*Original article from Sportraining magazine
In previous articles we talked about training quantification models, whether endurance or strength. Beyond the proper organization of the loads by the coach, monitoring the training performed is essential. It must allow us, on the one hand, to check that the load dynamics are correct, and on the other, to make decisions regarding the final taper. With an adequate quantification of the training performed, these decisions are much easier. Thus, we will be able to identify more easily to what extent the accumulated training is sufficient, and foresee the final taper to arrive at the competition both well-trained and "fresh".
Short-term load control
In previous articles we presented the ECO-ECS model for the control of training load (Cejuela and Esteve, 2011). This model allows quantifying both the training of different modes of exercise (running, cycling, swimming), and strength training. Figure 1 shows examples of different workouts that, according to this model, would have a similar load.
In this way, we can have a more accurate estimate of what the coach has usually intuited so far - the most expert with more accuracy than the least expert - about the relative hardness of the sessions in a week of training. For example, Figure 2 shows the load dynamics of a week of training for a middle-distance runner.
Training load across medium-term cycles
As we add several daily sessions, or we talk about sports such as triathlon, or athletes who combine one sport with some cross-training sessions in another..., then intuition begins to become more complicated. Sometimes it is not easy to compare some days with others, or weeks that are very different from each other. Likewise, if we observe a cycle of several weeks of training (mesocycles). Figure 3 shows, as an example, the dynamics of loads in cycles of 3-4 weeks. The reader will observe that this training plan includes periodic recovery at the end of each cycle (that is, in the last week of each cycle of 4, the load decreases). This is how it should be, because a correct adaptation is not possible if we do not reduce the load periodically. This decrease is understood from a global point of view, and can be through volume, intensity, or both. And it should not be exclusive to the weeks of competition.
In addition, the competitions, if any, must be quantified (unless it is the last of the macrocycle). Notice in the example in Figure 3 what the effect would be of adding a competition (and quantifying it within the weekly load), on these "easy" weeks. We see how in the first two "easy" weeks (weeks 4 and 8), the total real load is equal to that of the "high-load" weeks.
It goes without saying that if this programming is executed by the athlete in a way that is "adapted" to their mood, the real dynamics of loads can differ completely. Figure 4 shows an example of the same week where the athlete did not remain within the planned workload range, and its impact on the total accumulated load. There are days when he has worked more intensely or has extended the session, and some where he has either not trained or has missed it. "Doing more" than planned does not always guarantee short-term success, as injury, illness, or excessive fatigue often eventually compensates for previous excesses in the weeks that follow. The problem, moreover, is that by then it may be time to feel good because the competitions are approaching.
Training load across long-term cycles
When we follow up with perspective, observing the dynamics of the training carried out allows us to make decisions with more sense. If, for example, we look at the load developed by the triathlete in Figure 5 throughout various preparations, we can see that he did indeed peak at the right time for each important competition. What is shown refers to the perceived load (the Subjective Load Equivalents or ECSs scale). Likewise, if we apply Bannister's model to this load, which predicts the form as a function of accumulated training and infers the resulting fatigue and recovery needs, we observe that the triathlete always arrived at the best time to the competitions: with a high degree of training, but with little fatigue and high recovery.
However, if we look at Figure 6 we will see a very different example: it does not show any "harmonic" tendency of the load. The athlete trains at a very high load every day (a session of 200-250 ECOs is a quality session, and the athlete completes 4 consecutive sessions at those levels or higher), and the perception of load (the ECS scale from 0 to 5) shows that each session is really hard. In fact, the hardness is perceived as progressive even if the load of the 4th day decreases somewhat, and remains high (2 out of 5) after a day of rest and despite a very, very light session. The scientific literature proposes a theoretical optimum during periods of aerobic training of «80:20», referring to 80% of the load being below zone 1 and 20% being in intense work (Seiler, 2010).
Our perception, following the three-phase model (delimited by two thresholds), is that this also translates into a 50:50 between the "load" of work in "light" zones versus the sum of the load in "moderate" and "intense" zones. This would occur in all endurance sports, where the main difference would be whether they accumulate more in one zone or another of the entire spectrum ranging from the zone between thresholds to the entire zone above the 2nd threshold (including VAM and lactic zones).
Training load and the effective stimulus
Another example of the application of training quantification is to observe how much dose is tolerable while training. A reference can be to know the dose it entails
competition, but it depends on the sport, because in some the dose of competition is not equal (due to excess or defect) to the maximum tolerable or recommended for developmental training. The studies carried out in this regard will allow more dose-response relationships to be established. Sports training still needs to cover this challenge, the optimal doses, and often only talk from intuition or experience (which are not bad). Figure 7 shows some references gathered from our experience with All in Your Mind athletes.
Training load and cross-training effects
Another example of applying training quantification is looking at the effect of cross-training. Many of our athletes, even if they focus on
In a sport, they combine or replace some sessions with training that allows them to recover muscle or joint while continuing to train aspects
"central", such as cardiorespiratory function. Figure 8 shows the example of an athlete who achieved the same half-marathon time this season, either by focusing on running or by replacing the entirety of the light training with low-intensity bicycle work.
The moral is that the performance was maintained, being close to a personal best, despite reducing the volume of the race by 45%.
The intensity was maintained, but the load and light training time tripled.
All in all, the total load was identical and so was the performance. Subsequently, similar doses of quality running training were accumulated again but doing much less base training, neither running nor with cross-effect (35% less running load and 50% less cross-loading), and the decline in fitness and race time was evident: a 4% worsening of the previous race time.
Controlling the training load between different preparations also allows us to "play" to compare the hardness of different sports events. In a recent study we have compared the objective hardness of training for Marathon, Half Ironman or Ironman (Padilla et al, 2012). Counting the last 10 weeks of preparation in 10 athletes of equivalent level, both the Ironman and the Half Ironman were the events where a total of load and training time was invested. However, the marathon was equivalent to the Ironman in the ratio of Training Time to Competition Time (i.e., the hardness of the Marathon).
general training for the time dedicated), while in relation to the duration of the test, the Half Ironman was the test in which the highest investment per hour of competition was made training and the hardest training had for the time invested.
Conclusion
When we quantify the loads in such a way that the set of elements that compose it (type of exercise, volume, intensity and density) is assessed, we observe that the dynamics of mere "kilometers" do not always correspond to the real hardness of the training.
On the other hand, athletes often do not perform training as we schedule them, either due to lack of time, precision, etc. Only by controlling what is done and what sensations of assimilation the athlete manifests, and relating it to what performance is obtained, can we have a real intuition of the process. In popular athletes, other lifestyle aspects can have a special influence on performance. Logically, one aspect in which the coach can and should have a special influence is training.
AUTHORS:
Jonathan Esteve-Lanao> PhD in Physical Activity and Sport Science. National Athletics and Triathlon Coach – www.allinyourmind.es
Roberto Cejuela Anta> PhD in Physical Activity and Sports Science. Senior Athletics, Triathlon, Cycling and Swimming Coach – www.allinyourmind.es
Diego Moreno Pérez> Bachelor of Physical Activity and Sport. PhD student at the European University of Madrid. National Athletics Coach – www.allinyourmind.es
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CEJUELA, R. y ESTEVE J. (2011). J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 6:1-15.
PARILLA ET AL (2012). Simposio Internacional sobre Entrenamiento en Ambientes Extremos, V.Odón, 15-16 junio. SEILER, S. (2010). Int J Sports Physiol Performance 5: 276-291.
