Don't know much about Matt's philosophy as a coach, but his athletes seem to be doing pretty well. From that read, I'm impressed that he seems to think for himself. Definitely valuable thought process for anyone who's spent a lot of time doing TTB stuff...
I refuse to read anything called purple patch fitness ... Just on principle. ... Not a dig against TNT ... Just sounds lame
Agree. It is the worst sounding coaching enterprise or company out in the sport. There are other names that are terrible, but this is a name that just rubs me wrong.
I refuse to read anything called purple patch fitness ... Just on principle. ... Not a dig against TNT ... Just sounds lame
You are too funny! It's a good read. Like fast before far is now more mainstream with people catching on, this could be another element to restructure training that has lots of merit.
The 3-1 (4-1, 2-1) training program is very OLD school but still is around and too much if you ask me. Thought I would share an email from Dr. SKiba (posted without permission ) as he and I are both part of a coaching email group dealio. Some folks get and others don't. RnP are most definitely in the GET IT camp. For those of us in the orignial OS groups, I think Skiba's book were even required reading, can't remember that was a long time ago
I've gotten more than a dozen requests to respond to this thread from other coaches, as this is something I have lectured and written about a great deal.
First things first: Periodization, as it is taught under most circumstances, is fraught with a number of errors with respect to terminology and basic physiology. Furthermore, you would be hard pressed to find anyone (well, anyone *successful*) in the realm of elite sport who coaches according to "standard" periodization as it is suggested in most coaching courses and popular literature.
Here is the scoop: Most "standard" periodization is modeled after Matveyev, a Russian *social scientist*. He got his ideas about periodization in a very interesting way. He made up questionnaires and gave them to the 1954 Russian Olympic track and field athletes to fill out. It was comprised of simple questions (I believe it actually included bubble sheets!) to determine how the athletes trained. Then, he published their responses and people assumed that this must be the best way to train! With the descent of the Iron Curtain, none of the (substantial) criticism of Matveyev (which was made by accomplished *physicians and physiologists*) made it to western audiences. (For an rather exhaustive treatment of this, the responses to Matveyev, and what I view as a physiologically correct means of periodization, you can see my book, The Triathlete's Guide To Training With Power. I know many of you have it but it bears re-reading in light of this discussion.)
Don't get bogged down in silly graphs. It is easy to get confused. The key to understanding periodization is simply this: Training must go from general to specific. Period. Let's see how that fits with the "standard" model of periodization as most understand it.
"Base" -> Build -> Interval work -> Race works for track athletes because it goes from general -> specific. First, there is general training work, then a large increase in load, then work at specific race pace / high intensity, and then a period of racing. If you were running anything from the 400 through a couple of K, that would make good sense.
However, the above represents a NONSENSICAL way to train, say, an Iron distance athlete. Why? Because if we want to go from general to specific, it would make more sense to come to peak training load with long training at specific goal race power / pace in the time leading up to the race. It is senseless to go banging out endless 400's a couple of weeks before an Ironman, because no athlete interested in finishing well will approach that intensity during the race. However, might it be worthwhile to include a *bit* of that sort of training to maintain particular adaptations? Sure it is.
A good rule of thumb is this: The athlete should always be addressing all aspects of fitness. Endurance, threshold, VO2 / interval and even anaerobic capacity / rep work all have their place at practically every time in the season. Only the *mix* of training changes to accommodate the principle of specificity with respect to race duration and probable intensity. This is the "secret sauce" that really successful coaches use, but really, there is no secret. It's just a little basic physiology. If you are smart enough to get online, you are smart enough to teach yourself what you need to know. (A standard text like Astrand will suffice, or you can use my books if you want something that is a faster read and addresses triathlon specifically.) You can base the length and composition of training blocks on the known periods of adaptation of various biological systems within the body, and you can follow how the athlete is responding to sensibly devised performance tests to learn when an athlete is plateauing / stagnating and requires a change to see continued improvement.
I think if I had a DR in front of my name, I'd write a whole lot more coherently. Not sure if it's worth the price tag tho'. I think I'll just keep mixing it up EN-style!
Comments
He definitely seems to be at the other end of Brett Sutton's spectrum at face value (i.e., volume versus quality).
Haven't checked out the blog yet but I know that many of his training methodologies are similar to what RnP are doing.
Agree. It is the worst sounding coaching enterprise or company out in the sport. There are other names that are terrible, but this is a name that just rubs me wrong.
You are too funny! It's a good read. Like fast before far is now more mainstream with people catching on, this could be another element to restructure training that has lots of merit.
The 3-1 (4-1, 2-1) training program is very OLD school but still is around and too much if you ask me. Thought I would share an email from Dr. SKiba (posted without permission
) as he and I are both part of a coaching email group dealio. Some folks get and others don't. RnP are most definitely in the GET IT camp. 
For those of us in the orignial OS groups, I think Skiba's book were even required reading, can't remember that was a long time ago 
...........................................................................Skiba's email...............................................
I've gotten more than a dozen requests to respond to this thread from other coaches, as this is something I have lectured and written about a great deal.
First things first: Periodization, as it is taught under most circumstances, is fraught with a number of errors with respect to terminology and basic physiology. Furthermore, you would be hard pressed to find anyone (well, anyone *successful*) in the realm of elite sport who coaches according to "standard" periodization as it is suggested in most coaching courses and popular literature.
Here is the scoop: Most "standard" periodization is modeled after Matveyev, a Russian *social scientist*. He got his ideas about periodization in a very interesting way. He made up questionnaires and gave them to the 1954 Russian Olympic track and field athletes to fill out. It was comprised of simple questions (I believe it actually included bubble sheets!) to determine how the athletes trained. Then, he published their responses and people assumed that this must be the best way to train! With the descent of the Iron Curtain, none of the (substantial) criticism of Matveyev (which was made by accomplished *physicians and physiologists*) made it to western audiences. (For an rather exhaustive treatment of this, the responses to Matveyev, and what I view as a physiologically correct means of periodization, you can see my book, The Triathlete's Guide To Training With Power. I know many of you have it but it bears re-reading in light of this discussion.)
Don't get bogged down in silly graphs. It is easy to get confused. The key to understanding periodization is simply this: Training must go from general to specific. Period. Let's see how that fits with the "standard" model of periodization as most understand it.
"Base" -> Build -> Interval work -> Race works for track athletes because it goes from general -> specific. First, there is general training work, then a large increase in load, then work at specific race pace / high intensity, and then a period of racing. If you were running anything from the 400 through a couple of K, that would make good sense.
However, the above represents a NONSENSICAL way to train, say, an Iron distance athlete. Why? Because if we want to go from general to specific, it would make more sense to come to peak training load with long training at specific goal race power / pace in the time leading up to the race. It is senseless to go banging out endless 400's a couple of weeks before an Ironman, because no athlete interested in finishing well will approach that intensity during the race. However, might it be worthwhile to include a *bit* of that sort of training to maintain particular adaptations? Sure it is.
A good rule of thumb is this: The athlete should always be addressing all aspects of fitness. Endurance, threshold, VO2 / interval and even anaerobic capacity / rep work all have their place at practically every time in the season. Only the *mix* of training changes to accommodate the principle of specificity with respect to race duration and probable intensity. This is the "secret sauce" that really successful coaches use, but really, there is no secret. It's just a little basic physiology. If you are smart enough to get online, you are smart enough to teach yourself what you need to know. (A standard text like Astrand will suffice, or you can use my books if you want something that is a faster read and addresses triathlon specifically.) You can base the length and composition of training blocks on the known periods of adaptation of various biological systems within the body, and you can follow how the athlete is responding to sensibly devised performance tests to learn when an athlete is plateauing / stagnating and requires a change to see continued improvement.