Transcript Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0

Designing a Training Program Worthy
of Indoor Cycling 2.0



Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM
Department of Exercise and Sport
Science
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Training Goals

What do you want to achieve





Health
Fitness
Event challenges
Competitive performance
What price are you willing to
pay?



Time
Energy
Injury risk
Adaptation: The Unique Essence of Exercise




Milo of Crotone
6th Century BC wrestler from Crotone (Italy)
First person to systematically train for improved
performance
Let to Progression principle of exercise training
 farm boy
 lifted newly born bullock
 lifted growing bullock every subsequent day
 eventually was able to lift full grown bull
 became the strongest man in the world
 Became 6x Olympic champion


Lost 7th Olympic (516 BC) title to competitor with
‘new technique’



540540-520BC
Reached limits of normal adaptation
Failed to find a new way to improve
Lead Crotons to military victory over Sybaris in
510 BC
Adaptation: The Good and the Bad
Effects and Side Effects
50
Effect
Side Effect
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
200
400
600
Training Load
800
1000
Training Load
The Driver of Adaptation

Frequency





Peter Snell 1964
Moderate
50-85% HRR
Zones
Carl Foster 1967
% Improvement
110
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
Time




Be Realistic
Intensity


5-7 days/week
2-4 days/week
30 min
30-50 min
>2.5 distance weekly
TRIMPS

?
500
800m=1:44.3=WR
460 m/min
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Training Load
1.5% Additional adaptation
attributable to training
800m=2:01:1
396 m/min
-13.98%
402 m/min
1:59.4
Exercise is Medicine
Take an hour’s walk,
every day,
10 minutes before lunch
Exercise is Medicine
Statins, AntiHypertensives & Walking

5 year reduction in mortality vs
control

Statins=1%


Antihypertesives=0.8%


Shepherd J: NEJM 333: 1301,
1995
Hebert PR: Arch Intern Med 153:
578, 1993
Walking



1-2 miles/day=6%
>2 miles/day=9%
Hakim AA: NEJM 338: 94, 1998
Exercise is Very Powerful Medicine
An Apple a Day & An Hour a Day
Keeps the Doctor Away
I’ll Bet You (or your clients) Want More
than Good Health & Basic Fitness
Building the Program





Be healthy
Have a comfortable routine baseline
Add single ‘harder’ days up to 3
Mix intensity and duration to make ‘harder’
Analyze your goal task


Build up to it
Remember:


Training is routine
Competition/Goal achievement is special
Be Healthy


Don’t start training off
the dregs of last
season
Don’t start training
while nursing an injury
Have a Comfortable Baseline


4-7 days per week
~30 minutes/day


Recovery days
Cross training

Good recovery days
Progression
Time Progression--2/1 Periodized
150
140
120
110
90
Time (min)
Time (min)
Time Progression-Linear Progression
60
80
50
30
20
0
0
7
14
21
28
35
Days
42
49
56
63
70
-10 0
7
14
21
28
35
Days
42
49
56
63
70
Progression
Intensity
RPE
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
7
14
21
28
35
Days
42
49
56
63
70
Progression
Training Load
600
500
Load
400
300
200
100
0
0
7
14
21
28
35
Days
42
49
56
63
70
Progression
Weekly Progression
1800
1600
Weekly Load
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
+10%/week
200
0
0
7
14
21
28
35
Days
42
49
56
63
70
Periodization
Periodized Weekly Progression
1600
1400
Weekly Load
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
7
14
21
28
35
Days
42
49
56
63
70
Periodization of Training
Regular planned variation in training
Addresses Fitness-Fatigue Issue
Probably mainly important in athletes
Allows for long term orderly progression of training load
 Micro cycles (usually within a week)
 Meso cycle (usually a few weeks)
 Macro cycle (usually several months)
 Annual plan (several macro cycles)
Where’s the Data?
Muscle confusion principle?
Training Periodization
Micro Cycle
Average Load=200/day=1400/week
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
2
3
Days
4
5
6
7
Low monotony training
Training Periodization:Meso Cycle
3 Meso Cycles Demonstrating Microcycle Variation & Weekly
Progression
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
Weeks
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
Better in endurance athletes?
Training Periodization
Meso Cycle
3 Meso Cycles Demonstrating Microcycle Variation & Shock Microcycle
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
Better in sprint/power athletes?
Training Periodization: Meso Cycle
3 Meso Cycles Demonstrating Microcycle Variation & Shock Microcycle with variation
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
Which Periodization Plan
is Best?
No one knows
Coaches are control freaks
 Coaches (particularly in Eastern Europe) like to draw
graphs
No controlled training studies with appropriate outcome
measure
Hard to get normal subjects to train this hard
Hard to get athletes willing to accept randomization to
‘control group’
More varied training is more interesting = higher intensity?

Use Zones Right
Measuring Training Intensity





Relative pace -PO (critical velocity-% race velocity)
HR-VO2 Targets
HR-HLa Targets
RPE or sRPE
Talk Test (Prof John Grayson, 1939, “climb no faster
than you can speak”)

Can you speak comfortably?




Yes
Yeah, but
No
Simple is good!
Use Zones Right
% total endurance sessions
Norwegian Skiers
Week 4 “Training Camp”
HF
100
80
SRPE
[Lactate]
82 80
71
60
40
18 18 22
20
0 2
0
Below LT
7
Around LT
Above LT
Use Zones Right
How Do Athletes Actually Train?
90
Skiers
Cyclists
Elite Runners
Sub Elite Runners
Percent of Training Time
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
Training Zone
3
Massed vs Distributed Training
One Leg Training Model in Sedentary Individuals
AK Hansen et al. Skeletal muscle adaptation: training twice every
second day vs training once daily
J Appl Physiol 98: 93-99, 2005
High vs Low Glycogen Improvement
High vs Low Glycogen Training
400
140
High
350
Low
High
Low
300
100
Improvement (%)
Training Time (min)
120
80
60
40
250
200
150
100
20
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pmax
Endurance
Massed vs Distributed Training
Additional High Intensity Training in Athletes
WK Yeo et al. Skeletal muscle adaptation and perfomance responses to
once a day vs twice every second day endurance training regimens
J Appl Physiol 105: 1462-1470, 2008
High vs Low Glycogen Training
140
High
Training Time (min)
120
Low
100
80
60 Min Power Output
1xDaily
2x/AlternateDays
+10.2%
+12.2%
300--331W 300--337W
~46.80 km
~47.17 km
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Background low intensity training
High intensity training on alternate
days, or as second workout on heavy day
+0.37 km
Not Significant??
Two Levels of Training Distribution

Training Load-Training Monotony (Foster)


Hard days vs easy days
Recovery or Rest Days

Make sure you are recovering (e.g. preparing for hard training the next day)


Training Distribution (Seiler)



Training Preparation Days
Percent time in relative zones
80-10-10
Ease of monitoring



Power-HR-VO2-HLa-GPS
Session RPE
Talk Test

Feedback to coach
Coaches vs Athletes
Skaters Training LOAD (Session RPE * Duration)
1200
1000
Coach
Athlete
800
600
400
200
0
Easy
Moderate
1.
Hard
Foster C, Heimann KM, Esten PL, Brice G, Porcari JP: Differences in perceptions of training by
coaches and athletes. S Afri J Sports Med 8: 3-7, 2001.
Similar results in runners, swimmers, skaters, basketball players
Building a Training Program





Start healthy
Progression
Periodization
Training Zones
Massed vs Distributed

Hard day vs easy day