As I’ve thought about how I structure my training, I’ve drifted toward a periodization model with two broad areas of focus: Physiology, and Performance
Physiological Training: where the focus is on improving physical fitness, endurance, mechanical and metabolic efficiency, etc. via structural and biochemical changes to your physiology.
Performance Training: where the focus is on improving your racing ability via training for the specific demands of your target races, improving your mental and physical ability to “suffer”, gaining race experience and confidence, and otherwise sharpening your fitness to a ‘peak’ performance.
To me, it seems like your physiology is only the first component of racing a bike at a high level. It’s your ticket to the start line. There is certainly a minimum necessary fitness level to reasonably expect to be competitive (or just survive) your target race, but what you can do with the fitness you have plays a far greater role in determining the outcome of your race.
The highest VO2max doesn’t win races, nor does the greatest Watts per kilo (except, maybe on Zwift..).
Science and Art
I’ve spent more of my time looking at Physiological Training, since I perceived that as being my first limitation to be able to compete at the level I wanted to race at.
This also aligned with most of the literature on Endurance fitness, where I felt comfortable investigating, interpreting, and prescribing training protocol based on the body of research available.
However, while empirical studies are very good at measuring and assessing change in physiological characteristics – VO2max, lactate accumulation, mitochondrial respiration, muscle composition, hormonal environment, etc. – these characteristics are not necessarily well correlated to actually winning races.
There is a much more limited understanding in the literature of how these measurable characteristics translate into winning performances on the road. Hence, differentiating between Physiological and Performance training.
If the literature reveals the process of finding the optimal quantitative training strategy, Coaching is the process of applying the optimal qualitative training strategy for an individual athlete. The science, and the art, if you will.
Broadening Fitness with Physiology
I treat winter Base as the time for Physiological Training. This is the time to build the Aerobic engine – or even more fundamentally, the chassis into which the engine has to fit.
This is where structural changes to endurance physiology are achieved. And where VO2max can be used as a valid metric to quantify and measure change.
My opinion based on what I’ve read in the literature is that Polarized Training is the best way to achieve sustainable, long-term, structural adaptations that will improve Endurance fitness.
Polarized training appears to be the best way to maximize adaptations without over-fatiguing, or burning out too early in the season. Athletes seem to benefit from the relatively low volume of high intensity, which is easy to maintain over the winter. And low-intensity feels “easy” and comfortable enough to be done in a high volume and frequency (but seems to offer benefits even at relatively low volumes)
Sharpening Fitness with Performance
As you get closer to your target races, Performance Training should become more race-specific and reflect the demands of your target events. This is where I think Tempo, Sweet Spot (SST) and Threshold training play an important role.
SST & Threshold intervals are mentally demanding and require both fitness and focus to sustain. I prefer to work on extending my power-duration curve at FTP from below, by spending longer (>20min) intervals in Sweet Spot.
For my Stamina Rides, I would start to add much longer intervals (60+ min) above the Aerobic Threshold, into Tempo zone. I find riding above Aerobic Threshold surprisingly more fatiguing and likewise mentally harder to sustain for long rides.
It seems to me that SST/Threshold and Tempo training are less efficient in terms of optimizing adaptation/fatigue trade-off, but these are race-pace efforts that you need to perform on race day.
Is this Reverse Periodization?
Reverse Periodization is a model that has been (still is?) popular with Cyclists & Triathletes. It’s based on doing more intensity over the winter, and more Base-like long-slow-endurance riding as the weather improves toward the beginning of the season. I haven’t done any substantial research into Reverse Periodization, but at best I’m ambivalent toward it.
I think my conception of Physiology & Performance Training, and prioritizing Polarized VO2max training through the winter isn’t quite Reverse Polarization, and isn’t quite ‘normal’ Periodization. But it takes a bit (hopefully the best bits) from both.
Physiological Training over the winter is spent either working very easy with Aerobic training, or very hard with HIIT (VO2max) training. And the transition toward Performance Training allows the intensity to converge toward the middle with Threshold and race-pace efforts.
Where do Other Energy Systems fit in?
I haven’t touched on the other major energy systems as much, simply because my own focus has been on Aerobic and VO2max for my current training blocks. But depending on your ‘natural’ physiology and your particular limiters, you may want to devote more focus toward ANaerobic or Neuromuscular efforts.
ANaerobic training would certainly fit into a Polarized Physiological Training block, where your hard workouts would be doing even harder and shorter AN intervals (sub-1min work intervals with long recovery intervals between efforts).
Neuromuscular efforts fit even more easily into a Polarized training plan, as these short, nonmetabolic sprint intervals can be thrown into a long Aerobic ride without inhibiting the target adaptive benefits (and possibly reinforcing them).
The Physiological/Performance Training model can be applied to an existing training plan without necessarily changing the timing of any particular training blocks. It can be used as a way to clarify the target goals and intent of the current training block, especially with no imminent races or target events coming up to motivate your training.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained by me trying to turn established periodization theory (Base > Build > Race) on it’s head, where the proof has been in the winning performances of thousands of athletes across sports, at all levels. That’s not what I’m trying to do.
Instead I think the Physiological/Performance Training model is an effective theoretical framework to align average best-practices as suggested by the literature with best coaching practices applied to real-life athletes.