Coaches - Coaching Philosophy question
Okay coaches, I have been thinking and talking to folks and there are a ton of opinions on the subject. I think my question stems from the concept of periodization and rest to consolidate your gains.
In another post Coach P said something to the effect of week 14 tests not typically being strong due to the level of fatigue most people are feeling after the Vo2 block. That is what has really led me to this question. You two have coached a ton of people and this plan has gone through multiplie iterations. I want to be clear...I am not trying to challenge the plan or the kool-aid drinkers. I have partaken in the koolaid. But I am trying to understand the concepts behind this. Through most of my athletic career (swimming) there were periods of resting and testing that followed some form of periodization. But I don't see that in the OS plan. (Perhaps it is a time constraint issue)
The thing I have noticed about your advanced OS that is different (besides all the "work") is that you do not really have any rest type weeks...not even prior to testing. This means that going into week 14 and probably week 20, most of us will be fatigued and unable to hit our true fitness potential or raise our FTP as much as we could rested. So...from a philosophical standpoint which is the "better/more effective" approach?
Is it better to go into these tests fatigued and probably not moving your FTP too much due to that fatigue. As a result your wattage zones stay a bit lower...but your legs are fatigued and that's all you can realistically hit day in and day out anyway. So you'll be working at lower wattages in general but your fatigue continues to accumulate and once the OS is complete you should see really big gains after a week off.
OR
Is it better to rest a bit going into week 14 specifically, potentially bumping your FTP. That way your zones will bump up and the wattage goals will be higher as well, forcing you to push more watts in that final FTP block of training. Week 20 is then good or bad, but after a week or two of rest you can re-take the FTP test and see what you're capable of when rested.
From a basic common sense standpoint I would think bumping your FTP is best because then you're pushing more wattage in that final FTP block and wattage rules the day. But perhaps the accumulated fatigue builds more strength in the long run. I really don't know. Another person I spoke to thought that perhaps going into week 14 is fatigued because if you rest a bit for the test and then start crushing yourself again, the fatigue will come back fast. As a result you may never be able to hold the zones of that test because you're just too tired. That can be pretty depressing and counter productive too.
So...as you've coached what have you guys found? I know the answer might be pretty individual, but I'm sure you've seen a pattern of some kind.
Comments
Obviously I can't speak for RnP on this matter, but I think that the best practice is to be subjective with your training "zones." Realistically, the FTP/VDOT tests are merely jumping off points. Your true metrics are dynamic, and your zones are constantly drifting (albeit by small increments). Your comfort within the zones will change based on fitness and fatigue, and that is why zones are prescribed rather than discrete values. Testing is rarely 100% objective, so the best thing that you can do is be consistent to minimize bias. Always be aware of your circumstances, and don't be afraid to take some liberty with the numbers. The only person that knows your condition and your perceived effort is You.
Assume that you can hit your intervals at 102% on fresh legs, but can barely hold 95% during your mid-week sessions. Do you raise the bar based on your tapered capacity, or do you keep pounding away until 95% is a given? As long as you're consistenly pushing a solid effort, and making the work work for you, my vote would be to have confidence in the methods. Also keep in mind that while you're busy boring out the cylinders of your engine, most people will be spending the next 3 months checking their oil.
generally speaking which is better. Is it better to essentially maintain your fatigue as that is effective. Your zone may be lower in general but you are building more strength even though you are clinging to 95% of a lower zone most days.
Or is it better to rest for the tests and have a higher zone thus pushing more watts if/when you can.
FTP work and adaptions exists across a plane. The closer to a true 100-105% you're reaching your maximum adaptions. Debating between working at 100% or 98% (The result of Rest FTP test vs slight fatigue FTP) is fruitless now. From a motivation standpoint, are you driven by "hitting the numbers" in training you might want to test slightly fatigued or are you motivated by good tests, error on the side of rested. If memory servies, RnP usually build more rest days prior to the tests. I personally, like good tests and would rather test well and maybe suffer the first two weeks on the next block. However, even with fatigue, you should be able to hit 10 and 12 intervals within the FTP% unless you're just burned out. I generally just try and add a watt or two each week to my intervals, slightly moving the target up when I feel good and just getting the work done when I don't. *In the case of racing/pacing off FTP, I would always error on the conservative side.*
The history of periodization, especially for an athlete doing 1/2 Ironman and Ironman is imo trash. The history of periodization was developed in the 50's by Matveyev who interviewed the Russian track team on how they trained. Classic periodization was born from this publication. Base > Build > Interval > Race. Classic perdioization is a great model if you run TRACK or Swim. As the training moves from General > Specific. You're doing your hardest/shortest intervals preping for your meet.
That is what perdioization should be; training needs to go from general to race specific. In the long course Triathlon world our "Specific" would resemble an elite track runners "general training" IE aerobic base work. All phases of training should include elements of Endurance, threshold, VO2 / interval and even anaerobic capacity / rep work depending on your type of race.
IMO a well written training plan shouldn't include "rest weeks" unless the athlete needs a mental break. Nothing within excersise physiology says a 4-1, 3-1 pyramid is needed or required. It does fit nicely in a template if your just bunching numbers into a spreadsheet. The training cycle doesn't even need to be 7 days, but since the world revolves around a 7 day calendar cycle it does make sense to use a similiar training to work with life.
Now we're talking. I've heard multiple people discuss the idea that a 3-1 or 4-1 periodization is crap. So I get what you're saying. I think one of the reasons this "appeals" to me is the idea of consolidating your gains and a natural progression. You allude to that in your post. Personally I love testing and really love testing well. I'd rather suffer a bit for a couple weeks, just like you. But one of the things with swimming and then as I "coached" myself...I always had this idea of consolidating my gains. So I'd randomly build a plan and every 6-8 weeks I'd test. The primary goal being rest up prior to the test and see how strong I can really be during the test. Going into the next block of training, I was "stronger" and pushing more watts or running faster. Then I'd taper and REALLY rest up and be stronger for a race. But I'm also the guy that doesn't want to rest. I want to do the plans exactly as written and will drive myself off the cliff smiling. :-)
In Swimming this worked really well as I'd routinely drop 30s off my mid-season 500 times. In triathlon it is much tougher to tell as there are so many variables. You aren't racing against a clock nearly as much with regards to PR's as conditions play such a big role. Plus you just take a bigger beating in triathlon. I also agree that when we're dealing with mere percentage points the difference probably doesn't matter. But what about the people who would test really well when rested. Lets just used my current numbers as an example...
So My FTP is 285 and during this Vo2 block I am hurting, but getting in the work. But this is the first time I've done this amount of this kind of work as well. I typically test really well. (Just as an example for the sake of discussion. I am not claiming I can hit the higher numbers below)
In scenario 1 I stay fatigued and test. In all honesty I may not even be able to hit 285 right now. I kinda doubt I can. So for the remaining block my zones remain unchanged so 95% = 271. So for training I go for wattages of 271 - 285.
In scenario 2 I rest a bit for the week 14 test and then pull out a mega number as my legs bounce back. My FTP bumps to 310. This is a 9% gain and is probably higher than I can realistically do...but I've shocked myself before. (I'm going a bit high to make my point.) Now 95% is 295 watts. So the bottom of my zone 4 is actually substantially higher than a fatigued test would show. Even if I just barely hold on to 95% I am pushing a solid 10w more than I would at 100% of my previous zone. On a good day I'd be pushing 25w more. To me, that is substantial.
I understand that as we train we can bump our zones up a notch if we see ourselves hitting 2x20 at say 105% during a normal week. My point is that if we're fatigued...we may not be able to actually do that during a normal week. We'd simply be too tired. And that is the crux of my question.
Is it more effective to take that rest and possibly bump your zones by a significant amount and then take advantage of those gains by pushing more watts for the duration of the OS. OR is the accumulation of that fatigue and working as hard as you can within the confines of that fatigue just as effective...even though your wattage while tired may not reflect that..(but it will once the OS is over and you've had an opportunity to rest and consolidate your training gains.)
As Coach P said, you need to evaluate yourself and if you think you need more recovery then do it. I think Hayes nailed that periodization is not exactly the best way to go about ensuring a good test. Instead, as with many things EN, you need to self-evaluate. If you determine if you need more recovery then you should work that in. But not everyone is that way- I do similar to Hayes in that I slowly build up my FTP goals toward test time so that once I hit the test I am pretty certain I can increase the FTP and if during that build I'm noticing that I consistently can't hit my targets then I toss an extra recovery day in there. I see the EN plan as more of a matter of everyone will need a recovery period at different times and a rejection of the idea that everyone needs a recovery week every 4th week or before a testing week. I actually don't do as well in a test week if I've taken time off before (I imagine it's a bit of a re-shock to the system).
Re: fatigue in week 14- Taking a guess based on people's comments during the OS, I think that most people are still trying to hang on and will be more fatigued during week 14, but by week 20 most people will have tossed a couple extra recovery periods (or switched up a hard workout for an easier one) just because of the nature of the plan and life.
I forget what podcast I heard it in, but RnP were pointing out that the rest is built into every week. We do get 2 days off! My tri friends are astonished to hear I'm taking that much time off; unheard of! Of course the amount of hard work is unheard of too! In the podcast, RnP said that by building the rest into every week, as opposed to taking a rest week every 4th week, you are getting 25% more quality work that your competitors, and thus experiencing greater performance gains than they are. I was skeptical my body could handle this, but astonishingly it can. I think getting lots of sleep is the key to being able to handle this load.
I've also read the opinion that you shouldn't schedule rest weeks in because life/illness tends to force you to take rest periods anyway. I know I got some forced rest due to Xmas vacation. I may also get some unscheduled rest because I want to get away for some weekends to go enjoy skiing.
You raise some good points about the relative benefit to performing well on the week 14 tests, and thus working harder for the rest of the OS, vs. losing the benefit of the hard work that we're doing in week 13. Hard to know what the best answer is without some experiments. Perhaps we could try a "Rest Hack" and see which group has the best overall OS gains! Or maybe RnP have already done that.
That's really the focus of my question. I think people are taking my question as an "I want more rest so I can test well...what do you think?" when all i am really looking for is a discussion on the philosophy. I committed to following this plan and intend to do so. I knew coming into this that there may be things they tell me to do that I don't want to do or don't even agree with. Vo2 is a great example...I want no more of that work. No mas!! But I'm gonna finish it anyway. As for disagreeing...I disagree with them hurting me in this manner. But I paid for it. That's my own crybaby problem. :-)
And I'll be honest...I missed that the Sat workout was easier. So that does make a big difference IMO. So perhaps that is the answer...they also agree with Scenario 2 (to a point). Obviously we're not going into full taper mode for a test.
But that really was my main question. Is that building of fatigue and working through it while possibly at lower numbers just as effective as resting a bit for the test, and then using higher numbers. Potentially much higher numbers.
I ask simply because the plans they created didn't happen overnight or by accident. They put real thought into these plans and may have discussed these scenarios...which is why I ask. I don't know...they probably do. Plus I'm bored at work. :-)
@Eric, I think I'm understanding the thought process you're having. I just think the delta between a fatigued vs rested FTP is much much smaller. In your example an FTP of 285 vs 310 that is worlds apart. Realistically, I think the difference is smaller 2-3% it wouldn't really impact training that much. This is based on my testing over the years and being an observing in the OS forums for a few years.
I assuming you're pretty new to the Vo2m work and your ceiling just isn't very high due to the nature of your historical training. The 120% might actually be more anaerobic for you. You could try something like 4 X 4' / 4' @ 110% and give that a whirl....still a Vo2m set. Equaling hurl worthy
with a progression moving to 5 X 5/5'
The Vo2m block major goal is providing you with capacity to achieve new FTP gains in the next block. Since you're stuggling with the Vo2m, I think this block will serve you will in the last 8 weeks of the OS. You may have actually been slammed against your roof....the Ancona Syndrome
I think there's a psychosomatic pitfall to periodization that I've experienced at other points throughout my life. For example, when I was in college and grad school, I always worked ridiculous hours, ate horribly, and slept an average of 4-5 hrs/day. This would happen in 12-16 week blocks at a time. Once the end of term came, my body would shut down and I often got sick for the simple reason that my body knew that it could now afford to be sick.
I've experienced the same thing in previous stints of periodized training. You work and work and work, and when you finally slow things down your body sees its opportunity to recover from the stress. For this reason, I feel that rest must be built into the schedule, and performed incrementally to have the greatest impact. Think of it as any long-term investment. It's not effective to spend all of your money today then attempt to make up the difference in large increments, down the road. You have to bank a few dollars every week, and do it consistently to make it count.
Compare the OS plans with any standard periodized plan, and you'll see that the rest is integrated - along with a healthier dose of hard work. An acquaintance of mine posted to his facebook this morning: "1:45 on the bike, nice and steady." Dread the work all you want - it's infinitely less painful than the hours of steady, mind-numbing Z2/Z3 intervals.
1) the weeks before the test include an easier Saturday and Sunday off (for the most part)
2) the test week puts the bike and run tests apart by a rest day as well
so you should go into the tests slightly rested (different from fully tapered). Because of that, what Hayes said is correct. The test results are likely to be within 2-3%.
Rich is well known for pointing out the difference between a swimmer's taper (which was like spreading magic pixie dust on you that made you go MUCH faster) and triathlon rest/taper, which doesn't make you much faster, but shakes out the exhaustion so that you feel better. Especially given your swimmer's background, I think that this is also part of the 275 vs. 310 thought process.
Hayes' comments on periodization are exactly the criticism leveled by Dr. Phil Skiba in his books, and I am inclined to agree that there is no literature out there supporting the 3-on-1-off schedules commonly agreed upon.
Hope that's helpful!
I've had many of the same experiences as Justin over the years. Also, since you are in this (EN) for the long haul, you will get a chance to feel what periodization feels like once you hit the EN taper in the two weeks prior to your race. If you search the forums, you'll find many a post that says "I feel like shit. My legs have no power and feel heavy on the run......God, I hate the taper!" This is often when people feel sick, get a little cold, etc.
I think testing fatigued also helps guarantee that your not "overachieving" and putting yourself into a hole you don't see coming. It's a built in safety mechanism. As people have said, fatigue can return very quickly and often times a full rest week helps put the blinders back on so we ignore where our bodies are really at. I think of it as someone who's trained and set their sites on a PR during a marathon. They are trained and ready, but ignore the fact that the race is into a 20 mph headwind (headwind=fatigue in this analogy). Keeping the big picture in site is key.
Funny thing, I have noticed this with tapering/resting as well. I've mentioned it before, I have crohns disease. So I get to deal with that forcing some rest on occassion. But I've actually noticed that I flare more often when I begin a taper. The last two seasons I got hit at the same exact time, one week out from my A race. I had other problems throughout the season, I wish I had been tracking better with WKO like I am now.
The human body is quite resilient, and can tolerate long periods of sustained stress. However, the minute it senses that the stress is no longer being applied, your defenses essentially drop off the map. My best tapers have consisted of strictly high intensity, short duration workouts. It's reminds your body that the demand is still there, but is a low enough volume that overall stress isn't a major factor. I've tried the same thing when recovering from IMs and ultramarathons, but that level of concentrated stress requires a near-shutdown just to string together enough resources for recovery.
Excellent thread and very good thoughts contributed by all. My notes:
The foundation of this 3-1 stuff is, of course, Friel's TTB. It is based on Bompa's periodization stuff. It's widely believed that Bompa's periodization thoughts were a product of the doping routines of the eastern Europeans, ie, periodization was needed to get the full effects of a doping program. Maybe smarter guys (Graffeo) can speak to this more.
Back in the day (about 2002) I coached straight out of the TTB, routinely using this 3-1 cycle. I found:
The net is that, in my opinion, the NEED/requirement to take a recovery WEEK is a symptom of ineffective scheduling. Effective scheduling is a template training week where Monday works with Tuesday works with Wednesday, etc in such a manner that recovery is built into every training week. It just...works together. The schedules you have in front of you for OS, HIM and IM are exactly that: template training weeks that have evolved after years of experimentation. And, as someone in this thread has pointed out, we're giving you TWO days off per week in the OS, in a training schedule with "only" 5-7hrs training per week.
That said, if it's not working for you and you feel you need more recovery...just stop. Take a day off..or three if you need it.
According to Skiba, it was Matveyev who first put it all together, before Bompa. He did this by surveying Russian athletes before the 1952 olympics in Helsinki with a questionnaire. His review indicated that there was a highly reciprocal relationship between volume and intensity, with large swings in both throughout the year. AFAIK, it was Bompa who took that to the current state of what we think of perdiodization. it is important to note that Matveyev, in the early 90's, urged caution in following training plans based on the 'newly found' principles of biology...
There are many people who have worked to demonstrate that this was a flawed way of looking at training, but a few loud individuals latched on to it, seeing Bompa's work, seeing the success of the eastern euros, and concluding that it must be right (ignoring the whole steroids thing). That was given voice by distance training advocates like Lydiard, and ultimately in the cycling / tri space by Friel.
It's important to remember that just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. 10 years ago, a crackpot scientist published a study out of the UK, suggesting that vaccinations were correlated to autism, causing thousands of people to stop vaccinating kids, and finding voice in celebrity endorsements. People started hearing about it as if it was fact. Problem was, it was totally invalid science, and it was actually stricken from the records of the journal where originally published. Dozens and dozens of legitimate studies have unequivocally refuted the conclusion, but there are still entire clubs and groups out there who believe it and don't vaccinate their kids.
@Rich, I'll see what else I can dig up on the relationship between the periodization cycles and dosing cycles associated with vitamin S.
Eric,
As other have said the rest is build in to week 13. What i did last year is that I also eased up slightly as I was getting fatigued and went closer to the 95% or broke some of the work upat 85% in to shorter intervals thus getting myself a quality workout and a little more rest.
For me the thought process was, it is better to give up a couple % points for 2 days the week prior to get a couple or even more for 6 weeks on the other end. Of course I did not manage the final 3 weeks and had troubles maintaining my workouts around week 18. I came in to the OS at 180 and peaked at 241 (coming off the couch and around 220lbs so nothing great about my numbers). Just hard work.
Gordon
I think the key elements behind EN's functionality are (1) follow-through by the athletes, and (2) follow-up by the coaches. It's all about staying on top of the plan and getting the most out of today. When the alternative "for the masses" volume plans are issued, they hinge on a single premise: you MUST do all of the work. When the athlete fails to reach their performance goals - either in training or in race execution - the answer is predetermined: you DIDN'T do all of the work.
I've experienced first-hand the success of a high volume routine. At this time last year, I was already logging 4.5-6.0 hrs/wk in both running and cycling. A few weeks later, I was adding 1.5-3.0 hrs/wk of swimming. Those numbers grew as the season went on, and they worked. The problem was that I had to maintain those numbers in order to hold onto my speed since speedwork was merely a byproduct of the high volume. From '09 to '10, I knocked 12 minutes off my HIM time on the same course (4:57 to 4:45). Despite the apparent gains, I wouldn't say I was faster. My bike split was identical for both years - a huge disappointment. The volume simply enabled me to run closer to my HM pace for longer. When you're maxed out on volume, gains like that only happen once ... and they're limited.