I really like the Hi.LO concept, and I understand there are some speed volume variations in CF templates:However, I have not so clear how would charlie implement a 2:1 or 3:1 for example, deloading speed volumes and weigths, while mantaining SE
As far as I know, pfaff does stress a similar sequence, not sure for SE…and in italy we use 2:1 cycles often, mantaining some kind of SE.
A 2:1 cycle is used by Pfaff and the Italian model because they involve 2 Speed and 2 Speed End sessions per week.
I’ve found a 3:1 schedule suffices because we use 2 Speed and 1 Speed End session per week. Taken over 40 weeks training in a year (not unusual given tapering, meets, recovery, etc), you get:
Pfaff and Italian system have approx 54 intensifying speed sessions and 54 intensifying SE sessions.
The method I use has approx 60 intensifying Speed sessions and 30 SE sessions.
Now consider quality and sustainability:
With a 4 high intensity/week sprint schedule, you have optimal recovery only for the first speed session in the week and are never optimally recovered for the SE work, making it unlikely for most to be able to keep intensifying even over 2 weeks in a 2:1 system . Although it is less of an issue with SE, it still results in lower SE quality than would be found in my system and the stong likelyhood that the Speed improvement curve will flatten out before the training period ends.
Objectively, where would you say is the biggest likelihood of an injury? All being equal, if this is ever possible…
More sessions with less recovery and therefore, perhaps less of an appropriate intensity anyway on one hand; slightly fewer sessions with proper/better recovery and always at the right intensities on the other…
I think I’ve answered the question my self and I know people are not trying to injure athletes ( :rolleyes: ), but glad to hear others! Especially if a 2:1 scheme has been tried!
Thanks!
PS put this way, the accumulative stress of lack of appropriate recovery may be apparent.
great answer charlie…still have to figure out something,but really helpful…aas for being more injuryprone…maybe trying to run fast being tired, and not running so fast in reality, pose more problmems…
Whatever system is employed, the greatest injury risk is during the late stages of an intensification schedule when regeneration has been insufficient. If you sence this situation approaching, stop the intensification right away and move to the recovery segment. That said, there will be aspects of the intensification period when slightly sub-max work will be employed. Especially in the early part of a new phase, improvement may well be shown even when operating at sub max.
As a function of supercompensation or heightened fitness from the prior phase? Effect of delayed adaptation? Or from a more complete period of recovery?
there are competing factors at work here:
First, the weights are at their highest challenge earlier than the speed in any phase as the loading of competing HI elements must be reduced to maximise the speed portion.
Second, the overall continuous stress of all elements rises throughout the phase even with a 3:1 or 2:1 scheme until some or all of the individual element loads are reduced, usually later in the phase.
So, it’s quite possible to have improvement across the board (sometimes easily) early on before the overall load sets in.
Also, as athlete level increases, PBs are harder to get, so the need to balance max with sub-max, element by element, also increases.
I had some feedbacks i like to share.
I did a 3+1. In the unloading microcycle i drop the volume of speed,strength quite much.
So,when i started the new loading week, in the first Hi intensity training session,the athlete was really ready to express at higher quality (too much),so at the end of the wonderful training,he was so tired he can’t recovery in 2 days.
Bottom line,in the next unloading microcycle i think i won’t drop much sprint volume,or the first training session would be of less volume-intensity.
Any thoughts about ?
Remember that you still need to advance and so the unloading must not be too pronounced, mostly by a drop in intensity. Also, the earlier in the phase, the less you drop on the unloading week as intensification hasn’t advanced far enough (it WILL advance too rapidly, as you discovered, if you lower the workload too far)
Aside from injury, would there be any other problems with increasing intensification non-linearly for short periods (1 or 2 sessions very low volume) within phases to lessen the chances of a dynamic stereotype forming?
Could this enhance the adaptation to subsequent training sessions?
A 2:1 cycle is used by Pfaff and the Italian model because they involve 2 Speed and 2 Speed End sessions per week.
I’ve often wondered how athletes can recover under this type of system. To tie into another thread here, when I saw a 3 week cycle designed by Stu MacMillan, who uses a similar structure, I came away saying where’s the recovery? Just looked like an attempt to optimize too many qualities at once.
How do athletes advance under systems such as these?
Variability can be an assist to avoid a plateau but be VERY careful not to jump up too much or you’ll consistently run into trouble. Stiffness is the enemy of adaptation and work exposure and you want to avoid it if at all possible.
At the beginning of Phase one, you have the “in-and-out” drills that create variability and eventually are found less and less in the schedules as intensity rises, requiring the judicious use of max and sub-max work.
Remember the expression: “Buy me, buy my dog” You can’t throw in the part of a program you like and then dump in something else you like from somewhere else. A 3:1 schedule employing 2:1 work is trouble waiting to happen- just wait for the injuries as they’re surely comming.
I learn so much every time I read CF’s commentaries. Brain the size of a planet. Your headaches must be massive 
You’re mixing up my head with my butt. i can understand that as i often have a hard time telling one from the other!
So you too suffer from Ed Zachary Disease ! (see humour thread)
Ed Zachery right!
Any chance you could elaborate a bit more on your 3:1 / 2:1 comment. Not too sure what that would look like.
My point was that programs that have the structure of 2 speed and 2 special endurance sessions per week have so much intensity built in that there must be a recovery week built in after every two weeks. Even then, it’s tough to stay on top of recovery.
If you use that approach and intensify for three weeks each time, dramatically reducing the recovery that’s marginally adequate as it is, well, you’re going to have a problem sooner or later.
but isnt it possoble, that the whole periodasation is not a good method for everybody?
i tried it, but i just get slower, then have to get my form…
If i train in short mesocycles like 3-week-cycles, i can better control your form…