[xcskier]

Scott has a great writeup of planning for a season:

https://www.redlinealpine.com/planning-a-training-season/

I have some questions (I hope Scott can chime in):

1. Speed / distance progression. Early in the preparation season,
speed is shorter and faster. Could you give some examples of how
speed/distance are progressed over 4-5 months?

2. What are some examples of lactate shuttle sessions?

3. LME vs max strength training

Do you do periodize LME *before* max strength? This is something that I’ve
been confused.

4. Do you just do jumps / weighted climbing for LME? I presume the progression is
more or less what has been outlined in several articles here.

Topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on June 21, 2020 at 6:24 am #42940

Thanks! I’m glad it’s helpful.

1. I’ve been meaning to write an e-book on just this question, but I’ll try and briefly summarize it here.

For that season, I was training for ISMF-format skimo races. That includes 4-6′ sprints, 30-45′ verticals, and 90-120′ individual races. In order to do that, I wanted to give myself more “gears” to work with. So using a Canova-esque approach, I used speeds between 70% and 130% of aerobic threshold plus sprints. The fastest and slowest paces were emphasized in the beginning of the cycle and then both ends of the spectrum moved toward race pace as I got closer to race season.

In general:

* Sprints: 6x 8″ progressing to 8x 10″ or 4x 15″ with 2-3′ passive rests
* 130%: 30-30s with the recovery interval at 65%. Starting with (2) 10x progressing to (1) 24x
* 117%/110%: Work intervals at 117% with the “recovery” interval at 110%. Durations starting at 1’/3′ and progressing to 3’/1′. Very hard! And very good prep for short sprint format events.
* 105-107%: Typical AnT work
* 97-103%: Aerobic threshold work alternating above and below, starting at 4′ and progressing to 12′. (Note: My AnT and AeT thresholds are just under 5% apart, so these are almost as tiring as AnT work.)
* 90-97%: Long intervals at the beginning of long sessions or on their own for shorter sessions.
* 80-90%: Medium length sessions at a constant intensity
* 70-80%: Super easy. Most of my volume was in this range.
* < 70%: Super duper easy. The second biggest chunk of volume.

2. This is the 117%/110% of AeT range, ideally dialed in with an event-specific time trial. Then the work interval is about 92-93% of TT pace and the recovery interval is 85-88% of TT pace. The typical format is five alternations, lactate sample, five more, then another sample.

Note that the “recovery” interval is about AnT intensity, so these are very stressful. If there’s a big gap between AnT and AeT, these intervals will likely erode a base fairly quickly (a la Crossfit or worse).

3. I used max sessions early on and tried to maintain them throughout the year. I think it’s best to use max before ME work.

For ME, I used the first of the two progressions that are described in Verkhoshansky’s Block Training System. It took me two summers to get strong enough to get through the progression.

The progression uses 35-45% of max squat for weight, half-squat jumps and split-squat jumps, high volume reps, short rest intervals and long recovery intervals. After the progression, my legs felt much, much stronger.

4. The UA progressions are very similar to the Verkhoshansky protocol, but with less weight and higher cadence to make them more run- and skimo-specific.

I never used weighted carries because they’re too slow and the cadence is too low. They would be appropriate for mountaineering objectives, but not for running or skimo.

As I mentioned, it’s on my to-do list to write a longer description of this process. Hopefully I get around to it!

[xcskier]

xcskier on June 21, 2020 at 1:43 pm #42950

Thanks for clarification and details!

A couple of more questions:
1. Is the reason you chose to compute your pace percentages from AeT
because that was you “race pace”? Or because it’s just easier to determine?

I know Canova computes his paces from race pace, but in running you
can do that.

2. Were there any tricky things converting Canova’s philosophy to skimo
training?

One thing that could be tricky is adjusting sessions lengths and overall volumes
to a different sport. I presume that your overall training volume (and session length)
were longer than what marathon runners do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on June 21, 2020 at 5:31 pm #42951

1. Is the reason you chose to compute your pace percentages from AeT
because that was you “race pace”?

The main reason was that I wanted to learn more about Canova’s approach and what his speeds feel like. My skimo race pace—at least judging by average HR—is right between AeT and AnT, so my funnel converged toward that intensity.

Or because it’s just easier to determine?

This too. By using AeT as a benchmark, I can test it much more often with far less fatigue.

And I found that just using Canova’s formulas for different intensities was close enough with higher-end work. For example, for 30-30s, I would now never do a 4-minute time trial. Once thresholds are 5-8% apart (so AeT is a high percentage of AnT), then just using 130% is close enough for 30-30s. I’ve tried this with a few athletes with close thresholds and had good results.

However, Canova’s paces will never work for someone with ADS or, probably, a newly narrowed aerobic gap. I suspect the paces in that context would be much slower than race pace.

I know Canova computes his paces from race pace, but in running you can do that.

For sure! That would be ideal.

2. Were there any tricky things converting Canova’s philosophy to skimo training?

Good question. Canova’s volumes are usually in distances. And his athletes are usually running a marathon in just over two hours. So I converted all of his distances to durations assuming a pace of 3’/km. So if he prescribed intervals of 7km, I would use 21′.

One thing that could be tricky is adjusting session lengths and overall volumes
to a different sport. I presume that your overall training volume (and session length)
were longer than what marathon runners do.

Yes, good point. From what I’ve read pro-runner macrocycles are ~500h/yr. The season I described in that article was 730 hours. I think the lack of pounding in the winter on skis (and roller skis in the summer) allows for higher volumes.

[xcskier]

xcskier on June 24, 2020 at 3:04 pm #43031

A couple of questions where adjustment in philosophy
(to a different sport) was probably needed:

1. Microcyle periodizations. Canova doesn’t have much
volume modulation week-to-week. Namely, there’s no
“recovery” week where the volume would be significantly
lower.

Was that also the case for you, or you had 2-3 weeks of
high volume (or intensity) followed by an easier week?

2. How long were your long long sessions (in hours or percentage of weekly volume)?
Just one a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on June 25, 2020 at 2:34 pm #43049

1. Microcyle periodizations. Canova doesn’t have much
volume modulation week-to-week. Namely, there’s no
“recovery” week where the volume would be significantly
lower.

Was that also the case for you, or you had 2-3 weeks of
high volume (or intensity) followed by an easier week?

Good question… I always took recovery weeks every three to four weeks.

2. How long were your long long sessions (in hours or percentage of weekly volume)?
Just one a week?

Even better question. Because the longest ISMF event is ~2 hours, IMO there isn’t much point in having super long sessions. I think it’s better to have more frequent long sessions that are faster.

My bigger weeks varied between 17 and 19 hours. My longest sessions were between three and four hours (at ~80% of AeT). Doing Canova math (converting from kilometers to minutes), the longest he has his marathoners go is ~3 hours, also at <= 80% AeT.

[xcskier]

xcskier on June 25, 2020 at 4:03 pm #43060

My longest sessions were between three and four hours (at ~80% of AeT).

Yes, this totally makes sense. So, about 1.5X your event duration.

There is a trend among cross-country skiers (event length 50K-60K —
so between 2h15′ to 3h) to train huge volumes:
https://www.dn.no/langrenn/lillehammer/kvafjord/harstad/fra-null-til-tusen-seriose-treningstimer-i-aret/2-1-52666

And I’ve never seen an explanation what the benefit is. As Canova said many times
running long and slow will only make you able to run slow for long distance.
I fail to see (Caveat: once you build properly your aerobic endurance and aerobic base, of course) what training huge volumes at 70-80% of your race pace most of the time, what is the main benefit of that?

[xcskier]

xcskier on June 29, 2020 at 2:36 pm #43153

Scott,

One last question about this.

So, your highest intensity sessions were in the Fundamental period?
Meaning, most of your Zone 4 sessions were in the beginning of your training.

How many weeks did you spend on working much above AnT (your 130% sessions)?

In almost all Canova’s posts he doesn’t give many examples of these higher intensity
work (that is really not connected with the event, ie. if you are a marathon runner
it may make sense to do 3K pace sessions early but not in specific period), so I am
wondering long is spent on developing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on June 30, 2020 at 9:40 am #43175

I fail to see what training huge volumes at 70-80% of your race pace most of the time, what is the main benefit of that?

Exactly. My bias is that it plays to the “more is better, especially with less thinking” preference that humans have. And many make the mistake of equating fatigue with fitness. #cuevomit

My understanding is that Canova uses those paces for two reasons: 1) what he calls “regeneration” (aka. recovery); and 2) mental toughness. In one of his lectures, he said something about a 3-hour session at this pace not being physical training but mental.

But… I think global volume is important. For a two-hour event, 3-4 hours is probably the limit of usefulness, but a higher general work capacity has advantages. My understanding of Canova is that volume peaks in his Fundamental phase, and then is gradually reduced through the Special and Specific phases.

I suspect that if you can tolerate 80-hour easy weeks months, then 50-hour specific weeks months are going to be very productive. And if the Norwegians are doing it, I would like to learn more about why.

So, your highest intensity sessions were in the Fundamental period?
Meaning, most of your Zone 4 sessions were in the beginning of your training.

Yes. This is very un-Lydiard but I felt that it worked very, very well for both physical and mental reasons.

On the easy duration side of the spectrum, durations got shorter while speeds got faster (moving toward race pace). So as the speed was more intense, the duration was more mentally tolerable.

On the hard speed side of the spectrum, durations got longer while speeds got slower (moving toward race pace). So as the durations got longer, the speed was more mentally tolerable.

Rather than the next hard session being a scary unknown, it was (in at least one way) less than what I’d already done. So rather than more and more stressful training toward race season, it was less and less.

By race season I could spend much more time at specific race pace and, just below, at AeT.

How many weeks did you spend on working much above AnT (your 130% sessions)?

As much as necessary. 🙂 I don’t remember exactly, but that pace works well with a typical 30-30 protocol: 30s @ 130%, 30s @ 65% (both of AeT) with a progression of:

* (2) 10x 30-30 (10′)
* (2) 12x 30-30 (12′)
* (2) 15x 30-30 (15′)
* (2) 18x 30-30 (15′)
* (1) 20x 30-30
* (1) 25x 30-30
* (1) 30x 30-30

An athlete may or may not get through the whole progression and doesn’t have to. It’s important to think of progressions as a multi-year process. In Year One, the athlete may get to (2) 18x before it’s time to move on according to the macrocycle plan. In Year Two, maybe they get to (1) 25x, etc.

For example, my training the past year has been non-existent. I’ve been active but very unstructured until a couple of weeks ago. Last week I started to add some sprints with a session of 6x 8″ (3′). In the first session, my leg power sucked. I could tell that it dropped quickly by my high point per rep, and later my peak heart rates revealed that my legs weren’t taxing my cardiovascular system with equal intensity each rep.

So today I repeated the session. I could have smart-like-tractor-ed my way to the next step in the progression, but I didn’t feel like I’d done a good enough job in the first session. Power today was much more consistent, so now I’ll move on.

Short, non-rant version: The plan has to follow the athlete, not the other way around (despite what 99% of the population thinks…)

In almost all Canova’s posts he doesn’t give many examples of these higher intensity work (that is really not connected with the event, ie. if you are a marathon runner it may make sense to do 3K pace sessions early but not in specific period)…

Exactly!

A question for you: You mentioned that Canova doesn’t normally schedule recovery weeks. Do you have a reference for that? I’ve never read anything from him on that subject, so I’m curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on June 30, 2020 at 1:36 pm #43190

Ack. I said “80-hour weeks” when I meant months. #corrected

Also, @xcskier, based on your other forum comments, I suspect that you already know that a plan has to follow the athlete rather than vice versa. I went in that direction just to describe the popular perception of training which, as usual, is way off the mark.