recovery based training

This is the best way for me to train. If I plan my workouts on any days of the week and can’t it is hard to deal with. I do try to have a set plan that I follow during the week but make changes as needed. This does not say that I don’t set my plan up based on my perdictable recovery times but normally I only work out hard when I feel up to it.

The key to planning is a balance between adapting to work to how you feel but not straying too far from the architecture of the year. Slight errors or timing can be expected but you must micromanage for the week and month.

Why can you not go with a set plan? Is it because you dont always feel like training every time you are ready to (physically), or because you are not always recovered for the planned session? Or any other reason, unpredictable/unsocial work hours?

I think it has something to do with the unperdictable loads that group training can bring during cycling. Races/group rides are by nature difficult to control the load leading to late recovery times messing up the plan. I might see this the same way as when someone increases training load because they feel good adding to their recovery times from the workouts.

The more experience you have with a training system and particular athlete, including yourself, the better you will be able to predicte what you will be able to handle and how fast you’ll recover. This is another reason not to chase fads and constantly overhaul you program, because you will always be dealing with the unknown, which makes it much harder to plan. However, in addition to physical status, you must also be flexible in order to deal with other disruptions such as bad weather, restricted access to training facilities (special events, competitions, etc.), as well as outside obligations which might pop up. The key is to go with the flow and adapt, and NEVER try to make up for lost training time; it’s gone, period.

Originally posted by Clemson
The key to planning is a balance between adapting to work to how you feel but not straying too far from the architecture of the year. Slight errors or timing can be expected but you must micromanage for the week and month.


i think I agree w/you but don’t you think that sometime straying from the plan is exactly what’s needed?

what I’m getting at is I’ve seen coaches (heck, i’ve done it myself) who are running into problems, but say “well we had x planned so we’re going to do x” it can be hard to admit that you’ve planned wrong, calculted recovery, progress, learning incorrectly – but sometimes we just don’t forecast well. Sometimes it’s impt to be the king of plan B.

heck sometimes during rehab/injury comebacks you’re planning on an every other day basis and then seeing how the athlete responds. it can be frustrating, but when they’re in that “touch and go” stage it’s tough to really plan 3-5 days ahead.

Originally posted by Flash
The key is to go with the flow and adapt, and NEVER try to make up for lost training time; it’s gone, period.

i think i’m being devil’s advocate today :slight_smile:

but really, is this what we really mean? for example, an athlete gets sick or hurt during specific prep. So to proceed with comp type loads when they come back to 100% doesn’t make sense even though it may be what you originally planned for the comp period.

We often get into trouble (I have) by throwing an athlete in with the rest of the training group when it appears that everything is good. Those people have been doing what was planned for the time period that the athlete was doing “plan B”.

So it would make sense to go back and do what was planned (or some version of it). When you skip prep periods you may be able to run very well based on talent, experience, and previous experience, but usually pay later in that quality of performance drops of somewhat rapidly.

So I would, at least, go back and do some what was lost in an albeit abbreviated fashion and then (for example) after indoor season try to fully establish the necessary “conditioning” levels to survive outdoor.

I think that’s a great point from Kebba.

I think that sudden gradient changes in volume/intensity curves is a lot of athlete’s undoing.

Building on Kebba’s comment, I think sometimes we need to be honest and maybe take a step back. This is often so hard to do for coach and athlete as its human nature to want to make up for lost time.

Such a paradox really patience being the means to running fast.

Patience is a widely absent quality in track, even though its totally free.

I personally find it hard to keep myself from training, even when i know i shouldn’t, so i do everything (outside of supllementation) i can to speed the recovery process. Is your problem that you have certain days that you don’t want to train, or you’re muscles are just too tired?

Plan is verb, not a noun.
Planning is a never ending
task of adjustments and fine tuning.

It’s been a long seven years…what about a training based recovery,finally?
Are really " recovery " and “rest” synonymous? Do “high” and “low” intensity still mean what they meant to people on this forum seven years ago?
How have we all changed over the years?

For me the most interesting question today is how recovery options may actually hinder adaptation. Removing waste products by external means will obviously allow you to train again sooner, but they may also remove the incentive for the body to change.

I can’t find little to point me in the right direction. In the lab there have been just a couple of studies, mainly on cold therapy. In the field, well few coaches (myself included) and athletes would be willing to cut back on recovery work and thus training volume.

What ever happened to Clemson?

It doesn’t seem to be any evidence that recovery type training will make you recover faster.

Sports Med. 2006;36(9):781-96.
Using recovery modalities between training sessions in elite athletes: does it help?
Barnett A.

Ah another typical “nothing works” study.

Supplementation accelerates recovery and there are plenty of studies to support this. I’m going to database search on this, I’ m sure there will be studies supporting differing recovery modalities.

You are right NFS. Just because we say it is so does not make it true.
Did you know that Charlie almost never spoke about his own athletic career? He had an intense dislike talking about his own running.
Charlie’s sprinting career ended before he was 25 years old.
Charlie was motivated to coach out of the frustrations he had having never done any work that was low intensity or recovery based work. He certainly did not invent this idea but he did learn from trial and error how tempo and shaking and tripling and core body circuits and pool workouts allow people to do more, recover faster from all work and give a person general fitness that is often overlooked.

And don’t forget that research has shown us that warming up isn’t necessary, massage does not enhance performance or recovery, static stretching is useless, and running on a treadmill is just as effective as running on a track.

Never let a PhD design your training program.

The research on warm up was based on stretching and had a number of flaws in the methodology. The studies on static stretching showed miniscule difference between the dynamic group v static group. The size of the sample group was also small. The majority of studies support the use of a warm up.

The studies on treadmill v normal running showed that biomechanical differences were minor. However minor biomechanical differences are significant. The problem is in the interpretation of results. My view is that 1% is sufficient proof that normal running is preferred over treadmill running.

To find value in research there is a need to review every study in the field to get the overall picture. One problem I’ve encountered with journalists and track coaches is that they place too much value on one study and don’t interpret results appropriately.