Simon

A person who is racing IM has already built that aerobic base during the season. Therefore, when they start the intensity in the off season, it comes after a period of aerobic base building. It just makes more sense to do it this way. You go from less specificity (intensity) to more specificity (endurance) as your IM racing draws near. Basically you put FAR on top of the FAST you have built in the off season. An additional benefit is you can spend the off season racing 5-10Ks, which can be really fun.

Mike
www.endurancenation.us

30 sec slower than 5K, for most, is a tempo/threshold/LT/zone4 run. This is not what I would consider an "aerobic" run, though it is still very much aerobic.

If you look at the last slide, you'll nottice that I have periods of 6-8 weeks where this is not done.
For most distances, you want to focus on aerobic base 1st, then add LT, then finally add V02max.

A triathlete who wants to do well from March to October might do nothing but aerobic base training in the winter, then do LT running from Feb - October, with small chunks of V02max leading up to each race. It's not what I conisder ideal, but it all depends on what your goals are. If you don't plan to make it to some sort of championship, then why not come to each race well prepared? The only caveat is to not fall into the trap of hitting that "equilibrium" training whrere you never really peak for a race. VO2max training for 8 months straight typically leads to stagnating performances.

---

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

Exactly the clarification I needed. Thankyou!!

Barry, thanks for doing this. It is very informative. I'm sending it to my 17 year old son- it's a whole lot better coming from you than from me!

Barry, what is the difference between Lactic threshold and VO2max training? I assumed that LT is the upper LT that on can sustain without going anerobic. Training to bring this number as close to Max HR as possilbe. I've been using various workouts-6X1000 with 800 @ L4 (5-7 beats below maxHR) + 200 flat out. followed by 20 sec rest. So, very little rest after hard work. I thought this was to increase LT. thanks for all your help-it really is invaluable.

"Lactate threshold training" is done at ~1hr race pace, which is between 10K and 10 mile race pace for most. It is the most effecient way to train improvements in your lactate threshold. Virtually ALL paces will stimulate increases in lactate threshold, but this pace gives you the biggest bang for your buck.

V02max training is typically 30 seconds a mile faster. This WILL improve your lactate threshold as well, but comes with more risks. Weekly mileage needs to be reduced more when doing 20 minutes of intervals at V02max pace when compared to a 20 minute sustained run at "lactate threshold training" pace (which is technically faster than your actual lactate threshold).

If you look at the graphics above you'll notice that you get great short term benefits from V02max intervals, but at a cost of reducing the rest of your raining. If timed properly, this will lead to a nice peak at the end of your season. I typically expect athletes to improve a 5K by ~30-45 seconds over the course of 6 weeks once they start implimenting intervals. Beyod that their performances pretty much level off for a bit, and then eventually decline.

I just had a conversation with my cousin who had not put in the proper base miles this summer, then hit some really hard workouts once cross country began. He peaked in late September with a 16:05.....but then got slower by the end of the season. This is on par with exactly what I'd expect. If he had a better aerobic base, OR backed off on the interval training and maitained a higher mileage during the season, I'd expect him to have run 15:40-15:50 and do it at the end of the season when it counts.

---

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

Barry, thanks so much for taking the time to explain all this. It certainly makes sense. And youhre're right-I was not able to continue high milage after beating myself up at the track with Max efforts.

I will try to figure out the "1-hr" pace and work from there. Three years ago I set out on a plan to qualify for kona. I gave myself 2 years to prepare for the 1/2 IM Monaco(this is after 25 years in tri) where I earned a slot and won my age division by 30 minutes. It's on to Kona where I plan on running the entire run instead of the walk of death that has been my usual finish-on verra-(fr:we will see).

Thanks again-it's a nice Christmas present. Joyeux Noel

Barry, another great post. Your sojourns to the lav room must stimulate the creative juices.

Quick question, there's been some chatter about 3 wk build/1wk easy on Prof Coggan's recent post. What I've read is the 3:1 ratio is considered micro-periodization (weekly) and fits within the macro-period (yearly) that you've outlined. At least that's my dusty recollection of J Friel's explanation. Do you follow the 3wks on/1 wk off model?

---

Jim_n_La
...what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but only until it kills you - Cousin Elwood

I think I may be confused here.. but maybe not.

Firstly, a the others have pointed out, very worthwhile contribution.

OK, here's where I'm fuzzy: Interpreting the slides I am seeing that you (may be) are suggesting that a series of succesive peaks yeild the overall result of greater fitness long term. That is to say, the last in a year long series of four peaks will be the "highest" peak in fitness. Additionally, the net benefits are overall greater fitness. I think I interpreted that correctly based on the slides.

Now, here is where I go wrong. Reading the previous (now deleted) and somewhat controversial post about "no rest weeks" that was Paulo inspired from his blog and acknowledging I am trying to improve my running through Dev's 100 runs initiative I am not seeing that there is much periodization in my current program. I guess I could consider the easy, consistent efforts that slowly build in duration over 100 days a training period in and of themselves- a 100 day concentrated base/running/technique period.

Help me out here: After the 100 days is up, then what? (Given, I am only 22 days into the 100 day challenge...).

If nothing else I am running more "easily" now. That feels good.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom,

If you properly structure a run training program repeating a cycle that brings you to a peak 2-4x (personally I think peaking 4x is waaaay too many per year but I digress) per year, then your net overall fitness will be lifted with each bout of Vo2max training. Think of it this way ~ 6 weeks of just running as much as you can tolerate no LT no Vo2. then ~6-10 weeks of LT THEN ~3-6weeks of Vo2 for your peak. So this brings you from your baseline starting point to level 4. If you had done just running you may have gotten to level 1.5, if you added LT work in maybe 3.25 but to get to level 4 you need to add the Vo2max training. Now that you are are level 4 you can rest ~7-14 days then repeat starting at level say 3.25 with ~ 6weeks of just running then another bout of LT then another bout of Vo2.

If you had not gotten to level 4 but stopped at level 3.25 in the first place you would be back to level 2.75 when you restarted the cycle. Now repeat this cycle again and again and next thing you know you are at 6ish. If you left out Vo2max training you may have only gotten to level 4.5.

The 3:1 structure is primarily based off Friel (or at least he made it common speak in the triathlon world) who based it off of Bompa's work. There is some basis to structure your training so that you flow (build) and rest (ebb). But the majority of AG triathletes are not making all the adaptations to what they are doing in a typical week. If you are trianing 10-14hr per week you are better of just doing that 6 weeks straight then switching something up vs doing a stair step that make look like 10, 12, 16, 8. (really if your volume is ~10-12hr per week having a rest week is short changing yourself) One would be better off just training the maximal amount of hours that they can, and having life force them off their schedule vs designing a rest week. In a well designed program complete rest days are rarely needed and complete rest weeks are hardly ever needed. Life gets in the way and forces you to take days off and have flucuations in the week. Plus most triathletes just fuck up the whole build, build, build rest thing anyway. Who is to say that after 3 weeks you have stopped adapting anyway?

After 100 days of just running, then maybe you can think about adding in ~6-8 weeks of LT work into your running. But the typical triathlete runs too little anyway.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Bompa never said that you should apply periodization on endurance training. He said it was a good thing for strength training. I don´t know if he´s right or wrong, but the whole 3:1 is a misunderstanding.

In know that, all of Friel's books that i have read reference him in that regards. I agree that 3:1 much less building a program is very misunderstood amongst most triathletes.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Some people think that the whole 3:1 cycling is actually based on doping cycles from the eastern bloc... but anyway.

Desert Dude answered the question very well (as usual).

Re 3:1 ratio - It is not very common in distance running. I think the reason is that running, being an impact sport, is limited by in how much you can overload your body without getting injured. Typically you want to find your red line (danger zone) and train just under it. For example, a runner might get hurt if he runs 60 miles a week, so he trains 55 miles a week. To adopt a typical 3:1 build and recover cycle, in theory, he would run something like 70-80 miles in the 3rd week and then recover. The problem is, the recovery is now 6 weeks because he got injured.

Some marathoners wil do something similar, but it is to much more conservative proportions. A friend of mine would run 90, 105, 120 and repeat for several months. Notice he rotated every 3 weeks and his biggest and smallest weeks were really only 15% off the average week. Dena Kastor also did something similar, but on a two week cycle that looked something like 100, 115, 105, 120, 110, 125, etc..... So, to summarize, you will see runners do this to some degree, but it seems to really only happen with marathoners and to much smaller degrees than the typical triathlete cycle.

Liek DD said, I too prefer only two peaks a year. For a collegiate runner its typically one in XC in November and one in outdoor track in may. Triathletes have a hard time following a schedule like this because there is really only one tri season that lasts all summer. What one can do is either 1) simply focus on being in peak shape in September or 2) add another peak to an early race in May.

Your specific goal will determine exactly what to do after your 100 days, but in general you should add in some threshold (tempo/L4/Zone4/1hr race pace/90% max HR) training. You could proabably carry that through the whole summer. Pick two imporatnt races and sure they are at least 10 weeks apart. 6 weeks before each race add in some V02max intervals before that race. After the race take some time to recover. Build your mileage back up again, and then 6 weeks before the next race throw in the intervals again. If the races are only 10 weeks apart, you may want to cut your second set of V02max intervals down to just 3-4 weeks.


In the end, those V02max intervals will give you a great boost in performance at the end of your training, but they inhibit the rest of your training which provides greater long term benefits.

---

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

At some point I probably will. It's a matter of having the time and then thinking about it when I have the time. ; ^ )
For now if you search Runtraining# with the # being an actual number, you'll find everything (I'm up to 12).

---

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

Czone, I often use terminology as understood by the running community. I'm getting better at translating back and forth ; ^ ).

I don't know if there is ONE correct definition for "periodization," but in general for runners from 800m - 20K, the model is simply aerobic training first, add LT training, then add speed and Vo2max. I personally don't really see where this is necessarily general to specific. It certainly does end with training more specifically geared toward the event in the case of 800 - 5,000, but often in the longer events your V02max intervals really have little to do with the race itself other than it makes you faster. ie....I wouldn't consider 800s at sub 5K pace "specific" to racing a marathon. More importantly, I would think that a "general" plan would be a fairly balanced hodgepodge of different levels of training instead of the high levels of aerobic training that I advocate.

Either way, we'd be nitpicking on the terminology and what it means. What I think is more important is the message itself which is base --> LT --> V02max, unless doing an ultra race like an IM, then you'd often do the "reverse" ; ^ ).

---

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

The term reverse-periodization is not used in the running community either. Periodization just means planning in periods or blocks, there can be no reverse of this. Dumbing down terminology is not a good communication strategy IMO.

As for your "base --> LT --> V02max", thats certainly not the model for every sport, or even every endurance sport, which you acknowledge in your ironman comment. Again, I've yet to see an endurance program that did not prepare in a general to specific fashion.

Actually I disagree with most of what you wrote. If you feel I am communicating ineffectively, then feel free to begin your own thread that clarifies all of the confusion that I have created. If you do, though, I'd like to ask you to explain exactly how beginning with base training when training for a 5K is "general" while beginning with hard traininer sessions for an IM is also "general." Neither one of these fits any definition of "general" that I am aware of.

---

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

That's why you are the level of coach you are, and Joel is the level of coach he is. It's exactly because you don't understand why those are both "general." It's not really that hard. General means, in an overly simplistic sense, that you are merely training. You are becoming generally more fit, though without a focus on the energy systems specific to the priority race. A hard trainer session is general because it is not specific to the demands of Ironman racing - which is to say extreme duration high Z2 - low Z3 efforts; you should not be taxing your z4-z5 systems in an Ironman, which you might do in a hard trainer session, thereby making it "general." A long, easy base run is general to a 5K, because a 5K draws primarily on LT-VO2Max level efforts.

Reverse periodization is a term for people who don't understand what periodization actually means. You call it reverse periodization because you fail to recognize what is actually general and what is actually specific.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I'm actually quite surprised by such an attack from you, Rappstar. I didn't think it was your style.


Which is why it is completely inaccurate. You are not "merely training." Despite your implications that I am not "the level of coach" who would understand, I understood completely. I think it grossly mischaracterizes exactly what you are doing during the early phases of training and exactly what purpose that type of training serves. In addition to being inaccurate, I think it doesn't add any clarity toward structuring a sound periodized program to an athlete who doesn't already understand how to do so.



1st off, I don't "call" it reverse periodization. I "called" it that, and in fact placed it in quotes hoping to imply that the terminology as used should only be taken within the context of my post.

2nd, despite your accusations about my lack of intelligence (again, I'm very surprised that this is coming from you), the term wasn't used because of something that *I* fail to understand. It was used to describe to the target audience a model which is a reverse order of what I described in the OP.

If you want, I'd be happy to join the two of you in a thread about teaching concepts to an audience of people who don't already have expertiese in the area. I know my first degree was only in education, but despite only developing state champions from novice athletes, I might actually know a thing or two in the area.

Oh, by the way, I don't really need this shit. This might just be my last attempt to help people with their running FOR FREE. Merry Christmas!

---

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

Well, he is MY coach. Beyond that, I think you are actually doing a disservice with this free advice (you know what they say about free advice, right?). And, I'm not really sure whether you grasp it or not from your answer. You say that my answer is inaccurate, but since I was pointing out the inaccuracy of your previous post, you aren't actually defending yourself in any sensible manner. I discussed, with reference to specificity of energy zones, exactly why base runs are general for 5k and hard trainer sessions are general for Ironman. You haven't done a very good job of refuting what I wrote. Understanding periodization is both simple and complex. I'm not sure that a general "how to" manual will ever work. Which is why people hire coaches, and why people who do hire coaches usually do much better than people who read books by coaches.

And, for the record, I'm not saying you are stupid or unintelligent. I'm saying that, based on what I read about what you wrote, that you don't understand the fundamentals of specificity or periodization. Joel understands it very well. I'll admit that I was taking a bit of a dig at you (so shoot me), but I stand firm that you don't really grasp what you are trying to teach here.

You certainly don't do yourself any favors by calling an inversion of the periodization you describe as a reverse periodization. Rather, that is also just a periodization program, just for a different event, or athlete. And it's not a function of degrees or street cred. By the way, I didn't even know they had state championships for triathlon, which I really don't mean as an insult. I'm just pointing out that that's a bit of an odd thing to hang your hat on. Given the nature of triathlon, especially in the US, most every championship level triathlete came into the game as a novice, unless they are racing on the ITU circuit.

[EDIT] well, didn't do myself any favors by misinterpreting your claims about state champs as being triathletes. I wasn't thinking in the context of who you coach most often - high school runners.

And, I'm not sure you can say "I don't need this shit," when YOU started this thread. If you are going to write a how-to, expect it to be criticized.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

you are an idiot! The man was just trying to share his experience in a constructive and helpful way. Go do your ironmans or whatever you do but you will remain an idiot, jack!

Interesting that you use your first post to personally insult a forum administrator...

Are you saying that he is incorrect? If not, what's your point?

If you would rather not watch two intelligent and successful people debate coaching principles, then don't read these threads.

Jodi

In all seriousness, I've used the term "reverse periodization" to describe a model of general into specific training for long course athletes because it seems like so many triathletes conflate "periodization" and training cycles that flow from slow base to intense build periods. Have other ideas what to call this aside from general to specific training, not that there is anything wrong with that?

---

Jason
Dig It Triathlon and Multisport
http://www.digittri.com

i don't care whether he is an forum administrator or not and btw you cannot have a debate in writing between two people. You are a med student you should know what better than anybody else here, Dr. Jodi!

The guy who wrote the article had good intentions and other one who made suggestions/comments on it, well he still is a jackass