Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
This document synthesizes and expands upon the core training philosophies discussed in the podcast. It is intended for athletes and students of exercise science who wish to move beyond basic training templates and develop a more nuanced, effective, and individualized approach to their physical development.
The decision to change a training plan is a critical one that should be driven by logic and data, not by trends. The podcast introduces a foundational philosophy for making these decisions.
A common pitfall in athletic communities is the tendency to adopt the training methods of elite or successful athletes, a phenomenon referred to as “trend chasing.”
The Flawed Premise: The assumption is that if a specific workout or methodology works for a champion, it will work for everyone.
The Reality: Elite athletes often succeed in spite of, not necessarily because of, certain extreme training methods. Their success is primarily a product of genetic predisposition, years of consistent training, and a deep foundation of fitness. Simply copying their peak-season workouts without their underlying physiology and training history is a recipe for failure or burnout.
The Guiding Principle: Before adopting a new training method, ask: “Is this appropriate for my physiology, my training history, and my current goals?”
The most important rule in training is consistency. If your current training plan is yielding measurable and positive results, there is no logical reason to change it. Athletes often feel a premature need to introduce complexity or novelty when simple, consistent work is still effective. Change should be a response to a problem, not a response to boredom.
A change in training is warranted under specific circumstances:
Plateau: You have stopped seeing progress in key metrics despite consistent execution of your plan. For example, your 20-minute power is no longer increasing with threshold-focused workouts.
Shift in Goals: Your target event or desired outcome has changed, requiring a different set of physiological attributes.
Ineffectiveness: The training you are doing is not producing the specific adaptation required to achieve your goals.
Before any changes are made, a systematic and honest self-assessment is required. This process is known as a gap analysis.
Definition: A gap analysis is the process of comparing your current state of fitness against the physiological demands of your goal. It answers two questions: “Where am I now?” and “Where do I need to be?”
The Process:
Define the Goal: Be specific. “Win the local criterium” or “Complete a 100-mile gravel race in under 7 hours.”
Analyze the Demands: Break down the goal into its core physiological components.
Criterium Example: Requires high anaerobic capacity, excellent repeated sprint ability, and a strong aerobic foundation to recover between efforts and last the full race.
Hill Climb Example: Requires a high power-to-weight ratio, a high VO2 max, and excellent lactate tolerance.
Assess Your Current State: Use power data, past race results, and honest self-assessment to create a profile of your strengths and weaknesses.
Identify the “Gap”: The difference between step 2 and step 3 is your gap. This gap dictates your training focus. If your goal requires repeated sprinting but your power profile shows a weakness in 15-30 second efforts, that is your gap. Your training should be designed explicitly to close it.
Once you’ve decided to try something new, the implementation must be methodical.
Athletes often implement new training with excessive zeal, for example, deciding to do “only Zone 2” for six months. This is a crude and often counterproductive approach.
The Better Way: Gradual Integration. Instead of a complete overhaul, introduce the new stimulus carefully. If you want to add VO2 max work, start with one session per week. See how your body responds before considering a second session or a focused block.
Minimum Effective Dose: The goal of training is not to find the maximum dose you can tolerate. It is to find the minimum effective dose required to stimulate a positive adaptation. This approach minimizes fatigue, maximizes recovery, and allows for more sustainable long-term progress.
Training is a feedback loop of stimulus -> fatigue -> recovery -> adaptation. You must actively monitor this process.
Timeframe for Response: For most interval-based training, you should see a positive response (e.g., ability to hold more power, extend duration, or complete more reps) within one to two weeks, assuming adequate recovery. If you see no improvement after two sessions, something is wrong.
The Hierarchy of Troubleshooting: If you are not seeing the desired response, do not automatically “double down” on more intensity. Work through the following variables in order:
Global Recovery: Is your sleep, nutrition, and off-bike stress managed? This is the most common limiter.
Training Structure: Are your hard days too close together? Is your overall volume too high? You may need more rest, not more work.
Workout Execution: Are you performing the intervals correctly?
Knowing When to Pull the Plug: If you have adjusted the variables above and are still not responding positively, do not waste time and energy. It is better to end an ineffective training block early, recover, and try something else.
It is crucial to ensure you are measuring the right thing. The podcast highlights the classic example of VO2 max work.
The Problem: An increase in 5-minute power after a VO2 max block could be due to an improved aerobic ceiling (the intended goal) or an improved anaerobic capacity (a common side effect).
Isolating the Adaptation:
Triangulate Your Data: Don’t rely on a single metric. Compare changes across a spectrum of durations. For example, look at your 30-second power (anaerobic), 5-minute power (mixed), and 20-minute power (aerobic). A true VO2 max improvement should also positively influence your 20-minute power.
Consider the Stimulus: High-cadence (110+ RPM) VO2 max intervals reduce the muscular load, thereby minimizing the anaerobic contribution and better isolating the central (cardiovascular) aerobic system. Conversely, low-cadence, high-torque intervals will have a much larger anaerobic and muscular component.
Focused Block: A training period (e.g., 1-3 weeks) dedicated to overloading a single physiological system (e.g., a “VO2 Max Block” or a “Threshold/TTE Block”).
Mixed Block: A training period where workouts targeting different systems are included within the same week (e.g., one VO2 max workout and one threshold workout).
Application:
Mixed blocks are the default. For most of the year and for most athletes, mixed blocks are superior as they allow for the development and maintenance of multiple fitness facets simultaneously.
Focused blocks are a strategic tool. They are most effective for advanced athletes who have hit a plateau and require a large, concentrated stimulus to force a new adaptation. By isolating a single variable, they provide a potent overload. They are a tool for breaking through ceilings, not for general fitness development.
The full benefits of a hard training block are not immediate. This is a critical concept that many athletes misunderstand.
The Lag Effect: A concentrated block of high-intensity training (especially VO2 max) induces significant fatigue. The true fitness gains—or “supercompensation”—only manifest after a period of recovery and absorption.
Typical Timeline: For a hard VO2 max block, it can take anywhere from 2 to 6 weeks (with 3-4 weeks being typical) to fully realize the fitness improvements.
Practical Implication: You must schedule adequate recovery and lower-intensity training on the other side of a focused block. Finishing a block and immediately jumping into another hard block or a goal event will blunt the potential gains. Your periodization must account for this absorption phase.