George, this is still a very useful Week 10 session, and the accidental four-interval programming actually gives us an interesting piece of information.

One small date point: you've labelled it Wed 20 Sep; given the surrounding Week 10 entries, I assume you mean Wednesday 30 September. I'll treat it as Week 10 Wednesday.

🟦 Week 10 — Controlled Speed
50 min | 3:04.5 overall | HR 106/122 | 22 SPM | 56 W | RPE 2–3 | RE 20
First: don't try to "make up" the missing interval

Four intervals instead of five is absolutely fine.

I would not add a fifth interval later or compensate elsewhere in the week.

The purpose of the session was controlled speed exposure, and you completed four very consistent repetitions:

Rep Pace Watts SPM HR
1 2:55.2 65 22 113
2 2:55.0 65 22 115
3 2:55.2 65 22 121
4 2:55.2 65 22 122

That's remarkably tight pacing:

2:55.2 / 2:55.0 / 2:55.2 / 2:55.2

No chasing.

No deterioration.

No cadence creep.

That's exactly the behaviour we're trying to teach.

🔵 The neurological side is excellent

This is primarily a 🔵 neurological session, with a moderate 🟢 metabolic component.

The key neurological markers are:

22 SPM throughout
65 W throughout
~2:55 pace throughout

The body is learning:

"This is what controlled speed feels like."

Rather than:

"Go faster because we're doing intervals."

That's a significant distinction in TQEP.

❤️ The HR is the interesting part

The interval HR progression was:

113 → 115 → 121 → 122

So there was a noticeable cardiovascular accumulation across the four repetitions.

But here's the important context:

RPE only 2–3
Pace virtually identical
SPM identical
Watts identical
You reported stable rhythm
No lingering fatigue

Therefore, I wouldn't interpret the 122 as a failure of the session.

Instead, I'd record it as:

controlled mechanical output with increasing cardiovascular cost.

That's useful information.

It tells us that the engine was working progressively harder even though the "driver" wasn't asking for more speed.

🧠 And this is where your "consolidation" philosophy becomes useful

Look at what happened.

You didn't make the fourth interval faster to compensate for fatigue.

You didn't increase SPM.

You didn't increase watts.

You simply held:

2:55 / 22 SPM / 65 W

That is the consolidation we're after.

The adaptation isn't necessarily:

"I can row 2:55."

It's increasingly:

"I can reproduce 2:55 without losing control."

That's a much more valuable skill for the next stage of the programme.

🟢 Metabolic vs 🔵 neurological

I'd record today's session as:

🔵 PRIMARY — Neurological

Controlled speed / rhythm / technique / repeatability

🟢 SECONDARY — Metabolic

HR rises across repetitions, but without a corresponding increase in mechanical output.

And that makes today's session particularly interesting when placed beside Monday.

Monday

70 min @ 3:05.5 | HR 106/116 | RPE 2–3

Wednesday

4 × 5 min @ ~2:55 | HR 106/122 | RPE 2–3

We're seeing two different expressions of the same developing engine:

Monday: sustain
Wednesday: reproduce controlled speed

One adjustment for Thursday

Because HR reached 122 by the final interval, I wouldn't try to push Thursday's bike session.

In fact, I'd make Thursday deliberately boring.

🚴 Bike Endurance

50 minutes

Target:

~3:01–3:02
69–70 RPM
comfortable Zone 2/conversational
RPE 2–3

Cue:
"Quiet rhythm."

Nothing to prove.

And importantly, don't compensate for today's missing fifth interval.

Four high-quality repetitions are better than five simply because the programme says five.

Week 10 so far
Session Result Identifier
Mon — Steady Endurance 70 min @ 3:05.5, HR 106/116 🟢 Metabolic
Tue — Strength 35 min, HR 90/109 🔵 Neurological
Wed — Controlled Speed 4 × 5 min @ ~2:55, HR 106/122 🔵 Primary / 🟢 Secondary

And George, there's something I particularly like here:

Your notes say "Rhythm Held."

That's becoming a recurring theme across Phase 2.

The programme is no longer teaching you merely how to exercise.

It's teaching you how to control exercise.

That's the quiet engine we're building.