Question re Block (Reverse) Periodization

Triathlon Forum
1

I’ve just read an article by Patrick McCrann on the topic of block or ‘reverse’ periodization. This is the practice through which an athlete trains speed and power first, in the winter, then adds endurance later. I’ve got a couple questions on this for those who might practice it.

First, it seems to me that only an athlete with a good accumulated base (year to year fitness) would want to go in this direction as newbie’s may lack the muscular fitness to handle the high workload early. Do you agree? Should newer triathletes not build their muscular base through aerobic conditioning first before pushing their muscular fitness with intense work?

Second, a question regarding energy sources. By going hard earlier the athlete is working in zone 4 and, hence, burning carbohydrate principally. The traditional model has us build endurance and fat burning capabilities, then slowly increase intensity and hopefully carry that fat burning to higher and higher intensities. With the reverse method, when time comes to build endurance, have you not lost some ground from the standpoint of maximizing your fat burning at higher intensities? Maybe, again, you have to come in with a great cumulative base that makes up for this.

Appreciate any thoughts, especially from the coaches out there.

2

I’m also interested in this as I was planning on trying this very thing this year. Seems to make sense to me that as the season and racing approaches you’re moving toward threshold training as oposed to doing track or speed work.

Hope to see some good insight…

3

This is a great topic, and one that we don’t typically see a lot of conversation around out there.

Personally, I’ve practiced and prescribed to my triathlete clients (in certain circumstances) non-linear periodization wherein foundational aerobic base is structured and executed in training per a typical annual training program (in the northeast, for example, we’d start with some base-work in November and proceed through the new year) but have overlaid speed and power in small doses right from the beginning in one of the three disciplines (usually running). As the off-season progresses, speed and power work in the other two disciplines “catches up” with that of the third; essentially converging at about the time of the season when build-type workouts take over.

Why and how?

Why: For certain athletes, myself included, triathletes generally tend to come from a single sport, and as such, have a strong foundation in that sport. For me, it was cycling. For many triathletes that I’ve coached, it’s running. What I want to do is capitalize on those strengths, and continue to periodize that specific discipline almost independently of the other two. In another example, one in which I used myself as a guinea pig: after a season of racing half-Ironmans, I saw that my biggest limiter was my off-the-bike run performance… But I had a stellar base for running. Thus, I started speed and power work in early November for running and continued it all the way through the year while the other two disciplines periodized according to different, more classical schedules. The results were superb, with better than ever triathlon results on the half- and full Ironman course.

How: It’s easieast to coach yourself, because you are a real-time feedback mechanism. You have the ability to know instantly the difference between over-extending and over-training (most of the time) which of course is the greatest risk in this. Being coached is a little harder, the communication just needs to be there - and good coaches can put plans like this together for clients. Some questions that need to be answered include the following: how much experience does the athlete have in the discipline they want to non-linearly periodize? What kind of speed and power work has the athlete done during the year or years prior in this discipline, and for what percentage of the year? What is the athlete’s history of injury and/or overtraining within that specific discipline? Etc.

Single-sport reverse or non-linear periodization is different, but I have seen programs where athletes training for ultra events (24-hour solo mountain bike racing, ultra marathoning, etc.) have employed such an approach. It’s a bit riskier because the volumes are higher (comparing total volume of a single-sport athlete to that amount of volume spent on one discipline of a multisport athlete) but clearly do-able.

Joe

4

Thanks for sharing this insight, Joe. Your answer then to the question on muscular fitness is ‘yes’; an athlete must ensure they have an excellent base of muscular fitness if they are going to bring on the intense work early.

In your case, you focused on running speed. While you were doing so, did you throw in training blocks where you focused on endurance for a few weeks? Did you find that you still managed to optimize fat burning through this process (ie burning fat at higher intensities)? With less focus on training the fat burning metabolism, I would think that an athlete would tend to burn more carbs with this training approach. Not necessarily a bad thing, if true, but it requires some adjustment in nutritional intake.

5

While you were doing so, did you throw in training blocks where you focused on endurance for a few weeks?

Yes I did, actually, it was a pretty complex program I executed, at all times throughout the off- and in-season there were endurance workouts along with the speed and power workouts; what was changed as the year went on was simply the ratio.

Did you find that you still managed to optimize fat burning through this process (ie burning fat at higher intensities)

To ensure that fat-burning was optimized and not neglected, I compensated by boosting the aerobic work in my other sports (i.e., cycling and swimming) by volume. If I had not, then the point you raise is truly valid - carbohydrate would be the primary fuel source and fat-burning economy would be compromised. Like you, I agree that this may no necessarily be a bad thing, per se, but indeed would require an appropriate modification of the training diet.

6

*I’ve just read an article by Patrick McCrann on the topic of block or ‘reverse’ periodization. This is the practice through which an athlete trains speed and power first, in the winter, then adds endurance later. I’ve got a couple questions on this for those who might practice it. *

First of all there is no such a thing as reverse periodization; there is only periodization. Paulo explains it better here but in short any plan that goes from general training to specific training in hopes to allow the athlete to achieve peak performance at his/her main event given their fitness level IS periodization. Working on increasing one’s pace/power at threshold for an IM or HIM is general training, as the plan progression you then switch your focus onto race specific training (i.e. IM steady state or z2, HIM tempo state or z3). I hope coaches would stop making up words and present it as training concepts, that just confuses athletes.

First, it seems to me that only an athlete with a good accumulated base (year to year fitness) would want to go in this direction as newbie’s may lack the muscular fitness to handle the high workload early. Do you agree? Should newer triathletes not build their muscular base through aerobic conditioning first before pushing their muscular fitness with intense work?

Again muscular endurance is one of those ‘concepts’ popularized by some coaches which only confuses athletes. In triathlons it is power (work over time) and not strength (generating force) that we are concern about. IOW, either you have the endurance to go the distance at a given intensity or you don’t.

Anyway, in terms of what’s suggest at EN by Mcrann it really depends on the athlete needs but in general for any endurance athletes improving your power/pace at threshold is the most important aspect improving for better performance. Why? Well at threshold intensity many things occur in our bodies but mainly the point is that the higher your power/pace at threshold the faster you can go at lower intensities as long as you have done the specific training to do so.

There is no ‘reverse’ periodization, it is just going from general training (doing work at threshold or VO2 max which is not directly specific to IM racing) to specific training (doing race pace: long rides/runs at race pace or z2). The key here is to know how much an athlete needs to focus on training at what intensity and when in the annual plan. An untrained athlete will most likely benefit from ANY training while a seasoned IM AGer might need to focus more on increasing threshold 1st so he/she can go longer/faster later.

*Second, a question regarding energy sources. By going hard earlier the athlete is working in zone 4 and, hence, burning carbohydrate principally. The traditional model has us build endurance and fat burning capabilities, then slowly increase intensity and hopefully carry that fat burning to higher and higher intensities. With the reverse method, when time comes to build endurance, have you not lost some ground from the standpoint of maximizing your fat burning at higher intensities? Maybe, again, you have to come in with a great cumulative base that makes up for this. *

no, your body produces adaptations based on the type of stimulus (training) you expose it to. The goal with varying intensity through the annual plan is to produce specific adaptations that will combine and once you focus on specific training (race pace) it allows you to perform at your very best. Using an IM athlete for example – if you improve your pace/power at threshold/Vo2 max through the general face it will set up the foundation for you to go faster at lower intensities, however through the specific phase you still need to do the IM type training (long swims/rides/runs) to make sure you can go the distance and sustain your improved power/pace for the duration of the race. I wrote a piece about ‘what’s base training’ which is part of what you are asking here (I think). In the end, I look at what the specific athletes needs are (goals, fitness, weaknesses, etc) and based on that I formulate his/her annual periodize plan

7

There is no ‘reverse’ periodization, it is just going from general training (doing work at threshold or VO2 max which is not directly specific to IM racing) to >specific training (doing race pace: long rides/runs at race pace or z2).

That’s not a very big range. Let’s say from a ~5:30 pace to a ~7:00 pace for a good IM runner. For a really good runner marathon pace and threshold pace aren’t all that far off. This leaves a lot of explanation on where the slower (8:00 pace) and faster (say <5:00 400s on a track) work go. I really haven’t seen many marathon training plans where all the long runs are at race pace. That sounds like a recipe for burnout.

8

By implying that the focus switches from general training to specific training it doesn’t mean that you do race pace exclusively, it just means that the focus switches to primarily that and you begin doing some race specific sessions as part of your total load. Not all long runs or rides are at or near race pace but there could have portions of it at this intensity. In the specific phase is where you start doing race rehearsals at race pace to test pacing, nutrition, fitness, etc. In terms of IM training, this means doing long rides at or just below race pace, and for running it could include bouts at race pace or shorter race pace transition runs off the bike.

Daniels for instance follow this progression on his plans, early in the plan is focused towards V02 max (strides, I pace) and some T pace and as the plan progresses, T pace and Marathon pace becomes the focus. Still even most long runs are done at lower intensity (E pace) there is the addition of bouts of T pace or another quality session during the week with some longer M pace runs up to 2 - 2.5 hrs or sessions which include worth of 40-60 min of T pace.

There are many ways to plan this and it should be specific to the athlete needs, the point is that following periodization you always just progress through the plan from general to specific training.**

9

The swim coach at my school is in his second season using “Reverse” periodization to train their team. (Disclaimer: I’m not on the team but my roommate is and dinner conversation usually revolves around what the two of us did for swim workouts. Because we are obsessed.)

It’s kinda not going so well for them.

n = 1, and this is just swimming, but we have a lot of fun talking about it…

10

It’s really an interesting debate, if I could use that term. It seems periodization, as many understand it, has been simplified. Now it’s simply: general then specific. This fits my own philosophy, shared by many out there: train and you’ll get fit…no magic bullets. Yes, there are ways to maximize, however, perhaps the truth is that there are as many ways as there are individuals.

Comments for Jorge:

To jump back to the start of the thread. The only reason I mentioned the term ‘reverse’, and did so in brackets, was due to the fact that many identify with that term and have not seen the term ‘block’ which seems to be the currently correct one in coaching science.

"Again muscular endurance is one of those ‘concepts’ popularized by some coaches which only confuses athletes. In triathlons it is power (work over time) and not strength (generating force) that we are concern about. IOW, either you have the endurance to go the distance at a given intensity or you don’t. "

You seem to be saying that power and muscular endurance are the same things and that power is the correct term. I think it’s a matter of semantics. In common parlance, people relate the term power to ‘powerful’ which carries connotations of more short term effort. Muscular endurance on the other hand is more literal and easier to communicate so I prefer it.

“…however through the specific phase you still need to do the IM type training (long swims/rides/runs) to make sure you can go the distance and sustain your improved power/pace for the duration of the race.”

What you haven’t addressed is the energy supply aspect of the question. Leaving the training of the fat metabolism till later still seems to me to be short changing the process. Is training it mostly in the specific phase sufficient?

11

Just to clarify… Periodization is a term applied to a model for designing micro-, meso- and macrocycles we all tend to follow in training, after having adopted it from weight training first introduced by Bompa (*1). And I don’t think people here are “making up words and presenting it as training concepts” - these terms are presented as means to describe training concepts that may be different from the the norm. Recently (*2) Joe Friel even presented an article wherein a number of examples of how to define periods was presented. Specificaly, he included: Linear (Classic) Periodization model, Reverse Linear Periodization model, Undulating Periodization model, Conjugate Sequence Periodization model, and Multi-Peak Periodization model, to name a few. These are not made up words, rather descriptors of the variations of a common concept (i.e., general periodization).

*1: Bompa, Tudor, “*Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training, Fourth Edition,” *Human Kinetics, 1999.

*2: Friel, Joe, "Periodization Part 3: The Design Phase and The Macrocycle," Performance Cycling Conditioning, Vol 13, No 7, 2008.

12

Jorge, I read your article about Base Training and I thought it was excellent. The most interesting portion was the following, which addresses my question about fat metabolism:

“Furthermore on the scientific training for triathletes, Dr. P. Skiba cites that one of the benefits of training at different intensities specifically at your lactate threshold is that it will reduce your body’s production of lactate at a given workload (3) and this will result in your body to increase production of certain enzymes in your muscles, which allows a shift in your fuel balance to use more fat and less glycogen (4). Knowing this I can’t help to question: a) how can we trust a general formula to determine training intensity in order to optimize fat oxidation when this is affected by many variables and b) why are we limiting training at different intensities since we can optimize fat oxidation through different training zones depending on the athlete fitness?”

The opinions and information shared in this thread has brought me to another question. In theory, for a AG short course athlete, it sounds like another option, other than the traditional periodization model, would be to have a balanced 2 rotation that includes all intensities and can be done throughout the season with the exception of the race specific prep phase. If they are coming in with a decent level of cardio-vascular and muscular fitness, and follow proper progressions, they will benefit from the higher and lower intensity work done concurrently. What I’m saying is, maybe there is a simpler way. Maybe some athletes are better off sticking with a simple plan and simply working the progression and recovery, only changing the overall approach as they hit race preparation. Is this conceivable? Comments?

13

  1. Bompa certainly introduced periodization to N.America, but he was preceded by several Russians (Matveyev, and others) by decades. He’s the ‘father or periodization’ only for English speaking countries (btw, his coaching background was in rowing, not weightlifting).

  2. Friel has essentially made up those terms. They may (or may not) accurately describe the concepts he’s trying to convey, but he seems to be inventing new terms for different approaches to designing an annual training plan. As mentioned previously, ‘reverse periodization’ (linear or otherwise) is a poor choice of terminology - it implies training from specific to general, when this is not the intention.

To gordiem: ‘power’ has a very precise definition (rate of work). ‘Muscular endurance’, although commonly used, does not.

As Jorge wrote (and this is not directed at the people on this thread, but rather the authors mentioned) coaches should stop making up words and presenting them as training concepts.

14

I’ve just read an article by Patrick McCrann on the topic of block or ‘reverse’ periodization. This is the practice through which an athlete trains speed and power first, in the winter, then adds endurance later. I’ve got a couple questions on this for those who might practice it.

First, it seems to me that only an athlete with a good accumulated base (year to year fitness) would want to go in this direction as newbie’s may lack the muscular fitness to handle the high workload early. Do you agree? Should newer triathletes not build their muscular base through aerobic conditioning first before pushing their muscular fitness with intense work?

Second, a question regarding energy sources. By going hard earlier the athlete is working in zone 4 and, hence, burning carbohydrate principally. The traditional model has us build endurance and fat burning capabilities, then slowly increase intensity and hopefully carry that fat burning to higher and higher intensities. With the reverse method, when time comes to build endurance, have you not lost some ground from the standpoint of maximizing your fat burning at higher intensities? Maybe, again, you have to come in with a great cumulative base that makes up for this.

Appreciate any thoughts, especially from the coaches out there.

There is nothing “reverse” about it for Ironman training. The classic base, build, peak cycle works OK for runners where race pace training is hard. For IM athletes, race pace training is easy. Think about IM run race pace. Same with bike pace. Either one alone would be an easy session. Not so for runners. Periodization involves moving from general prep towards more race specific training as the season approaches. For IM this would be higher intensity stuff early on and then add in the distance stuff as the season approaches (general to specific).

Note that Patrick and Rich advocate hard training in the off season on the bike but are more conservative on the run because the run has more injury potential. This has less to do with fitness and more to do with building durability.

Also, “base” is a training phase and not a physiological adaption. It is only coaches who do not understand basic exercise physiology who refer to “base” as a physiological adaptation.

Mike

15

What you haven’t addressed is the energy supply aspect of the question. Leaving the training of the fat metabolism till later still seems to me to be short changing the process. Is training it mostly in the specific phase sufficient?
1st of all we have to understand that training zones are man created as a way to address different physiological adaptations and to train more efficiently. But your body doesn’t really know when one zones starts and another ends, they all blend together fort that reason when you are doing work at certain intensity while it will produce more specific adaptations achieved at that intensity you still are producing other adaptations achieved training at other intensities at some degree.

For instance doing interval sessions at threshold power/pace will primarily produce adaptations such as increase muscles glycogen storage, muscle mitochondrial enzymes , increase lactate etc but also adaptations at a lesser degree achieved when training at endurance power/pace (z2) such as improvement of slow twitch muscle fibers fatigue resistance. You can see this illustrated on A Coggan power levels HERE

With that in mind, then it is easy to realize that training at your threshold or tempo pace produces the greatest adaptations relevant for endurance athletes hence a good training plan will consider this on the total load. That been said each athlete has specific needs and goals and that has to be considered as well to maximize the training gains. For an untrained athlete it might be a bit less important to address threshold or tempo pacing at first because he/she is untrained to the specific demands of endurance sports that ANY training will produce positive adaptations to help him/her get in shape. (Which is one of the reasons many believe weight lifting helps, but the reality is that they are so out of shape that parking their car at the far end of the parking lot at the mall will probably help as well, but that another tope ;-)).

Furthermore training at higher intensity produces a bigger strain on the body hence if the athlete hasn’t lay down a proper foundation by build up slowly and allowing the body to handle greater training loads then there are chances for injury. But this doesn’t mean any particular zones should be avoided, it just means it will be easier and safer to start training with lower/short intensities and add volume and intensity as the body adapts. Finally, following the periodization concept you want to move from general to specific training hence for an IM athlete that means doing general training early in the plan such as addressing technique, weaknesses and improving one’s pace/power at threshold and VO2max and as the plan progresses the focus should switch to the specific needs of the race such as long efforts at endurance power/pace which is the pace most AGers will compete at.

So the short answer, to your question, it depends on the athlete goals, needs and weaknesses :slight_smile: but in general I personally don’t see why an athlete should limit his/her training at once specific intensity considering the biggest limiter for most AGers is time. Of course if you have time to train like a Pro and you can devote 20+ hrs per week even early in your training plan then doing more at lower intensities will make more sense because it will allow you to achieve a greater training load/strain and that will help you grow fitter. However if you have limited time then you are going to have to push your body a bit harder so you can strain your body as much as get a similar load on less time. Remember load = volume + intensity.

16

Just to clarify… Periodization is a term applied to a model for designing micro-, meso- and macrocycles we all tend to follow in training, after having adopted it from weight training first introduced by Bompa (*1). And I don’t think people here are “making up words and presenting it as training concepts” - these terms are presented as means to describe training concepts that may be different from the the norm. Recently (*2) Joe Friel even presented an article wherein a number of examples of how to define periods was presented. Specificaly, he included: Linear (Classic) Periodization model, Reverse Linear Periodization model, Undulating Periodization model, Conjugate Sequence Periodization model, and Multi-Peak Periodization model, to name a few. These are not made up words, rather descriptors of the variations of a common concept (i.e., general periodization).

*1: Bompa, Tudor, “*Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training, Fourth Edition,” *Human Kinetics, 1999.

*2: Friel, Joe, "Periodization Part 3: The Design Phase and The Macrocycle," Performance Cycling Conditioning, Vol 13, No 7, 2008.

Well as coachct mentioned, while Bompa made the concept of periodization available the 1st theory about it came from Matveyev. Tschiene and Verhoshansky expanded on the concept and the work/ideas of them most resembles of periodization today as understood in physiology.

Anyway, my comment about coaches making up or misusing training concepts wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, but as I have gained experience and educated myself I have come to realize this happens more often than not and in some cases it is not the coach’s fault. In particular when considering the quality of some of the certifications available (i.e USAT) you can get great or shaky content/information depending who is presenting hence it can be expected.

I think Friel is a great coach and we should certainly thank him to been the pioneer but some of the information presented on his book is just simple incorrect. Coined terms such as AeT or muscular endurance or the misuse of the critical power model are just some examples. The fact that many beginners or developing coaches (like me) used his “bible” to learn certainly makes it easy for all of us to spread some of this misinformation. But for seasoned, experienced and educated coaches to continue to do so, I believe it is irresponsible and it makes a disservice to the coaching profession.

In the case of periodization as I said before; there is no reverse, non-linear, non-classic etc. because what he and others describe as such it is just periodization. Trying to use modified terms to describe something that already exists just causes confusion at best.

As coaches IMO it should be our responsibility to try to avoid this and we would make things easier for athletes if we could all use the same langue/terminology when referring to training concepts.

17

Right on, Jorge.

You can learn something from Matveyev, Tschiene as well as Verkhoshansky. The trick is learning what to take and what fits triathlon best. I get into this a fair bit in the new book.

Phil

18

Thank you so much to Jorge and Phil for sharing their expertise. I had no idea of the depth and complexity of the whole periodization science. I might suggest that one of you write and article for Dan about this. I can’t remember seeing one in the past.

One more question, if I may. In fact, a repost from above.

"The opinions and information shared in this thread has brought me to another question. In theory, for a AG short course athlete, it sounds like another option, other than the traditional periodization model, would be to have a balanced 2 rotation that includes all intensities and can be done throughout the season with the exception of the race specific prep phase. If they are coming in with a decent level of cardio-vascular and muscular fitness, and follow proper progressions, they will benefit from the higher and lower intensity work done concurrently. What I’m saying is, maybe there is a simpler way. Maybe some athletes are better off sticking with a simple plan and simply working the progression and recovery, only changing the overall approach as they hit race preparation. Is this conceivable? Comments? "

19

Also of note, Phil will go into this topic in more depth in a web class on January 18, 2009 as well. Title of the class is “Periodization: Myths and Realities in Multisport Training” Details to come on registration

20

Right on, Jorge.

You can learn something from Matveyev, Tschiene as well as Verkhoshansky. The trick is learning what to take and what fits triathlon best. I get into this a fair bit in the new book.

Phil
I learned it from some smart dude :wink: