Lessons from the 2010 Season, Part 2

This is the same chart as was used in Part 1 (click to expand). If you haven’t read that I’d suggest you do as it will help you to understand this chart which is pretty busy and confusing.

In Part 1 I listed three quite basic lessons that may be learned from this athlete’s periodization in the 2010 season. Here are four more.

Lesson #4: You must let fitness fade at the end of the season. Notice how fitness declines steadily in the Transition period on the left end. It drops from about 87 (TSS/day) at the end of the 2009 season on October 5 to 44 by the first week of December when training began again in earnest. The training that was done during this period was very light workload and low stress. It’s not necessary to lose as much fitness as this athlete lost in Transition, but it is necessary to give up some. I’d suggest losing at least 20%. And that’s just a blind shot. For some athletes who have been training at a high level for a long time much more time away from training with a greater than 20% drop in fitness may well be warranted. For others who had a rather mundane season or who had a break near the end of the race season a 20% drop may be too much. There is no answer that fits everyone’s needs.

I can tell you this, however. Generally, athletes who attempt to stay race-fit year round, year after year, have short race careers, I’ve found. The old saying is true: Variety is the spice of life. You need some variety if you are to recharge your battery and do it again for several weeks and months without a significant break. If all you do is train hard all the time, 52 weeks a year, your days as an athlete are numbered. Extended rest is necessary at least once a year.

Lesson #5: Training becomes more sensitive the closer you get to the race. Notice how long the periods are on the left side of the chart (Prep, Base 1, Base 2, Base 3a, Base 3b) and how short they are starting with Build 1 around May 1. It’s like you’re building a house. Early in the construction you’re laying the foundation and framing the house. This is a time in the process when the results are very obvious. Big changes are taking place and they are evident on almost a daily basis. The house (fitness) is taking shape quickly. But once the finish work begins (Build 1, Build 2) the changes are less obvious, but more important to the finished product. This is the time when construction (training) increasingly takes on the characteristics of the desired finished product (specific fitness for a given type of race). The changes aren’t nearly as obvious as you get closer to completion (race day) but much more critical. Note the large changes in fitness on the left side of the chart with the much smaller changes for a given period of time on the right side.

Lesson #6: Fitness is lost when form is gained and that can be a good trade off. Having high form is not always good. Notice how high it is in October and November at the start of the season. Fitness at this time is quite low. So although the athlete is well-rested (as indicated by the high form) he is by no means race-ready. I call this “weak form.” It happens again in early March. Rested but not race-ready. “Strong form” (high form and relatively high fitness) occurs a few times, most notably preceding the A-priority races. This is precisely what you want. Give up a little bit of fitness – about 10% – while gaining a lot of form. This, of course, is done by cutting back on training stress, especially workout duration, while keeping intensity race-like for last one to three weeks before the race.

Lesson #7: The season’s top-10 CPs moving to the right indicate improving fitness perhaps better than any other marker. Okay, what’s that? It’s time to introduce one more set of metrics on the chart. Notice the tiny squares with multi-colored lines connecting them. They are labeled CP30, CP6, CP1 and CP0.2. “CP” stands for “critical power,” what is called “mean maximal power” in WKO+-speak. These markers indicate the highest average power the athlete created for given durations at certain times in the season. CP30 is his best effort for 30 minutes. CP6 is 6 minutes. CP1 is 1 minute. CP0.2 is 12 seconds. The best 10 for each of these categories are shown in the chart and connected by the multi-colored lines.

Notice how the CP markers tend to congregate on the right side of the chart with the exception of CP0.2 which I’ll explain shortly. This movement to the right is one of the best indicators of fitness on the entire chart. It essentially means that power is increasing as the season progresses. That’s good.

This athlete is a road cyclist. The most important CP marker for his type of racing is CP6. The others are not unimportant, just less important. So seeing his CP6 top 10s shift to the right is good. Seven are found in the last 16 weeks. For his type of racing CP0.2 has the least impact on performance so not having a significant shift to the right is not a big concern. It is a small concern, however, and next season I’d like to see more CP0.2s on the right. For a triathlete, especially for long-course triathlons, CP30 is perhaps the most important marker. I don’t even chart CP1 and CP0.2 for triathletes.

There are other lessons here but I’m not going to go into them. For example, one is that a rising fitness line indicates an improvement but doesn’t really tell us what the athlete is fit for (short duration-high intensity or long duration-low intensity). The training for a 45-minute criterium is not even remotely like the training for an Ironman triathlon. Yet fitness on the chart looks the same. The software and its many charts (there are lots more in WKO+) provide only general markers of progress. It’s still up to the athlete (or coach) to decide exactly how to train in order to be race-ready. Using such software makes training only slightly less of an art and a bit more of a science than it was before we had such software. It simply allows you to make better-informed decisions about what to do next in training.

Comments

[Douglas]

Joe,

I am trying my best to take the advice here and in your Cyclist's Training Bible to heart and cut back the volume in the transition period (for me, this is late September and all of October). I have two questions about how best to manage this.

First, I attained a peak CTL 2 weeks before my last A race of 85 TSS/day. By your guidelines, should I make sure I drop to at least 65 TSS/day before I start training again in November? As background, I'm a 22-year-old stronger Cat 3 rider and have been riding for 7 years, with the last 2-3 years being the only ones I've seriously trained through the winter.

Second, should one consider strength training in this equation? If so, how - specifically, how should you calculate approximate TSS for a strength workout? I am not sure my evaluation of IF will be accurate because I'm only used to aerobic exercise and this is my first time incorporating strength training.

[Joe Friel]

Douglas--As mentioned in the post, that is a very rough generalization of how much to back off. It may not be right for you. Your experience is the best guide. In regards to assigning a value to weight workout...I just answered the same question for another reader. Here is that reply: The only way I see to do this is to use a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) to set the workout TSS. A scale I once suggested for such issues may be found here -- http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/09/estimating-tss.html

[Jay]

Joe, what do you think is the most important CP marker for someone training for 8-12 hour mountain bike races?

Thanks.

[Joe Friel]

Jay--I don't coach people for such long events so a bit out of my experience. But I'd suggest CP60.

[chris]

Hi Joe. I love your blog and have two general questions:

For all of us not using Watt meters, could you please provide some form of a table/list for the different CP-values and their approximate corresponding RPE values?

Is a long base period of low intensity aerobic endurance training really preferible over shorter high intensity interval training sessions? - please note that I'm talking about "athletes" who's training volume doesn't exceed 10h/week (as I assume is the case for most of your readers).

[Joe Friel]

Hi Chris--This may help if formatting doesn't get jumbled up...
Coggan’s power zones as a % of FTP/CP60 (Friel HR zones)

PZ1 (HRZ1) <55% of FTP
PZ2 (HRZ2)56-75%
PZ3/~CP90 (HRZ3) 76-90%
PZ4/~CP30-CP60 (HRZ4-5a) 91-105%
PZ5/~CP6 (HRZ5b) 106-120%
PZ6/~CP1 (HRZ5c) 121-150%

For your 2nd question, by 'high-intensity' I'm assuming you mean above FTP/CP60/LTHR. If that's the case I think it _could_ have negative consequences. Mostly psychological. For ex, I have 9 months until my next A race. It doesn't seem wise to do anaerobic endurance intervals for 9 months since it only takes a few weeks to reach an optimal level of fitness with such training. If you mean high-intensity as z3-4 then I see no problem with it. If you can stay motivated to do it week after week for several months. Personally, at the end of the race season I'm ready for a break from hard training. Good luck!

[Ronald Brandtjen]

Hi Joe,

two short questions regarding your interpretation of the CP6 values.

1. Is the shift to the right side not mainly due to the fact that the athlete significantly increased the intensity of his workouts during the Build, Peak and Race phases on the right side compared with the Base phase on the left side?

2. Is an increase of the CP6 value itself not a better indicator of fitness? In this example I see something like 270 watts at the end of Base 3b and something around 275-278 watts as peak on the right side.
Is this increase of 5-8 watts (less than 3%) enough? What is achievable and should be our target?
I assume that you answer will start with "it depends" (on age, fitness level, etc.).
Nevertheless a comment on this based on your experiences with very different athletes would be appreciated by us.

Thank you!

Ronald (Wiesbaden, Germany)

[Joe Friel]

Ronald--Yes, most certainly the rider's training intensity increased--along with his CP6 values. You ask if CP6 is not a better indicator fitness, but don't mention compared with what. I assume you must mean CTL ('fitness' on the chart). Yes, it is in many ways a better indicator. Probably the best. But that does not mean CTL is of no value. It provides a more detailed view of what is happening to one's ability to manage stress on a daily basis. As for the 3% improvement in CP6, I'll take anything I can get in my athletes' improvement. When one comes very close to his/her potential 3% is quite a bit. How much is right/appropriate/to be expected for any given person 'depends' on many variables. :)

[Matt Borowski]

Joe,

I don't currently use WKO+ nor do I have a power meter but plan to incorporate both in 2011. I assume separate charts exist for swimming and running? Is a composite of some sort offered to view the triathlon disciplines at once? I'm curious how overall triathlon race readiness is gauged.

Thanks, Matt

[Joe Friel]

Matt--You can set up charts almost anyway you want using WKO. In terms of multisport the only thing I look at is fatigue (ATL). There really isn't much value in the knowing the combination of them for fitness (CTL). When racing a tri on your bike how fit you are on the swim and run is of no consequence for absolute bike performance.

[John]

Hi Joe,

Great post as always. I'm wondering if you think there are specific numbers or benchmarks for the Fitness (CTL) curve in terms of TSS/day that lets you determine when it's time to move beyond the base period, when an athlete is race fit, etc. Also, presumably those numbers would differ between racing categories as higher category riders generally require more time in the saddle to be competitive. I'm a Cat 2 road racer and wonder what CTL I should be carrying into the season.

Thanks!

[Joe Friel]

John--I don't use CTL as a marker of when to move on to the Build period. I do that when aerobic endurance (decoupling), force and speed skills are at an optimal level. CTL doesn't really tell us "fit for what."