I'll watch this thread out of curiosity, but no, I haven't seen a lot of evidence supporting periodization in any of its dozens of forms.

Good question-- the search for "what works" in training is a deep rabbit hole (and the best source of answers usually isn't sports science studies).

(FYI, periodization doesn't necessarily mean having an easier week every 3rd for 4th week. You can practice periodization without "recovery weeks." )

As for evidence comparing the 2 approaches (recovery week vs. no recovery week), I think it would be hard to find studies that would convince me either way since (like most of these types of studies- such as vo2 max intervals vs. threshold intervals), it would also depend on how "well constructed" plan a was vs. plan b.

Keep in mind that in many cases, it's not the best coaches who are writing the books on how to train. There are plenty of great coaches (Brett Sutton, e.g.) that don't use "recovery weeks"-- you don't need to use them to be successful. The key to either approach is building in enough recovery to not only recover from your training (i.e. feel good enough to perform your next session), but also to adapt (i.e. get faster / stronger). The evidence that either approach works with that athlete: improved power, pace and race results. If they aren't getting faster, it's not working. I'd suggest taking the same approach with your own training. Try one or the other (probably based on what fits your life best). A trend of improved performance in all 3 sports (and race results) means that whatever you are doing is "working."

For what it's worth, I use recovery weeks (which is basically 3 or 4 easier days every 3rd week or so) with less than half of my athletes (depending on their life circumstances and what they respond to best). A couple examples: I personally have never managed to get fast without recovery weeks, while slowtwitcher asellerg is allergic to recovery weeks with his body often shutting down when he gets "out of the routine." (as an aside, when you figure out what type of athlete you are when it comes to rest, it also has a big impact on how you plan you taper.) Other people have to miss workouts sometimes so that counts as their recovery. Other people have limited time to train so "recovery weeks" make much less sense for them.

---

Coach of TriForce Triathlon Team

For every article you find you will find a counter one suggesting something else is better. Both will have data proving them right and why the other is wrong. So my advise is train hard some days, train easier some days, take days off when tired and repeat for a few years. Now you will be 99% of whatever you genetically will ever achieve.

I'm almost certain that if you search Coggan's posts on here you'll find him discussing this topic.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

It's a bit meta but.... "move from the general to the specific" is the idea distilled down to its finest.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Many thanks all,

I'll have a search for any threads from Coggan. As I said it all sounds logical, I just want to understand it all a bit more!

Interesting discussion about recovery weeks here:

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...very_weeks._P4413419

I think that several people (mainly Carl Spackler) make good points on that thread.

In post 30 I explained my rationale for different approaches but am back to the 2/1 cycle. Now, on the easier week I go from 7 runs to 5 runs (skip Mon and Fri runs), limit the intensity on Tue, Wed, Thu workouts and am back to longish stuff by the weekend.

I've reconfirmed that I'm unable to do a 3/1 cycle effectively for more than 1 cycle while trying to overload myself.

I've found that if a person has a limit on their time available to train, it's likely that the constant stress approach will work better since they will be getting more work done in their limited time. If a person has no time limits and can blast out every workout as prescribed it's likely that they can do harder work but will need some more time to recover from those workouts.

Some people choose to spread that recovery time out in smaller chunks per week, I've chosen to spread it out on the third week.

A good article here number crunching the periodization of 100 Ironman athletes

https://alancouzens.com/...l_periodization.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20199119

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18212712

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26573916

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29307100

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29189930

That should give you a good start, including rethinking periodization itself.

z = US/Canadian English
s = English elsewhere

The same rule and a few others apply for many, many other words. It can't be the first time you've seen it?

Periodization has a very broad definition that sums up as training in cycles that are progressing from general to specific. I hope you understand how broad the subject is and what research you want. It will take you months to sort through information. The devil is in the "general to specific". What is general to specific for 200m sprinter on track is very different for Ironman athlete.
High level athletes all train with a specific periodization method that is suited for their sport and event.
If you want to start your read, go back to Tudor Bompa and start reading from there on to today. BTW, your race will be long gone by the time you finish your read, let alone arrive at conclusions. Enjoy your research.

I always thought that periodization and specificity were independent. You can combine them in a training plan, but they're not inherently inter-dependent.

This is a good summary of some research on it


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55b7ffebe4b0568a75e3316b/t/580a2604725e25c8080a03d9/1477060101545/09Kiely+IJSPP_PeriodizationParadigms.pdf

So, if you look at any Ironman training plan it's periodized. Period. Unless you just want to train at the peak volume and just repeat it.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I prefer the term “modulation” as it combines elements of both but is so nebulous as to confuse any athlete.

In effect it ends conversations from the athletes who ask “why am I doing XYZ” it also makes you sound smart and philosophical at the same time (like Canova)

Modulation...it’s the new “plastics”

Maurice

If TomA/Josh@Silca can steal the term "impedance" to hand-wave at why highly-pressurized tires roll slower in the real world than on rollers then I think you're perfectly OK stealing "modulation."

In fact just steal both. "Yes, looks like you're experiencing some impedance from this increased TSS. We'll have to modulate for the next few weeks."