Have you tried a longer taper? Like 3-4 weeks? You might be feeling flat because you haven't tapered long enough. I commonly feel a bit flat at some point during the taper, but come race day, if I've timed it right, I feel like I am virtually jumping out of my skin.

Also when you say taper, are you talking about reduction from max volume or something else?

I'm diabetic too, and for myself I find it doesn't affect my insulin too much as the higher intensity of some of the workouts during a taper affect my insulin requirements the same as the bigger volume.

Wow that's a long taper 3-4 weeks ! Last taper I did was 6 days for an oly and I got sick with the cold during as well as race day. My insulin requirements went through the roof from sickness mostly but taper too. The problem I have is I went into the race struggling to get enough insulin and I'm not sure if that was from sickness or the taper itself.
As for taper I mean volume and reduction in intensity volume. Eg instead of 3x 10mins @ lactate threshold during an hr ride I would do a 45min ride with 3x7mins during a taper.
Are you saying reduce volume but increase or maintain intensity?

If you use a longer taper plan, such as a three week taper, it has to be pretty gradual (90%, 80%, 50% as one example) you lose fitness when you taper, but the idea is that you shed enough fatigue to outweigh this loss of fitness and improve form. It takes a pretty substantial workload to achieve a benefit from a taper that long, and most people don't get there, and wind up coming in with more fitness loss than fatigue loss. 7-10 day tapers schemes have worked pretty well for me going into B races, then I do 2 weeks for my final A race at the end of the year. In a nutshell, the more training behind you, the longer a taper can be. Just be honest with yourself about how fatigued you really are.

---

Tim Russell, Pro Triathlete

Instagram- @timbikerun

The length of the taper shouldn't be based on the length of the race, it should be based on the size of the fatigue hole you need to climb out of from training. For example, if you're managing training load with Training Peaks' Performance Management Chart, and you have a -20 Training Stress Balance (TSB) at the end of your last build, and you've been building steadily for several months with a significant negative TSB, you will benefit from a longer taper than if your TSB is only -10 and you had a period of positive TSB only a month earlier.

This idea that is thrown around all the time that the optimum taper length has a direct connection to the length of the race is BS.

---

____________________________________________
Don Larkin
Reach For More
http://www.reachformore.fit/
USAT Lvl1 Coach, NSCA-CPT, NASM-CPT, BS Exercise Science

I gone to a shorter taper for HIM, like 10 days tops, still do a race day intensity one week out - something like a 70 min ride/ 3-4 mile run the weekend before and then in the 7 days up to the race I do easy short stuff and take a few days off. I think a lot of it has to do with volume. So for a HIM for example, if your averaging 10 hours during your build I think a shorter taper is better, if your averaging 16-18 hours during your build a longer taper is better.

ahh i see. I do the free version of TP so dont get the mangement chart.
Going over my history i have consistant 12.5-13.5hr weeks except for last week which was 6hrs.
Had an oly at the end of the week last week (hence 6 hrs), i crashed and burn with a 6 day taper and getting sick. Bad race pulled out with some issues.
This week i have managed 15hrs. Race is may 3rd so 2 weeks left. Im mindful of the 6hr week last week and balancing a 15hr week this week. Unfortunately i dont have precise measurements of anything like TSB

I have significantly shortened my tapers, and have experimented with shorter races. Did a 5 hr workout the day before a sprint with little effect at all. What I am finding is that if I am fit I can significantly reduce my taper.

Previously I did a 3 week IM taper. Now, I do basically a 2 week, but I keep it going pretty hard until about the Wed before the race. I don't drain myself, but I go hard. I certainly avoid the taper funk and I think i am sharper too. I think Dave Scott used to say don't go hard after Tuesday Sat race), but keep going. I think Brett Sutton believes in a 48 hour taper window 3 - 4 days before a race.

This is definitely and individual thing and you really need to experiment with it. I'm starting to believe shorter is better.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

I use an 8 day taper for everything. 70.3, 140.6, marathons. It just works for me.

People vary wildly in terms of what works best taper-wise. I wouldn't rely on anyone else's story, but use a program like WKO or Apollo Race Day to track your workouts and see how quickly you recover and how to best periodize your workouts to achieve your optimum race results. If you don't feel you can do that on your own, then hire a coach. Otherwise, just do what you can and race. You'll still get tons of fitness, have some fun and won't have to become a data dweeb.

If you are a BOP/MOP racer trying to get to the middle or front then you definitely need a coach, IMHO.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

i have a coach ;)...i still ask questions. I usually get issues with needing a lot more insulin with less exercise which makes tapering more difficult. Hence shorter may be better for me when it comes to managing blood sugar. I was curious as to how shorter tapers affect others as a bit of a reference because i wont be able to go into this race 100% rested. Its a bit of a trade off to manage blood sugar.

If you taper your volume, but maintain intensity this is not necessarily true.

Yes, it is. Tapering exploits the fact that fatigue goes away more quickly than fitness is lost. When done well, the fitness lost is minimal, but it still occurs. It's irrelevant though, because form/freshness increases as fatigue declines, so the ability to perform well increases despite some fitness lost.

---

____________________________________________
Don Larkin
Reach For More
http://www.reachformore.fit/
USAT Lvl1 Coach, NSCA-CPT, NASM-CPT, BS Exercise Science

I see. Well, I don't taper much any more. When I was younger I tried tapering for up to two weeks and that didn't work. Then I tried a 3 week taper, and that was a disaster. So I went to a 10 day taper, which I kept for about a year. Finally, I found that if I do a hard, long run 7 days (usually a Sunday) before the IM or Half IM (distance of run will vary as in longer for the IM), then a very hard two hour bike on Monday followed by a longish swim. Then I just run 3 miles two or three times before the race at about 90% of 5K pace. That works for me. (NB: I lose run fitness faster than bike fitness, and swim fitness slowest of all.)

Good luck with your diabetes and keep training. Many folks wouldn't bother to do this sort of training with Type I Diabetes.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

With competitive swimming in the 80s we did volume for 15 weeks, volume + speed for 8 weeks, then three weeks taper.
Nowadays most people seem to argue for 3 weeks hard, 1 week recovery.Volume and speed mixed together.
Not sure why one would need more than 1 recovery week and one week taper, if this is the plan you are following.

NO, not it is not necessarily true. Here is a 35% reduction in volume that maintained VO2max and endurance for 15 weeks! A 67% reduction in volume resulted in only a 10% drop in endurance, while VO2max remained elevated. This is seminal work to the concept of tapering.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6214534

The Hickson studies are interesting indeed. Note, however, that there was a good chance that the subjects underperformed at the 10 wk mark due to overreaching - the exercise program was VERY intense (10 wk of 3 d/wk bike intervals to VO2max, 3 d/wk run "as fast as possible" for up to 40 min). So the reduction in training probably allowed the performance gains to manifest.

Better studies to refer to are here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...A+A+Meta-Analysis%22
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20840559
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11252068
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11474330

The model is performance = fitness - fatigue, with both fitness and fatigue a function of training load. Reduction of training load = reduced fitness AND fatigue and the balance results in either increased or decreased performance, depending on the elapsed time.

The discussion of optimal tapers without individual data is moot - it depends on your individual constants, as those who brought up the PMC and RaceDay allude.

Thanks for pulling out a legitimate study, but let me highlight one of the findings-

Short-term endurance (approx 5 min) was also maintained by both groups. Long-term endurance (2 h or more) remained the same in the 26-min group but decreased significantly (10%, 139-123 min) in the 13-min group

For starters, 40 minutes of cycling per day doesn't really reflect an IM or 70.3 training schedule. We also don't know much about baseline fitness (I could only get the abstract, if you have more subject data I'd love to see it), so we don't know if the training protocol ever changed fitness from the beginning of the study to the end. As others have pointed out, when you reduce volume, fitness drops. As this article pointed out, some aspects of fitness stay around longer. VO2 max and "short-term endurance" (which you could argue is another measure of VO2 max) were unchanged. This is fairly well documented, and VO2 max is more genetically dictated than training influenced, my guess is these never changed from baseline significantly. Likewise, I don't think "long-term endurance" was changed much on 40 minutes/day. This paper looks pretty decent, but not particularly applicable to 70.3 training, which the original poster asked about.

---

Tim Russell, Pro Triathlete

Instagram- @timbikerun

Well said.

---

____________________________________________
Don Larkin
Reach For More
http://www.reachformore.fit/
USAT Lvl1 Coach, NSCA-CPT, NASM-CPT, BS Exercise Science

The hypothesis that their VO2max levels were under-performed at week 10 of training due to the protocol is not supported by available data . The original paper from John Holloszy's lab describing this exact training protocol measured VO2max every week for the 10 week period. Increases in VO2max were linear throughout that entire period with no plateau.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/838658


The other papers are not better in the context of what I mentioned, though some in fact some support what I was saying. My comment was that it is not a forgone conclusion that fitness drops during a taper period provided that intensity is maintained. Links 1 and 2 that you provide highlight the importance of maintaining intensity nicely. Reduced training volume and cessation are horses of another color all together.

I shall point out that this was 15 WEEKS of reduced training. Well outside the scope of what we are discussing for a taper. Nonetheless it too at 67% reduction in volume to see a 10% reduction in performance.

In the 33% reduced volume group VO2max was increase by ~20% by training
In the 67% reduced volume is was improved only ~10%, unfortunate luck of the draw for best comparisons sake.

However - when the same study was done, but frequency was reduced 33 & 67% both groups were improved by greater than 20% during the 10 week training and values were maintained during the 15 week reduced frequency period (when intensity was maintained). When intensity is reduced things drop fast.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/jap/58/2/492.full.pdf (this one has some figures from all 3 studies in it).

Three week tapering of run volume. Aerobic capacity maintained, citrate synthase levels maintained and at the single muscle fiber level: power and cross-sectional area both IMPROVED during the taper period. So no evidence at the CV or myocellular level to suggest that these individuals lost fitness during their taper. Can it happen? Certainly, depending on conditions and individual differences. Does it have to happen? No.

. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20299622

First, I added those studies not to disagree with you per se, but only to introduce the higher quality literature to this debate (comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses, rather than one-off studies without control groups). The Bosquet meta-analysis showed clear reductions in effect sizes of performance improvements in tapers > 2 wk, which partially addresses the OP's question.

Second, VO2max is only one component of endurance performance (endurance performance = VO2max x % sustainable VO2max x efficiency or economy). Small reductions in 2 variables, VO2max and %VO2max (threshold) = relatively big changes in performance. You are playing with fire if you taper too long for a half-IM or longer event, in which thresholds play a critical role in determining the rate of substrate utilization.

Finally, I think part of the issue is that we seem to be using different definitions of "fitness." In the performance modeling sphere, fitness = positive training effects and fatigue = negative training effects and performance (or most observable physiological effects) = fitness - fatigue. You seem to define fitness as the observed responses (VO2max, muscle enzymes, etc.)

If you stop training, the impetus for the positive training effects will begin to decline but their decreased influence on the observable changes are masked by the quicker reduction of the negative effects. However, if fitness is defined as these observable changes, then indeed one could say that they go up or are maintained when training decreases.

Either way, the positive training effects decrease when training is reduced and care is needed to avoid tapering for too long.

Time of taper is just but one aspect. Meta-analyses often have to lump groups together that may be critically different. Two week tapers could be two weeks reduced volume or the same volume with reduced intensity or both reduced ... There was no need for controls in the Hickson studies. The goal wasn't to determine if reduced was better than continuing training status quo for another 15 weeks, it was to determine if levels could be maintained. Since it's cross-sectional study a "control group" serves no scientific purpose to that hypothesis.

I know that VO2max is but one index, that's why I provided others.

For the purposes that are being discussed "fitness" is the status of the measureable positive effects of the training (Aerobic capacity (RBC volume, plasma volume, cardiac output), mitochondrial biogenesis, glycogen storage capacity, etc). Performance is influenced by "fitness" and negative effects of the training load (fatigue, inflammation, etc) though it is not really an A+B=C, but conceptually I get what you means and agree. I think that we are all in agreement that performance can be enhance by tapering. What I reject, and have done so with data, is that during typical taper periods (up to 3 weeks) that fitness levels (the positive measurables to performance in this context) will do down and the only reason that performance enhancements are observed is because the negative effects are reduced to a greater degree. I don't think I've even seen data presented here that demonstrated reduced positive physiological measurables of training during a taper that resulted in improved performance and THAT is what was being described as always happening during taper.

As Dave Voyageur has pointed out, using performance modeling to gain some insight into tapering shows above everything else that tapers are highly individual. Some French scientists did a study on elite swimmers doing similar workouts and found that the optimum taper length among that relatively homogeneous groups varied by weeks in some cases.

I've been working with performance models for years off and on, I've found two more things relative to this. First in every case I have ever run, the swim taper was shorter than the bike and in turn shorter than the run.

The second was that taper length seems to depend on training load more than the race distance. To the extent that a typical ham and eggs age grouper doing 10 to 12 hours per week shows as needing a 1 to 3 day swim taper.

Back to the original question, can a shorter taper work for you? Quite possible.