The best sports science test I have ever seen
bahzob
Posts: 2,195
Joe Friel's latest blog posting makes reference to a study carried out on x-country skiers back in 1999.
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/12/whats-better-for-you-high-volume-or-high-intensity-training.html
I would strongly suggest checking it out, not just the blog entry but the study itself. (Its free and easy to read)
It is, despite its age and target group, it is, by a huge margin the best sports science test I have ever seen with relevance to cycling.
This is for a number of reasons:
- The target group are real athletes who are already fit and training regularly.
- It takes place over meaningful time. It tests the effect of changes over two full years of training
- It uses a very robust protocol
- The improvements that are measured are the ones that matter most>>Results/standing in actual competition.
It's findings are also directly relevant,especially at this time of year.
The tables give a detailed breakdown by period/zone of the number of hours the various groups spent in workouts. (table 4)
I plan on using the Treatment Year 2 Zone data as a starting point for my 2015 plan. (The strength workouts are peculiar to x-ski)
I'd suggest that, even if you don't do so, recording and relating your information to this table may well give an insight into what is working/not working and why.
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/12/whats-better-for-you-high-volume-or-high-intensity-training.html
I would strongly suggest checking it out, not just the blog entry but the study itself. (Its free and easy to read)
It is, despite its age and target group, it is, by a huge margin the best sports science test I have ever seen with relevance to cycling.
This is for a number of reasons:
- The target group are real athletes who are already fit and training regularly.
- It takes place over meaningful time. It tests the effect of changes over two full years of training
- It uses a very robust protocol
- The improvements that are measured are the ones that matter most>>Results/standing in actual competition.
It's findings are also directly relevant,especially at this time of year.
The tables give a detailed breakdown by period/zone of the number of hours the various groups spent in workouts. (table 4)
I plan on using the Treatment Year 2 Zone data as a starting point for my 2015 plan. (The strength workouts are peculiar to x-ski)
I'd suggest that, even if you don't do so, recording and relating your information to this table may well give an insight into what is working/not working and why.
Martin S. Newbury RC
0
Comments
-
Interesting article.
I've not read this one before but it supports my thoughts that there are as equal a number of perfect training plans as there are people. Everyone is unique and will respond differently to training. Finding the right training plan for yourself is a matter of experimentation, data recording, data review, and feed back into your plan before the cycle starts again.
It would have been interesting to have switched the groups around at the end of year two and to have seen what the results were.0 -
hugo15 wrote:
It would have been interesting to have switched the groups around at the end of year two and to have seen what the results were.
Interesting but difficult. Most sports science studies only measure changes over a few weeks, very few do so over a year and none, apart from this one, that I have ever read compare year on year.Martin S. Newbury RC0
