The whole Supercompensation idea makes a huge amount of sense and is backed up with a fair bit of scientific evidence (all great so far), but as far as i can tell there seems to be no real way to know when is the right time to take advantage of it. Everybody (literally) is different, fine, but there must be a way to try and factor Supercompensation into a training programme with at least some degree of accuracy?

When is the optimal time to exercise again to achieve supercompensation?
Is it 1 day after a big intense effort (relative to your own ability)? 2 days after? 3?
Is it when youre feeling 100% rested? When youre only partially rested with mild DOMS?

Would love to hear some views on this?

Cheers

Your body needs to be fully recovered from your previous training session before you can experience or benefit from supercompensation...If you're not fully recovered, then your risk overtraining, your progress will stall and your fitness and performance will start to go backward instead of forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercompensation



I haven't read much about this, but it does make some sense. However, it appears to be a complex phenomenon that probably varies from individual to individual, as well as varying by factor. So, part of the supercompensation is the body pulling in extra nutrients for recovery.

So, based on the Wikipedia chart above, the body has the maximum sugar intake/load in just under 24 hours. That would make sense as the body is working to recover.

Mitochondria damage, however, appears to take longer to recover... 48 hours?

This might actually mean that different sports would see different benefits. So, for example, a 100 meter sprinter might see peak benefit 1/2 day after the exercise, when sugar levels will peak.

On the other hand, an endurance athlete such as a 100+ mile road racing cyclist may benefit from an extended rest area to allow the muscle to fully recover.

I wonder if there would be benefits of varying the intensity of one's workout. So, for example, after a hard effort, cyclists often talk about a recovery ride. Perhaps the idea is to chew up some of the glycogen, but still allow mitochondria and muscle fibers to recover. Then peak recovery 48 hours or so after the initial ride.

With bike touring, I haven't had a lot of long tours, but I seem to encounter two phenomena. First there is the "morning after ride". Whew, that second day can be tough after a hard day on the road. However, there is also a training phenomenon. So, a few days into the tour, one gets stronger, and the morning after effect lessens, and one is actually stronger and can crank out more miles than the first day.

It probably has multiple factors including training, habituation, and perhaps this supercompensation.

first of all, thanks for the excellent post!

That diagram is really interesting, Im 40 and a cat 3 rider, not particularly good at any one thing, just an all round hacker really, so theyre all equally relevant. I think whats interesting like you say, is the wildly different rates for 'supercompensation', ranging from 12 hours, to 24 to well over 48. I suppose the only way to really try and factor it into any training programme would be to confirm what you said about each of the 3 suiting a particular type of effort, and then equate the 3 to your own relative efforts or training sessions.

example:
Glycogen - sprints - 1hr intense hill repeats / intervals (130ish tss) - repeat 1 day later
fitness Level (?) - 2-4 hour rolling (200ish tss) - repeat 1 / 2 days later
mitochondria - hard endurance - 4/5+ hour ride/race (+300ish tss) repeat 3 days later

I think the categories could do with clarifying a little also, the only clear one seems to be mitochondria recovery.
Glycogen: do you think this means Glycogen storage, use and replenishment (supercompensation would increase the store size perhaps)
Fitness Level: overall non-specific fitness level?

I'll continue to do some digging on this

Cheers

Wikipedia, of course, summarizes other papers, and sometimes uses secondary sources.

For the real details, follow the citations until you get to the primary sources.

But, then some will also be an interpretation of the data to apply to your specific needs.

Supercompensation in terms of periodization does not occur in a workout, but in months of progressive increases that lead to overload, followed by a period of reduced stimulus to allow for complete recovery.

What you're talking about makes no sense for anyone that's actually training. You should be doing multiple hard workouts a week along with easy rides to continue to progress over longer amounts of time. Every year you build a little more.

The more you train, the more you can train, but a single workout does not do much of anything.

That's not true. Overtraining takes months to achieve, and very few people ever actually overtrain. Overtraining leaves you wrecked and your hormones screwed. Takes months to recover from.

Training and racing generally take place when you're not fully recovered. That's how you keep building fitness.

i'll admit im a bit confused by what you mean when you say doing 'a single workout'? What i meant was carrying on with the usual 5-6 days a week training plan but shuffling my training plan efforts to accommodate a supercompensation type approach.

From what ive read and the diagrams in this thread, supercompensation does also occur after even a single a big effort: you do your effort, your body recovers, then your body effectively fortifies itself against similar big efforts by rebuilding itself stronger than before, this temporary peak is the supercompensation zone. If you take advantage of this and time it right you can effectively ride those peaks and improve your performance quicker.

It seems logical that this gradual improvement would happen over a longer timeframe as you say, e.g a 4 week block then a week off, rinse and repeat. If you ride 5 or 6 days a week then factoring this into your training plan might prove more effective than an unstructured approach where youre simply slogging away every day & risk overtraining or not doing enough and undertraining.

At some point you're going to reach a fitness level (generally doesn't take long if you've been training before) in which a single ride is likely not going to be enough to illicit a significant enough adaptation. Your focus shouldnt be on those singular workouts, rather it should be a consistent and progressive workload.

Slogging away everyday isn't training, it's riding. Training has hard days and easy days. They need to be distinctive to be most effective.

No, I agree with you there, a single ride wont make any difference for sure. I guess im just saying its important to at least give each session (ride) some purpose, hill reps, a long endurance ride, flat sprints, recover ride etc not just repeat the same ride over and over. I agree the accumulative effect is what makes the difference, obviously not just a single ride, I think my original point has been lost somewhere, sounds like we're on the same page though.

I think it's your question about when to train again after a hard ride to ensure supercompensation is what doesn't really fit. You train again the next day, and then the next. 6 to 7 days a week for people really looking for maximum results. You can still train and recover at the same time if you're a bit disciplined about it.

I just don't think you can think of supercomp in such a micro level or in such a short time frame.

I've had a few more thoughts about this.

I wouldn't count on this supercompensation for race days. Get good training, then take a couple of rest (or light training) days before the race.

However, with training, say you could get a 1% boost, for the next training session, it may well be a benefit. Training up at a higher level. In a sense, it might be like drugs plus a washout period (which I certainly wouldn't condone). But, say steroids or EPO could aid with long term muscle mass building which would endure after the washout period. Or, force the body to compensate during the washout period.

Likewise, getting any boost during training might also give longterm results. Nonetheless, it could be tricky with the risk of doing damage rather than benefit. For example, pounding on the mitochondria and muscle fibers before they fully recover could potentially be harmful.

What I would say is to work on a training schedule that includes a variety of activities. Then track your peak performance.

Perhaps try to mix in a Morning + Evening training session, or an Evening + Morning training session, and track your performance. Or, don't shy away from doing two hard workouts on successive days, again tracking your performance.

Of course, make sure you add in rest days or low intensity recovery ride days so some days you'll pound on successive workouts, and other days you'll let the body fully recover before pounding hard again.

I would imagine there is a lot of information on training schedules available (although some may be closely guarded secrets). It may be calling it by different names, but likely is hitting multiple workouts during these potential supercompensation periods. While also recognizing the need for rest days for long term recovery of certain components (mitochondria, muscle fibers, etc).

There are some studies showing that HRV can indicate best timing for the next hard workout. You might give that a look. The Elite HRV phone app works well.

Here's a study done on a training block: https://www.firstbeat.com/wp-content...m-Hormones.pdf

IME everyone posting here is correct. It's just which part of the elephant one is touching. While it's true that fitness increases best when done consistently all week and week after week, within that structure there are better and worse days on which to do your intervals.

I should also point out that the above graphs are for one particular and undefined workout. My ride yesterday had a training stress score of 354. Recovery from that will be longer than an hour's ride with a few intervals which might have a training stress score of 65. That said, today I'll do a short recovery ride and then go to the gym and lift max weights. It's often good to hit the system hard two days in a row, but in different ways. Bigger supercomp. And remember, after the TdF is when riders who did well show up at crits and mountain TT's and take the cups. So it's certainly not just about one workout.

Those crits are fixed. Grand tour winners can't actually win bunch sprint crit finishes. All about putting on a show and getting an extra pay day.

A 3 week tour tears down the body. You don't notice when watching because they're all going downhill fitness wise. The Giro riders won't even be fully recovered in a month for the TDF, that's why it's so difficult to win both the Giro and TDF in one year.

Yeah , it's all fixed, right. Except that the Tour ends around the end of July and the Mt. Washington hill climb is a little over 2 weeks later. Hamilton and Danielson killed it, Hamilton 4 times. It takes a little longer to recover from a 3 week tour than a short work period. Lance, among others, was a heckuva sprinter, especially against a local crowd. Of course it takes longer to recover for a Grand Tour than for a day race, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Not too many of us are prepping for GTs.

Mark Rippetoe, while kind of crazy and not a cyclist, has done a pretty good synopsis of this in his book Practical Programming. A key difference when it comes to time frames for any sort of significant supercompensation is training experience.

A novice, say, someone who has only been riding for a couple of months, can likely see benefits from every single session. So a simple, ride, then recover, then ride again as soon as you're recovered is all that is really needed.

An intermediate, say someone that's been riding (and, more specifically actively seeking to improve) for anywhere from 6 months to a couple of years may have to take a couple of hard rides, with incomplete recovery, in order to drive meaningful supercompensation. So, for example, doing a hard interval ride on Friday, then a long ride on Saturday and then another fast/hard ride on Monday, then rest Tuesday - Thursday.

Someone who is advanced, which might be someone who has been training hard and racing for more than a couple of years will have to do even more to drive meaningful supercompensation. This is where you would have something like a hard training block lasting several weeks (with the type(s) of rides being largely determined by what physical attribute(s) you're looking to improve) where fatigue steadily increases, then following that with a week or two of easier riding in order for the fatigue to dissipate.

So, as you say, anyone beyond a beginner level will likely have to train while fatigued at times in order to make meaningful gains.

The crits are fixed. That's what I said and that's a fact.

And no, Lance was not a heckuva sprinter against legitimate bike racers. Compared to your local MUT rider, sure. Pretty much anyone that raced well would be.

Yeah I found this last year when i started looking at Supercompensation and tried to factor it into training. Like Carbonfiberboy said, youve got to take a few consecutive big hits but really switch it up a bit, heavy hill sprints or Anaerobic intervals one day, then Z3/4/5 long hard endurance rides the next day, i tend to find they need to be at least 200tss in the least. I really pushed this heavily last year in typical 4 weeks on 1 week off blocks, I ended up over-reaching a bit though I think, but the improvements were pretty clear, just didnt recover hard enough.

crits are totally fixed also. . . I think Froomey beat Sagan in a sprint in one, 2015 or 16 cant remember, say no more.