In the case of triathlon, a traditional periodization is suitable for a competition calendar where there is a single annual objective or two. For recreational, beginner, or young athletes, it is a good proposal because they will have objectives of this kind that have an appropriate time distance that allows this type of periodization. Let's give an example of a triathlete in his third year of continuous training, in the sub-23 category with two peak performance objectives in the season. For the first objective, they have a training load plan for 32 weeks (figure 2), between the months of October and June. In figure 3, we have the distribution of weekly training hours (Volume) of the same triathlete. If we compare the evolution over the weeks, we can observe a dynamic where the volume gradually increases until reaching peak weeks around 22 hours, and from week 21 a decrease in the average training hours per week is detected, but the training load remains high, therefore there is an increase in training time in higher intensity zones.
What is the ideal training volume in hours by category or age is a question that many coaches ask themselves, and just as many overconfident people try to answer, there is no recipe for it, and even less so if the volume is measured in meters or kilometers, which does not correspond to the hours of training that the athlete needs. One should follow a progression logic based on the progressive overload of the load. First, accumulate the highest possible number of sessions per microcycle each year, and when that is achieved, gradually increase the volume in terms of the duration of those sessions. For example, in a first year of training, 7-9 weekly sessions can be accumulated, each lasting from 45 minutes to 2,5 hours, that is, a maximum weekly volume of 15-16 hours per week, in triathletes who are older than the peak growth age and have previous training experience, for example in swimming. From the load of the first year of training, its progression over the years should be planned, knowing that an athlete to reach their maximum sporting performance would need about 10 years of systematic, continuous, and progressive training.
Fig. 2. Example of training load planning (measured in Target Load Equivalents) on a weekly basis for a triathlete in their third year of training, in the sub-23 category, as preparation for the Spanish Elite Sprint Championship.
Fig. 3. Distribution of weekly training hours of a triathlete in their third year of training, in the sub-23 category as preparation for the Spanish Elite Sprint championship.
Another important aspect in triathlon is the distribution of the training load in each of the segments (swimming, cycling, and running) that make up the triathlon. In our example (figure 4), the distribution in % of the ECOs of each segment is shown. In the first weeks of the season, until 7, the training load of the swimming segment predominates. From 8 and until week 18, the cycling load is increased until it reaches or surpasses that of swimming, and the running load is also increased, though to a lesser extent. Finally, from week 19 until 32, the % of training load for the running segment is increased, decreasing that of cycling and maintaining that of swimming. This distribution is an individual example that responds to the demands of an athlete with their specific characteristics, but in triathlon some cross-training effects are known, very well described by Grégoire Millet in 2002, where the cross-training effect of cycling and running is positive for both; however, the effect of swimming training is negative for running and cycling and vice versa. Therefore, the swimming training load is always maintained, being the most technical sport of the three and always needing a continuous stimulus for its improvement or maintenance, because otherwise a decrease in its performance would occur. However, with the cycling and running training load we can keep adjusting until we find the balance we consider appropriate, taking into account some basic physiological rules, such as that high volume loads in cycling, 3-5 hours of training, produce high central nervous system fatigue, which manifests up to 48 hours after the session.
Fig. 4. Distribution of training load in % of ECOs from swimming, cycling, and running workouts of a triathlete in their third year of training, in the sub-23 category, as preparation for the Spanish Elite Sprint Championship.
Finally, we must organize the training load following a trend of training time distribution in different zones. If we divide those zones into 3, in the classic way proposed by Lucia, zone 1 below the aerobic threshold, zone 2 between thresholds, and zone 3 above the anaerobic threshold, we must decide whether to follow a polarized training trend, between thresholds, at test pace, or whichever we consider appropriate.In our example, the distribution of training over the 32 weeks is polarized (figure 5), being greater from week 12 to 32, drastically decreasing the time in zone 2, while in the first 11 weeks of the season, although zone 1 always accumulates 70-80% of the weekly training time, zone 2 occupies a percentage ranging from 15 to 30%.
Fig. 5. Training time distribution in % divided into 3 zones (zone I below the aerobic threshold, zone II between the aerobic and anaerobic threshold, zone III above the anaerobic threshold) of a triathlete in his third year of training, in the sub-23 category as preparation for the Spanish Elite Sprint Championship.
Olympic and sprint triathlon races at the Spanish national elite level are usually competed at medium intensities around the functional or anaerobic threshold, or above it at specific moments of the competition such as transitions or pace changes. In the case of long-distance Ironman or half-Ironman races, the physiological competition zone is around the aerobic threshold or below it, depending on the triathlete's level. Knowing the physiological competition zone is important for deciding the training approach to follow during preparation, although in this aspect, scientific literature still presents little evidence due to the complexity of comparing training methods with groups of athletes of different performance levels.In Dr. Esteve's studies, the better effect of polarized training compared to threshold training is observed in high-level and recreational runners, as well as descriptive studies by Seiler indicate the same for elite marathon runners and shorter distances. In any case, it will be the coach who should choose the approach for each specific case.
AUTHOR
Roberto Cejuela Anta
- Cinemanthropometry Accreditation Level 3 ISAK (International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry)
Chair of Sports Traumatology at the Catholic University San Antonio of Murcia (07/11/2010) -
Doctor in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences
University of Alicante (07/09/2009) - University Expert in Personal and Sports Training
University of Alicante (15/10/2006) -
National Track and Field Coach
Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (30/08/2006) -
Course of Pedagogical Aptitude
University of Burgos (06/06/2006) -
Bachelor's Degree in Physical Activity and Sports Science
University of León (12/10/2005) -
Senior Swimming Coach
Royal Spanish Swimming Federation (31/05/2005) - Senior Triathlon Coach
Spanish Triathlon Federation (30/11/2004) - National Director of Cycling
Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (30/10/2004)
