I cut back the weight load by only 10-20% during maintenance per CF, but I also have seen the benefit of CNS relaxation/recovery.
My best results have come during maintenance weights, but when this comes AFTER a short unloading phase (0% weights), and I noticed this effect during both indoor and outdoor seasons. There seems to be a benefit from allowing some CNS recovery after a heavy GPP/SPP/PRE period, but short enough so that the strength effects that Charlie warned about aren’t seriously compromised. The issue is balancing the CNS recovery period (which can be fairly short) with maintenance of strength (which needs to be short).
After a 16 week GPP/SPP/PRE cycle for the first (Indoor) phase, I have a 6-8 week COMP phase roughly like this:
weight
unloading <–RACE #1 in wk 2.
phase (10-20 days duration)
FIRST MAJOR COMPETITION (improved performance is here)
weight regeneration back to maintenance levels(including bench and squats)–2 weeks
maintenance phase (2+ weeks)
PEAK COMETITION (best performance is here)
A 0% weight period does seem to work if that period is kept short enough. Comments?
I have no doubt that it helped you, if you say so!
However, the “short period needed for CNS recovery” depends on the individual and his/her performance level; the higher the latter is, the longer the required period for CNS recovery and if this is the case, you can’t afford to eliminate weights IMO. It also depends on future plans of the season and what sort of a peak you want, as Charlie said above.
Thoughts?
Question about using the MaxStrength phase:
It appears that a specific MxS cycle of 3-1-3 only appears in the GPP, and then weight work reverts to Maintenance or Taper for the remaining phases. By triple periodizing you would have three opportunities to work on MxS.
…Is this a good approach or should MxS cycles reappear during portions of SPP or precompetition?
…If double periodizing or single periodizing (middle distances), does there become an even greater need to reintroduce MxS in SPP/Precompetition? (i.e. how long is reasonable to expect to “maintain” with low volume/high intensity)
I think is better if Mxs is placed in the SPP.
Yes,i would introduce MxS in every SPP…you have only to be careful in how you introduce it.(you can’t use always the 313 scheme).
Rauno
The longer the period (ie phase 1) the sooner the Max Str phase starts and the longer it lasts.
So for ph1, the max str will start in the GPP and go through into the SPP. The maintenance ph will have to start before sprint qualities can be maximized as CNS reserves are limited.
As each subsequent phase tends to get shorter, with less time between the phases, the GPP portion gets smaller and the max weights must move to the SPP. As the percentage of increase and duration gets progressively less, the stress from max weights interferes progressively less with the sprinting itself. Also, the lower the Max Str percentage target in your plan, the more flexibility you have in its application.
I find that every third week of a weight phase is a drop off - so it will smooth in, however if say the GPP is 6 weeks and you do the weigth phase twice do you have the third low week twice or take that week out and have just one low week at the end of the phase?
Context. Do you mean 2 high 1 low? Or 3 high and 1 low? If weights can move across phases, why does it matter how long the GPP is? Wouldn’t the only consideration be the length of the entire phase t the next comp period?
That’s why, I think, it’s always important to work backwards! If you start planning as you feel things should be almost irrespective of competitions, nine out of ten cases time won’t be enough for you…
Talking from experience here ( :o ); it’s getting better though!
We have heard much about Ben’s sprinting volumes but does anyone have any idea what his weightlifting volume was during Seoul? And if so, does anyone know how much during each phase (i.e. phase 1, 2, and 3). I don’t know if this question has been answered in any of the CF products or on this forum. I think 1 answer is on pg 95 of CFTS where the strength volume goes up and down in synchronization with the speed volume.
You were at the Vanc seminar where we covered this. Check the graph on Ben’s training from 87 to get an idea of rep numbers above 80%. I’ll get around to the 88 model soon, but, rest assured the upper body numbers were up to compensate for the injury problems.
Charlie,
would you prefer this “periodisation”, where strength and speed intensification (i.e., increase in intensity) occur concurrently vs. a “model” where one peaks first (e.g., weights on week 1) and track training follows (e.g., top speed on week 2)?
I was talking to a guy from UKSCA and the way they/he does things usually is to increase one of the two where the other is reduced and swap them next week.
I understand that the same “intensification” can’t be achieved via weights vs. track (i.e., less with weights), but if this is followed for a long time, there is no proper CNS recovery long term.
Of course, if both are intensified at the same time, this can cause problems, too… For example, what happens if you hit the track hard and you can’t lift high afterwards anyway? Shouldn’t you go home?
Were we supposed to get a graph on Ben’s training? I checked but the stuff that I got doesn’t have that graph. If this is on the Vancouver 2004 seminar DVD I don’t have it yet. Is it on the Vancouver Seminar 2004 DVD? I don’t have a very good long term memory unless I am constantly focusing on certain aspects.
the graph shows Vol but the intensity will also vary according to demand- on an overall basis -ie sub-max speed sessions, based on the plan- but also on a reactive basis with the speed-work ordered first in the session as the highest priority.
Nick, I always tried to use a similar approach myself and found out the real maestro is the one who in the meantime learns how to appropriately manage the sub-max intensities,as Charlie,Master of Strategy, just pointed out.
I don’t have a very good long term memory unless I am constantly focusing on certain aspects.