Others have called it "nonlinear periodization." No, I don't think the application to triathlon is good. The main reason that this type of "periodization" was developed is because traditional periodization programs were designed for peak strenght/power for a specific event (i.e., powerlifting meet, olympics etc..) and most people do not need to peak for a specific meet or competition 2-3 times per year. For example, football players, who need to be strong throughout the course of a season, rather than peaking 2-3 times per year. So, many have experimented with the concept of incorporating all of the traditional periodization phases into a much shorter time frame. Seems to compare favorably in terms of strength gains to traditional periodization approaches.

Not sure that this applies to triathlon at all though. In triathlon, you are trying to peak performance for a limited number of events each year. That is exactly what traditional periodization was designed to do.

Mike

In triathlon, you are trying to peak performance for a limited number of events each year.

That isn't necessarily true. I think people try to peak for a limited number of events because their training scheme only allows for that. But a lot of people race all season long. That's why they have to have "B" and "C" races, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

True, but you are not going to achieve "peak" performance throughout the season. You will still have to chose a small number of A races for your true peak performances. Unless you want to underperform all season.... ; ).

Mike

OK. How about from the point of view of performance gains? That's the other reason behind periodization, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I would call that approach "Not Periodization".
"Undulating Periodization" is a cute term, but it looks like simply trying to target all energy systems at once. To put it less sarcastically, the "periods" look too short to reap the physiological benefit of focusing on one energy system at a time.

the "periods" look too short to reap the physiological benefit of focusing on one energy system at a time.

They aren't, apparently. At least not for strength training. They've done studies- I've seen one in which no difference was found between traditional and undulating periodizaton, and one where both systems increased strength, but the undulating plan produced a significantly larger gain. So at the very least, it appears no worse than linear periodization, from a performance improvement point of view.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Other than the fact that both are excercise, what does periodization technique for strength training have to do with triathlon? The energy systems being trained aren't even remotely similar.

What weightlifters do to improve their results doesn't concern me in the slightest. Nothing they are doing is aerobic, and 99% of what we are doing is aerobic. I don't see how the sports have anything to do with one another.

I know pretty much nothing about strength training, so I'll happily believe that. The idea of focusing on everything at once in this manner has a lot of intuitive appeal. You put together a running schedule with a long run, a tempo run, a threshold run, and a speed workout each week, and then you just keep on doing it. Really appeals to my desire for consistency.
That said, I think (or actually believe, I guess) that periodization for endurance athletes doesn't work this way. I guess the only "evidence" I could offer is that targeting all energy systems at once seems like the intuitive way to do it, and that's how people used to train, but now they do it this other way because it seems to do more to improve performance. Wow, that is a crap argument. Maybe it has something to do with adaptation of muscles vs. adaptation of the cardiovascular system?
Going to stop talking now, as it is clear now that I don't think this is how it works for endurance athletes but in fact have no idea why.
Sigh.

what does periodization technique for strength training have to do with triathlon?

I am under the impression that triathlon borrowed periodization from strength training in the first place. I'm trying to find out if triathlon can borrow this specific periodization model, as well.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Weights are for strength. Triathlon is not strength-limited. The training required to build the energy systems that are used in triathlon does not work over such short time periods. To try and train multiple systems at once is inefficient at best, and counterproductive at worst. For instance, attempting to train for both bicycle time trials and bicycle sprinting is really, really hard to do.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

But put that together with other points made in this thread, and you have what many road racing cyclist are trying to do - i.e. be able to climb, TT, sprint competitively, week after week through the season without aiming to peak for a few, key races.

Quote:

To try and train multiple systems at once is inefficient at best, and counterproductive at worst. For instance, attempting to train for both bicycle time trials and bicycle sprinting is really, really hard to do.

Do you have scientific evidence to back this up? Training is a continuum, it's not like you can single out an energy system to the exclusion of the others - zn3 & zn4 both can improve LT, for example.

Roadies have to train for short TTs, long TTs, crits, and long road races. I'm not aware of a good all-around cyclist that isn't at least decent in TTs.

Sounds like M2's philosophy ( http://www.triathloncoach.com/articles/trainless.html ) -- a long run, a tempo effort, a speed session.

Draw up a list of the top pro bike sprinters (track and road) of, say, the past 10 years. How many of them have even approached the podium on a non-prologue time trial?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Maybe that's because they've been using linear periodization.

;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Triathletes borrowed periodization from other endurance sports. However, those endurance sports borrowed it from weightlifting (Bompa studies, correct?).

Nevertheless, it's not done because it works for lifters but because it works for runners/cyclists/swimmers. IMO, the jury is still out on whether or not it necessarily is better for triathletes. I'm a big fan of periodization, especially the run component, but I've known of at least one very successful athlete who went with a non-peridoized approach.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing cyclists to traiathletes is that cyclists NEED to have all energy systems in top condition for all of their races. Having a high FTP but no sprinting ability will leave you dead when you miss a break. Triathletes, on the other hand, never need to sprint.

There is some merit to being in shape for ALL races throughout a season. Personally I'd rather sacrifice early season races to be ready for the goal races. Since I don't need a win/loss record to get into the playoffs, I'm ok with it.


(side note - one thing that ALWAYS pissed me off as a track coach is how athletic directors and other track coaches (with little track background) set up the season like we were playing basketball. 17 races in 3 months is just F'ing rediculous!!)

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Fair point. I was thinking less of the top-flight, and more about the average road racers that I ride with, chasing points for licence upgrades or to place in season-long points competitions. So, certainly in the UK, a lot of average road racers aim to be able to sprint a bit, climb a bit, and TT a bit, and want to have a fairly flat performance curve. Partly it's a question of priorities, and also sometimes people at the far end of the bell curve can afford to focus in ways that the majority can't. Personally I was never interested in training for a flat performance curve, both because my performances are naturally on the sporadic side and because it doesn't appeal to me, but I know many people who actually have aimed for it. Sometimes they've had to, for instance a friend who used to compete on the ITU circuit where they have a significant race every three or four weeks.

I agree with everything you said, but I want to make clear that undulating periodization is periodization, of a sort. It's not non-periodized training.

The question in my mind is whether or not the principle can be applied to endurance sports.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

On the assumption that we've established that many road racing cyclists do (perhaps unwittingly) apply "undulating periodization", then the principle is already being applied to endurance sports. Now whether it's a favourble path to an optimal performance is another question, and probably depends strongly on the definition of the optimal performance.

17 races in 3 months? Sounds bread-and-butter for a cyclist. I 'worked' with a cyclist who always liked to race 3x per week and, even worse, wanted to race all of those races. So hard to try and break that mindset... Really, from my limited experience, the greatest difficulty with coaching is trying to prevent the athlete from spannering everything up.