Supercompensation weeks during IM Build ... necessary?
So ... plans (ours, and the rest of the world's) incorporate some kind of supercompensation week, normally after three weeks of work, as part of a periodized build. In the 12-week build to IM, is this really necessary? For a number of years, I was dutifully following the season and the "test week" to the letter and using them for the prescribed testing, but after noticing that I was still able to achieve work and absorb fitness even if I didn't back off, I gradually let these just turn into regular work weeks.
To date, I haven't noticed any sort of ill effects or diminished fitness, but I am curious if I'm just fooling myself by the kind of "miles build champions" hall-of-mirrors distorted thinking that I take on at about 12 weeks out.
Thoughts?
Comments
Hey Dave,
Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you talking about using the test week as a rest week...and then either doing or not doing that week as rest/test week?
Dave - I suspect your experience with consistent long distance focused training over a number of years now has you at a place where you can handle a pretty steady diet of work in the twelve week build, especially the way the coaches design our plans. Also, I'm sure you are fine tuning your recovery on an ad hoc, ongoing basis, even to the point of fiddling within individual workouts and even intervals, to say nothing of within and across weeks, to make sure you don't exceed your capacity for work.
I have a tendency (which may be what you are describing) to NOT doing any testing during the 12 week period before an IM. I pretty much know what my swim and run capabilities are within fractions of a second for any given 100 (swim) or 400 (run) by that point. And I determine my race day bike power targets on what I can do in the long rides, especially the last RR. So I don;t see any need to test. When any tests do come up on the schedule, I might do a swim one if I want an excuse to get a little recovery; its only 35 minutes instead of 60+ - YEAH! Last week I did one, and predicted my time for 100 yds within a second. But the run and bike ones - I just go do a workout instead.
The coaches should speak for themselves on this, but I see LESS of the "Supercompensation" in their plans than Ihave in others I've been exposed to. They tend to emphasize the occasional rest day, or the self-coaching model of "If you need some time off, take it."
I'll pipe in with my own experience. I've tended to defer proper testing in the IM 12 week cycle (especially late in the cycle) to SWAG based on experience. Why? Actually its not to continue more work, and rest less; but rather rest more. Because I've found that testing week takes too much out of me late in the season to do properly, I tend to test early and then tweak based on SWAG method at the end. Bike -- I can usually tell based on a 20' FTP interval and corresponding PE if I need to tweak my FTP a little, but we are talking +/- 5 watts at most. Run -- I'll know based on HR from z1 pace, and RPE from z4s. Swim -- well thats irrelevant, because its all by PE in the swim anyway, but I if I test I use a 400/200 css test, which is pretty low impact. Realistically, I think like Al (correct me if I'm wrong!) once I hit the 12 week IM cycle, its more about what can I hold for 5hrs and less about the 20' FTP. So I'm more focused on PE for the long wko.
Dropping the tests does give me the opportunity to continue training more consistently, but perhaps differently than you question implies, in that I maintain my fatigue level lower rather than higher. I'll qualify this with fact that I do live at high-altitude so I've found hard-efforts are much more taxing and require more recovery than at low alt, and so I mod my weeks accordingly -- based on future and current needs.
There is no evidence that the "traditional" 3 hard weeks, then an easier week, is optimal.
Presumably that's why our EN plans don't follow that approach.