Cycling Training · Public discussion

Coaches-Periodization vs multi-tier approach

Started by Quadsweep · · Last activity · 24 posts · 4,264 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
3 January 2006
Last activity
4 January 2006
Original author
Quadsweep
Posts
24
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
4,264
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 24
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Okay, others are free to comment but I would love to hear from all the coaches.

    Regarding PERIODIZATION I say.....
    It seems that the modern approach in the west is to work on endurance first, with some strength work like power starts, for several months BEFORE moving on to a period of training that focuses on developing sustainable power at threshold. Then one limits or drops the threshold focus to do a VO2 focus, anaerobic intervals and high speed sprints etc etc.

    A cycling coach comments....... "Fergie"
    "This is actually the old form of periodisation that came from Matveyev in Russia. It was quickly superseded by Zatsiorsky who included all factors of training (Peter Coe father to Seb Coe called it multi tier training) but most Western coaches adopted the old format of training."

    Paraphrasing Fergie....
    Interesting to note how many Western coaches still try and apply this. Especially when the Eastern sport scientists stopped doing it in the late 70s and adopted a more multi tier approach. In this approach a trainee includes all aspects of training at any time during the year but has different training priorities depending on where they are in relation to goal events.

    Paraphrasing Fergie again.....
    As mentioned above Peter Coe did this with his son Sebastian with great success while running. In his training text it's called the Multi Tier Approach to training and makes sense. So in this approach riders still do a large volume of endurance work in the off season yet they still need to do some high intesnity work. It should be noted that even super high milage advocate Arthur Lydiard had his athletes do sprints all year round.

    Quote from Fergie...
    "All for planning out ones training and racing for a period of time. Classic periodisation was where one did one type of training and then moved to another form. Interesting to note how many Western coaches still try and apply this. Especially when the Eastern sport scientists stopped doing it in the late 70s and adopted a more multi tier approach. I call it prioritisation of training where one includes all aspects of training at any time during the year but has different training priorities depending on where they are in relation to goal events."

    More evidence of the greatness of a multi-tiered approach can be seen starting in about 1978 just as classic periodization was on the way out in eastern europe.
    Here we see Cyrille Guimard, the coach of THREE tour champs, Hinualt, Fignon and Lemond., use a much more multi-tiered approach?

    This multi-tiered approach can be seen in Lemonds book in which he does NOT advocate working on primarily ONE energy system at a time. ie: He says that the focus of the base period is to not only build an aerobic base with lot of endurance hours but also to improve ones "anaerobic threshold". He also advocates sprint work year round.Yes, he advocted lots of endurance miles at this time but also TWO days per week of threshold work including threshold work on the flats and hills. The threshold work becomes more "structured" as time goes on but was not dropped or even reduced when VO2 work started several weeks before the first races of the season. As the season begins he advocates adding the more "anaerobic" intervals of 30-45 seconds.

    The base is then aerobic AND threshold work done at the same time, and then everything else is added on to this in a multi-tiered approach.

    Then all of a sudden classic periodization is all the rage in the west with the huge success of Lance Armstrong and his coach Christ Carmichael.
    .

    QUESTIONS FOR THE COACHES on this forum

    Why is periodozation so popular in the west. Is it simply because coaches like Carmichael and Friel, who are pure periodization coaches, have had success with it in their genetically gifted athletes in the past 10 years?

    MAYBE, the classic periodization appraoch works best for the rider that wants to peak for ONE long stage race, like the tour. We see Armstrong doing just that and following the CTS(Carmichael) classic periodization approach.

    Coaches your thoughts.......

  2. Quadsweep said:

    Regarding PERIODIZATION I say.....
    It seems that the modern approach in the west is to work on endurance first, with some strength work like power starts, for several months BEFORE moving on to a period of training that focuses on developing sustainable power at threshold. Then one limits or drops the threshold focus to do a VO2 focus, anaerobic intervals and high speed sprints etc etc.

    A cycling coach comments.......
    "This is actually the old form of periodisation that came from Matveyev in Russia. It was quickly superseded by Zatsiorsky who included all factors of training (Peter Coe father to Seb Coe called it multi tier training) but most Western coaches adopted the old format of training."

    QUESTIONS FOR THE COACHES on this forum

    Why is periodozation so popular in the west. Is it simply because coaches like Carmichael and Friel, who are pure periodization caoches, have had success with it in their genetically gifted athletes?

    Why did Cyrille Guimard, the coach of THREE tour champs, Hinualt, Fignon and Lemond., use a much more multi-tiered approach?

    This multi-tiered approach can be seen in Lemonds book in which he does NOT advocate working on primarily ONE energy system at a time. ie: He says that the focus of the base period is to not only build an aerobic base with lot of endurance hours but also to improve ones "anaerobic threshold". He also advocates sprint work year round.Yes, he advocted lots of endurance miles at this time but also TWO days per week of threshold work including threshold work on the flats and hills. The threshold work becomes more "structured" as time goes on but was not dropped or even reduced when VO2 work started several weeks before the first races of the season. As the season begins he advocates adding the more "anaerobic intervals of 30-45 seconds.

    The base is then aerobic AND threshold work done at the same time, and then everything else is added on to this in a multi-tiered approach.
    .

    Coaches your thoughts.......

    I'm not a coach, I hope you don't mind me replying.

    I think that the reason "pure" periodization is popular in the U.S. is the mythic properties that have been assigned to "base" training. People are somehow convinced that they have to focus on their "base" for several months to see any gains the next year. Yet many can't define "base" beyond "general aerobic fitness." Some coaches have riders so limited that they are convinced one hard effort during base will ruin the whole period. So this makes riders focus obsessively on slow efforts all winter. It works for some, if they have the time to put in massive miles, and it doesn't for those of us who don't have that time, or burnout, get sick, injured, etc. To paraphrase Andy Coggan, training in level 2-4 is pretty much the same, the difference is the amount that must be done. So upping the effort level would give them greater adaptation in less time, and open up the riders training schedule so that more variety could be put in.

  3. whoawhoa said:

    I'm not a coach, I hope you don't mind me replying.

    I think that the reason "pure" periodization is popular in the U.S. is the mythic properties that have been assigned to "base" training. People are somehow convinced that they have to focus on their "base" for several months to see any gains the next year. Yet many can't define "base" beyond "general aerobic fitness." Some coaches have riders so limited that they are convinced one hard effort during base will ruin the whole period. So this makes riders focus obsessively on slow efforts all winter. It works for some, if they have the time to put in massive miles, and it doesn't for those of us who don't have that time, or burnout, get sick, injured, etc. To paraphrase Andy Coggan, training in level 2-4 is pretty much the same, the difference is the amount that must be done. So upping the effort level would give them greater adaptation in less time, and open up the riders training schedule so that more variety could be put in.

    Ya I hear ya......just the other day two guys dropped from our small group ride saying" we don't do hills in the winter"....WHAT are you serious!....I was stunned! But this mentality comes from a focus on pure classical periodization.

    I am thinking it is so popular simply because that is how Armstrong trained.....the CTS or Chris Carmichael classic periodization approach. Maybe he trianed in this way simply because he peaked only for one loing tour per year.....hardly what Fignon, Hinualt, Eddy or even Lemond did.

  4. Quadsweep said:

    I am thinking it is so popular simply because that is how Armstrong trained.....the CTS or Chris Carmichael classic periodization approach. Maybe he trianed in this way simply because he peaked only for one loing tour per year.....hardly what Fignon, Hinualt, Eddy or even Lemond did.


    I don't know that you can draw many conclusions on how Lance trained through most of the info released to the public at this time. Lance would probably not let Carmichael relase that kind of information. Also, it's unlikely that Carmichael has had much to do with Armstrong's training in years-that was all left up to that italian guy with the car brand for a last name. Heard rumors that Armstrong invested heavily in CTS, which is one reason he's always supported them.

  5. Nice additions by the way. Worth mentioning that although Lydiard advocated big miles, it was all done at solid (equivalent to Coggan level 3 in cycling, I think) intensities. Hard work, for sure! Interesting topic and hope we see some more replies.

  6. whoawhoa said:

    I don't know that you can draw many conclusions on how Lance trained through most of the info released to the public at this time. Lance would probably not let Carmichael relase that kind of information. Also, it's unlikely that Carmichael has had much to do with Armstrong's training in years-that was all left up to that italian guy with the car brand for a last name. Heard rumors that Armstrong invested heavily in CTS, which is one reason he's always supported them.

    Good points....but Carmichael does take the credit quite heavily even going so far as to say that they were always in very close contact and adjusting his training in the months before the tours. Much more has been said about how Carmichael was basically "in charge" of Lances training.

    I don't think it was about "his" training or having some sort of secret training that he doesn't want Carmichael to release......it is much more about genetics and how his body reacted to "Dr.Sports Cars" training.

  7. Disclaimer: I'm not a coach.

    Quadsweep said:

    Why is periodozation so popular in the west?

    Is it because western coaches tend to put out books, videos, lectures, programs, etc. that are gobbled up by amateur athletes who don't have the inclination to learn the science behind the sport or consider that their training needs and resources might be vastly different from those professional athletes that have had great success with those programs? Just a thought.

    Speaking of not considering the context of things, who are the 'Eastern' sports scientists that have moved on from the periodization approach? Are we talking Australia and New Zealand, Russian, or European? Also, are those training programs for road, or track cyclists? Also, are the training periods the same for the multi-tiered approach as they would be during the periodized approach, or does the periodized approach dictate that an athlete begins their training somewhat earlier in the year to allow sufficient time for 'base building?' Also, what is the difference between doing power starts during base building (under the periodized approach) and doing sprint work year-round (under the multi-tiered approach)?

  8. Quadsweep said:

    Ya I hear ya......just the other day two guys dropped from our small group ride saying" we don't do hills in the winter"....WHAT are you serious!....I was stunned! But this mentality comes from a focus on pure classical periodization.

    I am thinking it is so popular simply because that is how Armstrong trained.....the CTS or Chris Carmichael classic periodization approach. Maybe he trianed in this way simply because he peaked only for one loing tour per year.....hardly what Fignon, Hinualt, Eddy or even Lemond did.

    Wasn't coach Walden the one who started this saying that an anaerobic effort would ruin the capilarization of the muscle with any intense efforts. All nonsense. Tell that to Eddy Merckx who raced to win all year round and then would go off and do track racing in the Euro Winter.

    My only conern with too much intense training in the off season is what will you do to improve once the season starts. Remember riding is done just as much in the head as with the legs.

    Hamish Ferguson
    Cycling Coach

  9. whoawhoa said:

    Nice additions by the way. Worth mentioning that although Lydiard advocated big miles, it was all done at solid (equivalent to Coggan level 3 in cycling, I think) intensities. Hard work, for sure! Interesting topic and hope we see some more replies.

    Are you sure your 15 years old?

    Good point. Base training was done at best aerobic pace for 100 miles of running. Lydiard experimented with training from 30miles per week to 300 miles and found that 100 miles of fast aerobic running lead to the best results before 8-12 weeks of anaerobic training to sharpen up for goal events. He pitied the fools who just ran slow as much as those who spent every week down the track being ruled by the stopwatch.

    Hamish Ferguson
    Cycling Coach

  10. [quote="frenchyge"]

    Quoted post said:

    Speaking of not considering the context of things, who are the 'Eastern' sports scientists that have moved on from the periodization approach? Are we talking Australia and New Zealand, Russian, or European?



    Former Eastern Block athletes.

    Quoted post said:

    Also, are those training programs for road, or track cyclists?



    It was a generalised approach to training that all sports employed to varying degrees. There was heavy sport science involvement but most of it was in the field in the same way we see physiologist, biomechanists and doctors heavily involved in Pro and National teams in cycling now.

    Quoted post said:

    Also, are the training periods the same for the multi-tiered approach as they would be during the periodized approach, or does the periodized approach dictate that an athlete begins their training somewhat earlier in the year to allow sufficient time for 'base building?'



    It depends on the rider. A rider with 10 or more years of quality training under their belt will be able to handle more intensity in their training.

    Also important to make the distinction between doing base to have X amount of miles under the belt and doing base as the start of race preperation by making sure you can ride race duration or up to 125% of it. It's like the old suggestion that you do 3000miles before riding hills. If you have the gears to spin away then hit the hills as soon as possible.

    Quoted post said:

    Also, what is the difference between doing power starts during base building (under the periodized approach) and doing sprint work year-round (under the multi-tiered approach)?



    Power starts?

    Hamish Ferguson
    Cycling Coach

  11. Power starts are a sprint......done from a standstill or nearly so....and you end the effort just as you feel you are "getting on top" of the gear so it's not a full sprint. It's about 10 cranks of the pedals.
    This is a "Carmichael" term and exercise that he has his boys do in the base period.

    Carmichael is almost a pure old school periodization trainer. I say "almost" because he does allow for a form of sprinting(power starts) AND recommends one fast paced group ride in the base period to stimulate all the energy systems.

    Here is a quote from Carmichael that I found interesting...
    "Although the aerobic system is the primary training target during the foundation period, the energy systems are not 100 percent independent of each other. The aerobic system and anaerobic energy systems influence one another, and it is important to periodically add training workouts that stress all energy systems, regardless of the current training period. It is typically best to to train this area using weekend club rides or training races because these activities include various changes in speed and power."

    After the base period Carmichael recommends a lactate threshold focus and then after that a VO2 focus and the other energy systems takes a big back seat to the energy system in focus.Carmichaels system would not be a pure classical approach to periodization but pretty close.

    Now Lemond, Hinualt, Fignon and their coach Guimard advocated much more of a multi-tiered approach to training. ie: base period as a time for endurance training AND anaerobic threshold training and building from that.....and never specifically focusing in on one energy system at any time in the year. The training just gets more and more intense AND the volume of everything gets higher and higher as the race season approaches.

  12. (sorry for the extra long post)

    The term Periodization refers more to a methodology, a way to organize one, or more seasons.

    I beleive that Tudor O. Bompa has been given a lot of credit for being the author of a nice book : Theory and Methodology of Training.

    But this classical pyramidal model for cyclic sports, starting with a wide base, and then building up on it, isn't periodization per se. That is just a recepe that works in some sports, for some people.

    I read that book at many occasions, and then used it as a reference book. Not to apply that classical periodization model you are refering to, but rather to learn how to be organized. I learned to manipulate durations (volume), power (intensity), and in some way, TSS (density), and to lay all that into an XL spread sheet (back then when I learned, it was on a Mac Classic, 4 mg of ram, running Excel version 2).

    The reason why classical periodization is still in use? Well, it is simple to me. It is not that different in its essence, to what is proposed these days.

    First of all, a popular version of that model includes 3 main phases : General Preparation, Specific Preparation, and competition.

    The SP phase, well, that is very serious and intense progression build up. So there can't be much difference with newer models. For cyclic sports, it can be made of L4 to 7 developpement, depending of specific requirements.

    The Competition phase, well, that says it all.

    So the biggest difference seems to be in the GP phase. Let me write what Bompa thinks about this phase :

    Tudor O. Bompa said:

    The GP subphase has the objectives of developing the athlete's work capacity, general physical preparation and the improvement of technical elements as well as basic tactical maneuvers. However, the foremost objective should be the development of a high level of physical conditioning, which will facilitate future training and, thus, future performance. This is a must for all sports, and the use of general exercices as well as those specific to the sport should have a highest priority than just performing the specific skills of the sport.

    Later in this section, Bompa states that during GP, 70-80% of the volume, should be allocated to aerobic endurance.

    I have read the whole section, no mention about the intensity. To me, a high level of physical conditioning, can be quite loosely interpreted, and may in fact be L3-4 developement, as early as in the GP phase.

    I think that Bompa's works are still valid today, as long as they are interpreted correctly, and that newest concepts in physiology are included in there as well.

  13. Nice summary. While I don't see a particular need to do strictly easy riding during a particular period, organizing my season in some way does seem to make sense.

    SolarEnergy said:

    Conclusion, to me, there is not a major difference between the more classical way of planning, and some newer variations.


    That's the impression I'm getting, but I'd have to see 2 training plans for the same athlete laid out next to each other to be sure. Part of the problem is that it seems hard to identify the 'textbook' approach for a particular philosophy, since training plans are all individualized based on the athlete. If a particular athlete needs more VO2 focus in his training (for example), then all training plans will put more emphasis on that and then they all start to look similar anyway, or are considered 'variations' from the textbook approach.

  14. frenchyge said:

    Nice summary. While I don't see a particular need to do strictly easy riding during a particular period,

    Me neither.

    Important thing, is that Bompa himself neither!!!

    I updated my earlier post a bit, to include a quote from Bompa, describing the GP phase.

  15. SolarEnergy said:

    Me neither.

    Important thing, is that Bompa himself neither!!!

    I updated my earlier post a bit, to include a quote from Bompa, describing the GP phase.


    My biggest problem with the gp phase is that there seems to be no goal for performance. Maybe this lead to the "base" philosphy many cycling coaches advocated where there seems to be a period as long as 3 months where the athlete never improves.

  16. whoawhoa said:

    My biggest problem with the gp phase is that there seems to be no goal for performance.


    There's no inherent duration for this period, either, but by tying the gp duration to some type of volume goal you end up with an approach that seems similar (in my mind) to what Fergie has described in a couple instances where you work in a general sense until it becomes apparent that you're 1) prepared for more specific training and 2) no longer benefitting from the general training. If the goal of gp is to prepare the athlete for the demands of the more intense sp training, then a gp goal might end up being "comfortably work up to 600 TSS/wk for 3 weeks," "work up to 200 miles/wk without excessive fatigue", etc. and once the goal is accomplished the athlete transitions to sp. In that case, one athlete's gp may be 3 months, and another's 3 weeks, depending on the amount of detraining the athlete has experienced, motivation, age, years of training, etc.

    whoawhoa said:

    Maybe this lead to the "base" philosphy many cycling coaches advocated where there seems to be a period as long as 3 months where the athlete never improves.


    The strictly defined gp durations such as "nothing hard before 3000 miles," "no hills for the first 3 months," etc. sounds like a case of taking the gp philosophy and putting it into an example training program to be read by the masses. If coaches or the athletes themselves take the generic advice litterally without considered their unique needs then that's a mis-application of the philosophy, in my mind, and doesn't invalidate the philosophy itself. Or maybe I'm just creating my own variation... 😉

  17. frenchyge said:

    The strictly defined gp durations such as "nothing hard before 3000 miles," "no hills for the first 3 months," etc. sounds like a case of taking the gp philosophy and putting it into an example training program to be read by the masses. If coaches or the athletes themselves take the generic advice litterally without considered their unique needs then that's a mis-application of the philosophy, in my mind, and doesn't invalidate the philosophy itself. Or maybe I'm just creating my own variation... 😉


    I agree. I think it has more to do with the way Bomba's work was interpreted rather than what he meant. I just think more specific goals would help stop the confusion. For example, I would think a primary goal of the gp phase would be to improve functional threshold, and I don't think many people share that idea (at least the ones on a "pure" base approach).

  18. My BIG BEEF is the fact that not a few coaches teach that you should not go hard at all in the base or fountation period, that is you shoud not do anything above 80% of your estimated maximum heart rate for example. I know guys that have been racing for 10 years that spends literally months training with very low effort.
    As I mentioned briefly before two good Cat 2 riders that I ride with recently declined a hilly group ride with a small group of 6 riders saying "we don't do hills in the winter"!
    I tried to explain that we would only be doing about 30 minutes total at threshold pace but they were not interested. Instead these guys will ride for 4 hours a day, five days a week, at a very low intensity. Why not add a bit of intensity once or twice a week I say, and I am not talking about VO2 work, just a little threshold stuff......but nope, they won't budge.
    I don't ride with them anymore at all in the winter because they go too slow, bordering on a recovery spin pace.
    Looking back I can now see why they never do well in the Spring races and in fact by the time they "get good" the season is almost over.

  19. whoawhoa said:

    My biggest problem with the gp phase is that there seems to be no goal for performance.

    It is true whoawhoa, there are no specific performance objective related to GP phase. The reason for this, is that it is the only phase that allows for doing non specific work. Having obtained outstanding results during competitions, it is difficult to push that fitness level even more, while reducing the specific workload in the same time (to allow non specific, or technical work). But having some maintenance objectives, a minimal level of performance under which you are not willing to go, is a very good idea IMHO.

    For instance, if you are a kilo specialist. What you did from January to September, that led you to perform your PB, got very specific. It would be difficult to build even higher level of performances during GP, given that you want to 1) develop endurance, 2) improve technique 3) so on... And you should test 60 minute Time Trial for example. This event being very far from your specialty (kilo), it is well inside the scope of GP phase.

    Now, if I take Bompa litterally, he only suggests that GP should be made of endurance developpement. We now know, that Lactate threshold is closely related to endurance development. I really mean it. I can't imagine a GP phase, without (at least) a good L4 maitenance protocol. Really.

    We have to keep in mind, that Bompa's model, applies for trackies, swimmers, speed skaters and all. I beleive what Bompa is suggesting, is that these guys, especially those that race using the anaerobic files, should be focusing on endurance, INCLUDING LT, during GP phase, in order to be able to do more L5-6-7 work during the specific phase. As they come closer to their racing season, training (thus, speed) should be more and more specific.

    (sorry for that other long post, it is hard to explain these things in just few works. I hope it is not too painful to read)

  20. SolarEnergy said:

    It is true whoawhoa, there are no performance objective related to GP phase. The reason for this, is that it is the only phase that allows for doing non specific work. Having obtained outstanding results during competitions, it is difficult to push that fitness level even more, while reducing the specific workload in the same time (to allow non specific, or technical work). But having some maintenance objectives, a minimal level of performance under which you are not willing to go, is a very good idea IMHO.

    For instance, if you are a kilo specialist. What you did from January to September, that led you to perform your PB, got very specific. It would be difficult to build even higher level of performances during GP, given that you want to 1) develop endurance, 2) improve technique 3) so on...

    Now, if I take Bompa litterally, he only suggests that GP should be made of endurance developpement. We now know, that Lactate threshold is closely related to endurance development. I really mean it. I can't imagine a GP phase, without (at least) a good L4 maitenance protocol. Really.

    We have to keep in mind, that Bompa's model, applies for trackies, swimmers, speed skaters and all. I beleive what Bompa is suggesting, is that these guys, especially those that race using the anaerobic files, should be focusing on endurance, INCLUDING LT, during GP phase, in order to be able to do more L5-6-7 work during the specific phase. As they come closer to their racing season, training (thus, speed) should be more and more specific.

    (sorry for that other long post, it is hard to explain these things in just few works. I hope it is not too painful to read)


    I think we've hit on something interesting here: the difference between power events like track cycling and endurance events like road cycling. I would say that the training focus of gp would be different for each one.

    For a roadie, I think that the base of performance is functional threshold. It's also the most important marker of race fitness, so it should almost always be coming up. Other aspects of race fitness may drop, but the most important one should not.

    For a power athlete like a track sprinter, i think the base is strength, so overall speed on the track may drop while working on strength.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.