Tag: Training Plans

This article was made possible through the generous support of our voluntary subscribers. If you value coverage like this, please support FasterSkier with a voluntary subscription.

As this ski season wraps up, many of us coaches are doing similar work. Using spreadsheets or a popular training platform, we map out training for the year. We plan the yearly hours, monthly hours, and weekly hours, along with defining the training intensity distribution. We also plan how long and over-distance sessions should be, and maybe how much high-intensity training we should include, etc.  I have done the same in the past.

Nowadays, my yearly plans include almost none of those things, but rather it is a general road map of how I might want the training loads to progress, what type of high-intensity, neuromuscular work, strength training focus, technique development, training camps, testing sessions, and a general concept of where we start in April or May. We must be able to adjust training on the fly based on an assessment of how athletes’ recovery and adaptation, week to week, with the training and developing fitness.

In this article, I want to make a case for the changes I have made. Why? Because these detailed hours and training-intensity distribution plans we make are about as good as the day they were written. We then must avoid the temptation to implement training in May, June, or July just because we wrote it down in April. There is no way we can anticipate in April how an athlete will respond to training next month, much less than 2-6 months down the road.

In discussion with many athletes and coaches I have consulted with in the last four to five years, I believe the biggest challenge faced is how and when to increase training load within a training year. For reference, I use TRIMP to define the metabolic load. TRIMP is described as a modeled internal-load metric or composite index based on exercise duration and HR-derived intensity weighting. TRIMP is not perfect because it is based on heart rate parameters, so power and strength training, mechanical loads are not accounted for. I find TRIMP an excellent proxy for the loads of all endurance training.

Others simply use hours to plan and measure the loads. The challenge is difficult when just looking at hours, how to compare an hour of easy training versus an hour of hard training. Then, looking at percentages of time in zones or with other training methods does not define the load or focus the training on the desired adaptation.

I am not going to address the year-to-year increases simply because all the assorted tables recommending volume of training at an age are based on population averages. The goals of the athletes, the athletes’ training age, training history, and many other potential factors. Just assigning training based on a table is foolish without considering these other factors. In most cases, athletes will train enough if the right principles are followed.

When we are coaching athletes, we should only increase loads because of improved fitness not in an attempt to drive fitness gains. The decision to increase loads should come from evidence that the athlete(s) have absorbed the current load, not simply because it is a new month and the plan calls for a month-over-month increase. I believe that in the past we have used templates or models that have called for big month-to-month increases. The basis of building fitness is consistency and adaptation to the training. In many cases, we can go as long as 2-3 months at a very similar or very small increase in load.

I am far from certain how coaches plan training these days, but others and I in the past have planned training based on monthly and weekly hours. In my days, I used to start in May with 50 hours, and by November, I was training more than 100 hours. Then the weekly progression within those months might go 12 hours, 14 hours, 16 hours, 10 hours or something like that. Even back then, how does a 50-hour month prepare you to do a 60-hour month, how does a 12-hour week prepare you to do a 14-hour week? What I learned more than 30 years ago. It doesn’t work that way; even if an athlete completes that kind of protocol, it does not mean it worked; it just means they survived it.

The research and experience suggest that higher monthly volume and small periodic increases are better for building long-term fitness and performance, with far less risk than the typical plans that ramp up training with increases of 10-15-20% per month. Many old-school thoughts persist that we must increase volume to stimulate further improvements. That is an invalid belief and has been shown to be in much research and analysis. If we are in fact building fitness, we are moving faster at every intensity. Isn’t that already an increase in load? Recruiting more muscle fibers and motor units aerobically, improving mitochondrial density and function,  improving aerobic enzymes in more muscle fibers, among other aerobic adaptations.

I look for three layers of signals: performance stability, physiological response, and behavioral cues.

The stability of performance in training is easily measured with simple technology, such as heart rate and GPS. Prior to increasing loads, the athlete should show improvement or stable performance in workouts. The aerobic training sessions should feel consistent and easy, with very little or no heart rate drift through the workouts. So, a simple training session once a week, once every two weeks, around a standard loop, both for high-intensity and aerobic training, can tell us much.

The key workouts should show repeatable performance levels from week to week. The pace athletes can maintain at aerobic intensity should gradually and slowly improve, and the technique should stay stable and efficient throughout the workouts.

Indicator	What it suggests
Same HR but faster pace, HRV is improving	Aerobic adaptation
Same workout feels easier, HRV is stable or improving	Load is absorbed
Ability to repeat intervals without extra fatigue	Ready for progression
If workouts are still producing large fatigue swings, the system is still adapting and increasing load is premature.

 

As I have written previously for FasterSkier, older junior ( U18’s) athletes, masters, and elite athletes, I think it is important to use HRV to assess recovery. Using HRV, we can see whether the athletes are recovering predictably between sessions. We can see the stability or improving response their training, and we can assess whether the training loads are sustainable.

Useful signals:

• Resting HR stable
• HRV 7-day trend stable or improving
• Sleep quality normal
• Muscle soreness minimal after aerobic sessions
• The data and the athlete reports feeling normal again within ~24 hours

If recovery between sessions is incomplete, increasing load compounds fatigue rather than builds fitness. The rush to hit hourly objectives and the failure to respond to accumulating fatigue are the biggest causes of maladaptive training.

The critical question HRV can help to address. Are the current loads the athlete is doing correct? HRV, especially RMSSD trends collected consistently, can help flag whether an athlete is tolerating training well. But HRV should be interpreted alongside performance, subjective recovery, resting HR, sleep, and life stress rather than used as a standalone decision rule. In some cases, this may mean adjusting other areas of life; in others, we may simply have to reduce the training loads. Simply low HRV indicates a compromised ability to recover from and adapt to training

A good indicator of readiness is the athlete’s ability to handle training density. Most athletes should have at least one rest day per week. During a training period, the athlete should be able to handle 3-5 moderate training days in a row without feeling accumulated fatigue, and the quality of workouts remains normal and stable.

The occasional longer sessions should not disrupt the next day’s planned training, and recovery should be normal the following day. If an athlete is doing double sessions, the second session of the day should not be carrying excessive fatigue from the morning session, and the quality, speed, pace, or intensity of the second workout should be consistent.

When the athlete’s readiness and physiological measures indicate that an increase in load is appropriate, there should only be a slight increase in volume. Make a few sessions per week a little bit longer, followed in the future by adding a workout or two per week

Training load should only increase when the muscles and connective tissue are tolerating the training. If there is persistent tendon soreness, joint irritation, muscle tightness, or recurring niggles are common, it is not appropriate to increase the loads. Aerobic fitness improves faster than structural durability, which is why injuries often appear right after a volume jump.

We also need to be aware of and watch for behavioral cues in the athletes, not just the recovery and performance data. We should look for the athlete’s motivation to train and their assessment of the RPE (rating of perceived exertion) for a given workout. If the perceived exertion of a given workout is increasing, it is not a positive signal. Finally, we should ensure that athletes’ nutrition is good, and their body weight is stable.

As a practical guideline, I would recommend increasing load only after a period of 3-6 weeks, where we can see stable adaptation and improvement in training and recovery measures. When we look at elite training, we always see the training progression is often much slower than people expect.

Training Phase	Progression Pattern
Base Phase	+5–10% volume every 3-6 weeks, but only if all inputs are positive.  If using TRIMP or Training Peaks TSS the load increase should never exceed 15-20%
Race Prep Phase	Maintain a stable volume, intensity increase slowly from the base phase
Competition phase	Volume and Training load decreases slightly; intensity is maintained or increased due to race load.

 

As useful guidelines for coaches. If a training day or a week feels heroic, it is too big. Most likely, all the heroic training did was build fatigue and greatly slow recovery and adaptation. Sure, the athlete can do it occasionally, but it in no way means the load improves fitness or performance, or that the athlete adapts to it. My rule of thumb is that the longer it takes for an athlete to recover from a workout, a week, or a month of training, the less adaptation that is possible. When I shared this comment regarding high-intensity workouts with Zach Caldwell, I asked him when we should adapt to them. His response was Thursday! Not next Thursday, not a Thursday next month. Thursday!

An effective training progression should feel well-tolerated for weeks. Fitness improvements are built on consistent, manageable weeks. Where the fitness is developed through compounded training, not the occasional massive week. I have seen it repeatedly, it is big increases in training load, too much, too soon, that ultimately leads to declining performance and overtraining. Sure, elite athletes train massive weeks, but to get there, they adapt to training every year, step by step.

Increases in training load should be almost invisible over weeks and months as athletes develop. Over the years of training, the increases are clearly visible and large.

In summary, increase training load when:

1. Current workouts are repeatable and controlled
2. Athletes recover following training days, normally within ~24 hours
3. No structural soreness or injury signals
4. Motivation and energy are normal
5. This training performance has improved, and recovery has been stable or improving for 3-6 weeks

 

Help Support Our Olympic Coverage!

If you value the thoughtful work and access FasterSkier provides, please consider becoming a Voluntary Subscriber. Your support directly fuels our work to cover the people, places, and moments that make our sport special.

Join the FasterSkier community!