Concept2 Forum

I've been reading "time crunched cyclist" by Carmichael (Armstrong's coach). The plan is based on doing two 8 min max effort tests, and then grading your workouts as a % of HR or power from the tests. The bike plan includes shorter 2 min intervals and longer 6-10 minute intervals, which correspond pretty well to 500m or 2k interval sessions. With the TCC plan all the workouts are based on the original test for a 10-12 week schedule and then you take a 4-8 week recouperation period and start again (if you have time left in the season). The 8-10 minute intervals are based on hitting 90% of avg test heart rate, so you are not aiming for max efforts. Every 3rd week is a lighter schedule.

Now looking at the pete plan, there may be factors which don't follow Carmichael's structure to avoid overtraining:
- doesn't build in rest weeks
- no recuperation months.
- workouts can continually "ratchet" so that 2k intervals for instance could bring your to 100% max HR on each workout.

In the Pete's plans favor is some built in "lag" elements such as only moving forward every 3rd week (new cycle of the same exercises) and also the "advance based on average time, but only go all out on last interval".

So if the Peter plan is putting you towards overtraining, how do you know? Stagnation?
Might gains be faster once early gains have been used up on the pete plan, by using lower efforts for distance workouts that keep you below max HR?
Would building in a periodic "every 4th week" rest week be a good idea?

Any trainingcyle should have periods of relative rest, a scudule that has that not build in will always end in a crash, at some point the body can,t adapt anymore and overtraining/underrecovery will take over.
Something like the Pete plan is not ment to follow for 2 long, in my opinion it can be used to build to a peakform in a few waves.
Tracking hf both in rest and training is a good way of following your recovery. A higher rest rate or not being able to get your maxrate up are both signs of underrecovery.

I completed six cycles (18 weeks) consecutively on PP, and in retrospect I should have taken a rest cycle or two. The final cycle was very difficult, almost dreadful to do every morning. It's also the mental fatigue of doing the same thing, but having to do it faster than the last, and here I was thinking the last time around this was pretty damn hard already.

Anyway, I certainly felt 'burnt out' by the end.

Somewhere in Pete's writings he talks about building in cycles of easy hard. I

I actually disagree that you need built in rest cycles. In fact there are those who argue that gradual steady improvement is better (see the wolverine plan which has produced a number of world records--note the Pete Plan is a very watered down version of the Wolverine Plan). But to do that you need not to over train (and just as importantly not under recover--which is actually different). You also have to monitor yourself and know your body well, improve very gradually and be committed to long term improvement.

There is research that shows that for most people their hard days are not hard enough and their easy days are not easy enough. The intervals in the Pete Plan are a long way from extreme. There is no reason you cannot do them every week for a very long time without burn out provided you don't go too hard on the other days. If you find you times on the intervals are not improving by (.1 faster pace per week) then you probably are training too hard on the other days.

Nosmo wrote:If you find you times on the intervals are not improving by (.1 faster pace per week) then you probably are training too hard on the other days.

Oh come on, Nosmo. There comes a time for all of us when there is no way to improve every week. For a lot of us it is mostly a matter of trying to slow down the rate of slowing down. We can't blame it on training too hard. It is just a matter of aging faster than we would like. To ease off on the training on account of not improving each week would be a copout. Eventually one reaches a point where it is necessary to increase recovery time, since the body's recovery capability slows down.

Bob S.

Bob S. wrote:

Nosmo wrote:If you find you times on the intervals are not improving by (.1 faster pace per week) then you probably are training too hard on the other days.

Oh come on, Nosmo. There comes a time for all of us when there is no way to improve every week. For a lot of us it is mostly a matter of trying to slow down the rate of slowing down. We can't blame it on training too hard. It is just a matter of aging faster than we would like. To ease off on the training on account of not improving each week would be a copout. Eventually one reaches a point where it is necessary to increase recovery time, since the body's recovery capability slows down.

Bob S.

Yes of course.
However within a season if one is really following a good plan you should steadily improve--even you, if you set out to train for the Crash-B's. You may start slower then last year and your final time may be slower then the previous year, but if you start training for Crash-B's in the fall, I would expect you to steadily improve until your race as long as you could train consistently (I know that is a big IF!). I don't really know if the .1 second would apply to some one your age.
For older people, I may also take back my statement about the Pete Plan intervals not being extreme. Based on my training with those over 65 two times a week may be too much for hard intervals (or perhaps they just weren't taking it easy enough the other days).

The PP has numbers like this:

1 Short: 8x500 = 4000m. Done at my level, say 200W x 16' = 3200 Watt minutes (W') total work.
1 Medium: 5x1500 = 7500m. Again at my level, say 160W = 5*7' = 5600W'
2-4 Long: 8-15k. Say for me 120-130W, 40-70': 5000 to 8000 Watt minutes.

This suggests 11.5k fast and 16-60k slow; some would say, too much fast work.

So if such work leads to any -ve effects, I'd cut out the medium, do the short shorter and harder, add a long one even slower and rest whenever I feel like it. This means more overall work more polarised, not less, but at 120W there's not a lot to recover from.

Watts proportional to ratings at all times to maintain quality.