I’m trying to figure out if there’s any support for the theory of increasing training load for a couple of weeks, decreasing volume for a week, increasing, etc… The often utilized plan to “rest” week every 3rd or 4th week.
To greatly oversimplify, you could set up training through a build phase in 3 ways: a straight incline constantly adding a set amount of time/milage weekly, a stair-step approach, and the “jagged increase” of inserting lower volume weeks intermittently. You could factor in for intensity (Bikescore, TSS, GOVSS, etc), but the question remains the same: is one of these three methods superior? Is there science to support the “rest” intermittently.
The rest week is in there to consolidate gains. You don’t actually get faster until your body can rebuild its self after the beating it takes from hard training. Plus the “easy” week is good for making sure you have some semblance of balance in your life and to help prevent burnout. I’m sure others can dig those studies that are probably out there about periodization, but thats my 2¢.
Personal experience here…
I used to stair step my training…the only thing it accomplished was to reduce my overall volume and load. Not ideal.
After experimenting with a consistent load over a long period of time, I find that I don’t need a regularly scheduled “rest” time. I use days during the week as recovery/easy days.
That said, If I’m really dragging, I’ll back off a week…outside of scheduled race taper weeks, that happened three times last year.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t get locked into artificial #'s to tell you when to push and when to rest. Be honest with yourself and go as you feel.
No rest weeks. Small blocks of time off seem to come up due to work and family obligations.
Scheduling rest weeks would simply reduce my training load too much. I am better off taking a day off after 3 hard days if I feel I need it versus scheduling an entire week of recovery every 3 weeks whether I need it or not.