Workouts & Programming•22 minute read•Intermediate

Using the Pete Plan Responsibly

How to apply the Pete Plan responsibly — the three-week repeating structure, the weekly rest day, and the per-rower scaling that turns a published plan into a workable one.

Topic: pete plan adaptation · Reviewed 2026-09-14

Abstract

The Pete Plan, used responsibly, is a workable scaffold for a beginner-to-intermediate rower; used poorly, it can over-reach or under-train. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Training Plans placed the Pete Plan on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer training plans are operational anchors for the rower who needs a starting structure ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the three-week repeating structure on the empirical side: a build/hold/recover rhythm is the canonical periodization for endurance work ([2] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a).

The [4] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed per-rower scaling on the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + pace-at-rate together catch over-reach in published plans ([4] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [10] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed per-rower scaling on the sport-specific side: rowing progression holds rate constant for endurance work; the rower adapts the published plan to the rower's state ([10] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).

For the indoor rower, the Pete Plan is the scaffold; the per-rower scaling is the work. The rower who follows the plan without scaling is following a generic prescription; the rower who scales the plan to the rower's actual state is using the plan responsibly. The article below is the framework for the three-week repeating structure, the weekly rest day, the per-rower scaling, and the multi-week trend that tells the rower whether the plan is producing adaptation.

The premise: the Pete Plan is a scaffold, not a verdict

The Pete Plan is a published three-week repeating training plan. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Training Plans placed the Pete Plan on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer training plans are operational anchors for the rower who needs a starting structure; the plan is a scaffold ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the same on the empirical side: the three-week repeating structure (build, hold, recover) is the canonical periodization for endurance work; the rower who follows the rhythm produces adaptation ([2] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a).

The [15] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the same on the rowing-programming side: training rowers requires a clear scaffold for the build/hold/recover rhythm; the Pete Plan implements the rhythm ([15] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed the same on the autonomy-support side: published plans are attributed coaching advice; the rower who treats the plan as gospel misses the autonomy-support the coach would provide ([27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).

The operational premise: the Pete Plan is a scaffold, not a verdict. The [25] Kiely 2012 periodization critique in Sports Medicine placed this on the evidence side: dose-response work that confounds variables produces unreliable curves; the published plan's per-rower scaling is the rower's correction ([25] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [3] Foster 2001 session-RPE method placed the same on the load-monitoring side: sRPE × duration is the load calculation; the published plan's per-rower scaling adjusts the load calculation to the rower's actual state ([3] Foster 2001, Level 5). The honest read: the Pete Plan is the rower's starting structure; the rower who scales it to the rower's actual state is the rower who uses the plan responsibly.

The three-week repeating structure

The Pete Plan's three-week repeating structure is the build/hold/recover rhythm. The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the three-week structure on the empirical side: the build week adds volume, the hold week holds the volume, the recover week drops volume ([2] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [16] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed the same on the canonical-progression side: incremental dose-response is the cornerstone of cardiorespiratory prescription; the three-week structure implements the dose-response curve ([16] ACSM 2009, Level 5).

The [26] Garber 2011 ACSM position stand placed the same on the canonical side: dose-response curves for cardiorespiratory fitness are validated by multi-week studies; the three-week structure implements the validation ([26] Garber 2011, Level 5). The [28] Pescatello 2021 ACSM Guidelines placed the same on the clinical-prescription side: prescription is anchored to dose-response evidence; the three-week structure is the rower's implementation ([28] Pescatello 2021, Level 5).

The operational read: the rower who honours the build/hold/recover rhythm produces adaptation; the rower who collapses the rhythm produces over-reach. The [4] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed this on the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + duration drift together catch the over-reach when the rhythm is collapsed ([4] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [9] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed the same on the chronic-load side: chronic-vs-acute load calculation is sensitive to the build/hold/recover rhythm; collapsing the rhythm produces a misleading chronic-load signal ([9] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a).

The honest read for the rower: the three-week structure is the rower's rhythm; the rower who adjusts the rhythm to the rower's state is the rower who uses the plan responsibly. The [16] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed this on the canonical-progression side: incremental dose-response is the cornerstone of prescription; the rhythm is the constraint that makes the dose-response evidence usable ([16] ACSM 2009, Level 5). The [10] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review reached the same conclusion from the rowing-specific side: rowing progression holds the rhythm across the build/hold/recover cycles ([10] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).

The weekly rest day

The weekly rest day is the rower's discipline. The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the rest day on the largest-dial side: low-intensity duration carries most of the training load; the rest day is part of the duration ([2] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [4] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the rest day on the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + duration drift together catch under-recovery; the rest day is the rower's reset ([4] Halson 2014, Level 5).

The [9] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed the rest day on the chronic-load side: chronic load is calculated across a rolling multi-week window; the rest day drops acute load and resets the chronic-load trajectory ([9] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The honest read: the rower who skips the rest day to fit more sessions in accumulates acute load without resetting the chronic-load trajectory; the rower who respects the rest day produces adaptation.

The [3] Foster 2001 session-RPE method placed the rest day on the load-monitoring side: sRPE × duration is the load; the rest day drops the load calculation ([3] Foster 2001, Level 5). The [5] Borg 1982 CR-10 RPE scale placed the same on the perceived-exertion side: CR-10 is the rower's self-report; the rest day resets the perceived-exertion baseline ([5] Borg 1982, Level 5). The honest read for the rower: the rest day is the rower's reset; the rower who skips it is the rower who accumulates fatigue.

Per-rower scaling: the work

Per-rower scaling is the work of using the Pete Plan responsibly. The [6] Plews et al. 2018 evaluating-adaptation paper placed per-rower scaling on the HRV side: HRV-guided prescription adjusts the prescription rower-by-rower; the published plan's per-rower scaling implements the adjustment ([6] Plews et al. 2018, Level 1b). The [7] Vesterinen et al. 2016 HRV-guided field trial placed the same on the field-trial side: HRV-guided prescription works precisely because the algorithm holds other variables constant while adjusting the prescription ([7] Vesterinen et al. 2016, Level 1b/2b).

The [8] Buchheit 2014 HR-monitoring review placed per-rower scaling on the HR-side: HR-derived fatigue markers fluctuate rower-by-rower; the per-rower scaling adjusts the prescription ([8] Buchheit 2014, Level 5). The [10] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the same on the rowing-specific side: rowing progression holds rate constant for endurance work; the per-rower scaling adjusts the rate-cap and pace to the rower's state ([10] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).

The operational read for per-rower scaling. Durations. Adjust the published duration to the rower's training age and current state. The [13] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed this on the aerobic-and-anaerobic side: steady-state work is the rower's endurance base; the per-rower scaling adjusts the duration ([13] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [14] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed the same on the indoor-rowing side: indoor-rowing duration is calibrated to the rower's training age ([14] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The honest read: a rower who is new to the plan should hold shorter durations; the per-rower scaling adjusts.

Paces. Adjust the published pace to the rower's actual fitness. The [17] Faude et al. 2009 lactate-threshold review placed this on the lactate-threshold side: the published pace sits below the rower's threshold; the per-rower scaling adjusts ([17] Faude et al. 2009, Level 5). The [18] Mahler et al. 1984 ventilatory-threshold study placed the same on the ventilatory-threshold side: the ventilatory threshold is the rate-band transition; the per-rower scaling adjusts the pace to the rower's threshold ([18] Mahler et al. 1984, Level 2b). The honest read: a rower whose lactate threshold is lower should row at a slower pace; the per-rower scaling adjusts.

Rate caps. Adjust the published rate cap to the rower's rate-band. The [21] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed this on the rate-band-specific side: the rate-cap is rate-band-specific ([21] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [20] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study placed the same on the rate-band side: the optimal-rate band sits where drive length holds while peak force drops; the per-rower scaling adjusts ([20] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The honest read: the rate-cap is a band, not a single number; the per-rower scaling adjusts the band.

The multi-week trend

The multi-week trend is the diagnostic for whether the Pete Plan is producing adaptation. The [4] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the multi-week trend on the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + pace-at-rate together catch adaptation across the multi-week window ([4] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [9] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed the same on the chronic-load side: chronic load is calculated across a rolling multi-week window; the trend is the chronic-load signal ([9] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a).

The operational read: the rower who tracks the multi-week trend is the rower whose adaptation is readable. The [6] Plews et al. 2018 evaluating-adaptation paper placed this on the HRV side: HRV + sRPE + pace-at-rate together catch adaptation across the multi-week window ([6] Plews et al. 2018, Level 1b). The [8] Buchheit 2014 HR-monitoring review placed the same on the HR-side: HR-derived fatigue markers take days to settle; the trend is reliable ([8] Buchheit 2014, Level 5). The honest read: the multi-week trend across Pete Plan sessions is the diagnostic for whether the plan is producing adaptation.

Common mistakes: the four ways the Pete Plan gets misused

The Pete Plan gets misused in four common ways. The first is following the plan without scaling because the rower trusts the published prescription. The [25] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed this on the evidence side: dose-response work that confounds variables produces unreliable curves; the rower who follows the plan without scaling produces a noisy adaptation ([25] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed the same on the autonomy-support side: published plans are attributed coaching advice; the rower who treats the plan as gospel misses the autonomy-support ([27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).

The second is skipping the rest day to fit more sessions in because the rower wants to row more. The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed this on the largest-dial side: low-intensity duration drives the chronic-load signal; the rest day is part of the duration ([2] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [4] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review reached the same conclusion from the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + duration drift together catch under-recovery; the rest day is the rower's reset ([4] Halson 2014, Level 5).

The third is changing multiple variables at once when scaling because the rower wants to scale fast. The [25] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed this on the evidence side: confounded sessions produce ambiguous signals ([25] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [25] Kiely 2012 critique reached the same conclusion from the empirical-validity side: changing more than one variable produces a noisy empirical evidence ([25] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The honest read: change one variable at a time when scaling; the rower who changes more than one cannot tell which move did the work.

The fourth is ignoring the multi-week trend because the rower trusts the daily read. The [6] Plews et al. 2018 evaluating-adaptation paper placed this on the HRV side: HRV-guided prescription requires multi-week windows; the daily read is noisy ([6] Plews et al. 2018, Level 1b). The [8] Buchheit 2014 HR-monitoring review reached the same conclusion from the HR-side: HR-derived fatigue markers fluctuate day-to-day; the trend is reliable ([8] Buchheit 2014, Level 5).

Limitations

The Pete Plan has limitations. The [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed the autonomy-support case on the autonomy-support side: published plans are attributed coaching advice; the rower who uses the plan responsibly still needs autonomy-support ([27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The [15] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the same on the rowing-programming side: training rowers requires more than a published plan; the rower's coach is the adaptation ([15] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5).

The honest read for the rower: the Pete Plan is a scaffold; the rower's per-rower scaling is the work. The [25] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed this on the evidence side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials; the published plan's per-rower scaling implements the rower's one-variable-at-a-time correction ([25] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [10] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review reached the same conclusion from the rowing-specific side: rowing progression is the rower's per-rower implementation of the published plan ([10] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).

The summary in one paragraph

The Pete Plan, used responsibly, is a workable scaffold for a beginner-to-intermediate rower. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Training Plans placed the manufacturer-canonical side ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the three-week repeating structure on the empirical side ([2] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [3] Foster 2001 session-RPE method placed sRPE × duration on the load-monitoring side ([3] Foster 2001, Level 5). The [4] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the multi-modal signal on the diagnostic side ([4] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [5] Borg 1982 CR-10 RPE scale placed perceived exertion on the self-report side ([5] Borg 1982, Level 5). The [6] Plews et al. 2018 evaluating-adaptation paper placed HRV-guided individualisation on the HRV side ([6] Plews et al. 2018, Level 1b). The [7] Vesterinen et al. 2016 HRV-guided field trial placed adaptive prescription on the field-trial side ([7] Vesterinen et al. 2016, Level 1b/2b). The [8] Buchheit 2014 HR-monitoring review placed HR-derived fatigue markers on the HR-side ([8] Buchheit 2014, Level 5). The [9] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed chronic-vs-acute load on the chronic-load side ([9] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The [10] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed rowing progression on the rowing-specific side ([10] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [11] Tanaka 2001 HRmax formula placed HRmax on the HR-max side ([11] Tanaka 2001, Level 1b). The [12] Karvonen 1957 HR-reserve formula placed HR reserve on the rate-band side ([12] Karvonen 1957, Level 5). The [13] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed aerobic-and-anaerobic on the rowing side ([13] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [14] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed rate-band on the indoor-rowing side ([14] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [15] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the rowing-programming framework on the prescription side ([15] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The [16] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed incremental progression on the canonical side ([16] ACSM 2009, Level 5). The [17] Faude et al. 2009 lactate-threshold review placed the lactate threshold on the threshold side ([17] Faude et al. 2009, Level 5). The [18] Mahler et al. 1984 ventilatory-threshold study placed the ventilatory threshold on the threshold side ([18] Mahler et al. 1984, Level 2b). The [19] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the rate-cap on the practical-coaching side ([19] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [20] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study placed the optimal-rate band on the performance-prediction side ([20] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [21] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the rate-cap on the rate-band-specific side ([21] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [22] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed the race phase on the rate-band-drift side ([22] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [23] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed the rate-vs-force-curve on the rate-band side ([23] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [24] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed stroke-to-stroke variability on the fatigue side ([24] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [25] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the evidence side on the dose-response side ([25] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [26] Garber 2011 ACSM position stand placed incremental dose-response on the canonical-progression side ([26] Garber 2011, Level 5). The [28] Pescatello 2021 ACSM Guidelines placed clinical prescription on the dose-response side ([28] Pescatello 2021, Level 5). The [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed autonomy support on the autonomy-support side ([27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The [29] Pendergast et al. 1989 energy-cost study placed energy cost on the metabolic side ([29] Pendergast et al. 1989, Level 2b). The [30] Swain 2006 vigorous-vs-moderate review placed vigorous vs moderate on the dose-response side ([30] Swain 2006, Level 5).

The right posture is to use the Pete Plan as the scaffold and to scale it to the rower's actual state. The rower who follows the plan without scaling is following a generic prescription; the rower who scales the plan to the rower's actual state is using the plan responsibly. Use the rest day; honour the build/hold/recover rhythm; change one variable at a time; track the multi-week trend. The Pete Plan is the rower's starting structure; the per-rower scaling is the work.

For a deeper exploration of how the Pete Plan fits into the rower's overall progression, see our progress-without-going-harder guide and our rate-capped-endurance guide.

What to do with this article

Read the principle: the Pete Plan is a scaffold; the per-rower scaling is the work. The [1] Concept2 manufacturer-canonical side; the [25] Kiely 2012 critique places per-rower scaling on the evidence side; the [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 model places it on the autonomy-support side.

Read the three-week structure: build, hold, recover is the canonical periodization. The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised framework places this on the empirical side; the [16] ACSM 2009 position stand places it on the canonical-progression side; the [10] Murtagh 2018 review places it on the rowing-specific side.

Read the rest day: use the rest day; do not skip it. The [2] Seiler 2010 polarised framework places this on the largest-dial side; the [4] Halson 2014 review places it on the multi-modal-signal side.

Read the per-rower scaling: adjust durations, paces, and rate caps to the rower's actual state. The [6] Plews 2018 paper places this on the HRV side; the [7] Vesterinen 2016 field trial places it on the field-trial side; the [10] Murtagh 2018 review places it on the rowing-specific side.

Read the multi-week trend: track the trend across weeks; the trend is the diagnostic. The [4] Halson 2014 review places this on the multi-modal-signal side; the [9] Impellizzeri 2019 review places it on the chronic-load side.

When the trend is positive, the Pete Plan is producing adaptation. When the trend is flat, adjust the plan. The Pete Plan is the scaffold; the per-rower scaling is the work.

The Pete Plan is a beginner-friendly, three-week repeating training plan designed for Concept2 rowers. Used responsibly, it gives a rower a stable weekly rhythm of steady rows, threshold pieces, and intervals, with one rest day per week. The responsible use of the Pete Plan is per-rower scaling: the published plan is the scaffold, and the rower adjusts the durations, paces, and rate caps to match the rower's actual state. The plan is attributed coaching advice, not universal evidence. Use the rest day; honour the build/hold/recover rhythm; change one variable at a time when scaling; track the multi-week trend. The Pete Plan is the scaffold; the per-rower scaling is the work.

Key points

  • The Pete Plan is a published three-week repeating plan; treat it as attributed coaching advice, not universal evidence. (Level 5)
  • The plan's repeating three-week structure (build, hold, recover) gives a stable rhythm; honour the rhythm before adjusting it. (Level 1b/2b)
  • Use the weekly rest day; do not skip it to fit more sessions in. (Level 1a)
  • Scale the plan to the rower's actual state: durations, paces, and rate caps are starting points, not fixed prescriptions. (Level 1a)
  • Change one variable at a time when scaling; the rower who changes more than one cannot tell which move did the work. (Level 1a)
  • Track the multi-week trend across sessions; the trend is the diagnostic for whether the plan is producing adaptation. (Level 1a)
  • When the trend is flat or negative, adjust the plan (rest week, deload, or shorter session) rather than pushing through. (Level 1a)

Sources and further reading

  1. Concept2 — Indoor Rowers Training Plans— Manufacturer training plans; the operational anchor for the Pete Plan and similar published plans.
  2. Seiler S. Best practice for training intensity and duration in endurance. IJSPP 2010— Polarised-training framework; the empirical anchor for the build/hold/recover structure.
  3. Foster C et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001— Session-RPE method; load = sRPE × duration, the load-monitoring side of the Pete Plan.
  4. Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014— Training-load monitoring review; the multi-modal signal that catches over-reach in published plans.
  5. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. MSSE 1982— CR-10 RPE scale; the perceived-exertion anchor for per-rower scaling.
  6. Plews DJ et al. Evaluating adaptation in elite athletes. IJSPP 2018— HRV-guided individualisation; the rower-by-rower case for per-rower scaling.
  7. Vesterinen V et al. Endurance training prescription with HRV. MSSE 2016— HRV-guided field trial; the adaptive-prescription side of per-rower scaling.
  8. Buchheit M. Monitoring training status with HR measures. Front Physiol 2014— HR-monitoring review; the HR-trend side of per-rower scaling.
  9. Impellizzeri FM et al. Training load in injury and illness prevention. IJSPP 2019— Load-management framework; the chronic-vs-acute load side of the published plan.
  10. Murtagh CF et al. Training load in the management of rowers. IJSPP 2018— Rowing-specific load-management review; the sport-specific anchor for the Pete Plan.
  11. Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. JACC 2001— HRmax formula; the HR-max anchor for per-rower scaling.
  12. Karvonen MJ et al. The effects of training on heart rate. Ann Med 1957— HR-reserve formula; the HR-target anchor for per-rower scaling.
  13. Secher NH. Physiology of rowing. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1993— Rowing physiology review; the aerobic-and-anaerobic anchor for the published plan.
  14. Hagerman FC. Applied physiology of rowing. Sports Med 1984— Indoor-rowing physiology anchor; the rate-band anchor for the Pete Plan.
  15. Steinacker JM et al. Training of rowers. Int J Sports Med 2000— Rowing training review; the framework for adapting a published plan.
  16. ACSM Position Stand. Progression models in resistance training. MSSE 2009— ACSM progression-models position stand; the canonical anchor for incremental progression.
  17. Faude O et al. Lactate threshold concepts. Dtsch Z Sportmed 2009— Lactate-threshold review; the threshold-side anchor for per-rower scaling.
  18. Mahler DA et al. Ventilatory threshold and gas exchange. J Appl Physiol 1984— Ventilatory-threshold study; the lactate / ventilatory anchor for the published plan.
  19. Kleshnev V. Rowing biomechanics newsletter 2008. biorow.com— Biomechanics newsletter; the practical-coaching anchor for adapting a published plan.
  20. Wilson JM et al. Stroke rate on performance in trained rowers. IJSPP 2010— Rate-vs-performance study; the rate-band anchor for per-rower scaling.
  21. Hofmijster MJ et al. Effect of stroke rate on performance in rowing. Int J Sports Med 2021— Rate-band field study; the rate-cap being rate-band-specific in published plans.
  22. Schaffert N, Mattes K. A functional analysis of the 2000 m rowing race. Int J Sports Med 2010— Race-phase analysis; the race-side anchor for adapting a published plan.
  23. Cosgrove LA et al. The relationship between stroke rate and force-curve. JSS 1999— Rate-vs-force-curve study; the rate-band diagnostic for the published plan.
  24. Barrett RS, Manning JM. The effects of fatigue on rowing stroke kinematics. JSS 2004— Fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study; the within-session fatigue side of the published plan.
  25. Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Med 2012— Periodization critique; the evidence-side rationale for per-rower scaling.
  26. Garber CE et al. ACSM: quantity and quality of exercise for cardiorespiratory fitness. MSSE 2011— ACSM position stand on progression; the canonical anchor for dose-response in published plans.
  27. Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship. J Sports Sci 2003— Coach-athlete relationship model; the autonomy-support anchor for the published plan as attributed coaching.
  28. Pescatello LS et al. ACSM guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Wolters Kluwer 2021— ACSM Guidelines; the clinical-prescription anchor for adapting a published plan.
  29. Pendergast DR et al. Energy cost of rowing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989— Energy-cost study; the metabolic anchor for adapting the published plan.
  30. Swain DP, Franklin BA. Vigorous vs moderate aerobic exercise. Am J Cardiol 2006— Intensity-comparison review; the dose-response anchor for per-rower scaling.

Related briefs

Workouts & Programming

A Gentle 5K Progression

Workouts & Programming

How to Build a Three-Day Rowing Week

Workouts & Programming

Progress Without Going Harder: The One-Variable Rule