The opposite view: High intensity block training

[TTer]

I posted a few weeks back about high volume lower (not low) intensity training and got some excellent points of view. I still subscribe to the higher volume point of view, but have been reading a book by David Morris called Performance Cycling. I guess most have not read this book (just published 2003) so I'll summarise. He basically advocates short 2-3 'blocks' of training followed by 2-3 days of recovery (he says 'block training' is well documented technique?).

The overall structure of training plan works on macro-cycles of endurance, followed by SMSP (supra-maximal sustainable power -- vo2max?), followed by MSP (maximum sustainable power). All the training is organised as 2-3day blocks to really overload the appropriate energy system, then a 2-3day rest (or easy miles) to let the body recover.

The endurance phase is pretty standard, long aerobic rides etc..

During the SMSP phase the days workout go as follows:

Day 1: 4 min intervals (sets/volume depend on rider's level)
Day 2: 2 min intervals (all intervals are at highest sustainable power for the duration)
Day 3: off
Day 4: 1hour aerobic ride
Day 5: 4 min intervals
Day 6: 2 min intervals
Day 7: 1 min intervals
Day 8: off
Day 9: off
Day 10: 1hour aerobic ride

The MSP phase is similar, but aimed at improving (for want of a better term) TT pace. An example of that might be:

Day 1: 3x 10 min MSP power intervals
Day 2: Leadouts (30 second sprints), then 4x8mins MSP power
Day 3: off
Day 4: off
Day 5: 3x12min
Day 6: Race or 3x10min
Day 7: 4x8min
Day 8: off
Day 9: off
Day 10: 1 hour aerobic ride.

Within each 'block', as the days wear on the length of the intervals is reduced to account for fatigue and make the time/workout more achievable. But the power is kept the same, or higher for shorter intervals, to keep pushing the training effect.

The amount of aerobic riding during these 'intensity' periods is neglible too. Will the general amount of time training (e.g. Day 1's intervals, with rest and warm up/down, will take at least an hour) serve to maintain base (oops, that word again )? The volume we would normally do between interval sessions is gone in this plan, though I guess if you think about it all training programmes are 'block training' in effect with the longer aerobic rides tiring us somewhat before interval work?

I can see why block training might work. Like intervals, it breaks up an unmanageable amount of volume at an unsustainable pace into separate days. Obviously this will cause a much greater training load on the athlete, but allows for this with a decent recovery (usually 2-3 days off/very easy).

So, I'm wondering what the science is behind the very high intensity and massive overload of block training? Is this type of training something the science supports? Has anyone, coaches or athletes, tried this method? This seems a much lower volume approach which might have merits due to the specificity (important!) of the training sessions?

 

[J-MAT]

TT'er:

This program is similar to what LeMond used in his last comeback in 1994. Basically he did strength work, 4-5 minute VO2 intervals, 30 second intervals and endurance rides. He would train 2-3 day in a row, then recover.

There are so many ways to get fit. This is certainly one way. I've done lots of block training with an equivelant number of recovery days, and liked it a lot. It's great for time management.

You are quite knowledgeable about cycling training as it is. You race and have a Powertap. You can conduct your own experimentation with this type of workout if you want.

Don't worry about the science behind it, just give it a shot and see if your power comes up. What if this program would let you do a 19 minute 10 or a 50 minute 25???

It would be ashame if you didn't try it just because you couldn't find a study to support it. In athletics, studies very rarely if ever predict outcomes, winners, or the best training methods, regardless of what some people might tell you.

Try it and see what happens!!!

 

[TTer]

Thanks for the reply J-MAT. I thought you would be the first to reply

It's interesting that Lemond used a similar method way back when. The beauty of this method seems to be the lower time commitment, but I'm sure the training is far from easy and pushing yourself to complete workouts on day 2 & 3 of a block is extremely taxing mentally and physically. I know how I feel after interval days now, and after 3-days of hard intervals I think I would get off the bike and just go straight into bed :-D

It's certainly an interesting idea, though I would be wary of trying it without a little more 'support' for it's methods. It certainly sounds like an easy way to overtrain very quickly unless you monitor recovery very closely and take more rest/easy days if necessary.

 

[2LAP]

Originally posted by TTer
I posted a few weeks back about high volume lower (not low) intensity training and got some excellent points of view. I still subscribe to the higher volume point of view, but have been reading a book by David Morris called Performance Cycling. I guess most have not read this book (just published 2003) so I'll summarise. He basically advocates short 2-3 'blocks' of training followed by 2-3 days of recovery (he says 'block training' is well documented technique?).

The overall structure of training plan works on macro-cycles of endurance, followed by SMSP (supra-maximal sustainable power -- vo2max?), followed by MSP (maximum sustainable power). All the training is organised as 2-3day blocks to really overload the appropriate energy system, then a 2-3day rest (or easy miles) to let the body recover.

The endurance phase is pretty standard, long aerobic rides etc..

During the SMSP phase the days workout go as follows:

Day 1: 4 min intervals (sets/volume depend on rider's level)
Day 2: 2 min intervals (all intervals are at highest sustainable power for the duration)
Day 3: off
Day 4: 1hour aerobic ride
Day 5: 4 min intervals
Day 6: 2 min intervals
Day 7: 1 min intervals
Day 8: off
Day 9: off
Day 10: 1hour aerobic ride

The MSP phase is similar, but aimed at improving (for want of a better term) TT pace. An example of that might be:

Day 1: 3x 10 min MSP power intervals
Day 2: Leadouts (30 second sprints), then 4x8mins MSP power
Day 3: off
Day 4: off
Day 5: 3x12min
Day 6: Race or 3x10min
Day 7: 4x8min
Day 8: off
Day 9: off
Day 10: 1 hour aerobic ride.

Within each 'block', as the days wear on the length of the intervals is reduced to account for fatigue and make the time/workout more achievable. But the power is kept the same, or higher for shorter intervals, to keep pushing the training effect.

The amount of aerobic riding during these 'intensity' periods is neglible too. Will the general amount of time training (e.g. Day 1's intervals, with rest and warm up/down, will take at least an hour) serve to maintain base (oops, that word again )? The volume we would normally do between interval sessions is gone in this plan, though I guess if you think about it all training programmes are 'block training' in effect with the longer aerobic rides tiring us somewhat before interval work?

I can see why block training might work. Like intervals, it breaks up an unmanageable amount of volume at an unsustainable pace into separate days. Obviously this will cause a much greater training load on the athlete, but allows for this with a decent recovery (usually 2-3 days off/very easy).

So, I'm wondering what the science is behind the very high intensity and massive overload of block training? Is this type of training something the science supports? Has anyone, coaches or athletes, tried this method? This seems a much lower volume approach which might have merits due to the specificity (important!) of the training sessions?

This sounds like periodisation to me (with meso, micro and macro cycles). Which is definatly supported by science (i.e. overload followed by recovery, followed by further overload).

Furthermore, targeting energy systems and thresholds specificaly is also supported by science (i.e. specificity).

The exact details of any training program should be different for different individuals, so I wouldn't like to comment on the details or wouldn't recomend following the book to the 'T'.

I'm not sure that science needs studies to prove or disprove specific situations (that would take for ever), rather it can provide principles and guidlines. In this case, periodisation and specificity of the training (i.e. sessions that target specific limitations on performance).

Many of these things in your post are the things that I argue (I mean discuss) in my other posts. For me, high intensity and lower volume is the way to go (it also fits into my lifestyle).

 

[2LAP]

Oh, just a small point, but any 'effort' lasting more than 1 minute could be described as 'aerobic'

 

[ric_stern/RST]

The system as described above, is similar to what i and other coaches use. In fact i find this type of idea very useful for people who are time limited (e.g., work, family commitments, etc.).

*Many* (but not all) of the people i coach might only have (e.g.) 60 to 90-mins after work mid week, during the winter months (when it's dark early) and so, time is often well spent doing interval type work on the trainer.

This also fits in quite well with the idea of doing high intensity work in winter, and getting the volume in afterwards (when there is more daylight).

It's also sometimes useful, to do a longer harder block of very hard training and then have the athlete rest *completely* afterwards, only training again when they're recovered. I use these ideas, and i think Dean Golich uses the hard block/complete recovery scenario.

of course, it's also useful to do some volume work depending on your goals, especially if your races are long.

Ric

 

[ptooey]

So Ric,
What about people who have the time to put in the long rides over the winter. I live in the SW US and can usually manage to get 5hr rides in (on weekends) all winter. Morris seems to suggest that these long rides are useless and that one would be better served doing shorter rides with more intensity (2-3hrs). He mentions Mari Holden, Allison Dunlap, etc but I would find it hard to believe that riders of their caliber are only riding ~12 hrs per week as would be all that was needed according to Morris.

Originally posted by ricstern
The system as described above, is similar to what i and other coaches use. In fact i find this type of idea very useful for people who are time limited (e.g., work, family commitments, etc.).

*Many* (but not all) of the people i coach might only have (e.g.) 60 to 90-mins after work mid week, during the winter months (when it's dark early) and so, time is often well spent doing interval type work on the trainer.

This also fits in quite well with the idea of doing high intensity work in winter, and getting the volume in afterwards (when there is more daylight).

It's also sometimes useful, to do a longer harder block of very hard training and then have the athlete rest *completely* afterwards, only training again when they're recovered. I use these ideas, and i think Dean Golich uses the hard block/complete recovery scenario.

of course, it's also useful to do some volume work depending on your goals, especially if your races are long.

Ric

 

[TTer]

Originally posted by ptooey
So Ric,
What about people who have the time to put in the long rides over the winter. I live in the SW US and can usually manage to get 5hr rides in (on weekends) all winter. Morris seems to suggest that these long rides are useless and that one would be better served doing shorter rides with more intensity (2-3hrs).

ptooey, I think on first read you might get that impression, as I did. But...

In the weight training block he mentions aerobic rides, and cutting back on the miles depending on how sore you are from the weights. But I think, although maybe not made clear, there are still some hours on the bike, though all at zone 2 pace.

Also in the aerobic endurance phase he does include endurance rides up to 5-6hours depending on race distance. In fact, in the example 10-day plan for aerobic endurance he actually includes ~17hours of aerobic zone 2/3, (about 12hours per 7-days/week). So the aerobic training is there.

Also remember that the main focus of the programme is coming to the end of the off-season, leading up to racing. The plan starts approximately 20weeks out from the start of racing. Before that you would probably be expected just to maintain fitness (transition) with 8-10hours per week.

So I think the aerobic endurance miles are included if you look for them. It's only the last 2 months where a lot of the volume drops away in favour of intervals. With all the intervals though I guess you would still be doing 7-9hours per week.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by ptooey
So Ric,
What about people who have the time to put in the long rides over the winter. I live in the SW US and can usually manage to get 5hr rides in (on weekends) all winter. Morris seems to suggest that these long rides are useless and that one would be better served doing shorter rides with more intensity (2-3hrs). He mentions Mari Holden, Allison Dunlap, etc but I would find it hard to believe that riders of their caliber are only riding ~12 hrs per week as would be all that was needed according to Morris.

Ptooey,

I don't think i said i exclude moderate or long rides, because i would still use them. I don't think Morris would either. The emphasis i would use is 'high' intensity mid week (when time is short after e.g. work) and longer on the weekends.

Ric

 

[2LAP]

Originally posted by ptooey
So Ric,
What about people who have the time to put in the long rides over the winter. I live in the SW US and can usually manage to get 5hr rides in (on weekends) all winter. Morris seems to suggest that these long rides are useless and that one would be better served doing shorter rides with more intensity (2-3hrs). He mentions Mari Holden, Allison Dunlap, etc but I would find it hard to believe that riders of their caliber are only riding ~12 hrs per week as would be all that was needed according to Morris.

Surely the specific training included in the training program would depend entirely on the riders goals. Thats a problem with following a one size fits all program.

 

[TTer]

Originally posted by ptooey
What about people who have the time to put in the long rides over the winter. I live in the SW US and can usually manage to get 5hr rides in (on weekends) all winter. Morris seems to suggest that these long rides are useless and that one would be better served doing shorter rides with more intensity (2-3hrs). He mentions Mari Holden, Allison Dunlap, etc but I would find it hard to believe that riders of their caliber are only riding ~12 hrs per week as would be all that was needed according to Morris.

2LAP is right about the specificity of training. 5 hour rides are useless unless your event requires that kind of endurance. I think Morris does have a problem with over-distance aerobic rides because of the lack of specificity. He prefers high intensity intervals aimed at raising TT (max sustainable power) which is relevent to all racing, then enough VO2max/sprint work as the event demands (e.g. road racing vs. time trialling).

I've also read some coaches are prescribing a of 'reverse' training approach where higher intensity intervals are used at the start of training to increase speed before endurance training closer to the event. I guess this is appropriate for Ironman triathlon racing where the high intensity work helps to improve your speed before you work on extending the distance over which you can maintain speed. The proponents claim this is the purpose since endurance training long and slow is pointless when you ideally want to race much faster. Plus, flogging away doing 5-hour rides when you are months away from your goal event can be tough mentally, especially if in the end you become stale/bored and do not maintain a consistent training program right up to your event.

 

[2LAP]

Originally posted by TTer
I've also read some coaches are prescribing a of 'reverse' training approach where higher intensity intervals are used at the start of training to increase speed before endurance training closer to the event. I guess this is appropriate for Ironman triathlon racing where the high intensity work helps to improve your speed before you work on extending the distance over which you can maintain speed. The proponents claim this is the purpose since endurance training long and slow is pointless when you ideally want to race much faster. Plus, flogging away doing 5-hour rides when you are months away from your goal event can be tough mentally, especially if in the end you become stale/bored and do not maintain a consistent training program right up to your event.

I have also used this technique with complete beginners, as it allows them to get the fitness/speed required to stay with a group.