Planning recovery in training!?

The Forums Ask Us.
1

I think that everyone here at the CF.com is familiar with wave-like loading principle, which states that after some progressive increase in loading there should be some period of decreased load… Most basic example is 3+1 in resistance training (3 weeks build-up, 1 week recovery ). But this is not the issue here.

The question is, wheteher this “unloading” is planned in advance (feed-forward) or on some feed-back basis (athlete performance, RPE, HR rest etc)? Why there should be unloading if athlete is not tired and his performance doesnt platoue, but rather there is progressive improvements? So, basically planning unloading in advance is misleading!

On the other hand, is there a real need for unloading (in resistance training)? As, Poliquin (based on Charlies experience) stated that if athlete performance is 5-7% less than planned there should be emediatelly stopping or exercise switching rather than doing “garbage” sets (“Quality over quantity”, and “less is more”). Also, he stated that after some time there should be a switching in training methods and loads to provide continual progression. Isnt this a wave-like loading, but not planned, spontaneusly happened!

On my own opinion, unloading shouldnt be planned, but rather let happened (let is a key word here) as a normal reaction due some rhytmic cycling in work capacity, biorhytm, fatigue, training emphasis, C.A.R. etc. So, athlete will choose his own work/recovery rhythms (based on his own dose-respons, adaptability, fatigue and recovery rate) if you LET him do it. “Letting him” doesnt mean athlete should plan his own workouts, but rather coach should do it based on his objective monitoring of athlete state (based on performance)

I dont want to write a long post here, but I must adress the issue what should be unloaded? Intensity or volume? Or both? Again, on my opinion, intensity is the key componenet of training and should be maintained, but the volume should vary. Decreasing intesity (over some treshold) automaticaly decreases working capacity (abilityes) and this is not the goal of unloading, but rather improving work capacity and managing fatigue. This is done by reducing volume of training (less reps, less training frequency etc.)
Opinions?

2

I think that you are right about most of the issues. but I have some cosmetic/semantic adds.

The question is, wheteher this “unloading” is planned in advance (feed-forward) or on some feed-back basis (athlete performance, RPE, HR rest etc)?

Isn’t it more suitable to name [unloading shouldnt be planned, but rather let happened: athlete performance, RPE, HR rest etc] feed-forward? I think that naming tihs regulation with feed-forvad-like-regulation is more suitable. but, that is not so important…

I dont want to write a long post here, but I must adress the issue what should be unloaded? Intensity or volume? Or both? Again, on my opinion, intensity is the key componenet of training and should be maintained, but the volume should vary. Decreasing intesity (over some treshold) automaticaly decreases working capacity (abilityes) and this is not the goal of unloading, but rather improving work capacity and managing fatigue. This is done by reducing volume of training (less reps, less training frequency etc.)
Opinions?

Why is the intensity key component of the TRAINING?
More specificaly intensity is the key componet of the gain [build-up], and volume is the key component of the relaxaton [recovery]. This leads me to one conclusion: preserve intensity in build-up period and use volume in recovery.
… combine this with wave like loading principle and there should be somekind of solution.
of course there is other components you should take care of like manual loading regulation. I personaly prefere manual regulation of weight in weightlifting exercises for example, and also in cleans. What is the physiological impact of low intensity or low volume is one you should have on mind. I will log on later to continue on this topic.
regardz

3

While I can understand why you think Intensity is more important than volume, in sprinting terms you can’t run at 100% all of the time. You need to balance Sympathetic and Parasympathetic stress to achieve optimal results.

I guess it all has to do with the type of overtraining/overreaching that is occuring or you are trying to guard against by unloading.

If the CNS is being battered then perhaps unloading by reducing intensity is the way to go - because if your CNS is tired you won’t be running at 100% even if you try.

If you drop the volume but allow the intensity to stay the same what have you achieved? Less muscular overload but is it the muscles that were tired beforehand?

I guess someone like Pakewi is the best qualified to give a really good answer to this question…

TC

4

Supose both of you are right… that the volume/intensity should be reduced to allow recovery but that depends on what athlete need! So, your goal is providing a optimal stimuli for the athlete in the right time, basically this means that you cant plan the recovery but rather givie it when it needed!

How are you going to re-load athlete (decreasing volume or int, or both) depends on his reaction and performance. If athlete is unable to run 2x4x60m at the same quality (speed, sound of feet, relaxation etc. ) you should cut the sets and reps and call it a day. But if he is unable to do neither one rep of planned workout then you should cut the int (and switch to, lets say, tempo and general work).
Again, you as a coach must provide the most optimal stimuli for athlete to respond, improve! Providing an optimal stimuli is not based on planning but rather on “listening”…

For Blexy… Why cutting volume and not intenisty? Read this, but again, you will be getting all the data I have in paper form!
http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/A%20comparison%20of%20the%20five%20training%20elements.htm

5

BTW, this is the situation where OmegaWave could be a lot helpfull (I supose, I dont know because I didnt see it at work yet)! Why?

Because, to know when the athlete are tired and unable to do planned workout(s) you need to see their performances and based on that to make decisions (and recovery), but if you use data OW provides, you can know about athlete state without looking at his performance… But, is this 100% reliable? pakewi?

6

I will try to make myself more clear.
I didn’t wrote not to cut intensity and to cut wolume:

This leads me to one conclusion: preserve intensity in build-up period and use volume in recovery.

means that the goal is to maintain intensity based on performance and psy/emotional/physiological status of athlete.

and use volume in recovery proces… manipulate with recovery… in the appropriate way…
confused reply, bad english… I am in a fu*ing hurry.

7

give an example please…

8

To prevent injury. In every issue of Powerlifting USA there’s a profile or two of a top lifter. I swear every other one includes an account of an injury and half of them read like - ‘I was peaking for the meet, hitting PRs, and everything was going fine until . . .’

If the sprinter is putting together progressively faster times, then he is also subjecting the tendons, muscles, joints, CNS and whathaveyou to progressively greater stress than ever before. Backing off a bit may not seem needed now, but can prevent the injury that is coming three months from now if loading (Int. or vol.) keeps going up.

Sometimes the first sign of overdoing it is injury. Just as you don’t wait to feel sick to take measures to stay healthy, you don’t wait for signs of problems to prevent them.

Duxx, I know you know a lot, so I don’t get your concept here. I see you’re suggesting the athlete’s unloading be timed w/ his specific needs, so I somewhat agree, but as I say above, sometimes there’s no sign of trouble till something breaks.

Decreasing intesity (over some treshold) automaticaly decreases working capacity (abilityes) and this is not the goal of unloading, but rather improving work capacity and managing fatigue.

And preventing injury. Plus, work capacity isn’t going to leave the building with a week of unloading. Indeed it may allow for an increase in work capacity since you’re given the system time to regenerate.

It’s a little tricky knowing how much to unload, but IMO, too little work in the unloading week(s)
is better than too much. Again, the goal in these weeks is not to cause a training response, but to allow for one.

9

Interesting and usefull data! Tnx Juggler! I think we should incorporate both, and feed-forward and feed-back mechanism of control/regulation of training…
So there should be planned unloading (to prevent injury) but also a unloading if athlete need it based on his normal rhytmic cycling in work capacity etc…

I was thinking that waves are not planned but actualy a consequence of normal proceses in athlete body, but you made your point, but this should be more argued…

10

The example of weighlifters is a case study… we need more data on their training regime to make some conclusion did they or did they not had waves in their loading…
About that sprinter… I am not sayin that unloading is not neccesery, but I want to say it should not be planned in advance. Dont you think that his ability to run faster is not followed by muscle, tendons and joints adaptation? There is heterocnicity (different speed of adaptation) so maybe this is the reason for planning some back-off. I am interested what pakewi and Charlie have to say about this issue…