Periodization Nation

Well, sorry its been a week since I've written. New job, personal coaching and the team coaching is keeping me busy.

Last week was a 6 day week as I took Monday off to watch the BCS title game.
So, in a 6 day week, 15 workouts

Swim 10,000 meter (4 sessions) 3:10
Bike 120 miles ( 5 rides) 6 hours
Run 37 miles (6 runs) 4:40

So, about 14 hour week. This is close to my typical regular build week. Legs felt pretty blown today on my 120 miles of riding in 5 workouts, 4 of which included interval work.

I have mixed feelings on the periodization model of triathlon training, specifically Ironman training. Optimal periodization requires not only a complicated knowledge of physiology and response mechanisms to stress, but attention to detail, and a sense of knowing when recovered is vital. Utilizing heart rate as a measure of performance, especially cycling performance is deceiving and can lead (and does in most cases) to over training. Determination of HR zones in cycling in the laboratory setting is fairly accurate. However, many factors effect HR when cycling. Weather, sleep pattern that day or week, cardiac drift, group riding, terrain, ect.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that HR is not a direct measure of performance, but is simply an indicator of strain on the cardiovascular system by exercise. Thus, while HR monitoring can be useful for detecting training-induced changes in cardiovascular fitness ( maximal oxygen uptake, or VO2max), it will generally be insensitive to changes in other key determinants of performance, most importantly the rider’s metabolic fitness (lactate threshold). Power is the most consistent determinant of immediate response to stress, and is utilized by nearly every pro cyclist and triathlete world wide. As the great sports scientist Andrew Coggan states.
"Power at LT is the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance, since it integrates VO2max, the percentage of VO2max that can be sustained for a given duration, and cycling ."

I am only commenting on the two major determinants of maximum oxygen uptake (VO2) and lactate threshold (LT) but there are several other variables important to performance. In periodization models, it is vital to understand where the athlete's limits are and how they change, and more importantly, how they respond to stress induced over time.

So, I am a believer in cycling based on power models and consistent training at or just below lactate threshold. I am not a proponent of periodization models for the majority of athletes simply due to the complexity in understanding of the delicate processes involved when attempting to increase one's LT and VO2 max over long periods of time. Not to say its not possible, but it takes near continuous monitoring of athletes HR responses to exercise, and most importantly, power output and threshold power responses on the bike. The risk of over training and over-shooting the subtle advances in threshold that occur are too great. I strongly feel that I wont risk my athletes' key race, and 6-9 months of training unless all information is available to accurately assess perfomance standards in the periodization model, and even more importantly, I have near continuous weekly feedback on power data, HR data secondarily, and repeated updates in field testing throughout training. This is nearly impossible in the real world, even for myself.

So, what's left? How did Ironman athletes get fit without the "bible" and concepts of periodization years ago? I have discussed training methods with world class pros over the past couple of months, and it has become more apparent to me that periodization is not the "end all truth" in Ironman/triathlon training. I suspected this from my past marathon training with Olympians and other world class athletes. We, over a 2.5 year period, focused on consistency in training. There was a subtle form of periodization sure, like weight routines in the winter, building up weeks and taking a rest week now and then. But, these methods are considered "old school" to me, as I did this as a Div I college runner in the mid 1980's, and to me, this form of periodization is not new and is not some revelation in triathlon training.

So, to me, as in my past marathon training, I have become more and more convinced that consistency in training is more beneficial and more practical for most athletes. This was how I trained for my first Ironman in 2004, and my methods then, extracted from marathon training, looked somewhat basic. However, consistency was the key, in that I knew my HR threshold and would attempt to increase the time at which I trained in my sub threshold zone, by increasing the number of workouts, and keeping the workouts shorter than most would expect.

Then came my 3 seasons of "periodization". Building in large blocks with structured weeks of rest following essential over training, in hopes to "bounce back" in the recovery phase to get ready for another block of thrashing...with hopes to survive to the next rest phase.
Well, this resulted in some nice personal bests. However, it also resulted in over training 6-12 weeks prior to my key race, prolonged unneeded tapering for some races, and of course, injury. After 3 straight Ironman races that I competed with injury, I decided in the winter of 2006 to revert back to my original first season training methods. This was widely stated to my training partners and others and my plan seemingly worked. Despite and achilles injury, I was able to post a PR at Florida 70.3 in May of 07, then an olympic distance PR in June, and an Ironman PR in late June.
It was at this point I hired a coach. No ordinary coach, a well known, world class, and mature athlete in the sport. My training involves communication and input to my training cycles, and I was suprised...well maybe not so suprised...on the philosophy of consistency in training over periodization. Consistency over a period of 18 weeks in my build to Western Australia. This was further realized when I broke up my training into three 6 week blocks. Each of those blocks it turns out were nearly identical in training with only sublte changes (advances) in power. I made an upward adjustment in my cycling power of only 10 watts over 18 weeks. I ran 15 long runs of 17-19 miles over the 18 weeks with very similar speed sessions week after week. Results of back to back PR's in the 70.3 distance this summer and another PR IM late fall. Most importantly, training injury free, needing little structured rest, and feeling stronger right through my wopping 8 day taper going into IMWA.

My point? Consistency leads to a pattern of confidence, proper weekly rest, and decreased risk of injury. I did feel thrashed on some weeks. Thrashed not by mileage and ridiculous workouts that not even pro's do, but thrashed due to increases in time spent at sub threshold heart rate or watts. However, I consistently recovered quickly and was able to resume my relentless consistency soon after. My rest weeks? Similar consistent mileage, but decrease in the time spent sub threshold.

In summary, yes, periodization can work for some. It does however require first and foremost, knowledge of the athletes LT and power at that level. From here, slight upward changes can occur, but repeated testing is crititcal. For most, determination of threshold, and spending months to improve economy at that level by consistent training will lead to reliable improvement. Dont take the "training bible" literal. Its not the gospel when it comes to improving performance. Consistency in training has more advantages in my experience.

A great runner told me years ago, "nobody cares what your training log looks like Dave". You'll forget the training, but you wont forget the performance. Performance is what counts in the end.