More from peteq2 over at the mile split...
One brief segue to answer this good question, then a bit about using the HRM, then a wrap up of the discussion of Phase I base training.
-------------------------
What I've presented so far is just aerobic base training, and so from one perspective, I don't see this as being any more awkward/challenging to fit into North American competition schedules than any other good form of base training.
That said, it's implied in this training that proper base training will take as long as it will take, which might be a "normal" 2-3 months, or could be substantially longer. You finish it when you finish it, so if you want to do it right, you might have to sacrifice one or two race seasons (say XC + indoors) before preparing properly for the next season (outdoors in this random hypothetical scenario).
So yes, if done right, this could conflict with our 3 season model for some athletes.
-------------------------
Following from the preceeding, one might ask the question, "OK, so what? What's the big deal if you miss one or two competitive seasons?"
And that's a key question.
What's more important to the athlete... long term development toward ultimate potential, or short term (and ultimately meaningless in the big picture, IMHO) competitive objectives?
For most people, I think there is a powerful psychological need to keep checking our fitness, so there is a tendency to race more often than might be best for long term development.
But the basic question remains... are you thinking about what's best for the athlete, or are you force-fitting an athlete into a rigourous structure?
-------------------------
Which leads me to a short segue onto the topic of periodization. I think (just expressing my opinion, claiming without proof) that most approaches to periodization are an attempt to create a rhythmic structure in training that works within the normal rhythmic cycle of racing seasons (whether this is 2 or 3).
I mentioned in the other thread that in "Hadd's" training, at least the way I experienced it, there is less emphasis on periodization than in other more familiar training models. I mean this in two ways: first, the flow of the training depends on how the athlete is progressing, and is not strongly influenced by the artificial temporal structure of race seasons; and, second, the notion of regularly repeating the same typical cycles, whether on an annual basis, or within some more complex cyclical system of microcycles, mesocycles etc, isn't followed. The various "phases" or cycles of training take as long as they take, and are not shoe-horned into pre-determined set periods.
The basic philosophy is one of building the race opportunities around the athlete, rather than building the athlete within the racing schedule.
-----------------------
All that said, an athlete who is well trained within Walsh's system can operate quite well within the traditional 3 seasons, ONCE THEY ARE VERY WELL TRAINED.
The other point I made in the other thread is there is less emphasis on peaking in this training approach than in other more familiar systems. When an athlete is very well trained, they reach a very high level of fitness that can be maintained for a long period of time, without introducing sharp peaks into training and racing, and avoiding the need following peaks to take a long rest.
A very fit Walsh-trained runner can be very close to race fitness across a wide range of distances (say 1500 to HM) basically all year, needing only a short period of focussed preparation to get race ready.
One can't stay at close to M-race ready all year, and I won't venture whether one could stay close to 800-race ready all year (although I expect not), but it is possible to run well across a range of other distances over a fairly short period with specific appropriate adjustments in training.
So, once very fit (which probably means paying the price somewhere along the way of sacrificing some race seasons), this training approach is no longer incompatible with our 3 season schedule.
Now, whether it is particularly beneficial to one's long term development to have 3 serious race seasons a year is a whole other question that I'll leave to the philosophers...
OK, so I probably won't finish the example of Phse I training today, since I'm already eating into the work day, but I need to make a few points about using the HRM in training.
Use of the HRM adds a technical element that can confuse people. The device itself is prone to certain errors, and sometimes the body behaves differently than expected. It takes a bit of education and experience to use it properly, and get meaningful input from it.
The HRM will often give spurious readings at the start of a run. You may have HRmax of ~ 166 (like me), and see readings like 180, 200 etc when you first start jogging. This is meaningless garbage data, likely reflects a poor connection between the chest strap and chest. This usually goes away within a mile or two as you sweat and make a better electrical connection, but sometimes you need to tighten the strap.
Your pace will vary at a given HR depending on conditions. If it is hot and humid, windy, or you are training on a hilly course, you need to adjust your pace expectations accordingly at a given HR. I've found that in hot, humid conditions (typical Ottawa July/August days) pace can be 30s/mile (or more) slower than in good (cool, dry, calm, flat) conditions. In this training, the body is reacting to the stress being placed on it, as indicated fairly objectively by the HRM. Don't try to force an expected pace, work within the planned HR and just take whatever pace that gives you.
When your legs are low on fuel (during heavy training this can be pretty common), particularly after long runs or hard workouts or races, you HR will usually be lower than normal at all paces. This is a strange, counterintuitive situation, but it's very real. Work sessions should be done when the legs are fresh, usually 2-3 days after prior sessions, and with good nutrition between.
This latter effect can fool you into thinking you've reached a new fitness level, because your HR will be lower than expected at a given pace. The legs will usually be a little heavy or sore in this situation, so if they are, adjust your interpretation of the numbers accordingly. Trust the HR numbers if you are well fuelled and the legs feel fresh. If less fresh, be a little skeptical about the numbers
No comments:
Post a Comment