When is periodization useless?

I guess I can put in some numbers to differentiate this from a similar thread that asks if one should only do intensity during the base period. This questions is more about year-round intensity and eliminating an aerobic base phase, VO2max, AWC phases -- especially based on amount of time per week.

Tour of America's Dairyland. 11 stages with the 5th day being a rest day.

These were 50min crits with 3 road races that were 2-3hrs long. If I could replicate this training (4 days on, 1 day off, 6 days on) for nearly my whole season, what would be the need to periodize my training? Keep in mind, this is 16hrs/wk of racing.
[IMG]mywebspace.wisc.eduToAD.GIFOpen ↗[/IMG]
Maybe if I was putting in a constant 15-20+hrs/wk, I could see the benefit of periodation. But why not continue this strenuous of a program instead?

There are definitely folks that can keep their intensity high all year, but even on a time limited schedule I'd argue most riders benefit from yearly periodization. Even if you can keep high intensity efforts in your schedule year round I'd think it would lead to staleness if not mental burnout.

I guess it's also a question of terminology and what you mean by high intensity. If you're talking SST in favor of LSD during winter builds, then I'm with you. If you're talking L5/L6 work all year then I'm not so sure. IME, most riders need to build sustainable power much more than they need to tune their top end. You may be an exception, but I don't know any riders who haven't improved their racing by focusing on FTP building. From that standpoint there are only so many hours in the training week and it becomes a question of what gives you the best bang for your training time buck during winter builds when the high end isn't essential like it is during race season.

Your observation on CTL drop with introduction of high end work is valid, so you're basically saying it's o.k. to build less CTL during the winter since that would be a by product of keeping the high end workouts in your time limited schedule. That could be given the nature of your target events, and there's certainly no CTL minimum to be effective but again most riders I've worked with benefit from building both FTP and CTL during the off season and then spending that CTL base during racing and high end in-season training. If you don't build CTL up in the off season, you won't have much to spend when it counts.

If you've found a way to make it work for you throughout the year, then more power to you. But even on a modest 8 to 12 hours a week of training and a couple of dozen races a year at the most I'm ready for some downtime by the end of the season and I'm definitely not mentally ready to pick up with L5/L6 work all winter nor intentionally squander the off season opportunity to focus on FTP and CTL building.

YMMV,
-Dave

Dave-- I love reading and getting in these discussions. Ideas are fun to bounce off you.

CTL drop with high end work is valid with typical periodization (get in, do your work, get out), but if you were to look at my above example, my CTL actually increased throughout the race. Obviously no fluke, but if I were to repeat this stage race (theoretically) throughout the year, it would keep climbing until it reached equilibrium around 115-120. Considering my CTL was 88-94 at this point (and a weak 98 right now), this would still be far higher than what I am currently at.

Time racing is the best combination (by definition of specificity) of training. Mental burnout aside, wouldn't it be best to then to emulate this through the few winter months until, come February, you can do it every weekend with real races?

Also, I certainly agree with building FTP and building CTL over the winter. But these aren't mutually exclusive when racing season comes around. Would I not be building my FTP by doing these stage races, or in training emulating these stage races? Intensity, especially in some of the 60-80mi breakaways I've been in (or shorter 5-10mi ones), would be ideal with this. It's like an extreme SST workout, throwing in many VO2 and anaerobic efforts over a 3.5hr race.

So as an example 2.5hr workout in the winter:
15min warm-up
3x20s @ high L6
3x60s @ low L6
3x5min @ L5
1.5hr @ L3/L4
15min cool-down

How would 2.5hrs @ SST be better than this, in the long run? I agree that your FTP may climb slower with these style of workouts. Your VO2max and AWC, however, would need to be worked on less when the "build" phase would normally come -- giving you more time previously called the "base" phase. Thus, instead of 8 weeks "base," 5 weeks "build," and 3 weeks AWC, one could extend the "base" by 2-3 weeks, while shortening the build and AWC by at least a week, each.

In theory, one would do better in earlier-season races while simultaneously building for their A-race(s).

I don't necessarily agree with the 'time racing is the best training' at least not in general. Sure you can end up in breaks that push you very hard, but if you're riding at all tactically, even in the break you shouldn't be pushing yourself the way you can and should in training. It's o.k. to push till you blow in training, not a great tactical move while racing.

And even if NP and TSS from races pushes you hard, it's pretty rare outside of TTs and races with longer than typical climbs to get your AP up into L4 and sustain it for 20 to 30 minutes. Andy posted a very cool graph a while back that showed the relative effect of long vs. short intervals and the long variety blows the short stuff out of the water when it comes to encouraging mitochondrial growth as evidenced by citrate synthase measurements. So for a lot of folks working to build FTP, racing is not the best training.

O.K. you built CTL during a hard series of races but do you really think you can push yourself that hard in your winter training without getting totally fried mentally or physically? An awful lot of riders burn out and quit the sport even with some yearly periodization. Maybe you're made of sterner stuff, but if you think you can regularly push yourself as hard as you did in a stage race year round I expect you'll run into that brick wall sooner or later.

You really plan to do that sample workout all in one session. Good luck to you. Get back to us after a couple of weeks of that plan this winter. To answer your question:

Quoted post said:

How would 2.5hrs @ SST be better than this, in the long run?

Well for starters you'll have a much better chance of actually having a 'long run' with the SST approach.

FWIW, I've had very bad luck trying to do 'all in one' workouts where I hit L6, L5, L4 and L3 all in one session with more than a rep or two of each at most. Good on ya if you can pull it off and really keep quality in all those levels. But downright amazing if you can do it continuously throughout the winter and still hit spring with any motivation to ride your bike.

Harder is not necessarily better and an awful lot of riders and coaches have discovered that at the expense of one or more seasons.

As if you can't tell I'm doubtful you'll be able to train with a winter plan like that, but if you do I'll be even more amazed if you don't hang up the bike in disgust early next season. But it's all one big experiment so good luck with your approach.

-Dave

daveryanwyoming said:

Andy posted a very cool graph a while back that showed the relative effect of long vs. short intervals and the long variety blows the short stuff out of the water when it comes to encouraging mitochondrial growth as evidenced by citrate synthase measurements.

This is really interesting. Where can I find this graph?

It sounds as if, given that mental fortitude is not a limiter, this would be a solid way to train. In the end, winter training is still winter training. Although efforts would *simulate* effort from races, it would still be more quality than in an actual race. The above example workout is still giving you 1.5hrs of SST (instead of paceline rotations), 15min of VO2 (instead of 3min on, 6min, 4min, 2 min, or whatever), and 4min of anaerobic work (again, orderly). Similar to racing, but in a controlled environment as you suggested.

This whole idea fascinates me because I am trying to peak for collegiate nationals next year. No doubt my biggest limiter is trainer time, on which I spend 4 months. Since I can't get outside until late March, peaking for a race in early May is very difficult. Getting a proper base while on the trainer for 4 months is difficult, at best.

Compound this problem with the fact that long, hard efforts are extra torturous for me. I can crank out a 2.5hr SST session at IF=0.85 no problem, but put me at IF=0.95 and I'm lucky to hold 30 minutes. I do well with short <5-10min, hard intervals on the trainer, but not high-intensity longer ones (IF=1.0, 2x20min). Simply put, really hard and really short or easy and really long. Not hard AND long. I actually tried the hard and long this past winter and was lucky to put in a 6 hour week.

So, if I can break my workouts into really hard and really short, and throw in long and easy for the rest of it, I feel like I would do better...especially in the early season.

Other than mental burnout, is there really a downside to this? In the end, it's still the same amount of SST/FTP work, but spread over a couple more weeks. It's still the same amount of VO2/AWC work, but spread out and covering fewer dedicated weeks. I feel like, in the end, there is less mental burnout doing it this way.

Quoted post said:

... Where can I find this graph?...

For some reason the Google groups search engine isn't cooperating very well, but here's a link to a study that basically had the same findings. Intervals work better for raising VO2 Max where steady state efforts work better for encouraging mitochondrial growth, raising sustainable power and delaying fatigue.

Uniqueness of interval and continuous training at ...[Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1991] - PubMed Result

With your collegiate race schedule your A races come a lot earlier in the season than they do for the average racer. So in a sense what you'll be doing this winter probably looks a lot more like what a lot of us will do during preseason prep next spring. From that standpoint I could see adding more intensity during the winter, but that still doesn't scrap the idea of periodization, it just shifts things a bit in which case I'd think about taking a break right about now and starting a traditional build cycle very soon.

But if you want to scrap all periodization and include the kind of intensity you've described year round then IMO you're blowin' it big time and one way or another you'll pay the price. But it's your price to pay and who knows maybe you've tripped across the 'magic' workout that no one has thought of in 100 plus years of cycle training. To me it just sounds like another variation on 'but if I can push hard all the time and still recover, won't I improve faster?' which puts all the emphasis on the if.

Sure you could be the exception that proves the rule, but don't think others haven't tried the 'go hard all the time' approach.

Andy posted something a while back on his 90/90/90:

Andy Coggan said:

Well, I wouldn't necessarily recommend copying what I'm doing...unless
of course you also now have a 6 wk old daughter! ;-)
Seriously, the best season I've had in recent years followed a winter
during which I did the following '90/90'90' workout 3 d/wk:

5 min w/u
20 min @ 275 W
5 min easy
5 min @ 325 W
2.5 min easy
5 min @ 325 W
2.5 min easy
0.5 min at 500 W
2 min easy
0.5 min at 500 W
2 min easy
0.5 min at 500 W
2 min easy
0.5 min at 500 W
2.5 min easy
5 min warm-down

The '90/90/90' refers to the fact that (almost by chance) the powers
used were about 90% of the best that I could produce for that duration
when at peak fitness. That made the session challenging enough that I
didn't lose too much fitness over the winter, but not so hard that I
ever dreaded the workout or burned out from doing it.

That's easier than what you've outlined but it's an example of hard winter training hitting various levels that worked for him.

If you try your posted approach then at least keep careful logs and be on the lookout for mood swings, trouble recovering, dreading upcoming workouts, unexplained weight loss, illness, sleeplessness, lack of interest in the sport or the other common warning signs that you need a break. As an experiment it could be interesting but don't blow next year's season on a theory that most coaches and exercise physiologists wouldn't recommend. You might find that tweaking your theory a bit gives you something harder than typically suggested but not quite as aggressive as you've outlined that works for you and gets you ready for those early season races.

Good luck,
-Dave

iliveonnitro said:

Someone training 4-6hrs/wk isn't going to benefit from periodization as much as a pro training 25-35hrs/wk.

Not sure I agree with this premise.

I have been providing plans for riders that have an average of ~ 5 hours / week to train but there is still a need to "periodise" their training in order to ensure appropriate progression and development of various elements of fitness. For many, just going hard out of the blocks with a high proportion of intensity would be a bad idea.

And they are seeing the benefits:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/power-training/467777-rst-training-plans.html#post3898129

The question is indeed interesting, as some might sometimes pay too much emphasis on some aspect of periodisation (tapering for instance, without any care paid to weeks before taper is scheduled).

This question can be looked at from few interesting angles. 8-9 hours of intense training a week could probably bring you to a fair CTL. One could grow it quite high, at a cost of a high ATL as well. It's enough raw material to tailor something nice. From this angle alone periodisation can be used to achieve a peak, if it's what you want of course. And this is the key here. Do you really need a "tank" as a weapon somewhere in the season, or are you on some sort of a Cup serie where peaking at the final race is *mearly* a nice to have?

Other angle, volume aside, the composition of training can by itself represent some form of periodization, again if you do need a peak.

Interesting topic. For a 48 year old recreational cyclist with no intention of racing, who wants to get faster on the group ride and better at the short steep hills around PA; would 2x20 FTP workouts 3 times a week be the best bang for the buck for a winter training program?

HDK

hdk said:

Interesting topic. For a 48 year old recreational cyclist with no intention of racing, who wants to get faster on the group ride and better at the short steep hills around PA; would 2x20 FTP workouts 3 times a week be the best bang for the buck for a winter training program?

HDK

hmmm, your probably mean indoor on your bike installed on a trainer? If it's the case, then the best bang for the buck will highly depend on your motivation to sustain and truly perform in this sort of work. If I use myself as an example (so it's the rider's opinion, not the coach's opinion) going 2x20 for the whole winter 3xweek wouldn't work. That would not give me the best bang...

I'd rather favor little more diversity while still targeting the levels I want to train, and save the 2x20 for spring outdoor bike season. IOW, to me, going 2x20 all year long... I don't know, I find that this lack of originality may be detrimental on overall motivation to train.

iliveonnitro said:

This is really interesting. Where can I find this graph?

Attached.

Quoted post said:

...the continuous group trained by exercising, well, continuously at 50% of VO2max for 30 min/d, 3 d/wk, for 8 wk, whereas the interval training group trained by exercising at 100% of VO2max for 30 s followed by 30 s of rest for the same duration/frequency/# of weeks.

Dave (no not that one)

dkrenik said:

Attached.

Dave (no not that one)

I found this study and the author's concluded:

[INDENT]These results show that, of the two types of training programs currently employed, IT [interval training] produces higher increases in VO2max and in maximal exercise capacity. Nevertheless, CT [continuous training at 50% VO2] is more effective at increasing muscle oxidative capacity and delaying the accumulation of [blood lactate] during continuous exercise.
[/INDENT]This is cool, but I don't see how this could hurt my chances at racing better throughout the year using the method I described. This sounds exactly like the East German philosophy, and doesn't exactly pertain to a non-pro who races mostly ~1hr crits, with an occasionally long road race.

Whether you describe it as 'oxidative capacity' or citrate synthase activity you're describing mitochondrial density or IOW the ability to sustain higher power through metabolic and primarily aerobic processes. That's the foundation of every bike race longer than roughly a 2K pursuit including hour long crits. Sure peak power and AWC are important for fast dynamic events but sustainable power is still key and the foundation everything else builds upon.

Or as it's been put elsewhere 'it's an aerobic sport dammit!'

No doubt you can build a lot of fitness using different approaches, but that graph makes it real clear that if you want to increase mitochondrial density and sustainable power then long intervals trump short intervals.

-Dave - not Colorado Dave and actually not even Wymoning Dave these days...

P.S. Thanks Mr. K, that was the chart I was looking for...