Is peaking twice per year a necessary element of a successful long-term training program?

I agree!!

For a miler peaking twice a year will give you 2x the speed. Each peak you hit a new level then build on that as well. It could be better for a 10k man, though.

You can run a pretty high level year-round. Just make sure there are some periods in your training where you focus on certain elements (ie base work, LT etc). Peaking is over-rated. So many college programs are all into peaking "when it counts" at championship meets at the end of the season.....however, it seems like lots of times their runners come out and run flat, "choke", or run slower then they did early in the season.

Get good training in....all year. And don't race too often. Let each month of training build and make adjustments as you go along.

Those runners that are not running well at the end of the season due to improper peaking is because of poor coaching. There are plenty of programs that are doing a good job when it counts.

You don't have to do a one month peak. In fact, I have never done a one month peak or even passed that out to my athletes. A 10 day peak has always done the job extremely well. The next week is either off or easy running and the 2nd week you run what you ran your peak week and the 3rd week you are at your season high mileage with no workouts. By running no workouts you can handle the stress just fine in the early parts of your training segment. Within another month you can increase your mileage up 10 - 15% very easily.

The thing that I preach and that many have said before me is that you will not feel amazing at the end of the peak. You will feel somewhat fresh but you most certainly will still have to push through pain in your final race. It won't be any easier because you should be shooting for a faster pace than earlier season races.

In the last 10 days we never do anything that would be considered a new stress that hasn't been done before and our overall volume levels drop 10 - 20 % depending on the season and how well the training has been going for the individual runner.

Like the other poster said, you can stay in shape for most of the year without worring about a true peak but if you know what your doing peaking rigth should give you a slightly better edge.

Okay,

I thought about it a little more on the pot and realized what you were talking about with regard to peaking for one month.

Many have said that you can hold a peak for one month. I agree to that but never try to. I tend to focus on one race at the end of the season and only back down for 10 days as mentioned earlier and do not try to carry that out.

The number you pulled that says 10 seconds can be saved in the 10 might is just a guess. I would tend to think that you could save at least that much and maybe up to 15 or more. I guess it matters what you are looking for. If you want to be the best you can be and reach your full potential or at least get as close as you can to your best on that day, peaking would make sense. It really is not that complicated. Some try to make it this secret science but it really is not. Don't cut too much volume and intensity in the final week or two and don't bring in any new stresses that might shock your nervous system.

It is all a preference though.

Ask Lasse Viren.

Actually what I *really* think is, there's probably a lot of individual variation. I understand the appeal of "running well year round" and not taking months to rebuild etc. OTOH I am not at all sure that *I* would handle that well without burning out, psychologically if not physically.

I also think other factors, like simply where you live and the weather (San Diego, say, vs. Hibbing MN) would have a big effect. Not just as in "gee it's hard to get in that 20 miler with five feet of snow on the ground" but also as in your body will react to seasonal changes in temp and sunlight.

I think that to answer your question you have to think about what you want to achieve with your dramatic improvement.

If your goal is to make a nice living on the road racing circuit, I'd say that you don't want to aim for one or two peaks a year. You'll need that high level of more or less year round fitness. On the other hand, if you're hoping for a top three spot at an Olympic Trials or to win a national track or xc championship, then you might want to aim for a couple of peaks.

What you seem to be hoping to do is what you might call the "Ron Clarke Model." Clarke never "peaked." He always saw fitness as a continuum in which he was always going to be fitter tomorrow than he was today. I've always liked that model. But you'll hear people say that failing to peak cost him when the Olympics came around

You're 22 years old and you're asking questions. That's good. You're 22 years old and you're answering your own questions. That's not so good.

You're looking down a long and winding road. Some people have been down to the end of the road AND back. A few of those people are willing to tell you about what's around the bend on that road. It might benefit you to listen a while, rather than try to tell them, being that you haven't been down the road.

Training is cyclical. Part of the cycle is the introduction of anaerobic and lactic acid workouts at peaking. During this time, you improve that portion of your system and fine tune your aerobic ability. It seems pretty necessary to peak at least once a year, in order to start the cycle over. Not at the same level as before of course, but at a consistently higher level.

What event are you talking about? My answer is probably different if you see your long term future in the 1500 (peak at least once per year) vs. the marathon.

I would agree. You need periodization and peaking is a part of that. I have heard that aerobically, you can really only achieve one true peak per year, and that is what I'd suggest to you. Unless you're training perfectly or under training, your body is going to benefit from recovery. Also, with peaking each year, you should run a PR. After running say 29:30, your body and mind will be able to handle the workouts of a 29:30 runner better in the next cycle. And since your body and mind will think those workouts are easier, you'll be ready to take on workouts of a 29:00 runner. I think it would be very difficult to match the quality of running a big PR in a race by just training all the time.

Lydiard found that single periodization yearly plans were superior to double periodization plans. Athletes were able to achieve better results, maintain a peak longer, and experience fewer injuries.

Do speedwork year-around (4-5 times per week) so you won't have to worry about peaking. My basework is 400m repeats with a 1/2 mile cooldown.

The periodization structure and the peaking process are different. The Canadians have some study results in their coaching education materials which suggest that peaking twice a year yields greater results ultimately.

When you go through a periodization phase, you work on different things at different times, but work on and improve all of them (assuming you're doing things right). There is a limit to how long you can work on a particular area of emphasis and continue to get improvement (Dr. Daniels says about 6 weeks, though there is some evidence that LT/tempo type training causes improvement for 10 weeks), so as long as you work on each energy system or point of emphases long enough to get improvmenet, you will get greater improvement overall by doing more, not fewer periodization phases.

In peaking, you have psychological as well as physiological issues. I actually can't use a conventional peak as I coach in So Cal and we have a season of competition meets for a whole month, so we cut the mileage a bit, for the whole period, then cut a bit more for the state meet (of course, this might be why we have better results in California). My impression, though, is that most peaking plans for distance runners (but not sprinters) fail because the distance runners are so obsessive/compulsive about mileage that they simply won't stick with the plan, but start training hard again...and then they blame the peaking plan.

The negative or positive results of tapering probably has a lot to do with whether you are a aerobically based runner or anaerobically based runner. A 5k runner who focuses on high mileage and only a couple hard workouts a week and then cuts down his mileage for a month might end up feeling flat because he is leaving his strength behind. However, a lower mileage 5k runner who is running hard 5 or 6 times per week might have much more positive results from a mileage taper (if they maintained their intensity). I am a 5k runner that resembles the first example and have found that any time my mileage is dropped for an extended period of time results in terrible 5k/10k performances. At the same time it has been during these periods that I have pr'ed at 800 and run decently at 1500.

Anyways, even though I still want to run fast over 800/1500 I have become a believer in the "fit all year", take an easy week every 4th week (whether I race or not, but I try to fit this in with a race at the end of the week)idea (Rob DeCastella/Ron Clark type training). This year is the first year I have ever trained full time and this is what I've found: First, after last year's track season I began to build my mileage to an eventual high of 110 miles/week for three weeks with a down week of 55-65 (my highest weekly mileage in years past has been about 70-75 miles). During this period of building the times on my hard workouts ceased to improve as my body adapted to the increase in stress. In January I capped my mileage at 110 while maintaining the effort of each of my individual runs (8 easy, 2 moderate to threshold progression runs, 2 hard VO2max workouts). My idea is that my body will find it easier and easier to handle this mileage level as each week passes, and as it begins to feel lighter from the lifting of this stress I will begin to run faster at the above given efforts. For a few weeks this didn't occur, but I have now had a string of breakthrough workouts and there has been an overall increase in pace on all my runs. However, I expect that I will eventually plateau at this fixed mileage/effort level and at that point I'll need to ask myself which variable (intensity or volume) to increase in order to bring about further adaptations. Looking at the training of top internationals I don't think I need to increase my mileage again, so I'm thinking I will probably end up increasing either the difficulty of my hard sessions or the frequency of my progression runs ...

In the Squires/Lehane book, Speed With Endurance, there is a suggestion to have two peaks per year, but one should be a minor peak and one should be the major peak. The minor peak might be 10k running for the marathoner specialist, or the minor peak might be xcountry running for the track specialist. In the minor peak, one works fairly hard to a goal, but without going totally for broke. The minor peak is selected according to how one comes off of it and how it sets one up to start the move towards the major peak. In the major peak, the emphasis shifts entirely to performance in the final stages.