designing a training program worthy of indoor cycling 2.0 carl foster, ph.d., facsm department of...

32
Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Upload: archibald-norris

Post on 21-Jan-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0

Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport

Science University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Page 2: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La
Page 3: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Training Goals What do you want to achieve

Health Fitness Event challenges Competitive performance

What price are you willing to pay? Time Energy Injury risk

Page 4: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Adaptation: The Unique Essence of ExerciseAdaptation: The Unique Essence of Exercise

Milo of CrotoneMilo of Crotone 66thth Century BC wrestler from Crotone (Italy) Century BC wrestler from Crotone (Italy) First person to systematically train for improved First person to systematically train for improved

performanceperformance Let to Let to ProgressionProgressionprinciple of exercise trainingprinciple of exercise training

farm boyfarm boy lifted newly born bullocklifted newly born bullock lifted growing bullock every subsequent daylifted growing bullock every subsequent day eventually was able to lift full grown bulleventually was able to lift full grown bull became the strongest man in the worldbecame the strongest man in the world Became 6x Olympic championBecame 6x Olympic champion

540540--520BC520BC Lost 7Lost 7thth Olympic (516 BC) title to competitor with Olympic (516 BC) title to competitor with

‘‘new techniquenew technique’’ Reached limits of normal adaptationReached limits of normal adaptation Failed to find a new way to improveFailed to find a new way to improve

Lead Crotons to military victory over Sybaris in Lead Crotons to military victory over Sybaris in 510 BC510 BC

Page 5: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Adaptation: The Good and the BadAdaptation: The Good and the BadEffects and Side Effects

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000Training Load

EffectSide Effect

Page 6: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Training Load The Driver of Adaptation

Frequency 5-7 days/week 2-4 days/week

Intensity Moderate 50-85% HRR Zones

Time 30 min 30-50 min >2.5 distance weekly

TRIMPS ?

Be RealisticBe Realistic

100

101

102103

104

105

106107

108

109

110

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Carl Foster 1967

800m=2:01:1396 m/ min-13.98%

Peter Snell 1964

800m=1:44.3=WR460 m/ min

1.5% Additional adaptationattributable to training

% Improvement

Training Load

402 m/ min1:59.4

Page 7: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Exercise is Medicine

Take an hour’s walk,every day,

10 minutes before lunch

Page 8: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Exercise is MedicineStatins, AntiHypertensives & Walking

5 year reduction in mortality vscontrol Statins=1%

Shepherd J: NEJM 333: 1301, 1995

Antihypertesives=0.8% Hebert PR: Arch Intern Med 153:

578, 1993

Walking 1-2 miles/day=6% >2 miles/day=9% Hakim AA: NEJM 338: 94, 1998

Exercise is Very Powerful Medicine

Page 9: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

An Apple a Day & An Hour a DayKeeps the Doctor Away

Page 10: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

I’ll Bet You (or your clients) Want More than Good Health & Basic Fitness

Page 11: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Building the Program Be healthy Have a comfortable routine baseline Add single ‘harder’ days up to 3 Mix intensity and duration to make ‘harder’ Analyze your goal task

Build up to it Remember:

Training is routine Competition/Goal achievement is special

Page 12: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Be Healthy Don’t start training off

the dregs of last season

Don’t start training while nursing an injury

Page 13: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Have a Comfortable Baseline 4-7 days per week ~30 minutes/day

Recovery days

Cross training Good recovery days

Page 14: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Progression

Time Progression-Linear Progression

0

30

60

90

120

150

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

Days

Tim

e (m

in)

Time Progression--2/1 Periodized

-10

20

50

80

110

140

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

Days

Tim

e (m

in)

Page 15: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

ProgressionRPE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

Days

Inte

ns

ity

Page 16: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

ProgressionTraining Load

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

Days

Lo

ad

Page 17: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

ProgressionWeekly Progression

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

Days

We

ekly

Lo

ad

+10%/week

Page 18: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

PeriodizationPeriodized Weekly Progression

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70

Days

Wee

kly

Lo

ad

Page 19: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Periodization of Training

Regular planned variation in trainingAddresses Fitness-Fatigue IssueProbably mainly important in athletesAllows for long term orderly progression of training load Micro cycles (usually within a week) Meso cycle (usually a few weeks) Macro cycle (usually several months) Annual plan (several macro cycles)

Where’s the Data?Muscle confusion principle?

Page 20: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Training PeriodizationMicro Cycle

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Days

Average Load=200/day=1400/week

Low monotony training

Page 21: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Training Periodization:Meso Cycle

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Weeks

3 Meso Cycles Demonstrating Microcycle Variation & Weekly Progression

Better in endurance athletes?

Page 22: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Training PeriodizationMeso Cycle

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3 Meso Cycles Demonstrating Microcycle Variation & Shock Microcycle

Better in sprint/power athletes?

Page 23: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Training Periodization: Meso Cycle

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3 Meso Cycles Demonstrating Microcycle Variation & Shock Microcycle with variation

Page 24: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Which Periodization Plan is Best?

No one knows Coaches are control freaks

Coaches (particularly in Eastern Europe) like to draw graphs

No controlled training studies with appropriate outcome measure

Hard to get normal subjects to train this hard

Hard to get athletes willing to accept randomization to ‘control group’

More varied training is more interesting = higher intensity?

Page 25: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Use Zones Right

Measuring Training IntensityMeasuring Training Intensity

Relative pace Relative pace --PO (critical velocityPO (critical velocity--% race velocity)% race velocity) HRHR--VOVO22 TargetsTargets HRHR--HLaHLaTargetsTargets RPE or RPE or sRPEsRPE Talk Test (Prof John Grayson, 1939, Talk Test (Prof John Grayson, 1939, ““climb no faster climb no faster

than you can speakthan you can speak””)) Can you speak comfortably?Can you speak comfortably?

YesYes Yeah, butYeah, but NoNo

Simple is good!Simple is good!

Page 26: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Use Zones RightNorwegian Skiers

Week 4 “Training Camp”

82

0

18

80

2

18

71

7

22

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below LT Around LT Above LT

% to

tal e

nd

ura

nce

ses

sio

ns

HF SRPE [Lactate]

Page 27: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Use Zones RightHow Do Athletes Actually Train?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3Training Zone

Per

cent

of

Tra

inin

g T

ime

Skiers

Cyclists

Elite Runners

Sub Elite Runners

Page 28: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Massed vs Distributed TrainingOne Leg Training Model in Sedentary Individuals

AK Hansen et al. Skeletal muscle adaptation: training tw ice every second day vs training once daily

J Appl Physiol 98: 93-99, 2005

High vs Low Glycogen Training

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tra

inin

g T

ime

(min

)

High

Low

High vs Low Glycogen Improvement

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Pmax Endurance

Imp

rov

em

en

t (%

)

High

Low

Page 29: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Massed vs Distributed TrainingAdditional High Intensity Training in Athletes

WK Y eo et al. Skeletal muscle adaptation and perfomance responses to once a day vs tw ice every second day endurance training regimens

J Appl Physiol 105: 1462-1470, 2008

60 Min Power Output1xDaily 2x/AlternateDays

+10.2% +12.2%300--331W 300--337W~46.80 km ~47.17 km

+0.37 kmNot Significant??

High vs Low Glycogen Training

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tra

inin

g T

ime

(min

)

High

Low

Background low intensity trainingHigh intensity training on alternatedays, or as second workout on heavy day

Page 30: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Two Levels of Training DistributionTwo Levels of Training Distribution

Training LoadTraining Load--Training Monotony Training Monotony (Foster)(Foster) Hard days Hard days vsvseasy dayseasy days Recovery or Rest DaysRecovery or Rest Days

Make sure you are recovering (e.g. preparing for hard training tMake sure you are recovering (e.g. preparing for hard training the next day)he next day) Training Preparation DaysTraining Preparation Days

Training DistributionTraining Distribution (Seiler)(Seiler) Percent time in relative zonesPercent time in relative zones 8080--1010--1010

Ease of monitoringEase of monitoring PowerPower--HRHR--VO2VO2--HLaHLa--GPSGPS Session RPESession RPE Talk TestTalk Test

Feedback to coachFeedback to coach

Page 31: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Coaches vs Athletes Skaters Training LOAD (Session RPE * Duration)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Easy Moderate Hard

CoachAthlete

1. Foster C, Heimann KM, Esten PL, Brice G, Porcari JP: Differences in perceptions of training by coaches and athletes. S Afri J Sports Med 8: 3-7, 2001.

Similar results in runners, swimmers, skaters, basketball players

Page 32: Designing a Training Program Worthy of Indoor Cycling 2.0 Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM Department of Exercise and Sport Science University of Wisconsin-La

Building a Training Program

Start healthy Progression Periodization Training Zones Massed vs Distributed

Hard day vs easy day