My question is a bit of strange one and I am sure there are “different horses for different courses”. I am pretty familiar with the idea of periodization but had a theory question on it all. Triathlon is a sport of 3 disciplines. Should all 3 disciplines follow the same periodization or should it all be discipline specific to peak towards your biggest race block of the year?
For example take Block Periodization with three mesocycles of accumulation, transmutation, and realization. Should all 3 sports follow the same order at the same time. Yes, yes I know STs many will say don’t worry about the structure, volume is king, however for the long course guys (70.3 and IM) what are you thoughts on this?
Does swimming really follow this for a triathlete? Should long course guys worry about more about run speed and then volume later?
Just curious on people’s thoughts… Trying to learn and get different viewpoints.
Welp there is the typical Slowtwitch answer. Thanks Nordic Skier…
I was asking a question to start a conversation. Can you please enlighten me to what you think? I was just throwing Block Periodization out there as an example. Not that its what should be used for triathlon.
I tend to scale training load in all three simultaneously. But I have no evidence that that’s better than any other method.
Should long course guys worry about more about run speed and then volume later?
There are different schools of thought there. There’s the “big base” school, who say you run big volume slowly as a “base”, then train race speed as you get closer to race day. Then there’s the Sutton-like school who think you should run fast year-round, then build volume as you get closer to race day.
People have succeeded using both methods. Just pick one and be consistent. If it doesn’t work, try the other one.
For swimming, unless you are doing legitimately huge yardage (like 70+K per week) don’t bother with periodization or getting cute with mesocycles. You aren’t doing enough volume for it to matter, just cram as much quality volume as you can in the time you have available. Consistency is key, you want to work on speed and endurance at the same time, all the time.
I tend to scale training load in all three simultaneously. But I have no evidence that that’s better than any other method.
Should long course guys worry about more about run speed and then volume later?
There are different schools of thought there. There’s the “big base” school, who say you run big volume slowly as a “base”, then train race speed as you get closer to race day. Then there’s the Sutton-like school who think you should run fast year-round, then build volume as you get closer to race day.
People have succeeded using both methods. Just pick one and be consistent. If it doesn’t work, try the other one.
The problem with the train slowly while you build a big base then go to more race specific paces is that for IM racing your race pace is pretty damn slow. So in theory, long course racers should be doing lots of fast work far out from raceday becoming more race specific as raceday approaches.
If your sole focus is IM, why bother with any fast work?
Because there is a large body of research out there, in particularly for running, that points to significant benefits for ultra endurance athletes from doing VO2max work, in particular improved glycogen storage and utilization in muscles along with improved oxygen uptake by muscle cells, biomechanical gains (think efficiency), and recruitment of fast twitch fibres for slow-twitch work. Also because a lot of people get tired of just plodding along and want to run fast every once in a while.
The problem with the train slowly while you build a big base then go to more race specific paces is that for IM racing your race pace is pretty damn slow. So in theory, long course racers should be doing lots of fast work far out from raceday becoming more >race specific as raceday approaches.
Yeah, there’s semantics involved in the definition of slow/fast here as well.
I interpret “fast” as being intensities that are maintainable for 3 minutes or less. i.e. flat out 800’s on the track, flat out 200’s in the pool, etc…
Also pre-supposing that you have lots of time available to train however you want.
Welp there is the typical Slowtwitch answer. Thanks Nordic Skier…
I was asking a question to start a conversation. Can you please enlighten me to what you think? I was just throwing Block Periodization out there as an example. Not that its what should be used for triathlon.
I once heard a coach say this about triathlon training (10pts if you can name the coach):
build to a sustainable volume
add intensity
repeat
Work on all three sports at once.
The variability in the mix comes from what you are preparing specifically for, external variables (weather, location,etc), and individual athlete needs.
I interpret “fast” as being intensities that are maintainable for 3 minutes or less. i.e. flat out 800’s on the track, flat out 200’s in the pool, etc…
Also pre-supposing that you have lots of time available to train however you want.
Because in running and swimming, going “Fast” is not just for cardio benefit, strength. Its’ to improve technique and overall efficiency. To run and swim faster with the same energy expenditure, you can improve economy of each. One way to do that is running faster. What “fast” means is widely open to interpretation.
The goal of training is adaptation. Different adaptation occur at different intensities of training. Each intensity has a balance of risk and reward.
As you have more and more time to train, a typical strategy is to add more and more slow training as you can recover from this without digging a hole you can;t get out of, while still getting incremental increase in adaptation. With less time to train, you have more time to recover, so more intensity is beneficial to make the most of that time.
For periodization, I like the less specific to more specific strategy. But each phase still has elements of speed and race specific pace in it.
Because in running and swimming, going “Fast” is not just for cardio benefit, strength. Its’ to improve technique and overall efficiency. To run and swim faster with the same energy expenditure, you can improve economy of each. One way to do that is running faster. What “fast” means is widely open to interpretation.
The goal of training is adaptation. Different adaptation occur at different intensities of training. Each intensity has a balance of risk and reward.
As you have more and more time to train, a typical strategy is to add more and more slow training as you can recover from this without digging a hole you can;t get out of, while still getting incremental increase in adaptation. With less time to train, you have more time to recover, so more intensity is beneficial to make the most of that time.
For periodization, I like the less specific to more specific strategy. But each phase still has elements of speed and race specific pace in it.
This. The main reason for all of the LSD is to maximize training time. If you could do 30 hours of track repeats (Doping anyone?) that would theoretically probably be the best option you’d have. We’re not built for that though so if you want to train consistently you need to do something sustainable.
Speaking of 30 hours of track repeats. Emil Zatopek used to run like literally 100x400 m.
It’s useful to question the standard notion of “periodization” in the first place. Trace it to its roots, consider whether that’s really how the human body works, consider what’s been learned over time…etc.
…which is somewhat the thing NordicSkier is pointing out above…
It’s useful to question the standard notion of “periodization” in the first place. Trace it to its roots, consider whether that’s really how the human body works, consider what’s been learned over time…etc.
…which is somewhat the thing NordicSkier is pointing out above…
I’m pretty sure periodization had it’s roots in doping?
It’s useful to question the standard notion of “periodization” in the first place. Trace it to its roots, consider whether that’s really how the human body works, consider what’s been learned over time…etc.
…which is somewhat the thing NordicSkier is pointing out above…
I’m pretty sure periodization had it’s roots in doping?
Some, possibly. Selye in the 50’s came up with the general adaptive syndrome describing stress responses (Canadian, IIRC). This was used and refined by Bompa (Romania) and a Russian, which is probably where the steroid refinements came in.