Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Periodisation - is it slowing us down?
Quote | Reply
reading the threads about Marathons slowing down, Kona not as fast as it used to be. Also, been wondering myself about dropping the base/build/peak cycle and going back to training hard all the time and easing off when necessary - obviously still targetting some races to taper off.

Seems like base period knocks off the speed it took a year to build, then I go through the cycle again to finally hopefully go as fast or maybe a little faster then year before.

Also, unless you're a pro is it not better to be in pretty good form all year rather then pick one or two races to peak for. i think you get out of the habit of pushing yourself to the limit and settle into comfort zones, so that when the one big day comes it's too much of a jump from training effort.

Paula Radcliffe seems to be able to run in World XC champs in January , Spring marathon, Track meets in summer then Boston in Oct. says she thinks slow miles are a waste of time and most pros don't train hard enough.

What do you think, drop the heart monitor, and train hard all year, or stick to the zones and long builds?

Or, have read a theory that you should do alternate years - lots of base miles, build to a peak, then next year stick to hard workouts. Repeat every two year. Think this was in Peak Performance, and the test group showed better results training hard in year 2.
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [shw10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes Radcliffe trains very hard and runs very fast a lot, three hard runs min a week I think.

KK also trains very hard with 2 hour runs close to marathon pace on a regular basis if all is to be believed.

HGS runs far more slowly more often than either of the above 2 and has run faster than KK at almost, if not every distance except for the marathon.

What all of them do do however is periodize there training and their season with builds to specific events.

Over Xmas when I was in the UK I read an interview where Radcliffe said late fall / Xmas she was running only 120 miles a week, her build to London was 143 mile weeks at altitude.

Now there is no way of knowing but I'd bet my bottom dollar that she starts ramping up the mileage from now until late March in prep for London, drops it back and adds harder threshold runs and speed work for the World Champs this summer and then depending on what she chooses to do in the fall and what Pinkowsky comes up with she'll either ramp it up or maintain over the winter in readiness to prepare for Athens and hopefully the 10k and the marathon.
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [shw10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I find this subject fascinating. I think it is essential to understand it to be successful in endurance athletics. For myself I have always followed the supposedly tried-and-true program of slow/aerobic in winter, building to late summer/early fall peak. I think this is the Lydiard approach?? Unfortunately over the last 3 seasons what has happened to me is that I never make it to the "peak" and thus seem never really able to race so have more or less sat on the sidelines. I read about Keith Dowling saying he has always wanted and needed (for financial reasons) to race year 'round and has never followed the Lydiard approach. I'd love some good dialogue on this topic!!
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [chip] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It will always come to the same thing as nutrition- Learn all that you can that is out there, tap the wealth of info from the elites, and then apply it to yourself. If you layed the periodization books end to end, it would probably stretch 140.6 miles.

Keep this in mind as well- Scott Tinley had the best analagy I've ever heard on the matter- Your training/competition is like a well...you keep drawing of buckets of energy to fuel training/comp and someday, the well will be dry. You can either draw it all up at once and burn out in a 15 minute flame, or you can keep it steady with enjoyment for a 15 year burn.

ALSO- These people who have these insane training schedules have much more than Joe Average at their disposal, such as daily massage, physical therapy, EXACT nutrition, and most of all, time.

One of my best friends gave me the best advice for years, and finally I swallowed pride and did it, and learned more than I could have ever been taught in a semester of school- GET A COACH.

Hope this helped,

Rob

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [shw10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can understand your thoughts, but I feel that Periodization is the best way to allow your body to grow then regenerate properly. If you are trying to construct your training program through a Base/Build/Peak/Race structure and don't have the scientific knowledge or general experience to do it, yes, you will probably get slower simply because you'll probably be doing a routine that is detrimental.

But a good coach who truely understands how to engineer weekly schedules will help and you will get faster. I know this becasue I am blowing my PR's out of the water and I'm only halfway through my base. And for two years, I tried to coordinate my own base/build/peak/race schedule using periodization. The fact of the matter is, I really needed guidance and advice from my a qualified coach.

Periodization works. Training is a science.
Quote Reply
Not if done right [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you back way off, or take a lot of time off I could imagine losing fitness. But, if you do it right, then each cycle (base, build, peak etc) adds to the previous one. For example, when you are doing your base next year you should be about as fast as you were in the build period this year, the second year out should be faster still. That is the way that long distance athletes get faster from year to year. In a few years you should find yourself easily training at speeds you were racing at when you started. If you don't have the patience for that type of buildup in your training, then you are going to find yourself getting fast one year, and then going into a cycle of good/poor results, and even lots of injuries from trying to go to fast, or doing too much before you are ready for it. Take the long view. Figure it will take four years minimum to reach your peak, IF you do it all correctly. Personally I would add to the base rather than cut it short because once you have good base it really doesn't take very long to develop peak speed. Discipline is NOT being willing to hammer all the time; it is doing the right thing at the right time.

Interestingly I just read an interview with Sherm Chavoor, the swim coach who coached Mark Spitz when he started. Although Spitz is best known for winning his gold medals in the sprint events (100's and 200's) he also set a world record at 400 meters free and just missed the 1500 meter free world record (4 tenths off). Sherm said he could do this because he was trained at distances of 10 - 15 miles a day, and it is much easier to train at distance and then develop speed than it is to train for speed and then try to do distance. And that's for a 15 minute race!



"My strategy is to start out slow and then peter-out altogether" Walt Stack
Last edited by: C2KRider: Jan 27, 03 10:27
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [shw10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The problem is not so much with the theory of periodization, but that most athletes/coaches don't really understand how to apply it effectively. In addition many of the popular periodized training programs such as the training bible, are based on Bompa's theorys which are outdated in many respects and don't fully represent current thinking.

Training hard all year round, or at least training the same way all year leads to performance plateaus. Often you see athlete's performances decline over the season as they have been doing basically the same thing for months and they just get tired, and no longer get any adaptation effect. Sort of like building up a level of fitness, then getting stuck in maintenance mode for the rest of the year.

Joel

www.CompetitionZone.com
Quote Reply
Re: Not if done right [C2KRider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I used a periodization type-program for three IM seasons but it was self-directed and no doubt had some self-induced errors. After several race melt-downs (sodium-related) I cried uncle and hired a coach. One of the first questions that he offered me that challenged my volume oriented training methods was: "What's the limiter in endurance events?" Do you really think its your cardiovascular system? His contention is that most of us who have been at this for while have plenty of cardiovascular conditiong, its the nueromuscular side that's the limiter. So he trains the weakness, every thing is pace or power sensitive. The idea is to stress the nueromuscular system in measured doses, recover, repeat. In terms of running strikes, pedal strokes, the volume is way down and so theoretically there is also less chance for overtraining and injury. I've done well thus far and have PR's the three races I've entered, but the real test comes this season with 3 long-ultra events. First test comes in May. I would think with 9 months on the less (but a "harder" less) is more approach, any volume liabilities should show themselves.

Totally unscientific but my intuition tells me much of that 3 seasons of volume related training still feels available... It doesn't feel like the base has disappeared. We shall see.
Quote Reply
Re: Not if done right [Chappy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Isn't that what a big long base is for? To develop the neuromuscular system?
Quote Reply
Re: Not if done right [Spiderman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, I think the LSD does do that. Though effective, it is not efficient and could lead to a greater chance of injury and overtraining, especially on the run. The analogy that made some sense to me was "If you can push 300 watts on the bike for 20 mins, you ought to be able to push 150 watts for a long, long time."

My come-back to that was, then a sprinter ought to make the best marathoner. The reply, "Yup, with the right training." I'm not completely won over, but plenty enough that the guy has got my attention.
Quote Reply
You have got to be joking about [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the sprinter / marathon analogy right?

Montgomery ran 9.78 for the 100m in Sept in Paris. So lets go with your though process that with the right training that he should be able to take KK over 26.2 miles.

Marathon WR is 2 hours 5 minutes 42 seconds and, 4 minutes 48 seconds per mile.

100m WR is 2.37 minutes per mile.

You think that you can get Tim Montgomery in to the kind of shape to run a 2.05 marathon under any circumstances at all? any? ones built like a brick S**t house the other weighs 130 or so, one has immense power and explosive strength the other the ability to run at their aerobic threshold for 2 hours flat, you cant even compare the 2 let alone say that one with the right training would school the other.......

The physiological differences between 100m and 42000m is so immense as to make that suggestion absurd........
Quote Reply
Re: You have got to be joking about [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
add to that the face that sprinters typically have rather pedestrian vO2 max values, and Montgomery would be running at a level maybe 85% of what is already a slower pace than KK could hold.
Quote Reply
Re: You have got to be joking about [Tommy Nelson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Florence Griffith Joyner actually tried becoming a distance runner. After declaring she would become a marathon champion she never got out of the middle of the non-elite pack.

As for periodisation, I think even the creator of this thread agrees with the need for some form of it. He said he would go as hard as he could until he felt the need to back off and then go hard again. This is a form of periodisation, just not very scientific.

While different periods in a cycle have a different emphasis they don't have to omit all other forms of training. The base period does not need to eliminate all fast running .

I think I remember Peter Coe writing that all periods of training include some hard running.

Maybe incorporating small amounts of harder training will prevent the perfomance fall off.
Quote Reply
Re: You have got to be joking about [michaelg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A simple thing I tried and it worked (for me) is to incorporate some threshold work in every week on the bike and run, Year round. Many weeks for a couple of months it was 5 min-10 min at threshold only. This will enable you to maintain a decent level of speed, probably not top speed, and enable you to get back to top speed much faster than if you only do base work. Shorter or Coe said the easiest way to get fast running was to go to the track twice a week, every week year round. BTW threshold means at or just above LT not ball numbing 400's.
Quote Reply
Re: You have got to be joking about [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew,

I used the sprinter-marathon analogy with my coach to see if I understood the principle he was trying to convey. I just moved it to a running analogy to see how far he was willing to apply the theory. I think, and heh I'm not the brain bank on this one, is that the sprinter has already developed the neuromuscular power and so he/she would have to build the aerobic engine, which from my coaches perspective is "relatively" easier to accomplish then compared to most of trying to do the former. In the real world could Montgomery or anyone like him ever rip off a 2:xx marathon. None yet that I'm aware of.

The question I'm asking of myself is, Is neuromuscular failure in endurance events the primary limiter? IMO, maybe. The guy I'm working with says, Yes. Is periodization a way to train the weakness, yes, and perhaps the best way to go for the first several years of IM training. But after the base is there... Is there a better way? As an experiment of one the results of a weekly pace-power focus are pending, but the preliminaries look good.


Just caught up on my reading. Interesting training threads. A clarification, I'm framing my thoughts around BOP-MOP IM'rs with fixed time constraints and how to best utilize what training time we have. The guys at the epic camp, elites, pro's S-B-R in worlds I'm not familiar with.
Last edited by: Chappy: Jan 27, 03 17:22
Quote Reply
Neuromuscular Fatigue is.... [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the real issue. Your cardiovascular system doesn't fatigue. Nobody ever quit because their heart got tired. It's the neuromuscular system that shuts us down. Spiderman is right. Base training does train the neuromuscular system. It is the tempo and interval training that really trains the cardiovascular system. The base training stuff improves endurance, but doesn't affect aerobic power very much (not in trained athletes anyway). Base training will do little for your VO2 max (not important anyway). It is the higher intensity stuff that increases your VO2 max. The biggest improvements in VO2 max ever recorded in any study were achieved with very high intensity interval protocol.

Here is another question though. Are traditional endurance periodized programs backwards for beginner IM athletes? Think about it. What is the limiter for most beginners (or BOP IM athletes)? Clearly it is endurance. It is not about speed but about not slowing down. So....why spend the last part of your training cycle working on speed? Why not do your distance/base stuff last? Just a thought.

Mike P.
Quote Reply
Yes!! [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Here is another question though. Are traditional endurance periodized programs backwards for beginner IM athletes? Think about it. What is the limiter for most beginners (or BOP IM athletes)? Clearly it is endurance. It is not about speed but about not slowing down. So....why spend the last part of your training cycle working on speed? Why not do your distance/base stuff last? Just a thought."

This is a great question, and the answer is, true beginners should do shorter cycles. With swim teams (my coaching experience), I would always work towards getting beginners going fast as soon as possible. I would do 4 weeks base (in this case maybe only 1000 yards a day), two weeks of in which we would do two days of intervals, and then a week of all intervals. Then I would start over with 6 weeks of base (and more K's), three weeks of two-days of intervals and a week of pure intervals, etc. After about 6 to 8 months they would be at the point where they are really comfortable doing true long distance.

My philosophy is that slow swimming, for a beginner in particular, is not good (and I mean slow in the sense that the swimmer is basically just going through the motions without much effort). Your form while swimming slow is not the same as when swimming fast. So I think speed should be a definite goal. Plus, too much long, slow swimming for a beginner is pure boredom!

The thing is, that sort of periodization works for swimming and cycling - non-weight-bearing sports. Running is different because of the injury potential with fast running. In running I think long, slow distance for many months is correct for a beginner to get the legs in shape for faster stuff. Even then you have to limit the really fast stuff.



"My strategy is to start out slow and then peter-out altogether" Walt Stack
Quote Reply
Here's one that will knock your socks off [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I dont think speed is a limiter for almost anyone competing in an IM.

The reason I say this is that other than HA, pretty much any other IM marathon is slow period by any standards.

A 3.10 marathon while it might qualify you for Boston is not a fast marathon, I know people get caught up in the 7.15 pace but for a runner that is slow, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

I can run reasonably well, a 1.25-ish half, probably close to 3-3.10 for the marathon at present but I got my ass handed to me on a plate at WI and it was not because I am not fast.

There were guy's that finished in the top 20 whose marathon PR was 3.15 ran within 12 months of Moooo, how come they went so fast for the day and I did'nt? I dont think it was because they were "faster" than me........obviously they were faster for the day but I mean faster at running or swimming or biking. What allows one person to put together a 10 hour day and another a 13, 14 or 15 yet the slower IM person may be faster at an individual sport?

Just a thought, I believe I now know what the cause is but I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on the matter.
Quote Reply
Re: Here's one that will knock your socks off [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew - to make a complicated answer simple - one word for you - STRENGTH. Running 3:30 or even 3:15 marathon for you is not that difficult. Just like the guy who can run a 4:00 open marathon - a 4:30 is relatively easy. But in an IM, speed is not the problem, strength and muscular endurance are. The ability to run 7:15 mile after 7:15 mile is hard after you have biked for 112 miles. Your body needs to be strong to do this. Strength over speed - at least in an IM.



My $0.02



MR

Mike Ricci
2017 USAT World Team Coach
USAT National Coach of the Year
Coaching Triathletes since 1992.
Quote Reply
Re: Here's one that will knock your socks off [Mike Ricci] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with you 100% we talked about this. Got to work on strength this year, Ran out at the Mesa trail Saturday and Sunday, lots of hills.

I just think the whole idea of worrying about speed for 99% of IM participants is in one sense a little silly.

There's no doubt that running a fast marathon or probably riding a fast century is very different from finishing a "fast" IM.

Rode up to ward on the PC's on Friday, brutal, went Lee Hill and I wanted to cry :)

See ya sunday.
Quote Reply
Re: Here's one that will knock your socks off [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oh yeah - forgot to mention - Lee Hill Hurts a little. As does Ward. On the same idea - too much strength, especially at altitude is not good either. You have to keep the legs turning over quickly as well.

See you Sunday.

Mike Ricci
2017 USAT World Team Coach
USAT National Coach of the Year
Coaching Triathletes since 1992.
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [shw10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's a very interesting article on this in the February edition of Peak Performance by Owen Anderson.
Quote Reply
Re: Here's one that will knock your socks off [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Running well off the bike in an Ironman for the full 26 miles is a specialty - no doubt about it. I have known sub 2:20 marathoners who have been completely humbled by the marathon in an Ironman. They ran "well", but no where near what you think they would have done going into the event.

It's all about balancing your efforts on the bike with the ability to grind out mile after mile in a very fatigued state. I agree that it is not about speed, per say, but speed is a relative thing. What is "fast" for one may be "slow" for another. Strength is key, but it is not the type of strength that you will find in the gym. It is the type of strength that you get from guess, what, logging mile after mile running in a fatigued state. Hills are a huge help.

If you are competitive, I know a huge thing is being able to run close to even splits in an Ironman Marathon. Why? It's a race of attrition. People are falling apart all over the place. If you can just keep plugging away at a decent pace the whole way in the run or even speed up over the second half, you will be passing tons of people.

I was a good runner in triathlons. Not the fastest, but I had an ability to keep grinding away at my goal race pace for many miles. Invariably I would pass many people over the last 1/2 of the run course.


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [chip] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I usually use the same progression (base---peak). I have always raced 15-18 times per year. I always peak very well. Last year I cut way back on racing and concentrated on correct training. I never peaked. I think the LSD stuff held me back(?). I have also wondered if the good luck in pesking the other years was due to racing mtself into shape???????
Also using the mafatone 180 - age + 5 system and a heartrate moniter really works for my winter training, I'm am now almost sprinting at times and feel great.
Quote Reply
Re: Periodisation - is it slowing us down? [denewone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Some say that racing is the best form of training. What amazes me is the people prepping for marathons, 1/2 IM triathlon races and longer seem to race so rarely. I have seen programs drafted up by coaches getting people ready for an Ironman that had no racing at all. Strange! A well thought out year with a good dose of races spinkled throughout the year at key times, is the better approach.

In the past I would always try and get in a "race" of some sort at least once a month. in the winter that would be xc-ski races and running races then with a shift to multisport races (duathlons and triathlons) in the spring summer. Some races I obviously took more seriously than others. Some I trained right through. However, I always gave a max effort at the time for each race. Best training that I ever did!


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply

Prev Next