OK- show me.

Keep in mind the point you're making about my comment is taken out of context with regards to the OP. My point was general to specific training for the athlete in question. To put it in easy terms, general training as prep for IM (low weekly hours with high intensity), transitioning to specific prep for IM (requiring higher weekly volume). So, specific to this athlete, there was little to no way anyone could expect to transition safely from low volume/high intensity to high volume without something having to give.

But, if you want to highjack this thread and start another tangent altogether, be my guest-

---

http://www.reathcon.com

so it's ok to argue in this thread whether "reverse periodization" is just plain "periodization" or not , yet you accuse me of taking it out of context and hijacking this thread when I reply to you that I disagree with your point of view that it should either be low intensity/high volume OR high intensity/low volume.

You ask me to show you so here are my thoughts regarding this:

I believe that it is ok and even beneficial to not train at the same total training stress week after week. Since training stress is made up of both volume and quality one could train week after week at the same total training stress by keeping volume and intensity the same or by altering both training variables in an indirect fashion.


For sake of this thread, let's just *assume* that Training stress (vq) is the product of volume(v) and quality(q). Just to make it easier to get my point across.


week1: 50v x 20q = 1000vq
week2: 100v x 10q= 1000vq
week3: 200v x 5q = 1000vq
week4: 250v x 4q = 1000vq


So by indirectly altering volume and intensity of the training program you keep the total training stress the same, week after week.

Here is where I disagreed with you. For example, week4 could have also been at a volume of 225v and at an intensity/quality of 8q, for a total training stress of 1800vq. This would have resulted in increasing both volume *and* intensity. Now after this difficult week4 for the athlete you could have lowered *both* variables for a total training stress of 600vq, e.g. 150vx4q, to give the athlete time for some recovery.

My point is that quality and quantity don't always have to be indirectly related.

As long as you provide the body with new training stress/stimuli and give it enough rest to recover from it you will see progress.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

Interesting thoughts.

agreed.


Not even close- there are more factors that go into training stress than that. Previous training history, nutrition, ability...the list can become very long.


This seems to contradict what you wrote, but, No- when you change one, you are changing the overall stress. You need to look at this from an energy system adaptation instead of "x" and "y" variables all the time.



Assuming your "v" and "q" approach with the week4 increase, you COULD do this, but why? Because other coaches preach that you should have an "overload" epic week, and get some good recovery after? Tell me what cardiovascular, pulmonary, or metabolic adaptation benefit you're going to achieve with this that couldn't already be accomplished with a proper schedule in the first place? Plus, decreasing the chance of injury?

Believe me, there is a time and place for everything- and even a time and place for an overload like your example. But if you think it's as simple as increasing both, and then simply lowering the stress again, you've already lost any benefit you hoped to achieve.

---

http://www.reathcon.com

"Believe me, there is a time and place for everything- and even a time and place for an overload like your example. But if you think it's as simple as increasing both, and then simply lowering the stress again, you've already lost any benefit you hoped to achieve. "

Good stuff.

I just disagree with your previous statement on how the two variables, intensity and volume, must relate to each other. I don't necessarily believe in following the one goes up, the other one must go down type of theory.


"Believe me, there is a time and place for everything- and even a time and place for an overload like your example. But if you think it's as simple as increasing both, and then simply lowering the stress again, you've already lost any benefit you hoped to achieve. "

I didn't say it is as simple as increasing both and simply lowering stress again. I said that in order for the body to adapt and the athlete to make progress, we have to provide it with a stimuli/stress, followed by adequate rest, repeat cycle. The stress stimuli should change/increase from cycle to cycle as we otherwise would reach a performance plateau.

But it is possible to incorporate the combination of increased intensity with increased volume into the training schedule. I didn't say that this is the only way, but all that really matters is that we continuously provide the body with some form of new (or increased) stimuli, followed by some rest so that the body can adapt.

Can you please explain to me how increasing both intensity and volume at the same time will result in losing any benefit one has hoped to achieve? After that I'll let this thread rest :)

And although we are one big happy ST family here, it's ok to disagree :)

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

"...in order for the body to adapt and the athlete to make progress, we have to provide it with a stimuli/stress, followed by adequate rest, repeat cycle."

Do you have evidence of that? Because that is a conceptualization made popular by the proponents of traditional periodization, without evidence to support it.

In order for adaptation to occur, decreased training load is not needed. You can adapt to a new level of load while mantaining that load. This is a characteristic of many successful endurance programs throughout the years.

Exactly.. here was my n=1 example:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...tring=2%3A21;#871814

He sure as hell didn't work any rest periods in there. Dedication, consistency, desire. Pretty simple.. we love to make things more complicated than they really are - save the energy for training!!!

torque, torsion, strain, stress, tendonitis, tenosynovitis, pull, tear, shear....take your pick.

You're spot on that you need to apply stress, recover, and repeat- but it's your approach and application that's a little off. You're also right that the stress should change after adaptation- but what you're talking about is either a short-lived career as a coach, or wanting the 2007 race season as a volunteer and not as a participant.

But yes, it is ok to disagree.

---

http://www.reathcon.com

I have a question for just about all of you posting on this thread. Do any of you coach anyone or are you all self coached athletes and that is it? My guess is Paulo is a coach, anyone else?

---

Ed Alyanak

Self-coached.

I'm not really against it, I'm a stubborn a-hole who would also rather spend the cash on more important things like beer and internet porn.

            You just have to look at the trans-continental ultrarunners.Providing they don't break down during the initial two weeks they actually begin to get stronger and fitter the further into the race they go.In the last trans Australia run(2001)they averaged running 70k a day for 74 days.One Russian team member(who won the race) ran a sub 2:50 marathon on the afternoon of the 48th day(give or take a day) after completing a non race section through a busy town that morning.ON THE 48TH DAY.All of them including my two friends who finished the race got stronger as the 74 days went on.Except for the guy that died-but that's another story.Can't ask for more than that.

Yes

---

http://www.reathcon.com