Just curious, as to any studies done out there that people might know of, that look at training adaptations and how long it takes the ‘average’ joe to display signs of an increase in speed/endurance etc. For example, lets say you run a 40 minute 10k open run. Through the correct technique/s of training (increasing volume etc), how long, very roughly ofcourse, would it take for this person to go under 40 mins? Is it weeks? months?
I understand this question is a bit ambiguous.
Ill use myself as an example. I have a 70.3 in 5-6 weeks. I often wonder if the training im doing at this point wont really lead to an increase in fitness or speed, however its about holding on to what i have already built. A depressing way to look at it perhaps. But in those last 5 or 6 weeks, can any increase in speed/endurance really occur? Or is it about keeping up the volume/intensity of which you have been working with in the lead up prior? Curious to know how long some adaptations from training take between the 3 diciplines. I assume swimming takes longest, bike perhaps quickest? But again, at what rate? Does speed build easier on people than endurance? im at work bored thinking out loud.
Interesting enough I’ve read in many books that people usually adapt to a training stress in 5 to 6 weeks. After that the training stress needs to be changed.
Because of that I don’t understand why people do that 3 week on 1 off routine. If they really want a down week it would make sense to do it in a 3 or 6 week cycle instead of a 4.
Hopefully others can point you toward which training stress is right for you but they may need more info.
jaretj
Yes, its a very common reference that a new type of stress causes the most adaptions in the first 6 weeks and after that you can notice some diminishing returns and or mental fatigue.
The 3+1 week is common because:
2 of these cycles = 6 weeks of this “new stress”
2 recovery weeks spaced evenly between
Most people cant push on for 6 weeks before deloading and even if they can, frequent deloads leads to better adaptions.
To TS: For the last weeks you work hard at race pace. You should already know somewhat about what numbers you want to hit during the race. Work hard on calibrating them to you and you to them.
Of course this will make you fitter but its more important to get used to the stress that a race will present to you. Sure, maybe you could achieve more measurable improvements such as a higher vo2max by doing focused vo2max-work but it would not lead to a stronger race performance within 6 weeks.
Endurance is something that comes and goes more quickly than strength or speed. Since your speed on the bike and swimming is very dependent on strength throw your pedal stroke and swim stroke, it takes more time to improve top end swim speed and sprint power on the bike. Aerobic endurance can improve relatively quickly, and your ability to sustain a better pace comes much faster than better top end speed. In a nutshell, the more aerobic the training stress, the quicker you adapt, while the more anaerobic the stress, the longer it takes to adapt.
If you have a look on Pubmed or google you’ll find a plethora of work by I.Mujika on both detraining and tapering.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=mujika+detraining
The two review papers “Part I and II” are particularly insightful even if you only read the abstracts.
What is clear is that adaptation and therefore taper requirements vary between individuals and even between sports in the same individual.
I also agree that the 3+1 model is an outdated approach to training.
Regards
David
There are 1000s of little ways you get faster. Many of them can happen over night.
If you ran a 40:00 10k today you might well be able to run 39:59 tomorrow.
I regularly notice that if I put in a good week of training, I am stronger the very next week. At some point if you are training a lot there become a delicate balance between putting in that good week to gain fitness and being worn out for a while. Also as you get closer to your genetic potential the improvements slow down more and more.
Anyway yes, the training you are doing for the next 5-6 weeks can lead to an increase in fitness, for sure. How you balance that with rest so you are not worn out on race day depends on how fit you are now and how much training load you have piled on yourself up to now.
My entire build for savageman was only 7 weeks because I was hit by a car 10 weeks before. I definitely got a lot more fit! (though not fit enough to run great! haha)
Just curious, as to any studies done out there that people might know of, that look at training adaptations and how long it takes the ‘average’ joe to display signs of an increase in speed/endurance etc. For example, lets say you run a 40 minute 10k open run. Through the correct technique/s of training (increasing volume etc), how long, very roughly ofcourse, would it take for this person to go under 40 mins? Is it weeks? months?
I understand this question is a bit ambiguous.
Ill use myself as an example. I have a 70.3 in 5-6 weeks. I often wonder if the training im doing at this point wont really lead to an increase in fitness or speed, however its about holding on to what i have already built. A depressing way to look at it perhaps. But in those last 5 or 6 weeks, can any increase in speed/endurance really occur? Or is it about keeping up the volume/intensity of which you have been working with in the lead up prior? Curious to know how long some adaptations from training take between the 3 diciplines. I assume swimming takes longest, bike perhaps quickest? But again, at what rate? Does speed build easier on people than endurance? im at work bored thinking out loud.
With a race in 5-6 weeks, your #1 goal is not to get injured since you won’t be able to recover fully in time to many injuries. Your training should become more specific and less about building fitness in general. Final tests of nutrition and determining pacing is the most important. Basically the things that determine how well you’ll execute. Can you still add some fitness, yes, but it won’t be anywhere near the same rate, since you’ll quickly approach diminishing returns… if you follow the TSS score method… as your ATL and CTL come closer together.
I do agree that 3+1 probably doesn’t fit for each discipline. I’m not sure swimming really needs to “deload”. As you speed and endurance increases… you adapt, you can continually add in more volume with the same time commitment. I think you can sustain this for a pretty long period of time, and ultimately probably only need a short 1 week taper to take advantage of those gains. I think you also have to keep swimming “in you back pocket” and leave it as you more variable activity, as you may need a impromptu swim focus mid season if your getting over a run or bike injury.
Personally I think 3 weeks is about all I can handle cycling. If I’m really pushing it, my TSB gets down to more than -30 at that point and I’m just trashed.
Running, seems like consistent mileage has an advantage and in base building periods, you could go maybe 4-5 weeks before a recovery week, but when adding in intervals, tempo, etc., you might want to go to as short as a 2+1 model. But it’s probably one of those things you experiment with trying to balance staying healthy both mentally and physically and fitness gains.
3+1 one ultimately is probably a matter of not overthinking it, keeping it simple, and rolling training into nice little bite sized 1 month blocks. You get the advantage of unloading fatigue once a month to see what fitness gains you’ve achieved.
Keep in mind too that with a 3+1 approach, you may have 1-2 days per week where you unload fatigue in each discipline independently. I only swim 6 days a week, run 6 days a week and bike 5-6 days a week right now. So there are 3-4 days where I’m skipping a discipline.