Sorry for the really long post....

[stulemanski]

This appeared on another forum by someone that is a professional in the cycle fitness industry and was billed as....

"A very interesting article on managing training load using a PM"

Now given that it refers to swimmers and rowers and does not mention the use of a power meter anywhere, I'd be tempted to dismiss this as largely irrelevant to cycling.

The problem I have is that (while it may be difficult to argue the case for the sports examined in the paper that I know relatively little about) the cyclist who gives this article a "quick glance" will be tempted to conclude that they should not schedule in rest days, but should begin each day's training session regardless of how tired they feel, but also that simply stop each day's training before they become "excessively fatigued" (i.e. once their performace within that session shows a marked drop off).

I think this bad advice to offer cyclists because it is likely to lead to either (i) stunning mediocrity as riders train day-in day-out without pushing limits to a state of "excessive fatigue", or more seriously (ii) chronic overtraining as they ignore their bodies' warning signs and continue training irrespective of how they feel.

As a result, I felt obliged to publicly point out the serious shortcomings of the article (even though I know the person who posted it on the other forum) because I'm worried that some cyclist might actually try to take it's advice.

The article is below... if anyone would care to comment (either in a post or a PM) with greater insight and clarity than I have managed, then please feel free.

INSTITUTIONALIZED OVERTRAINING
​

Rushall Thoughts, (1994).

Overtraining has been of concern to coaches over the past few years since training loads have been increased to the point of often being excessive. The avoidance of overtraining has been a central focus of sports science and sports medicine education. There are two common scenarios with regard to coping with overtraining in sports.

1. If a coach develops an annual plan that includes predicted periods of lessened training stress as a precaution to avoid overtraining or maladaptation, it is possible that athletes will come to expect periods of reduced strain. They usually learn that they must have such "recovery" periods otherwise they cannot perform well.
   
2. If a coach frequently quizzes athletes about the symptoms of overtraining or maladaptation, it is possible that athletes will be sensitized to such symptoms and will exaggerate their slightest existence. In more extreme cases, they become neurotic and imagine the symptoms even though they really do not exist at a critical level. Athletes learn to be weaker rather than stronger in the face of continued exercise stress and overtraining symptom emphasis.

Both the above illustrations exaggerate the symptoms and onset of overtraining. The institutionally validated emphasis on appropriate symptoms and the state causes athletes to expect to feel stress symptoms, often in a neurotic manner. Some athletes even become obsessed with transitory and minor symptoms, particularly those which originate from stresses outside of the sport. That obsession often becomes strong enough to the point that activity is limited because of the way the athlete feels even though assertive activity may be the best therapy to alleviate the outside-of-sport stress symptoms themselves. Thus, the well-meaning coach who does not want to push athletes into excessive and unnecessary long-term fatigue states may actually be producing a counter-productive psychological state in athletes. An athlete's ability to work to the fullest potential is compromised by anticipations of the symptoms and fear of overtraining.

The term "institutionalized overtraining" is used to label this effect. That label recognizes that the origin of the complicating sensitization and expectation is derived from the directing body (i.e., the coach).

Modern coaching actually requires athletes to endure greater amounts of relevant work because the overall volume of training is still one of the most significant factors associated with sporting success. Institutionalized overtraining is counter-productive to this aim.

To avoid its occurrence, the following steps can be taken.

• Do not plan periods of decreased overload for "recovery" purposes.
• Do not plan transitional training phases where fitness is partially lost.
• Instead, demand consistent high quality technical performance at practices. When performance quality deteriorates, allow athletes to terminate participation in that practice segment. This facilitates each individual's capacity to tolerate particular levels of strain, avoids performing in detrimental excessive fatigue states, and allows athletes better in-session recovery.
• The orientation of athletes is turned from trying to complete all training, to completing the greatest volume of quality training possible. This is particularly beneficial for avoiding maladaptation and has the concomitant benefit of increasing the volume of quality performance and decreasing the volume of inferior performance.
• Since athletes are encouraged never to enter excessively fatigued states, the likelihood of their entering an overtrained state is greatly reduced. With that reduction, it becomes unnecessary to plan for unloading macrocycles.
• Athletes are continually challenged to do more quality training. The neurotic imagination of symptoms that happens with institutionalized overtraining is avoided.
• The success of this approach is dependent upon the sole criterion for cessation of a training stimulus: When performance decreases, despite a compensatory increase in effort, the practice item should be terminated.
• For the coach, the following decision making activity is appropriate:
  • Take note of the performance standard that is initially displayed in the training segment.
  • When an athlete's technique begins to deteriorate note its effect on performance.
  • When performance deteriorates despite increased effort on behalf of the athlete, terminate the athlete's involvement in that segment.

This procedure will stimulate athletes to perform the greatest possible amount of quality training while avoiding overtraining or excessive maladaptation. They will not become neurotic about overworking, but rather, will be encouraged to continually "push the envelope" of performance capacity by (a) overriding natural and/or cultural inhibitions, (b) increasing performance efficiency so that a greater volume of work can be accommodated given a finite performance capacity, and/or (c) increasing the volume of beneficial training and reducing the amount of irrelevant training. It is the last item that is perhaps the most important. Since an athlete has a finite capacity for exercise and performance, it is in his/her best interest to use as much as possible of that capacity in relevant training. Many modern sports programs are being side-tracked by "circus" training, that is, activities which have little to none to counter-productive relationships with intended competition performances. Examples of circus training are: attending "specialized training" camps where programs are not related to the long-term program of development hopefully being undertaken by serious athletes; altitude training camps where the requirements for performance are altered from those required at sea-level; performing "test sets" of training stimuli which have no relationship to actual competitive performances; training with heavy weight programs when such activities have been shown to have little benefit for or relationship to performance and may even be the seeds of injury; competing in contests which do not fit with training objectives; and performing activities to indulge sports science "testing." These examples of dubious activities which are creeping into modern training programs all interfere with consistent training and detract from the opportunities to indulge in relevant activities.

This alternative approach to training will not produce overtrained states because athletes should never be overstressed. Each training stimulus will terminate when its benefits (the repetition of a particular quality of work) are no longer evident. Even when outside-of-sport stresses are transferred into practice, the diminished capacity of an athlete on that day will be accommodated by this approach.

This procedure contrasts markedly with the consistently excessive training program, the extended program that eventually produces overtraining, and the neurotic expectation of overtrained states and symptoms. With the consistent expectation to perform with quality there may be no ceiling to possible performance improvement.

This training orientation is very dependent upon the motivation of athletes to do quality training. It demands that if quality performances cannot be produced then recovery is the next best option. Large percentages of training time performing less than optimal exercises and technique would be forsaken. Some critics would claim that this description is a disguise for a high quality -- low volume orientation. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a method for generating the greatest volume of quality training.

Appropriate motivation will be developed if contingencies that support quality performance are constructed. This most probably will need at least some behavioral goal to be set for every training segment, and at a minimum, perhaps a weekly evaluation of performance change (improvement). Athletes need to have the incentive to constantly strive for the greatest volume of quality training possible. As soon as a below-quality performance occurs they are encouraged to recover rather than to persist with degraded quality while accruing greater levels of detrimental general fatigue.

There are two high profile coaches who program this form of training. Mike Spracklen, arguably the best rowing coach in the world, the current Head Coach of Men's Sweep for US Rowing, and Gregg Troy, the Head Coach of Swimming at The Bolles School in Florida, employ each ingredient of the model.

In San Diego, California, prospective members of the US Men's Eight-oar Crew train mainly in pair-oar boats. At most training sessions all crews row together and are able to see how they are faring in comparison to each other. That competitiveness is an incentive to perform with quality. Each week, all crews perform a time-trial over racing distance. Over time, those athletes with the best technique, physical capacity, and psychological strength will be identifiable. It is those athletes who will be selected for the USA's main boat.

Within Mike Spracklen's program there is nothing said about athletes who drop out of a segment of a training session or have a practice off to have extra recovery. The system that finally locates the athletes with the greatest capacity to do the highest quality of race-simulation type training, will eventually discover those athletes with a lesser capacity. It also should be recognized that Coach Spracklen also programs periods of moderate stress so that the volume of quality rowing actually performed in a season is extremely large when compared to other high profile rowing programs. This is not a "survival of the fittest" program for it is remarkable how many young men are able to adapt to the increased volume of high quality work, something which they have never before experienced.

Coach Spracklen goes further. He attempts to program training sessions which avoid excessive debilitating fatigue. Instead of falling into the traditional pattern of training early and late in the day with long sessions, he ensures opportunities for his rowers to get adequate night and between-practice-sessions rest. Recognizing that in a two-hour practice session it is usually the last half-hour that is of the worst quality but the greatest fatigue, he often programs three practice sessions a day, each being approximately one and a half hours. The detrimental latter portion fatigue of the two-hour practice is avoided, the less stressful shorter practices require less recovery between sessions, and so a greater volume of adaptive and quality training is performed each day and across the particular training phase.

The underlying feature of Mike Spracklen's coaching is the relentless pursuit of vast amounts of excellence in technique. No weakness is institutionalized into the US Men's Sweep Rowing program.

Gregg Troy attempts to extend the work capacity of his swimmers to their greatest levels (Rushall, 1994).

1. He does not allow his swimmers to ever lose conditioning. There are no days off for recovery.
2. During the winter he does not like his swimmers to enter many competitions. If there are too many races, then swimmers do not get the opportunity to "set up" properly for racing," which he implied, is an important skill and set of procedures.
3. Coach Troy's programs are long-term oriented. He wants his swimmers to compete well on only a few identified occasions. He stressed that it is of no value to sacrifice training for lesser level competitions.
4. Any recovery that occurs is done on an individual basis. There is no planned "team" recovery period.
5. During a taper or period of rest, Coach Troy and the athlete work together to determine the most successful course of training. He cited the example of how little work Greg Burgess does in the last week of a taper and yet he still performs well in races.

This alternative perception of overtraining, on the surface, appears to contradict popular approaches to the phenomenon. However, it is an improvement. Current practice usually has athletes working hard for the full duration of a training session. When the session is completed, usually because no more time remains, athletes are then released to recover before the next scheduled practice. There is no guarantee in this form of time management that: (a) athletes will recover between practice sessions; (b) the total work of the individual practice session is beneficial; (c) the physical stimuli experienced are accommodated for each individual; and (d) athletes will not become preoccupied with tolerating general fatigue and its personal manifestations. Those weaknesses are removed by this alternative approach to handling training stress and the phenomenon of overtraining.

If a sporting program emphasizes overtraining and the fear of it, the ability to sustain quality training and to explore alternative methods for extending exercise tolerance capacities will be weakened.

Reference: Rushall, B. S. (1994). Impressions from US Swimming's 1994 National Team Coaches' Meeting. NSWIMMING Coaching Science Bulletin, 5(2), 1-7.

 

[frenchyge]

Couple thoughts on this article, which has been briefly discussed on this forum before as well:
1) a link will suffice, when re-quoting the entire article makes the post awkwardly long (and also gives more credit to the hosting website)
2) cyclists would be wrong to write their training plans around a "quick glance" of this article. That doesn't make the article wrong or the advice bad.
3) the recommended steps do seem to lay out a plan for *managing* training stress, rather than haphazardly inducing stresses one day and planning recovery, 'just in case,' on the next. I don't see how that's a bad approach.
4) after taking steps to manage my training stress this year (via the Training Stress Score within the Cycling Peaks software), my training has not led to either of the two ends that you point to as likely. In fact, my training this year has been great, allowing me to score my first 3 career wins so far this year.
5) I don't really see what you feel is inherently bad about the advice in the article, assuming one reads the whole thing rather than just taking a quick glance.

 

[acoggan]

"A very interesting article on managing training load using a PM"

Overtraining has been of concern to coaches over the past few years since training loads have been increased to the point of often being excessive. The avoidance of overtraining has been a central focus of sports science and sports medicine education. There are two common scenarios with regard to coping with overtraining in sports.

1. If a coach develops an annual plan that includes predicted periods of lessened training stress as a precaution to avoid overtraining or maladaptation, it is possible that athletes will come to expect periods of reduced strain. They usually learn that they must have such "recovery" periods otherwise they cannot perform well.
   
2. If a coach frequently quizzes athletes about the symptoms of overtraining or maladaptation, it is possible that athletes will be sensitized to such symptoms and will exaggerate their slightest existence. In more extreme cases, they become neurotic and imagine the symptoms even though they really do not exist at a critical level. Athletes learn to be weaker rather than stronger in the face of continued exercise stress and overtraining symptom emphasis.

Both the above illustrations exaggerate the symptoms and onset of overtraining. The institutionally validated emphasis on appropriate symptoms and the state causes athletes to expect to feel stress symptoms, often in a neurotic manner. Some athletes even become obsessed with transitory and minor symptoms, particularly those which originate from stresses outside of the sport. That obsession often becomes strong enough to the point that activity is limited because of the way the athlete feels even though assertive activity may be the best therapy to alleviate the outside-of-sport stress symptoms themselves. Thus, the well-meaning coach who does not want to push athletes into excessive and unnecessary long-term fatigue states may actually be producing a counter-productive psychological state in athletes. An athlete's ability to work to the fullest potential is compromised by anticipations of the symptoms and fear of overtraining.

The term "institutionalized overtraining" is used to label this effect. That label recognizes that the origin of the complicating sensitization and expectation is derived from the directing body (i.e., the coach).

Modern coaching actually requires athletes to endure greater amounts of relevant work because the overall volume of training is still one of the most significant factors associated with sporting success. Institutionalized overtraining is counter-productive to this aim.

To avoid its occurrence, the following steps can be taken.

• Do not plan periods of decreased overload for "recovery" purposes.
• Do not plan transitional training phases where fitness is partially lost.
• Instead, demand consistent high quality technical performance at practices. When performance quality deteriorates, allow athletes to terminate participation in that practice segment. This facilitates each individual's capacity to tolerate particular levels of strain, avoids performing in detrimental excessive fatigue states, and allows athletes better in-session recovery.
• The orientation of athletes is turned from trying to complete all training, to completing the greatest volume of quality training possible. This is particularly beneficial for avoiding maladaptation and has the concomitant benefit of increasing the volume of quality performance and decreasing the volume of inferior performance.
• Since athletes are encouraged never to enter excessively fatigued states, the likelihood of their entering an overtrained state is greatly reduced. With that reduction, it becomes unnecessary to plan for unloading macrocycles.
• Athletes are continually challenged to do more quality training. The neurotic imagination of symptoms that happens with institutionalized overtraining is avoided.
• The success of this approach is dependent upon the sole criterion for cessation of a training stimulus: When performance decreases, despite a compensatory increase in effort, the practice item should be terminated.
• For the coach, the following decision making activity is appropriate:
  • Take note of the performance standard that is initially displayed in the training segment.
  • When an athlete's technique begins to deteriorate note its effect on performance.
  • When performance deteriorates despite increased effort on behalf of the athlete, terminate the athlete's involvement in that segment.

This procedure will stimulate athletes to perform the greatest possible amount of quality training while avoiding overtraining or excessive maladaptation. They will not become neurotic about overworking, but rather, will be encouraged to continually "push the envelope" of performance capacity by (a) overriding natural and/or cultural inhibitions, (b) increasing performance efficiency so that a greater volume of work can be accommodated given a finite performance capacity, and/or (c) increasing the volume of beneficial training and reducing the amount of irrelevant training. It is the last item that is perhaps the most important. Since an athlete has a finite capacity for exercise and performance, it is in his/her best interest to use as much as possible of that capacity in relevant training. Many modern sports programs are being side-tracked by "circus" training, that is, activities which have little to none to counter-productive relationships with intended competition performances. Examples of circus training are: attending "specialized training" camps where programs are not related to the long-term program of development hopefully being undertaken by serious athletes; altitude training camps where the requirements for performance are altered from those required at sea-level; performing "test sets" of training stimuli which have no relationship to actual competitive performances; training with heavy weight programs when such activities have been shown to have little benefit for or relationship to performance and may even be the seeds of injury; competing in contests which do not fit with training objectives; and performing activities to indulge sports science "testing." These examples of dubious activities which are creeping into modern training programs all interfere with consistent training and detract from the opportunities to indulge in relevant activities.

This alternative approach to training will not produce overtrained states because athletes should never be overstressed. Each training stimulus will terminate when its benefits (the repetition of a particular quality of work) are no longer evident. Even when outside-of-sport stresses are transferred into practice, the diminished capacity of an athlete on that day will be accommodated by this approach.

This procedure contrasts markedly with the consistently excessive training program, the extended program that eventually produces overtraining, and the neurotic expectation of overtrained states and symptoms. With the consistent expectation to perform with quality there may be no ceiling to possible performance improvement.

This training orientation is very dependent upon the motivation of athletes to do quality training. It demands that if quality performances cannot be produced then recovery is the next best option. Large percentages of training time performing less than optimal exercises and technique would be forsaken. Some critics would claim that this description is a disguise for a high quality -- low volume orientation. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a method for generating the greatest volume of quality training.

Appropriate motivation will be developed if contingencies that support quality performance are constructed. This most probably will need at least some behavioral goal to be set for every training segment, and at a minimum, perhaps a weekly evaluation of performance change (improvement). Athletes need to have the incentive to constantly strive for the greatest volume of quality training possible. As soon as a below-quality performance occurs they are encouraged to recover rather than to persist with degraded quality while accruing greater levels of detrimental general fatigue.

There are two high profile coaches who program this form of training. Mike Spracklen, arguably the best rowing coach in the world, the current Head Coach of Men's Sweep for US Rowing, and Gregg Troy, the Head Coach of Swimming at The Bolles School in Florida, employ each ingredient of the model.

In San Diego, California, prospective members of the US Men's Eight-oar Crew train mainly in pair-oar boats. At most training sessions all crews row together and are able to see how they are faring in comparison to each other. That competitiveness is an incentive to perform with quality. Each week, all crews perform a time-trial over racing distance. Over time, those athletes with the best technique, physical capacity, and psychological strength will be identifiable. It is those athletes who will be selected for the USA's main boat.

Within Mike Spracklen's program there is nothing said about athletes who drop out of a segment of a training session or have a practice off to have extra recovery. The system that finally locates the athletes with the greatest capacity to do the highest quality of race-simulation type training, will eventually discover those athletes with a lesser capacity. It also should be recognized that Coach Spracklen also programs periods of moderate stress so that the volume of quality rowing actually performed in a season is extremely large when compared to other high profile rowing programs. This is not a "survival of the fittest" program for it is remarkable how many young men are able to adapt to the increased volume of high quality work, something which they have never before experienced.

Coach Spracklen goes further. He attempts to program training sessions which avoid excessive debilitating fatigue. Instead of falling into the traditional pattern of training early and late in the day with long sessions, he ensures opportunities for his rowers to get adequate night and between-practice-sessions rest. Recognizing that in a two-hour practice session it is usually the last half-hour that is of the worst quality but the greatest fatigue, he often programs three practice sessions a day, each being approximately one and a half hours. The detrimental latter portion fatigue of the two-hour practice is avoided, the less stressful shorter practices require less recovery between sessions, and so a greater volume of adaptive and quality training is performed each day and across the particular training phase.

The underlying feature of Mike Spracklen's coaching is the relentless pursuit of vast amounts of excellence in technique. No weakness is institutionalized into the US Men's Sweep Rowing program.

Gregg Troy attempts to extend the work capacity of his swimmers to their greatest levels (Rushall, 1994).

1. He does not allow his swimmers to ever lose conditioning. There are no days off for recovery.
2. During the winter he does not like his swimmers to enter many competitions. If there are too many races, then swimmers do not get the opportunity to "set up" properly for racing," which he implied, is an important skill and set of procedures.
3. Coach Troy's programs are long-term oriented. He wants his swimmers to compete well on only a few identified occasions. He stressed that it is of no value to sacrifice training for lesser level competitions.
4. Any recovery that occurs is done on an individual basis. There is no planned "team" recovery period.
5. During a taper or period of rest, Coach Troy and the athlete work together to determine the most successful course of training. He cited the example of how little work Greg Burgess does in the last week of a taper and yet he still performs well in races.

This alternative perception of overtraining, on the surface, appears to contradict popular approaches to the phenomenon. However, it is an improvement. Current practice usually has athletes working hard for the full duration of a training session. When the session is completed, usually because no more time remains, athletes are then released to recover before the next scheduled practice. There is no guarantee in this form of time management that: (a) athletes will recover between practice sessions; (b) the total work of the individual practice session is beneficial; (c) the physical stimuli experienced are accommodated for each individual; and (d) athletes will not become preoccupied with tolerating general fatigue and its personal manifestations. Those weaknesses are removed by this alternative approach to handling training stress and the phenomenon of overtraining.

If a sporting program emphasizes overtraining and the fear of it, the ability to sustain quality training and to explore alternative methods for extending exercise tolerance capacities will be weakened.

Reference: Rushall, B. S. (1994). Impressions from US Swimming's 1994 National Team Coaches' Meeting. NSWIMMING Coaching Science Bulletin, 5(2), 1-7.[/QUOTE]

 

[SolarEnergy]

I like this article, and appreciate the "3D" perspective that Dr. Coggan added to it.

I also agree with Frenchyge. The whole thing makes sense, when properly read.

Thanks

 

[WarrenG]

I also agree with Frenchyge. The whole thing makes sense, when properly read.

I agree that much of it makes sense, but what is interesting is where the point of view varies from what is widely practiced, at least among many amateur athletes.

For example, no recovery periods, no recovery weeks are planned. Rest is taken as needed, not as planned. Also, no extended transition period (or off, away from all training) between the end of one season to the next. And, training is planned to perform well in a limited number of events.

Show of hands, how many people put "rest periods" or "recovery" weeks in their monthly training plans? I agree with the author about not doing this, and I also agree that the athlete does loes some conditioning during these "recovery weeks".

My monthly plans never include a recovery period of more than a day or two in a row, unless it's for tapering before a handful of events in a season. When I need rest, that's when I get rest. Could be the 15-16th days of the month, or the 24-25th days.

The key, is knowing when you really do need rest, or when you can benefit from doing more training even though you feel tired in some aspects of your ability. It's useful to figure out exactly what area is fatigued, and then figure out other areas that can still benefit from training. Rest one area while you train another.

The limited (off-season) transition period... I mentioned this to one of my racing/training buddy's the other day. He rides every week of the year, as I've done for the last 3 years, partly from his suggestion. He says he doesn't want to lose the fitness he has because it takes too long to get it back, and that's time lost to improving from previous levels. The trick is to allow only enough time for you to recover and recharge at the end of the year, but then get right back to work. Some people can do this in 2 weeks, and some can do it in 4 weeks. If you're racing really hard at the end of the season it might take a bit longer, but longer than 6 weeks is probably more mental than physical.

The author talks about training and preparing for just a few events each season. Look at the tendencies for the pros doing well in the Giro or Tour. This year we see Floyd Landis racing a fair bit, but not Simoni, Basso, Leipheimer, Ullrich, Julich, Vinokourov, Cunego, Salvodelli, et al. Most don't race much at all before their major events, and/or the races they do are done in a controlled way with efforts made for specific areas of their ability, and to provide some race-mode testing of their current ability.

Smart training can allow you to address your specific weaknesses better than most racing can. So the question you can ask yourself each week is, would I benefit (in terms of a major goal or objective) more from racing or from training? Sometimes racing gets in the way of your training.

One thing in the article that won't work for many people is the author's/coach's perspective on who can handle the workload and what happens to those who can't. Basically, if you can't handle the workload you're not good enough to be on the (National) team and when you're burned up and burned out you're dismissed. They keep the few who can handle the load and discard the rest. This approach happens all the time in some pro cycling teams and to some riders formerly involved in the USCF system of coaching and racing.

So, while the author/coachs' approach may be okay for "team" members it has to be used with caution for individuals trying to maximize whatever ability they have and then competing with that ability.

 

[acoggan]

I like this article, and appreciate the "3D" perspective that Dr. Coggan added to it.

Note that I really just highlighted phrases that seemed to speak to me, i.e., I didn't really give things much thought.

 

[asgelle]

One thing in the article that won't work for many people is the author's/coach's perspective on who can handle the workload and what happens to those who can't. Basically, if you can't handle the workload you're not good enough to be on the (National) team and when you're burned up and burned out you're dismissed. They keep the few who can handle the load and discard the rest. This approach happens all the time in some pro cycling teams and to some riders formerly involved in the USCF system of coaching and racing.

It's not clear from the article, but the impression I got was that for the rowing team at least, it was performance in the weekly time trials that was the main factor in determining who made the team and the first boat, not work in practice. So if one rower could handle less training and needed more recovery than another, but performed better in the time trials, the rower with better performance and less training would make the team.

 

[yzfrr11]

Swimming and rowing are highly technique dependent sports and economy is a very important factor in performance. Cycling economy is much less a factor. In swimming and rowing, is KEY to ovoid practicing poor form - hence the article's point. In cycling, nothing trumps fatigue resistance.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Swimming and rowing are highly technique dependent sports and economy is a very important factor in performance. Cycling economy is much less a factor. In swimming and rowing, is KEY to ovoid practicing poor form - hence the article's point. In cycling, nothing trumps fatigue resistance.

Interesting thought

 

[WarrenG]

Swimming and rowing are highly technique dependent sports and economy is a very important factor in performance. Cycling economy is much less a factor. In swimming and rowing, is KEY to ovoid practicing poor form - hence the article's point. In cycling, nothing trumps fatigue resistance.

When training for (cycling) sprints it's probably best to stop the session when fatigue prevents good form/mechanics.

 

[SolarEnergy]

I agree that much of it makes sense, but what is interesting is where the point of view varies from what is widely practiced, at least among many amateur athletes...

Gee ! I just realized that I had missed your interesting post Warren.

You know, I don't read this article as something opposed to more traditionnal periodization, simply because one can still periodize while respecting most of the principles in the article. In fact, I think one should. It's not one way, or the other.

When I was more active as a coach, I had to issue annual plans. I had a boss, and that was a requirement. But I had never ever thought that I could guess the ideal weekly workload, 1 year in advance. So my principle was very simple :
For every session, I'd put the expected RPE in my plan. Athletes were asked to put their feeling, their RPE in their log, which I'd gather at the end of the week (I know I know. One week is a bit long before doing adjustments. But I used to see the athletes on a daily basis anyway).

I'd then simply reconcile the actual with the expected, and reajust the training load before issuing the next weekly plan. That, along with a continuous testing protocole, there's not much risk of loosing any player.

In fact, the most dangerous situation I find, is when an athlete reaches a plateau, or start counterperforming. You schedule easier weeks, but it doesn't work. Then you schedule more difficult weeks, and hmm, you're not too sure. So you keep going the difficult way. You may be entering the death spirale. More training, no results so more training until you realize that you should have continue on the easier way instead.

Now here :

The purpose of something like this, is to be able to hopefully perform more better after the easier week, not to avoid overtraining per se.

And although my table lead to believe that there are big differences between the weeks, it's not the case. The last week of the cycle isn't cut by 50%. It's just easy enough to get rid of some of the overreaching accumulated during the previous weeks.

 

[WarrenG]

Gee ! I just realized that I had missed your interesting post Warren.

You know, I don't read this article as something opposed to more traditionnal periodization, simply because one can still periodize while respecting most of the principles in the article. In fact, I think one should. It's not one way, or the other.

When I was more active as a coach, I had to issue annual plans. I had a boss, and that was a requirement. But I had never ever thought that I could guess the ideal weekly workload, 1 year in advance. So my principle was very simple :
For every session, I'd put the expected RPE in my plan. Athletes were asked to put their feeling, their RPE in their log, which I'd gather at the end of the week (I know I know. One week is a bit long before doing adjustments. But I used to see the athletes on a daily basis anyway).

I'd then simply reconcile the actual with the expected, and reajust the training load before issuing the next weekly plan. That, along with a continuous testing protocole, there's not much risk of loosing any player.

In fact, the most dangerous situation I find, is when an athlete reaches a plateau, or start counterperforming. You schedule easier weeks, but it doesn't work. Then you schedule more difficult weeks, and hmm, you're not too sure. So you keep going the difficult way. You may be entering the death spirale. More training, no results so more training until you realize that you should have continue on the easier way instead.

Now here :

The purpose of something like this, is to be able to hopefully perform more better after the easier week, not to avoid overtraining per se.

And although my table lead to believe that there are big differences between the weeks, it's not the case. The last week of the cycle isn't cut by 50%. It's just easy enough to get rid of some of the overreaching accumulated during the previous weeks.

I don't think using periodization means you have to use the classic model of three weeks of progressive overload followed by one week of rest/recovery.

Your stair step represents the classic periodization model and the rest/recovery you presribe for the 4th week is common. I think a point of the article, and one which I agree with is that the rest/recovery need not take place at some predetermined time, as in the commonly-used 4th week, nor for the better part of a week. 3 weeks of progressive overload can be too much stress, and the one week of rest/recovery can lead to some loss of fitness that then needs a few more days (or longer) of traininig to regain before moving forward.

Myself, and a few nat's champ buddies of mine have used blocks of really hard 3-8 days followed by 2-4 days of recovery, with very good results. A person can do extremely taxing training in such a short period of time and virtually no detraining takes place during the short recovery periods.

Note that pros will often use stage races of 3-5 days for this purpose, or 5-7 days at altitude for a training camp.

I think that as the coach gets more experience with many athletes, and more experience with an individual athlete, the coach can accurately prescribe training (and its workload) both one week at a time, and more than that. My own experience with my coach is that he does a really good job with prescribing an appropriate workload up to four weeks at a time. I rarely need to adjust the load, and if I do it's usually just a small change for part of a training session or two. Some rest is built into each week and I take an extra day here and there as needed.

Plateaus are interesting, but I think experience helps there also. It can be very useful to add some slightly different ways to train a particular ability. For example, instead of 2x20's week after week after week, use a variety of durations and variations in the specifc intensity, the terrain used, and the other training stimuli used in the same session and surrounding sessions that will also effect the training done for the ability being targeted. ...And how much of a plateau is related to mental factors?

 

[SolarEnergy]

Your stair step represents the classic periodization model and the rest/recovery you presribe for the 4th week is common. I think a point of the article, and one which I agree with is that the rest/recovery need not take place at some predetermined time

Yeah maybe in cycling, and other sports as well.

My point is that in our sport (triathlon), with 3 disciplines to manage, we have at least a test (often an event) occuring on a 4-6week interval. The design of these stair/steps are then done backward. First, you put the tests in the calendar, then you find the best way to periodize between them.

In swimming (elite universitary), you are sometimes responsible for 20-40 individuals swimming in 6-8 lanes. 25% may be newbies, you don't know them. I don't see how improvising workload/recovery curves based on how everyone feels can be possible. But for the 3-5 top performers, that aim at making the national team, yes maybe. You can isolate them, and be very flexible in your prescriptions.

Anyway, you may as well be right on all count, I donno. I stay open minded in regard to linear training workload (as opposed to gradual, or stair/step). But for now, I don't oppose the content of the article, to classical periodization. I think they both complement.

Myself, and a few nat's champ buddies of mine have used blocks of really hard 3-8 days followed by 2-4 days of recovery

4 days of recovery, I don't see how it can be possible in our discipline.

I am even a bit surprised that it works for someone. Although I am not arguing. I do respect your performance level.

But a week with 4 days of recovery definitely falls well under the difficulty level of the last week of my schema. Way under. I am saying that just to put a bit of perspective.

Note that pros will often use stage races of 3-5 days for this purpose, or 5-7 days at altitude for a training camp.

Again here, some major differences with what we do. We do altitude training maily in Utah. And we'd never go there, carrying a team of 20 and more individuals for 7 days. We typically go there for 15-21 days. The first 3-5 days are loss, training workload has to be fairly low because of adaptation to altitude.

Plateaus are interesting, but I think experience helps there also. ...And how much of a plateau is related to mental factors?

Well I donno. Mental, physical... It's a mix of many things. But they occur. They are part of the improvement (and sometimes, the end of it too).

If you can improve and improve and improve, ultimately, you make the national team (talking about young senior athletes here). Our team sent a female to Sydney in 2000, she did 31th. Before she can get gold Warren, she may reach a plateau, and may ultimately, by wanting too much, fall in that death spirale leading to overtraining.

One of our senior males, back in the '90s was feeling kind of depressed not to be able to beat a rookie (at least at the time). He felt he was plateauing as for his position on the podium during important races (often 2nd of course). But the rookie's name was Peter Reid. We later understood that there was no shame of finishing second after Reid.

So plateaus, here in our province, in our university elite team, they occur.

 

[WarrenG]

First, you put the tests in the calendar, then you find the best way to periodize between them.

I agree with this. So maybe the steps go up for 3 weeks and other times they go up for 5-6 weeks?

In swimming (elite universitary), you are sometimes responsible for 20-40 individuals swimming in 6-8 lanes. 25% may be newbies, you don't know them. I don't see how improvising workload/recovery curves based on how everyone feels can be possible. But for the 3-5 top performers, that aim at making the national team, yes maybe. You can isolate them, and be very flexible in your prescriptions.

Yes, this is one downside for athletes who are trained mostly as a team/group. I did many team sports through high school and we all did the same training. The weaker ones struggled and the stronger ones adapted to the training and recovered well. In cycling, running, and endurance swimming the training is often done alone or in small groups so the training can be more appropriate for each individual. I train alone except when the training I will do coincides with what my buddy wants to do.

Anyway, you may as well be right on all count, I donno. I stay open minded in regard to linear training workload (as opposed to gradual, or stair/step).

I did not mean to imply the workload is linear. In fact the workload increases every week that is not meant for recovery or tapering. More volume of certain efforts, and/or more repetitions of certain efforts. Always increasing the load as the person/I adapt to the previous load.

Warren:"Myself, and a few nat's champ buddies of mine have used blocks of really hard 3-8 days followed by 2-4 days of recovery."

4 days of recovery, I don't see how it can be possible in our discipline. I am even a bit surprised that it works for someone. Although I am not arguing. I do respect your performance level.

Four days would be after 8. 2 days after 3. You can recover while still doing some intensity. Also, 3 days off from running, while continuing some intensity in swimming.

Again here, some major differences with what we do. We do altitude training maily in Utah. And we'd never go there, carrying a team of 20 and more individuals for 7 days. We typically go there for 15-21 days. The first 3-5 days are loss, training workload has to be fairly low because of adaptation to altitude.

The week at altitude has nothing to do with the increase in hematocrit. There are other benefits and the benefits tend to show up about 5-10 days after the period at altitude.

 

[jbvcoaching]

The week at altitude has nothing to do with the increase in hematocrit. There are other benefits and the benefits tend to show up about 5-10 days after the period at altitude.

Could you list what these othe benefits are?

 

[WarrenG]

Could you list what these othe benefits are?

I don't remember just now. It was part of a conversation with my coach soon after I had returned home from Masters Nat's in CO Springs in 2004. I commented how good I was feeling about a week after my time at altitude and he told me a few reasons why some people feel this way and how some people benefit from that week or so at altitude. At the time he was also coaching Dario Cioni who had just gone to altitude in Switzerland for a week of training before the Tour of Spain, I think it was.

It is individual though. Some people gradually get worse and worse for the first week, while others like me feel better and better beginning the second or third day. Maybe because I have a relatively high hematocrit, like Dario?