Sore during rest weeks

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

@ggoysens
I do sometimes get a similar effect, maybe don't have 3 successive days off but say day 1 off, day 2 strict zone 1 recovery ride, day 3 lower zone 2, day 4 off

For example my last recovery week was such:
Monday - off
Tuesday - 2 hours lower zone 2
Wednesday - Off
Thursday - off
Friday - 2 hours lower zone 2
Saturday - 1 hour easy zone 1 with 2 sprints
Sunday - Race

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

Well it is a fairly standard recommendation for anyone on a training programme.

it is?

Yes it is, as recommended by Joe Friel which is probably a popular enough study to call it a standard recommendation.
As you get older then more recovery is probably needed and he recommends a recovery week every 3rd week.
I'm not saying its the only way but well known in a periodised programme.

To the OP, this explains quite well your question I think http://roweandking.com/whats-big-deal-recovery/

At the beginning of this year I undertook a 5 day a week winter training program to boost my fitness for the Summer and I posted on here that after a rest day I felt pooped and tired struggling to do the same intensity/type of ride as the other 5 days.
I was told I was over doing it and my body was telling me this.
Now I know very little about training or implementing programs so took the advice from more knowledgeable members but I still felt fresh when doing the 5 days in 7. I even did 7 days training straight and didn't feel knackered.
I couldn't advise you but Yes I felt the same as you on my rest days. It was as if my body was objecting to not being pushed after missing a day on a rest day.
Wierd!!!!

ggoysens wrote:

Hi all,

I was wonder if anyone here also experiences the following:

I train in blocks of 4 weeks with every 4th week a relative rest week. In the 3 weeks before the rest week training volume and/or intensity progressively gets harder.

During my rest week, I always take 3days completely off, just to be sure. The 4th day is usually a short (max 2hours) endurance ride, than again a day off, and then normal training starts again.

I often experience that my legs start hurting more and more when I get further into my rest week and usually this disappears again when I get back to normal training.

Anyone else experiences something like this? Why could this be?

i've no idea how you're progressing your training on a week to week basis, but having 3 consecutive days off probably isn't a good idea and then another day. there are much better easier weeks you can do. i don't believe most people need an easy 4th week, but even if you do you probably want to do about 60 - 70% of a regular week and still include some intensity

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

Well it is a fairly standard recommendation for anyone on a training programme.

it is?

Yes it is, as recommended by Joe Friel which is probably a popular enough study to call it a standard recommendation.
As you get older then more recovery is probably needed and he recommends a recovery week every 3rd week.
I'm not saying its the only way but well known in a periodised programme.

To the OP, this explains quite well your question I think http://roweandking.com/whats-big-deal-recovery/

the idea of having a rest week every 4th week (or 3rd week for older athletes) isn't supported by anything in the literature, and it's a somewhat outdated idea, based on lack of understanding in terms of ramp rates, and how training should be done

Ric/RSTSport, Your advice/opinions seems to be at odds with others accepted as experts in the field, along with a number of the training apps available. From what we are told the effects of training effort only comes to fruition with the rest periods, ie the body adapts to these efforts when allowed to recover, or am I misunderstanding everything I read?

yellowv2 wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

Well it is a fairly standard recommendation for anyone on a training programme.

it is?

Yes it is, as recommended by Joe Friel which is probably a popular enough study to call it a standard recommendation.
As you get older then more recovery is probably needed and he recommends a recovery week every 3rd week.
I'm not saying its the only way but well known in a periodised programme.

To the OP, this explains quite well your question I think http://roweandking.com/whats-big-deal-recovery/

the idea of having a rest week every 4th week (or 3rd week for older athletes) isn't supported by anything in the literature, and it's a somewhat outdated idea, based on lack of understanding in terms of ramp rates, and how training should be done

Ric/RSTSport, Your advice/opinions seems to be at odds with others accepted as experts in the field, along with a number of the training apps available. From what we are told the effects of training effort only comes to fruition with the rest periods, ie the body adapts to these efforts when allowed to recover, or am I misunderstanding everything I read?

Recovery allows you to supercompensate (providing the training stress has been sufficient to stress you in the first place). However, if for e.g. you ride on two consecutive days and ride at the same time for 2 hrs then you have 22 hrs to recover between sessions. Full recovery isn't needed, because some of the training effects arise from incomplete recovery and training while 'fatigued' (e.g. slightly depleted glycogen stores, etc).

If you leave a day between training then you'd have significantly longer to recover.

Lastly, even if you do have a recovery week then taking 3 consecutive days off, will just lead to a decrease in fitness rather than a gain. There are some aspects of fitness that start declining almost immediately (e.g. decreases in plasma volume leading to a decrease in VO2max which starts to occur within about 24 hours). This review paper looks at such (there's a separate paper for short term losses (<4 weeks) which i cant locate right this second as breakfast and my training is way more important https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10966148

This is why I have said listen to your biody and stop reading literature. It is conflicting and there is more opinion than science is fittness. That last bit maybe a bit harsh. There is science but interpreting it correlty is the hard part and knowing how it applies to you is more difficult. So just go a ride. To be honest all this training malarky is taking the enjoyment out of riding. Audaxers have had it right all along. just go for a ride and enjoy it.

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

Well it is a fairly standard recommendation for anyone on a training programme.

it is?

Yes it is, as recommended by Joe Friel which is probably a popular enough study to call it a standard recommendation.
As you get older then more recovery is probably needed and he recommends a recovery week every 3rd week.
I'm not saying its the only way but well known in a periodised programme.

To the OP, this explains quite well your question I think http://roweandking.com/whats-big-deal-recovery/

the idea of having a rest week every 4th week (or 3rd week for older athletes) isn't supported by anything in the literature, and it's a somewhat outdated idea, based on lack of understanding in terms of ramp rates, and how training should be done

Which literature?

the published peer-reviewed literature

Well here are just 2 quickly googled publications
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2012/06/r ... esign.html

and here you will find one from British Cycling which mentions "lower volume recovery weeks"
So as I said earlier, they are fairly standard, whether they are the best approach in the context of my post is irrelevant.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... recovery-0

Neither of those articles are published peer reviewed scientific literature evidence.

I didn't say they were and I'm not really sure why you keep twisting it in that direction. My point was to the OP (which you have only answered with another question btw) It is seen as a standard part of periodised training by many people. Friel has no doubt been read by thousands of cyclists and so his suggested schedules including a recovery week will be standard practice for many. In this context your "peer reviewed scientific literature evidence" is irrelevant.

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

Well it is a fairly standard recommendation for anyone on a training programme.

it is?

Yes it is, as recommended by Joe Friel which is probably a popular enough study to call it a standard recommendation.
As you get older then more recovery is probably needed and he recommends a recovery week every 3rd week.
I'm not saying its the only way but well known in a periodised programme.

To the OP, this explains quite well your question I think http://roweandking.com/whats-big-deal-recovery/

the idea of having a rest week every 4th week (or 3rd week for older athletes) isn't supported by anything in the literature, and it's a somewhat outdated idea, based on lack of understanding in terms of ramp rates, and how training should be done

Which literature?

the published peer-reviewed literature

Well here are just 2 quickly googled publications
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2012/06/r ... esign.html

and here you will find one from British Cycling which mentions "lower volume recovery weeks"
So as I said earlier, they are fairly standard, whether they are the best approach in the context of my post is irrelevant.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/knowl ... recovery-0

Neither of those articles are published peer reviewed scientific literature evidence.

I didn't say they were and I'm not really sure why you keep twisting it in that direction.

i said the peer reviewed literature and you replied with here are "2 quickly googled publications" in response to my message. Ergo, it would appear that you were trying to respond to my message about peer reviewed literature.

No one has said you shouldn't have an easy week every so often. But every 4th week is way too frequent and having 4 days completely off as per the OP is just not a good idea.

Recovery should be taken when and as required. No more and no less.

The duration of the recovery period required and the work volume and type one does during recovery ought to done in accordance with the specific requirements of the individual.

It's a fallacy to assume recovery is optimally performed with a specific frequency, for a given duration and at a given total workload change. It is not supported by any evidence in the published scientific literature. To be clear, this is not to say recovery is the issue in contention, rather the idea that is must be conducted with a specific frequency.

IOW the 3 weeks on 1 week off or variant of some such routine is nothing more than a plan preparation convenience and has little to do with training optimally. It was born from the days when coaches tried to understand why 1970's and 80's Eastern Bloc athletes performed well, so they tried to copy training methods once the eastern bloc opened up in the 1990's.

It just so happened that the young athletes "employed by the state" and boarded in training centres had a state required routine of going back home to be with family one week in four. The one week off in every four was not anything to do with smart performance management, it was simply a function of a bureaucratic requirement of the state. Their actual performance was more a result of dedicated concentrated training (professionals in an "amateur" era) at high workloads performed without distraction and of course the various nefarious methods used to enable their athletes to undertake such workloads that would crack most.

What this does tell us is that for those who do follow such a training plan, provided they actually do the work during the on periods, then it's not necessarily harmful for performance, it's just not optimal.

However following such a routine can end up being harmful to performance as rarely does rest of life cooperate such that predetermined recovery periods are a good idea.

The number of people that finish a "recovery week" only to find that a family issue or a work issue or something else crops up which impedes their ability to get back into training at a level desired. Next thing you know they've had two weeks of limited training and performance decline has taken hold.

For the vast majority, life tends to put unscheduled recovery periods into people's training with sufficient frequency anyway. If it doesn't then backing off when and as required isn't difficult to do.

And more often than not, for the sort of workloads amateur athletes do, a full week of recovery is typically unnecessary.

you don't get DOMS from cycling in general, and by and large compression clothing isn't useful for you. while compression and similar make recovery better, it does so in a detrimental way -- that is, the reduction in pain and a variety of processes that occur reduce the adaptation process that is needed for increased fitness. So, while compression garments are good for flying (to reduce DVTs) and maybe of use during a stage race where you need to be fully recovered every day i wouldn't use them regularly.

BrendanHousler wrote:

DEFINITELY want a rest week every fourth week!

Nonsense. Rest/recovery when and as required.

ggoysens wrote:

Hi all,
I often experience that my legs start hurting more and more when I get further into my rest week and usually this disappears again when I get back to normal training.

Anyone else experiences something like this? Why could this be?

Regardless of whether we should or should not be resting, sometimes it's fairly enforced - injury, travel, work whatever...

I do experience something similar, though moreso with running than cycling. If I have a couple of days where I don't do any running, e.g sitting in car/plane or do only cycling, then as soon as I do any running, I get really sharp pains in my quads.

I presumed it was shortening of hip flexors from sitting/rest/cycling, but never remember to stretch on those days.

I dont know the mechanism, but some sort of active recovery and stretching is probably the answer (or that's what I'm going to try) - keep blood and other fluids moving through the muscle, and reducing muscle tightness.

Zest28 wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

why do you need to have an easy every 4th week?

Well it is a fairly standard recommendation for anyone on a training programme.

it is?

Nope. I only heard one person doing it.

Really? That one person must be Joe Friel then

Most serious athletes need a recovery week after about two to five weeks of hard training.

- Joe Friel "Recovery Week design" https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2012/06/r ... esign.html