused over what seems very simple and routine to you, but there it is