Thank about periodization as "less specific to more specific," don't think of it as "base - build - peak."

Now once you start thinking in terms of "less specific to more specific" you would probably quickly get the idea that for half iron and especially iron distance racing, you want the big easy volume more toward the end rather than in the early phases. And keep in mind "easy" is relative. You'll want lots of volume relatively close to race pace toward the end of the season.

The article you linked to also throws in the idea of having multiple peaks that is what you see with block periodization rather than the 1 or 2 peak schedule you see with what we might call classical periodization. That is mostly a distinction in semantics, a real life three-peak block schedule is not very different in practice from a real life three peak classical schedule.

However, the multiple peak idea is very important for pro athletes who need to race well several times a season or anyone else who wants to have several solid performances per year.

There is also the idea that if you have been training for several years without any 8 week breaks, you probably don't need a lot of easy base building.

So is reverse periodization good, yes. It is fine to do high intensity work in the off season as long as your overall fatigue is well managed, knowing that the big work is coming later.

On the other hand, keep in mind that no method of periodization has been shown to be better than any other for endurance performance.

It's easier to sell books advocating standard periodisation. People like tales of 'epic' rides and 'long hours' spent at the 'coal face' of triathlon training. Hour long interval turbo sessions during spring, along with 10 mile bike time trials and 5-10km running races early season seem crude in comparison.

I have made this comment in other places but IMO there is no such thing as "reverse periodisation" (or periodization sp?:-) .... you either periodize or you do not ... it is different for certain athletes based on need, history, races, strengths, weakness, geography and so on. Granted it is possible to periodize an athletes season wrong BUT you either do it or you do not do it ...

2 cents

---

-------------------------
Dave Latourette
http://www.TTENation.com

Why? Is there something specific?

Generally, it's one way to get the job done, and clearly works for his athletes. I think Kevin spelled out more specifically why it maybe works. -J

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is tough. But it's tougher when you're stupid. -John Wayne

Previously discussed:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...n-_Team_Sky_P5427026

Technically you're right but periodization in so many minds has become synonymous with the Friel model of high volume low intensity during the off "base" season, hence it's a very catchy way to grab attention by labelling a different model as "reverse."

Same way with a lot of technically incorrect but popularly accepted nomenclature, I suppose.

I think of periodization as the organization of a training plan into distinct phases or cycles, with a specific purpose.





This is incorrect. Incorporating a "tapering" period of reduced training stress just prior to a competition into a training plan has been demonstrated to be better than maintaining or increasing training stress levels just prior to a competition. And there are, I believe, other examples.