It's interesting to look at the similarities in training concepts between very different sports. Competitive endurance runners training consists of a high volume of work at sub race pace speed and/or heart rate and a lower volume of work (usually consisting of tempos) at speed and/or heart rate above race pace. Competitive Olympic weightlifting athletes will do a relatively high volume of work at sub maximal loads (working on technique) and a lower volume of work at near max efforts. The late Charlie Francis, world class sprint coach, spoke of training his sprinters with lower intensity tempo work and near max efforts while avoiding what he termed the "dead zone".
It seems that within these 3 very different sporting disciplines there lies a common theme in training: Train low and train high, but limit the amount of training in the middle. In other words, "Polarize" your training.
I feel this is even more important for teams during their in-season period when they are playing competitive games. For the college men's soccer team that I work with, we typically play 2 games per week in the in-season. We have 1 off day each week, so this leaves us with 4 training days. A typical week looks like this:
Sunday: OFF
Monday: Training - Lo
Tuesday: Game - Hi or Lo
Wednesday: Training - Lo
Thursday: Training - Hi
Friday: Training - Lo
Saturday: Game - Hi
Our games are definitely high training load and relatively high intensity days. Typically I recommend 2 high training load/intensity days per week, although there are times when we will have 3 in a week. You can do 3 in a week for a short period of time (2-3 weeks) but I feel that consistently 3 high training load/intensity days results in too much player fatigue and loss of sharpness over time. What this means is that with 2 games per week, at the most, we have 1 training day that can be high training load/intensity. With the 4 available training sessions that we have in a week 2 fall the day before a game. On the day before a game training loads need to be relatively low.
Interesting to see Joel Jamison write about Hi/Lo training with MMA athletes as well. Great article!
http://www.8weeksout.com/2011/09/13/high-low-training-mma-fight-magazine/
Here's the kicker . . . looking back at our training sessions, the majority have been moderate load, moderate intensity! This is definitely not what I'm looking for. Problem is that regardless of whether we aim to make a day hi or lo intensity, soccer looks like soccer. We can talk about manipulating training variables of field dimensions, number of players, restrictions, directionality, etc. but what ends up dictating the training load outcome is almost always the duration of the training session.
Unless we do strictly technical work or tactical situations much like non-pressure pattern play or functional training. If we play any type of game or competition, soccer is going to look like soccer.
So how do we balance the training to be more "Polarized". Number 1 has to be limit the session duration during your "lo" days to a maximum of 60 minutes. Two, we have to supplement their training with "hi" intensity actions like repeated sprints or hi load weight training. However without doing number 1, number 2 becomes additional stress that will likely not be performed at high intensities and will again become more moderate training.
I'm still working on finding the right mix! let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions!!!
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Assessing Training Intensity Using the Team 2
So I've discussed a bit on training load and I've given some guidelines as to the scale of what typically is a difficult training session as well as looking at the cumulative load over the week. As a quick review, we see training loads of around 320-350 for a typical 90 minute soccer match. I have colleagues in the field who have come up with similar training loads for games in the MLS. It's pretty clear that a game is a high stress event that cannot be repeated on a daily basis without significant fatigue, over-training and/or injury. So this value is represents the top of the scale for training load on a given day.
Having used the system for several years and comparing data with other colleagues using the system, I have found that our weekly cumulative training loads during the in-season range from 1000-1200. So doing some quick math, we can find that if we play 2 games per week we already have a training load of around 700. This leaves a training load of 300-500 to be distributed over 4 days (1 day off each week). Take a look at a typical week during the inseason:
Sunday: OFF
Monday: Training
Tuesday: Game
Wednesday: Training
Thursday: Training
Friday: Training
Saturday: Game
In this scenario 2 of the training days fall the day before a game, so let's make those days low training load days (less than 100). This leaves a training load of 100-300 for 2 training days. Wednesday is the day after a game so, for recovery purposes, let's make that day a low training load day. This leaves a training load of up to 200 available for the Thursday training session.
So really we have 2 high training load days (2 games), 3 low training load days (before and after games) and 1 moderate training load day each week. Three types of sessions each week . . . this is good as we like to see a nice undulation in the training load over the week. Monotonous training loads through the week and season are the quickest way to player staleness, fitness plateaus and even declines in fitness. So having an undulating structure to your micro-cycles (week of training) will help prevent this. But . . . if the only difference between training days is training load, meaning every session is the same the only difference being the duration of the session, you really are just stressing the same systems every day! There is a great deal of monotony with this type of training as well. So what's the other variable that effects training load besides time/duration? Intensity!
The intensity of the sessions should vary or undulate through the training week. From a pure heart rate standpoint, you can use the sport zones featured in the T2 software that define 5 intensity zones. >90%, >80%, >70%, >60%, <60%. (*you can also define thresholds for each player which would provide a more accurate assessment of intensity for each individual. Using these thresholds would require you to know each players anaerobic threshold and aerobic threshold. This would give you 3 zones; above anaerobic threshold, above aerobic threshold and below aerobic threshold.) As I don't have access to knowing every players threshold values, I use time above 80% max heart rate to determine session intensity.
Above, I have clipped a training report (exported to excel) that summarizes a training session. Using the time each player spent above 80% hrm as the time and % above threshold you can see how "intense" the training session was for each individual, and on the right a % that is the average for the team. I use stop light symbols to quickly assess whether the session was high intensity (red; >30% of total training time), moderate intensity (yellow; >15% training time), or low intensity (green; <15% training time).
I have used a similar system to quickly assess the training load. High training load (red; >200), moderate training load (yellow; >100), and low training load (green; <100).
I use these "snapshots" to communicate with the team coaches on the difficulty of the practice sessions.
Going back to the concept that we want to manipulate not only the training load over the course of the week, but also the intensity, this provides a simple solution to assess how well we are doing at varying the stress on the athletes.
Having used the system for several years and comparing data with other colleagues using the system, I have found that our weekly cumulative training loads during the in-season range from 1000-1200. So doing some quick math, we can find that if we play 2 games per week we already have a training load of around 700. This leaves a training load of 300-500 to be distributed over 4 days (1 day off each week). Take a look at a typical week during the inseason:
Sunday: OFF
Monday: Training
Tuesday: Game
Wednesday: Training
Thursday: Training
Friday: Training
Saturday: Game
In this scenario 2 of the training days fall the day before a game, so let's make those days low training load days (less than 100). This leaves a training load of 100-300 for 2 training days. Wednesday is the day after a game so, for recovery purposes, let's make that day a low training load day. This leaves a training load of up to 200 available for the Thursday training session.
So really we have 2 high training load days (2 games), 3 low training load days (before and after games) and 1 moderate training load day each week. Three types of sessions each week . . . this is good as we like to see a nice undulation in the training load over the week. Monotonous training loads through the week and season are the quickest way to player staleness, fitness plateaus and even declines in fitness. So having an undulating structure to your micro-cycles (week of training) will help prevent this. But . . . if the only difference between training days is training load, meaning every session is the same the only difference being the duration of the session, you really are just stressing the same systems every day! There is a great deal of monotony with this type of training as well. So what's the other variable that effects training load besides time/duration? Intensity!
The intensity of the sessions should vary or undulate through the training week. From a pure heart rate standpoint, you can use the sport zones featured in the T2 software that define 5 intensity zones. >90%, >80%, >70%, >60%, <60%. (*you can also define thresholds for each player which would provide a more accurate assessment of intensity for each individual. Using these thresholds would require you to know each players anaerobic threshold and aerobic threshold. This would give you 3 zones; above anaerobic threshold, above aerobic threshold and below aerobic threshold.) As I don't have access to knowing every players threshold values, I use time above 80% max heart rate to determine session intensity.
Above, I have clipped a training report (exported to excel) that summarizes a training session. Using the time each player spent above 80% hrm as the time and % above threshold you can see how "intense" the training session was for each individual, and on the right a % that is the average for the team. I use stop light symbols to quickly assess whether the session was high intensity (red; >30% of total training time), moderate intensity (yellow; >15% training time), or low intensity (green; <15% training time).
I have used a similar system to quickly assess the training load. High training load (red; >200), moderate training load (yellow; >100), and low training load (green; <100).
I use these "snapshots" to communicate with the team coaches on the difficulty of the practice sessions.
Going back to the concept that we want to manipulate not only the training load over the course of the week, but also the intensity, this provides a simple solution to assess how well we are doing at varying the stress on the athletes.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
3 Components of Training for Team Sports
I was fortunate to meet Raymond Verheijen at an NSCAA convention several years ago. He has an excellent command of fitness training from the scientific approach, but I was most impressed with his practical application of how to implement fitness training into team sports. He discussed 3 components of fitness training for team sports.
1. Maximize the Speed of Actions
2. Maintain the Speed of Actions
3. Reduce the Recovery Time Needed Between Actions
Really a very simple no nonsense approach to training. I have thought much about this classification system and have added some thoughts of my own to this that I will share below.
First, the number 1 training priority is to maximize the speed of action within the game. Team sports are broken down into a series of individual actions . . . LeBron beating his defender off the dribble, Vidic closing the space on an attacker to make a tackle, Lindstrom checking an opponent into the boards. These battles or singular actions during a game are often won by the speed and explosiveness of their action. From a physiological perspective, this speed and explosiveness is Anaerobic Power.
The second training priority is to maintain the speed of actions throughout the game. This means being able to execute the skills of the game with the same speed and explosiveness throughout the entirety of the game. This maintenance of power is Anaerobic Capacity.
The third training priority is to reduce the recovery time needed between actions in the game. The quicker a player recovers, the more explosive actions they can perform during the game. Decreasing the recovery time needed between actions is a function of Aerobic Capacity.
1. Maximize the Speed of Actions = Anaerobic Power (AnP)
2. Maintain the Speed of Actions = Anaerobic Capacity (AnC)
3. Reduce the Recovery Time Needed Between Actions = Aerobic Capacity (AeC)
I have used 3 tests to assess my athletes in these 3 categories and have found a relatively simple way to identify areas of strength and weakness for individual players which in turn allows me to prescribe fitness training more appropriate to developing the individual player. You can 'google' any of these tests to find out the specific protocols for each.
1. AnP - counter movement vertical jump (CMJ), and 40m sprint. These 2 tests look at the power and speed abilities of the player.
2. AnC - repeated anaerobic sprint test (RAST). This test looks at the ability of the player to maintain speed with short rest intervals.
3. AeC - multi-stage fitness test (MSF). This test looks at the aerobic capacity of the player, or their ability to consume and utilize oxygen.
Based on these 3 tests (I listed 4, but you can get the 40m sprint time from the best time when running the RAST) I develop a radial graph to show the proficiency for each individual as shown below.
1. Maximize the Speed of Actions
2. Maintain the Speed of Actions
3. Reduce the Recovery Time Needed Between Actions
Really a very simple no nonsense approach to training. I have thought much about this classification system and have added some thoughts of my own to this that I will share below.
First, the number 1 training priority is to maximize the speed of action within the game. Team sports are broken down into a series of individual actions . . . LeBron beating his defender off the dribble, Vidic closing the space on an attacker to make a tackle, Lindstrom checking an opponent into the boards. These battles or singular actions during a game are often won by the speed and explosiveness of their action. From a physiological perspective, this speed and explosiveness is Anaerobic Power.
The second training priority is to maintain the speed of actions throughout the game. This means being able to execute the skills of the game with the same speed and explosiveness throughout the entirety of the game. This maintenance of power is Anaerobic Capacity.
The third training priority is to reduce the recovery time needed between actions in the game. The quicker a player recovers, the more explosive actions they can perform during the game. Decreasing the recovery time needed between actions is a function of Aerobic Capacity.
1. Maximize the Speed of Actions = Anaerobic Power (AnP)
2. Maintain the Speed of Actions = Anaerobic Capacity (AnC)
3. Reduce the Recovery Time Needed Between Actions = Aerobic Capacity (AeC)
I have used 3 tests to assess my athletes in these 3 categories and have found a relatively simple way to identify areas of strength and weakness for individual players which in turn allows me to prescribe fitness training more appropriate to developing the individual player. You can 'google' any of these tests to find out the specific protocols for each.
1. AnP - counter movement vertical jump (CMJ), and 40m sprint. These 2 tests look at the power and speed abilities of the player.
2. AnC - repeated anaerobic sprint test (RAST). This test looks at the ability of the player to maintain speed with short rest intervals.
3. AeC - multi-stage fitness test (MSF). This test looks at the aerobic capacity of the player, or their ability to consume and utilize oxygen.
Based on these 3 tests (I listed 4, but you can get the 40m sprint time from the best time when running the RAST) I develop a radial graph to show the proficiency for each individual as shown below.
A player who demonstrates excellent AeC but who needs development in AnP
A player who is lacking AeC and AnC
A well developed player in all areas
From a simplistic approach let's talk about how to prescribe fitness training for each of the 3 categories of fitness.
1. Maximize the Speed of Action (AnP) - short, maximum efforts with long rest intervals. The key to developing speed of action is, well, speed of action. If short rest intervals are used, then the athlete will not be able to execute with maximal speed of action on consecutive repetitions. The duration of the effort should be very short; 3-10sec. The rest interval should be at least 90 seconds. Typically I use short sprints, high load weight training ranging from 1-5 repetitions and explosive plyometric work to train this quality. As the intensity of the effort is the focus, I do not use heart rate as an indicator when training this quality. Some people have suggested using heart rate to determine the length of the rest period. For example, when their heart rate returns to 60% HRM, they begin their next repetition. I would caution against this with athletes who have a well developed AeC, as metabolically they may recover quickly but from a nervous system standpoint it may take longer than indicated from heart rate alone.
2. Maintaining the Speed of Action (AnC) - short, maximum efforts with short rest intervals. Training this is the most taxing of the 3 qualities. Maximum or near maximum repeated efforts with short rest intervals. Use caution not to train this quality on consecutive days and at a maximum 3 times per week. I have read studies that show that 1 time per week is adequate. I'll talk more on this in future blogs about "the minimum effective dose" and "polarizing your training". Typically I'll use short sprints or runs up to 30 seconds and use a 1:1 work to rest ratio for prescribing the rest interval. Each series of intervals should last roughly 4-8 minutes and repeated after a full rest interval (~6 minutes) for up to 4 series. I'll also use Tabata Intervals (you can google this phrase) for weight room activities to develop this system. I do recommend the use of heart rate when training this quality. I want to achieve heart rates of +90%HRM or sport zone 5 when we are training this quality.
3. Reducing the Recovery Time Needed Between Actions (AeC) - long, low intensity efforts with short intermittent rest intervals. This can be a difficult quality to train for some individuals because it requires them to not work as hard as they feel they should. I use heart rate for training this quality and try keeping the athletes in the 65-75%HRM or sport zone 3 range. Long steady state runs work for developing this quality, but I most often prefer to use tempo runs (google this term if needed). Tempo runs are basically multiple intervals of stride work over distances of 50m-800m with active recovery or walking. I use 100-200m and typically design my sets on a 1:2 work to rest ratio lasting up to 6 minutes, taking a 3 minute rest then repeating for up to 4 series. The athlete should run at a pace that is equal to about 70% of their maximum speed for the distance prescribed. There is a great book out there on designing tempo workouts titled "Running Trax".
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Ideal Training Load
First off, the ideal training load is more of a target outcome than it is a practical method for training. What I mean is that you know when you’ve reached the ideal training load because your players look sharp, feel great and are capable of performing at their peak level. When you reach this point, go back and look at your training loads over the last 2 weeks because your training load has been ideal.
Not satisfied with this answer? OK, let me address some factors that go into the practical method of training for the ideal training load. But understand that the ideal training load is a dynamic target; it will always be shifting up or down based upon individual and team responses and adaptations to training.
First, make sure you have an accurate heart rate max (HRM) for each individual player . . . use a test, like the Multi-Stage Fitness Test to measure a true HRM, don’t use age predicted HRM equations. Then be aware that your athlete may not have gone 100% on the test and that their HRM may be higher than measured in the test. Look at individual session data to see if you get HRM’s higher than the test values; if so, adjust individual HRM’s based on the highest accurate HR recorded. *(sometimes you may get bad data values that look like sharp irregular spikes, if you see this don’t use that section of data).
Next, understand that while you may have 2 sessions with the same training load, those sessions may have very different effects on individual responses and adaptations based on the intensity of efforts within those 2 sessions. For example, there are 2 sessions below that have similar training loads.
As you can see, the top session has a training load of 119 over session duration of 33 minutes and the bottom 100 over session duration of almost 2 hours. You can also see that the intensity of the top session was very high (as indicated by the proportion of time spent in sport zone 5) while the intensity of the bottom session was very low. So while the training loads (response) of each session were relatively similar they clearly are different from an adaptation standpoint. The top session was primarily anaerobic lactic, while the bottom session was primarily aerobic. I’ll talk more about these systems in the next blog.
To get back to the point of answering the question “what is the ideal training load”, it is important to also consider the intensity of the sessions and their effect on recovery. In the image below we see a training report of “Training Load and Recovery” for a 4 day period.
The columns represent total training load, while the shaded areas represent predicted recovery time from the given training load. In this example the first training load on 8/16/2010 was around 310 and the recovery time was predicted to be 3 days. If you were to take this training session, you can see that 5 consecutive training sessions that currently fall in the shadow of the 1st session, total around 560 . . . roughly 2 times the training load achieved from that of the 1st session.
These dates correspond to our first 5 days of pre-season. While it may not be necessary to allow for full recovery between training sessions, the image demonstrates that a training load of 310 and a training load of 560 over the course of 3 days have similar recovery times. 310 does not equal 560 . . . training load does not equal training load . . . intensity is a critical factor in recovery and thus finding the ideal training load.
If you’re looking for the easy answer, I have found that we average training loads of around 1000 points per week. During the season this is typically broken down into 2 games per week at around 320-350 points and the remainder coming from practice sessions. With our mandatory NCAA day off during the week, this gives us a remainder of 300 points for training each week. This gives us an average of 75 points per training session throughout the week.
However, I caution against this average approach as in my experience this leads to training monotony and staleness. I would recommend dividing these 300 points into easy and hard days. Easy days are around 50-75 points and generally consist of aerobic recovery type activities not exceeding sport zone 3. Hard days are longer moderate to high intensity trying to achieve working periods of 8-12 minutes in sport zones 4 and 5 and total session training load between 125-150 points.
I caution against the use of medium days during the in-season. I’ll talk more about “polarizing” your training in a future blog.
Not satisfied with this answer? OK, let me address some factors that go into the practical method of training for the ideal training load. But understand that the ideal training load is a dynamic target; it will always be shifting up or down based upon individual and team responses and adaptations to training.
First, make sure you have an accurate heart rate max (HRM) for each individual player . . . use a test, like the Multi-Stage Fitness Test to measure a true HRM, don’t use age predicted HRM equations. Then be aware that your athlete may not have gone 100% on the test and that their HRM may be higher than measured in the test. Look at individual session data to see if you get HRM’s higher than the test values; if so, adjust individual HRM’s based on the highest accurate HR recorded. *(sometimes you may get bad data values that look like sharp irregular spikes, if you see this don’t use that section of data).
Next, understand that while you may have 2 sessions with the same training load, those sessions may have very different effects on individual responses and adaptations based on the intensity of efforts within those 2 sessions. For example, there are 2 sessions below that have similar training loads.
As you can see, the top session has a training load of 119 over session duration of 33 minutes and the bottom 100 over session duration of almost 2 hours. You can also see that the intensity of the top session was very high (as indicated by the proportion of time spent in sport zone 5) while the intensity of the bottom session was very low. So while the training loads (response) of each session were relatively similar they clearly are different from an adaptation standpoint. The top session was primarily anaerobic lactic, while the bottom session was primarily aerobic. I’ll talk more about these systems in the next blog.
To get back to the point of answering the question “what is the ideal training load”, it is important to also consider the intensity of the sessions and their effect on recovery. In the image below we see a training report of “Training Load and Recovery” for a 4 day period.
The columns represent total training load, while the shaded areas represent predicted recovery time from the given training load. In this example the first training load on 8/16/2010 was around 310 and the recovery time was predicted to be 3 days. If you were to take this training session, you can see that 5 consecutive training sessions that currently fall in the shadow of the 1st session, total around 560 . . . roughly 2 times the training load achieved from that of the 1st session.
These dates correspond to our first 5 days of pre-season. While it may not be necessary to allow for full recovery between training sessions, the image demonstrates that a training load of 310 and a training load of 560 over the course of 3 days have similar recovery times. 310 does not equal 560 . . . training load does not equal training load . . . intensity is a critical factor in recovery and thus finding the ideal training load.
If you’re looking for the easy answer, I have found that we average training loads of around 1000 points per week. During the season this is typically broken down into 2 games per week at around 320-350 points and the remainder coming from practice sessions. With our mandatory NCAA day off during the week, this gives us a remainder of 300 points for training each week. This gives us an average of 75 points per training session throughout the week.
However, I caution against this average approach as in my experience this leads to training monotony and staleness. I would recommend dividing these 300 points into easy and hard days. Easy days are around 50-75 points and generally consist of aerobic recovery type activities not exceeding sport zone 3. Hard days are longer moderate to high intensity trying to achieve working periods of 8-12 minutes in sport zones 4 and 5 and total session training load between 125-150 points.
I caution against the use of medium days during the in-season. I’ll talk more about “polarizing” your training in a future blog.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Training Load: what is it, why is it important
Training Load: What is it, why is it important
Training Load is a term Polar uses to describe the cumulative amount of stress placed on an individual from a single workout or over a period of time. Below is Polar’s own definition of Training Load (aka exertion factor).
To give you some of my own experience as to the relevance of monitoring training load both on a daily basis as well as over the course of time let me present the following 2 cases.
Case1: How much is too much? Pre-season is always physically demanding. There are still so many fallacies that are commonly accepted in team training, like “you have to break them down before you can build them up”. It also doesn’t help that most coaches still view physical conditioning as a tool for creating mental toughness which really precipitates the physical training be as difficult as possible. We still hear from coaches when talking about conditioning, “kill ‘em” . . . well guess what… read the papers… we can. Stepping down from the soap box, the first question becomes how much is too much. We measured training load over the course of pre-season several years ago. During this time I was still gathering data and not necessarily using it to guide training as I do now. I remember we had 2 Israeli players this year and that after the first week of practice, they came to me and said, “coach, my legs feel like stone”. I took a look at our training load numbers since the start of pre-season 4 days earlier and found that on average our players had cumulative training loads of around 2400 points. OK, sounds like this could be high . . . having been able to previously measure training load numbers for an actual soccer game I knew that average game training loads were around 350 points. This means that over the course of the first four days of pre-season the players had played an average of almost 7 games!!! Btw, that’s way too much.
Case 2: Cumulative Loading. Sometimes the training load numbers don’t always jump out at you like they did for me in case 1. Sometimes they happen over an extended period of time. Take 2 players we had several years back, one a defensive midfielder, the other an outside back; both critical pieces to our team. During any given session, they may have been toward the high end of the training load range for our team, but seldom was it beyond 1 standard deviation from the group. Toward the end of the season, it became obvious that both of these players were not performing to their potential. Both indicated feeling fatigued and somewhat apathetic. Going back and reviewing their cumulative training load numbers up to that point in the season, I found that there was a difference of about 4,200 points between their totals and the average total for the team. This is the equivalent of having played about 12 additional games over the same time period.
Since these cases, I have made changes in the way I monitor and provide feedback to our coaches about the difficulty and intensity of training sessions.
First, I have become more rigid on training session duration. While we can adjust the difficulty of drills within the training session to potentially create a more intense session, or a less intense session, one thing I have found is that soccer pretty much looks the same no matter how much you change the manipulative variables of field dimensions, number of players, restrictions, etc. I do not recommend going over 90 minutes with any single training session. If it takes longer than 90 minutes, look at what you’re doing and how to do it more efficiently.
Second, I monitor the weekly cumulative load of each of our players. Some players may need additional fitness, as they did not get enough of a stimulus during the week. *I’ll talk more on this one later, this is a pretty big topic to cover here. Other players may need more recovery time, we try to reserve 1 day a week of our training as a day to balance the training loads for our players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)