Some time ago I wrote about recovery on demand. This is a method of training in which
recovery is not planned in advance, but rather done when the need arises. For
the athlete who is good at self-monitoring, this is a very effective way of recovering
as it maximizes one’s use of training time. Unfortunately, many athletes tend
to ignore their body’s signs of overreaching and with such a method would probably
press ahead without ever allowing time for recovery, eventually resulting in
full-blown overtraining.
“Periodization on demand” is a similar concept. Most
athletes think that periodization is a rigid system in which a training plan is
created which must be followed regardless of all other factors. My books have
probably given that impression as everything on the plan is quite detailed and time-specific.
I still think that’s a good idea as it provides a roadmap for where you are
going. It doesn’t, however, mean that you must follow it without change. There
can be several factors that require straying, such as illness, injury, periods
of mental stress, unusual demands on your time, and more. One such factor that
is seldom discussed is rate of adaptation – how quickly your fitness changes.
Physiologically, the purpose of training is stress the body
with some combination of workout intensity, duration and frequency causing it
to adapt. We call this adaptation “fitness.” The planning of periodization
assumes the body will achieve a given level of fitness at a given time by
following the plan. That may well be the case. Historically, the problem with
this assumption has been that there was little in the way of data to confirm
that the planned adaptation had occurred. That’s now changing due to
technology.
A power meter for cycling or a GPS for running has taken
some of the guesswork out of the measurement of adaptation. Such devices (there
are more to come) allow you to more accurately measure performance changes – if
you know what to measure. (I touched on this idea in my last blog post.)
Typically, in the Base period an endurance athlete wants to
improve aerobic endurance, muscular force and speed skill. The first two can be
measured using some combination of a heart rate monitor, power meter and GPS.
Speed skill is still difficult for us to measure in a field test. But expect
that to change when second generation power meters – yet to be released –
provide more analytical information on pedaling mechanics such as individual
leg contribution to power output and the range of effective force application
to the pedal per stroke. In the mean time, we can easily measure aerobic
endurance and muscular force adaptation.
I’ve previously written about the “Efficiency Factor” (EF)
as a way of gauging changes in aerobic endurance. It’s based on the simple concept that as aerobic
fitness improves, heart rate decreases at any given power output (or speed in
running) [Lucia, et al, Heart rate and performance parameters in elite
cyclists: A longitudinal study. Med Sci
Sports Exerc, 2000, 32(10):1777-82]. Or, to reverse that, if heart rate stays the same, over time, power (or running
speed) will increase as aerobic fitness improves. Heart rate by itself tells us
absolutely nothing about fitness. It must be compared with something to have
meaning.
This brings us back to the idea of periodization on demand.
The optimal way to train, I believe, is to frequently measure your adaptation changing your training only when it’s evident that fitness has plateaued at a
higher level or achieved a predetermined level. By doing this you take the
guesswork out of training and move on to a newer form of stress only when your
body says it’s time rather than when the plan changes. Again, this doesn’t mean
don’t plan. Follow it, but be willing to change it when the time is right. This
will usually require that you modify the plan going forward.
How about I give you an example of this from my own
training.
I use a block training form of periodization. With this method the focus of training during any given period (“block”) is
quite focused with generally only one or two aspects of fitness being
addressed. In block 1 this fall I focused on aerobic endurance as measured by
EF. The accompanying chart shows the progression over the course of four weeks
(Oct 17-Nov 17). During this time I did the same EF workout 17 times. This
involved warming up for 30 minutes and then riding one hour at a fixed aerobic
threshold heart rate in low zone 2 (120-125, in my case), followed by a
30-minute cool down. I used the same two courses for these sessions and the
same equipment with the workouts at about the same time of day. After the
workout I compared normalized power for that hour with average heart rate for
the same hour (NP/AHR). That produced a ratio that ranged from a low of 1.29 to
a high of 1.45. You can easily see the progression of EF in the chart. Only the
EF workouts are shown here (the blank days were missed workouts due to travel,
easy recovery rides, or a cycling camp from Nov 1-3).
By the middle of November it was obvious that my aerobic
endurance (as reflected in the EF ratio) had plateaued. Power had increased at
the same heart rate but was no longer rising. It was time to move on to the
next training block, which I am currently in.
The takeaway message here is not block training or aerobic
endurance training, but rather making changes to training when your body says
it’s time, rather than when the plan calls for it. Some day we’ll have software
that does such monitoring for you and suggests when it’s time to change your
training and what those changes might be. Until then you need to pay close
attention to that which is appropriate and measurable.
