Training Load Calculations (What happens when the next cycle starts?): Part 3
Well, so the wheels have been spinning again. We've thus far talked about different plans working for different fitness levels. We saw that a 4 hour runner and a 5 hour runner would get very different training load outcomes if both did the same Hansons Advanced plan from the book. We also saw that if the 5 hour runner adjusted the duration of their workouts to that of the 4 hour runner, then they would receive the same training load values throughout the plan (therefore duration and relative pace matter more than mileage). We also saw how little of an effect either adding on mileage to the long run, or missing days really has on the overall training load calculation. But in the discussion with another runner about their next cycle, the thought crossed my mind.
What happens when the next cycle starts?
In most of the Hansons Advanced examples, the 4 hour runner started with a training "fitness" of 20 and ended on the day prior to the marathon at 74. A fairly dramatic rise. Conversely the 4 hour marathon runner would have went from 0 to 22 in "fitness" on Galloway Advanced in 22 weeks (Hansons is 18 weeks). That fairly dramatic rise for the Hansons runner suggests they likely saw a significant increase in their fitness as well. They spent 79% of their training days in "optimal" training. So in theory, between the large increase in training load and the time spent in "optimal" one would surmise, the plan was likely to lead to better PR performances. So, naturally, that same runner might gravitate towards using the exact same plan again to see how much further they can continue to make gains.
For a reminder, we showed that if the 5 hour runner adjusts to duration match the 4 hour runner, then they get the same values:
So if the 4 hour runner were suddenly a 3:30 runner, but still did the same durations as the same plan, then in essence the plan remains the same. If they instead did the same mileage, then because they are faster and thus finish workouts faster, the training load will actually be less than the previous one. But for the sake of the following examples, our runner edited the original Hansons Advanced to match the previously completed durations from their first run through. So let's see what happens in a few different examples!
Runner decides to follow up 18 week Hansons Advanced with another 18 week Hansons Advanced starting right after the Marathon ends
Here's what happens after the first plan:
159 hours, 924 miles (added in the marathon at 26.2), 100 optimal days, and 79% of time spent in optimal. And then after the second plan immediately following the first one:
159 hours, 924 miles (added in the marathon at 26.2), 11 optimal days, and 9% of time spent in optimal. WOW! A stunning and dramatic drop. Essentially, this runner spend almost the entire time spent training in neutral or fresh. Because there was a size-able drop in training load from the end of the 1st marathon to the beginning of the second marathon, the runner spent a lot of time in "training purgatory". They essentially spent the first 9 weeks not getting any better or worse. Just kind of existing. But even once the end of the plan finally arrived, the training load was kept high enough through the first half that there was little to actually gain on the backend. Thus, they barely ever made it into optimal training. There is a very small difference in the "fitness" at the end of the 1st and 2nd (74 vs 77).
Conclusion: With little to no rest coming off the 1st marathon and jumping into the same marathon plan, this runner spent minimal time in "optimal" training even though it was the exact same plan as the first.
Runner decides to follow up 18 week Hansons Advanced with another 18 week Hansons Advanced starting 2 weeks after the Marathon ends and takes some time off
The first plan on the left is normal and on the right is the same 18 week plan with two weeks off at the end of it.
And what happens when the runner starts the 2nd plan?
The plan on the left is starting right after the last one ended. The plan on the right is after taking two weeks off. The number of optimal training days is increased from 11 to 30 (or 9% to 24%) by taking some time off after the last training plan. So not only did we gain muscular/skeletal recovery post-marathon (a valuable component of good training and staying injury free), but we also increase the time spent in optimal training because we allowed the training to dip a little bit. The final fitness was roughly equivalent as well (77 vs 76). Now what we can't say is whether when taking off for those two weeks and the loss of fitness that occurs there would be counterbalanced by the extra time spent in optimal training. This is only a training load calculation. But if I were a betting man, I'd say spending more time in optimal is probably going to serve you better and make you likely to surpass gains in the non-rested plan. But I've got nothing to say that definitively.
Conclusion: Taking off 2 weeks post-marathon allows the second training plan to spend more time in "optimal" training. It also allows for possible appropriate recovery from the marathon itself. It is undeterminable whether that would increase performance further than the other plan though. Although, gut instinct says yes.
Runner decides to follow up 18 week Hansons Advanced with 12 week Hansons Advanced starting 2 weeks after the Marathon ends and takes some time off
Well, now things get interesting. The runner decided, well taking 2 weeks off helps put me in a position where I can maximize "optimal" training over not taking off 2 weeks. But what if I also edited the plan to find the place in Hansons where the "fitness" is the same as where the "fitness" will be after taking 2 weeks off? That crux point for this runner appears to occur at 12 weeks.
So both situations are now taking the 2 weeks off post-marathon.
And in the left example, the runner is doing as he did in the previous example (2 weeks off + 18 weeks standard). But in the right example, the runner is taking two weeks off and then finding the crux point where "fitness" is equal to training. If you look, the ending "fitness" after 2 weeks off was around 57-58. The "fitness" of 57-58 during the first training plan was at the 12 weeks to go mark. Thus, our crux point is the 12 weeks to go in the standard plan.
We've now increased the number of optimal days from 30 to 34, and more importantly increased the percent of days spent in optimal from 24% to 36%. So thus far, we've increased the % time spent in optimal from 9% to 36% by making two edits to the second training plan: take 2 weeks off and jump in at an appropriate mid-point in the previous training cycle.
Conclusion: Jumping into the previous training plan where the same crux point existed keeps the training load high and the % of optimal training load days high as well. Now here comes the question... At 12 weeks in Hansons, you're doing just the tail end of the 5k paced work (Week 10 starts M-10sec work), doing about 8 miles of sustained M Tempo work, and a LR around 140 min. If the 4 hour runner progressed from 4 hours to 3:30 hour marathon fitness post-1st plan, would these be an accomplishable workout to jump into? I guess theoretically they should be achievable since the pacing scheme should be set by the prior marathon time (and thus something they did just do at 26.2 miles), but it does seem like a tall task to ask the runner to nail these workouts so suddenly. So another question to ponder.
Runner decides to follow up 18 week Hansons Advanced with 10 week Hansons Advanced starting 2 weeks after the Marathon ends and takes some time off
In this example, instead of using the crux point of "fitness" to "fitness", this runner instead chooses to match where the "Fatigue" average in the previous plan is around a +23 from where the "fitness" currently resides. So in theory, the runner should be able to jump start the training even quicker almost instantly being in "optimal".
1st plan:
And now the second plan:
Now the runner is at 30 vs 31 days optimal and 24% vs 44% days in optimal. So it's successful, but is it achievable? That would be asking the runner to go from 0 miles to 57 miles from Week 11 to Week 10 (peak was 62 miles in final week prior to taper). That seems like a very tall task. We might be finding a breaking point in the training load calculations vs reality of muscular fitness. I certainly can't say with certainty one way or the other, but this certainly seems very aggressive.
Conclusion: The % time spent in optimal has been raised from 24% to 44%, but is it actually an appropriate workload in practice? Or will this prove to be too big of a sudden jump?
Runner decides to follow up 18 week Hansons Advanced with 12 week Hansons Advanced starting right after the Marathon ends
So then, lastly, the runner says, well taking off 2 weeks + 12 weeks training jumping in at the crux of the last plan seemed the most balanced (with its own lingering questions still existing). But what if I didn't take those 2 weeks off. I just went right in post-marathon #1 to 12 weeks of Hansons Advanced for the next one.
First plan:
And then second plan:
Yikes! The # of optimal days dropped from 11 to 5, and time spent in optimal down from 9% to 6%. This would easily appear to be the worst of the bunch.
Conclusion: Dropping down from a 18 week plan and immediately jumping into the same timeframe remaining point (12 weeks) for the next plan leads to almost no "optimal" training days and far worse situation than if you had allowed at least two weeks off between (6% vs 36%). Seems pretty clear from these examples, that this is probably the worst of the possible situations. Jump back in too quick to training, train at the same durations as the previous "12 weeks to go", and you end up mostly spinning your wheels and not getting that much better.
I actually know most of these examples quite well. Because I've lived them.
-Jan-Apr 2017 is "like" my first training plan. It was Daniels Spring 2017, although it could be argued my "fitness" should be higher since I just started using HR values in Nov 2016. But that training cycle saw some tremendous gains.
-Apr-Jun 2017 was spent racing, thus lots of neutral/fresh time. Although I definitely could feel a "loss" of fitness during that time. My HRvPace graph would concur as I reached my peak during that timeframe in late April. That was right around spending ~3-4 weeks in neutral training. But after another 2 months in neutral, I definitely felt stale. Although that time period in June was intentional, because I knew if I raised too soon ahead of the October marathon, I wouldn't have much room to go up (and I was right).
-Jul-Oct 2017 was spent marathon training. But I was barely touching optimal training. Ideally the July training probably have should have come down further. I ended up with quite a bit of neutral time leading into the race (4 days of optimal from mid-Aug through October). Thus, on race day I underperformed and felt stale. Albeit, I did set a PR of 3:14. Just didn't get the sub-3 like most of the other metrics told me I was prepared for.
-Oct 2017-Jan 2018 was spent Dopey training. In contrast to Lakefront (Oct marathon) training, I spent a great deal more time in "optimal". My HRvPace reached new levels, and my fitness was at an all-time high. From Nov through to the taper, I was almost always right on the edge of "optimal". The result was 5 PRs in 6 days and only missing the marathon PR by 1:54. But, on the other side, I did end up with a stress fracture that sidelined me for 4 weeks and took up most of the Spring 2018 training window. But, I do think the gains made in Summer 2017 and Winter 2017 were combined and realized at Dopey.
What do you think overall about the dataset?
I have never been more thankful for my treadmill.
