Are you actually fitter after "tapering"?
neeb
Posts: 4,473
Take 2 situations:
1. You reduce training for 3 or 4 days before an event, and then take a week off completely.
2. You don't reduce training before the event, and then take a week off.
In the first situation you are likely to perform better on the event day than in the second situation. But will you have lost more fitness after the week off than if you hadn't tapered? On the one hand, in situation 1 you were in better condition (performance wise) at the start of the week off than in situation 2. But in situation 2, you will have done more training in the week before you took the week off. Do you actually lose "accumulated training benefit" (for the lack of any other term) when you taper, despite performing better afterwards? Is there in effect a delayed loss of fitness?
1. You reduce training for 3 or 4 days before an event, and then take a week off completely.
2. You don't reduce training before the event, and then take a week off.
In the first situation you are likely to perform better on the event day than in the second situation. But will you have lost more fitness after the week off than if you hadn't tapered? On the one hand, in situation 1 you were in better condition (performance wise) at the start of the week off than in situation 2. But in situation 2, you will have done more training in the week before you took the week off. Do you actually lose "accumulated training benefit" (for the lack of any other term) when you taper, despite performing better afterwards? Is there in effect a delayed loss of fitness?
0
Comments
-
Tapering doesn't make you fitter - its the training you do before the tapering that makes you fitter. Having said that, tapering is over-rated IMO and there is a huge difference between so-called tapering and taking an entire week of - which is not tapering...0
-
Imposter wrote:Tapering doesn't make you fitter - its the training you do before the tapering that makes you fitter. Having said that, tapering is over-rated IMO and there is a huge difference between so-called tapering and taking an entire week of - which is not tapering...
The training does not make you fitter until you have recovered and adapted from the training. How long this takes depends on the individual, their level of fitness, age, type of training etc.
Many make the mistake of training too hard too close to a race. Some people respond really well to a few days off, others can be affected badly by a day or two off.
People forget that the body takes several days to convert hard training into improved performance. It is not the training you did yesterday or the day before which makes you fitter today, but the training and recovery you did last week, last month and the months before that.
As Imposter says, a week off is not tapering. Tapering is an interesting subject and getting it right isn't easy as you have to take into account the individual, the event, level of fitness, etc. generally the shorter the event the longer the taper.0 -
Wasn't suggesting that taking the week off was tapering of course! I'm just curious about the idea that if you are going to estimate how much fitness you will lose from taking a week off, you might need to take into account more than just how fit you were (as measured by performance) at the start of the period off, but also how much training you had done in the period leading up to that.
This also relates to something else I have noticed - sometimes it seems I can maintain a level of fitness for a significant period even although the amount of training I'm doing has dropped. It seems to take more training to achieve a certain level of fitness than to maintain it.0 -
'Fitness' is a very broad term. As an anecdote, I know guys who bang out 200+ miles per week and yet still get dropped on the first lap of a 4th cat crit. I also know other riders who do half that distance and are still in the mix at the end of a 2/3 crit. There is more than one definition of fitness.
Whichever way you look at it though, you will detrain if you are inactive for a week. Speed is usually the first thing to drop off..0 -
There's also a broad spectrum of natural ability. It's rarely obvious if one person performs better than another because of the way they train or if they would perform better regardless. We're not all created equal which is fortunate for some of us and frustrating for others.Imposter wrote:'Fitness' is a very broad term. As an anecdote, I know guys who bang out 200+ miles per week and yet still get dropped on the first lap of a 4th cat crit. I also know other riders who do half that distance and are still in the mix at the end of a 2/3 crit. There is more than one definition of fitness....0 -
Indeed, but the point I was making is that both of those guys are clearly 'fit' - but in different ways. Going back to the OP, it's difficult to tell how much 'fitness' you will lose, without knowing what kind of fitness you already have.0
-
I thought a week off wouldn't lose any fitness - I've often seen two weeks mentioned as the limit ?0
-
Yes, I've seen figures like that as well. But obviously if you took 2 weeks off, trained for a week and then took another 2 weeks off, you would be less fit than you were 5 weeks previously.cougie wrote:I thought a week off wouldn't lose any fitness - I've often seen two weeks mentioned as the limit ?
That's sort of the point I am getting at. If it was true that you hadn't lost any fitness after 2 weeks (although I'm pretty sure you would have lost some - maybe one week would be a better estimate?) then if you tested yourself after the period off you would presumably get the same results. But you couldn't just keep taking two weeks off after every week of training and expect to maintain the same fitness...
0 -
The only meaningful way to look at this is power curve analysis, ie to measure the power you can put out for durations from a few seconds up to a couple of hours (longer if that is relevant to the events you do).
An increase in "fitness" will show as a higher power output across the curve (or may be at specific points of the curve if you have concentrated your efforts on sprints or FTP).
Your fitness is cumulative based on the training stress score, it is gradually lost with inactivity. However your "form" can be viewed as the net of fitness minus fatigue, which is tiredness due to training). Tapering is intended to maximise form, striking a balance between fitness and fatigue.
So in theory a taper or even time off can result in much better form even though your total fitness (accumulation of training) has declined. My best form last year came after 8 weeks of "time crunched cyclist" interval training during which my legs felt tired/stiff every time I got on the bike. I took a full week off after this, when I got back on the bike my legs felt super fresh and I performed well for about 3 months afterwards.
These concepts are based on Hunter and Allen's theories, the fitness/fatigue/form is incorporated in training software like training peaks or Strava premium.
A power meter isn't really necessary, train hard, give time for recovery and you'll feel the improved form!0 -
Imposter wrote:'Fitness' is a very broad term. As an anecdote, I know guys who bang out 200+ miles per week and yet still get dropped on the first lap of a 4th cat crit. I also know other riders who do half that distance and are still in the mix at the end of a 2/3 crit. There is more than one definition of fitness.
Whichever way you look at it though, you will detrain if you are inactive for a week. Speed is usually the first thing to drop off..
Cycling, other than match sprinting and kilo, being an endurance sport and one where weight is supported unlike running so there is less need to recover from workouts, is a sport where a shorter taper and less aggressive taper is required. The longer the distance the less taper.
If you are used to training almost every day you would probably feel pretty stodgy after 5 days doing nothing but loss of performance should not set in for 7 to 10 days, particularly if you trained hard for the few days leading up to the days off. The first 2 or 3 days you would be benefiting from rest recovery and adaption anyway.
I do not like the idea that you trade fitness for freshness. It implies that rest causes loss of fitness. You gain fitness after the training and the required rest and recovery. It is all about balance and tailoring the training and recovery to the individual, their level of fitness, age, genetics, event and time available. One man's rest might be another mans hardest session of the week.
Obviously if you do to much resting and or tapering you will lose fitness. It is all about finding what works for the individual. Some respond better to rest than others, some need more rest or easy days than others.0 -
Thanks, this makes sense to me! The idea of separating fitness and form seems necessary to me if we are to reconcile accumulated benefit from training with the benefits of rest.GGBiker wrote:The only meaningful way to look at this is power curve analysis, ie to measure the power you can put out for durations from a few seconds up to a couple of hours (longer if that is relevant to the events you do).
An increase in "fitness" will show as a higher power output across the curve (or may be at specific points of the curve if you have concentrated your efforts on sprints or FTP).
Your fitness is cumulative based on the training stress score, it is gradually lost with inactivity. However your "form" can be viewed as the net of fitness minus fatigue, which is tiredness due to training). Tapering is intended to maximise form, striking a balance between fitness and fatigue.
So in theory a taper or even time off can result in much better form even though your total fitness (accumulation of training) has declined. My best form last year came after 8 weeks of "time crunched cyclist" interval training during which my legs felt tired/stiff every time I got on the bike. I took a full week off after this, when I got back on the bike my legs felt super fresh and I performed well for about 3 months afterwards.
These concepts are based on Hunter and Allen's theories, the fitness/fatigue/form is incorporated in training software like training peaks or Strava premium.
A power meter isn't really necessary, train hard, give time for recovery and you'll feel the improved form!0 -
GGBiker wrote:The only meaningful way to look at this is power curve analysis, ie to measure the power you can put out for durations from a few seconds up to a couple of hours (longer if that is relevant to the events you do).
An increase in "fitness" will show as a higher power output across the curve (or may be at specific points of the curve if you have concentrated your efforts on sprints or FTP).
Your fitness is cumulative based on the training stress score, it is gradually lost with inactivity. However your "form" can be viewed as the net of fitness minus fatigue, which is tiredness due to training). Tapering is intended to maximise form, striking a balance between fitness and fatigue.
So in theory a taper or even time off can result in much better form even though your total fitness (accumulation of training) has declined. My best form last year came after 8 weeks of "time crunched cyclist" interval training during which my legs felt tired/stiff every time I got on the bike. I took a full week off after this, when I got back on the bike my legs felt super fresh and I performed well for about 3 months afterwards.
These concepts are based on Hunter and Allen's theories, the fitness/fatigue/form is incorporated in training software like training peaks or Strava premium.
A power meter isn't really necessary, train hard, give time for recovery and you'll feel the improved form!
I agree with you but I'm not sure that fitness is necessarily the accumulation of training, that would imply that all you have to do is more training and score more TSS points. Not all training works, more is not always better. It is important to ensure you do the right training specific to the event you are training for. It is also important to time properly when you do the training and when to rest.
Two riders might accumulate the same training volume and same TSS but one times his hard sessions and rest and recovery to allow him to maximise fitness whereas the other might get the timing of sessions and recovery wrong and not benefit to the same extent.0 -
In the example you give that poor timing would be reflected to some extent in the form, eg if all training was in a short period without recovery then fitness would be high, fatigue would be very high and form might be negative.0
-
GGBiker wrote:In the example you give that poor timing would be reflected to some extent in the form, eg if all training was in a short period without recovery then fitness would be high, fatigue would be very high and form might be negative.
It would not only be reflected in form. If you perform your hard sessions when too fatigued and unrecovered you don't benefit from them and you certainly can't do them as well, so you end up doing less intense workouts or shorter or both. You can do a lot of training and fail to improve fitness if you train stupid.
I also don't agree that fitness is necessarily high after hard training. You might have a high training score but it does not become fitness or an improvement in performance until you have recovered fully from that training dose. You may have done the work and scored the training points but you have not converted the training to fitness until you have recovered. Only then will you start to trade fitness for freshness. You do not lose fitness for several days, but you have done less training and scored less points.
It doesn't matter how much training you have done or how many points you have scored it is not improved fitness until you have absorbed it and adapted to it and improved performance.
I don't agree that training works like a bank account. You can't bank training points and assume that the fitness balance at the end of the month will be exactly how many points you paid in. This is a fundamental flaw with how many people train.0 -
Training is more like making investments than operating a bank account. You need to work out which investments make a good return. Manage risk. Work out when to make an investment and when to take profit. And sometimes you need to use restraint and hold cash.
Some training is like a bad investment, you might invest a lot and get bugger all back, but an investment in a small amount of training at the right time can result in a big gain.
Lots of people work really hard and end up struggling to pay the mortgage. Others are lazy but smart and own the house.
Remember the banking crash? Mathematical models didn't see it coming, the experts didn't see it coming. In fact some people would argue it was caused by the rocket scientists and mathematicians employed by the banks.0 -
By the way it isn't Hunter and Allen. It is Dr Andrew Coggan and Hunter Allen.0
-
Stalin, your name makes sense now...0
-
I attended a lecture by a ultra endurance sports physio that suggested that there was a correlation between the rate of fitness loss to the rate at which it was gained - I have no references to support this though.
For sure I'm a rest "responder" - after a week off the bike following a reasonably long period of training and I'm like a greased weasel. After I did the Rat Race Road Trip (440 miles in 4 days), I had most of a week off the bike and then did the MoonRider London to Cambridge ride finishing nearly an hour quicker than the second fastest person over only 60 miles. Even I was surprised... I also anecdotally support the 1 week good, 2 weeks bad view of resting.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Yeah, who'd have though anyone would confuse the British Prime Minister's name and surnameneeb wrote:
I think Americans who have surnames as first names have only themselves (or their parents) to blame if people get confused..Stalin wrote:By the way it isn't Hunter and Allen. It is Dr Andrew Coggan and Hunter Allen.
The practice began in Scotland in the 1600s.0 -
Who'd a thunk there'd be such a hullabaloo over a simple mistake, I banged my post in this morning on the iphone while supervising my 2 year old painting at the kitchen table, I'll be sure to proof read and quote references in Vancouver style in future.0
-
GGBiker wrote:Who'd a thunk there'd be such a hullabaloo over a simple mistake, I banged my post in this morning on the iphone while supervising my 2 year old painting at the kitchen table, I'll be sure to proof read and quote references in Vancouver style in future.
It is important to show such esteemed cycling training experts as Dr Andrea Coggman & Alien Hunter proper respect by getting their names right.0
