Originally Posted by
DaveLeeNC
I recently subscribed to Joe Friel's newsletter. His most recent newsletter was relevant to this thread.
In 1999 the U. of Montana did a 2 year study using 14 amateur (but clearly serious) cross country skiers. The first year they performed an exercise regime of 12 hours per week of 'Polarized Training' with roughly 17% being at/above Lactate Threshold (or in this context at/above FTP I assume).
The 7 who responded "the best" to this training were called "high responders". The others were the "low responders".
In the second year the 'high responders" continued with the previous year's training regime. The 'low responders" ....
1) Dropped their total training volume by 22%
2) Upped their above LTHR training to 35% (which is larger by EITHER a percentage measurement or a absolute time measurement)
After the second year the 'high responders' results were unchanged. The 'low responders' results had caught up with the 'high responders' group. Of course this implies that, to the question, "which is best" the answer is "it depends".
Responses to training in cross-country skiers : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise is a link to the (somewhat dated) study.
Joe Friel - What?s Better for You: High Volume or High Intensity Training? is a link to this particular piece of Friel's blog.
Interesting (IMHO).
dave
Yes, that is interesting.
An unanswered question is, "How did they do it?" During the second year, the control group (high responders) had a TRIMP (TRaining IMPulse) total of 91,013, while the treatment group (low responders) had a TRIMP total of 102,023, 12% more TRIMP! For those of us who use a Performance Manager, TRIMP is equivalent to TSS. If I were able to recover well enough to peak at a Chronic Training Stress that was 12% higher, I would sure as heck be faster. So that's how they did it. Not a great mystery. So how were they able to recover from what is effectively a 12% increase in training? More talented? US program too regimented, not allowing athletes to self-select training volumes?
The researchers do question what would have happened had the treatment group increased their TRIMP volume by that same 12% (which is in addition to the prescribed 6% annual increase) while using the previous year's distribution of intensity? So the treatment group increased their TRIMP by 18%? IOW did the treatment group just need a greater challenge to develop their potential, which could very well be greater than the potential of the control group?
There's also the technical question of the difference in reps done during weight training by the two groups. The treatment group used fewer reps during the endurance phase of the weight training program than did the control group, and used 3 sessions per week rather than the 2 sessions used by the control group. This is in line with current thinking, to use 15-30 reps during the endurance phase. Again there is the question of recovery talent or perhaps prescribed training volumes rather than athlete-selected volumes.