Why do we periodize our training?

gimmesomeadvice wrote:

For example, a base phase where we do very little speed work, I don't understand this, if you want to run fast, train to run fast, do a base on top of doing speed, don't completely neglect speed or interval training just because you want to increase your mileage. If you're having trouble, slow down on your easy runs.

Every runner should be doing interval training on a weekly basis; during 1 week, 1 x intervals of some sort, 1 x speed endurance, 1 x basic speed, 1 x tempo, the rest easy.

If you want to periodize for an upcoming race, keep the intensity, drop the volume if you want, but make sure you keep the intensity. Too many runners out there don't train hard enough and want to take shortcuts, if you want to get faster you have to train at fast speeds.

Read Joe Vigil's book. What you describe is good for year round fitness but not necessarily peaking for ONE race.

[quote]gimmesomeadvice wrote:

For example, a base phase where we do very little speed work, I don't understand this, if you want to run fast, train to run fast, do a base on top of doing speed, don't completely neglect speed or interval training just because you want to increase your mileage. If you're having trouble, slow down on your easy runs.

Every runner should be doing interval training on a weekly basis; during 1 week, 1 x intervals of some sort, 1 x speed endurance, 1 x basic speed, 1 x tempo, the rest easy.

If you want to periodize for an upcoming race, keep the intensity, drop the volume if you want, but make sure you keep the intensity. Too many runners out there don't train hard enough and want to take shortcuts, if you want to get faster you have to train at fast speeds.[/quo

That is the multi-paced training approach idea. However cramming everything on a weekly bases is not how its done. You generally try to do that in a 2 week period.

EX:

week 1: workout 1- mile pace workout 2- 5k-10k pace

week 2: workout 1- 800 pace or faster workout 2 - tempo

Thats just a a basic example.

another example using your workout ideas:

week 1: 1 x intervals of some sort 1 x basic speed

week 2 1 x tempo 1 x speed endurance

In multi paced training you touch on everything through out the training year, but different things are focused on throughout the year depending on where you are in you season and what races you have coming up. So in a way its periodized too. If you want some good examples look at how gags and the NJ-NY track club train.

Unpopular truth, I really do appreciate your unwavering belief. That kind of commitment and confidence could make you a good coach someday (if you aren't already one). I still respectfully disagree with you about periodizing being useless. I have had much success doing what I have been doing and less success doing what you describe. Other coaches have had great success the other way around. If all we needed were studies, then coaches would be obsolete. The two communities need to agree more on certain things and not disrespect each other so much. Good luck in this thread.

kevin402can wrote:

There is no basis for periodization other that it seems like a good idea. Stephen Seiler actually studied it. He compare two groups, one group did a classical periodized program the other group have the volume and intensity matched but the workouts were randomized. The periodized group did slightly better but the difference was incredibly minor. You are better off working on getting your volume and intensity correct than worrying about how you organize it.

Possibly the dumbest post on Letsrun.com this year. Part of periodization is adjusting and building mileage with the difference in intensity. So I guess I could based on this run a 26 miler at marathon pace the day before a marathon and it would turn out only marginally better?

Unpopular truth wrote:

There is no factually scientific basis for periodization. Its popularity is a result of a false method of validation (assuming that whatever elite athletes do is corrrct).

Tudor Bomba would disagree.

Runners tend to focus on linear peroidization because of Lydiard, but that is not the only kind of peroidization.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Tudor Bomba would disagree.

Bompa is one of the biggest charlatans in the history of the field of physical training.

We periodize because that's the human nature. Fall, winter, spring, summer. Always different work. We're not mentally (and to some extent physically) disposed to do the same kind of work all year round.

ScienceRunners wrote:

If all we needed were studies, then coaches would be obsolete.

You don't even need studies, you need a respect for facts and logic. Modern coaches are worse than obsolete, they are a detriment to athletes.

Well, you do adapt to training, after a certain period of training and adaptation you need to change the stimulus to continue to progress.

If you train all the systems all the time without periodization you will become stale and not progress. Variety is not only the spice of life.

comma wrote:

Well, you do adapt to training, after a certain period of training and adaptation you need to change the stimulus to continue to progress.

If you train all the systems all the time without periodization you will become stale and not progress. Variety is not only the spice of life.

It doesn't magically come true just because you say it over and over again.

Bob Schul did one big period in 1964. Didn't vary things much. Speed everyday

In this thread: guys who never ran fast and are salty

Unpopular truth wrote:

There is no factually scientific basis for periodization. Its popularity is a result of a false method of validation (assuming that whatever elite athletes do is corrrct).

Tudor Bompa. Look him up. It's an old topic. You'd have to go further back then Bompa, but, Bompa summarizes it nicely.

Op,

Every body is different. Periodization works well for nearly all. It is only one tiny part in figuring out what works best for you.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Tudor Bompa. Look him up. It's an old topic. You'd have to go further back then Bompa, but, Bompa summarizes it nicely.

I'm very familiar with Bompa. He, along with other @ssholes like Yessis and Siff is responsible for introducing Russian training religion to the West.

comma wrote:

Well, you do adapt to training, after a certain period of training and adaptation you need to change the stimulus to continue to progress.

If you train all the systems all the time without periodization you will become stale and not progress. Variety is not only the spice of life.

You have some good answers here, some that answer a similar question very well, and a few that I disagree with.

Most people who contributed have brought up progression which is an immensely important part of training and many mentioned either how to progress by making workouts more difficult or by saying what things you might see from one period to another. But since the original question was, "why do we periodize our training," I think that comma here is right.

We periodize things for progress, yes, but even before that we periodize because we get used to a stimulus and no longer receive as much benefit from it to justify doing it. Lets use a very simplified example of a person who has never run a day in their life and today decided that they want to improve their mile as much as they can. So what do we do?

lets say we make them run 1 mile a day. For the first month this might work great for them, they'll probably shoot up like a weed but after running a mile a day for 3 months do you think they're still going to improve in a 1 mile race? its probably unlikely. So again, what do we do? Lets make them run 2 miles a day. There they go shooting up like a weed again as they are now running longer than their race distance and are getting more comfortable. After 3 months? they probably haven't improved for a while, we waited too long to adjust the stimulus again. Lets do 4 miles every other day and 2 miles on the days between... This goes on for a while.

We are more clever than this and don't simply add one more mile a day but instead modulate workouts by type, distance, rest, pace, etc. making us much more dynamic and balanced runners.

But to be thorough lets think about the converse example (ie. no periodization). Here we progress just as many people have mentioned but we take no time to let our bodies adjust to a workload, we simply progress. So week 1 our never-run-a-day-in-his-life runner does 1 mile a day, week 2 he does 2 miles a day, week 3..., week 10 he does 100 miles a week. So which week do you think we injured this guy? I'm guessing week 4 he regretted his decision to let us coach him but week 5 he switched to Hokas and week 6 may or may not have tested a new god each morning as he tied said Hokas. My point is that we didn't let him adjust to anything, we just progressed him and assumed that the benefits were immediate; they aren't.

So yes, I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of the progressions I saw here, but to answer the question as to "why" we periodize, its because we take time to adjust to a particular stress (or we don't get used to it and either over train or get injured) but we need to move onto a new "step" that progresses us forward and again gives us some time to get used to that new stress. So always keep in mind that a stress needs to be provided and a period of adjustment needs to be allowed.

Lucid As F*ck wrote:

maybe this: wrote:

The reason we periodize is because we can't maintain peak fitness forever without breaking down.

This thread could have ended here.

I agree that you should stay in contact with all elements of your fitness -- including speed -- throughout the year, but you have to periodize to get your best results.

If you reach a level of fitness that you can sustain for months on end, that's cool.

What's cooler are higher -- and inherently more unstable -- levels of fitness.

Unpopular Truth wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Tudor Bompa. Look him up. It's an old topic. You'd have to go further back then Bompa, but, Bompa summarizes it nicely.

I'm very familiar with Bompa. He, along with other @ssholes like Yessis and Siff is responsible for introducing Russian training religion to the West.

Except, periodization has been researched to death.

I agree that many questionable Russian techniques were taken as gospel when it was mostly doping.

I appreciate the citation of a meta-analysis instead of "unpopular truth" just spouting off about how he knows certain things. Prioritization is a good thing. If he can't figure that out, then.....lol. He is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

the wise sage wrote:

We periodize because that's the human nature. Fall, winter, spring, summer. Always different work. We're not mentally (and to some extent physically) disposed to do the same kind of work all year round.

And the Africans have sun all year?

Also it is impossible to lose training stimulus in running because all you have to do us run faster. You could build to 100mpw with 3 workouts and never change your routine, only the pace. It's like weight lifting they do 3 lifts squat, bench, dead lift all year, they just add more weight.

Periodisation is just something coaches made up to make running more complicated than it is. Just like stretching you don't need it, just run.