In part 1 of this series I talked a little bit about this concept of the “shock training cycle”. This of course led to some debate on the internet (if it weren’t for debate we might not have an internet!) regarding my use of the phrase “shock training cycle”. Purists of this concept are very strict on the application of this type of training as it is incredibly taxing on the body and typically only used for athletes at the most elite levels of training (to read further about this check out Supertraining by Siff & Verkhoshansky). I cannot disagree with that as I have spent a long time reading Russian training theory and this is the most known approach of shock training and Verkhoshansky did coin the phrase (I believe).
However, my application of this is a bit different as I think of it more from the idea that any sort of short, 1-2 week, increase in volume and/or intensity, as discussed in part 1, would be successful in over stressing the system, “shocking” the system if you will, provided that the right amount of stimulus is applied and the right amount of recovery, following that phase, is given to allow the body to restore itself from that block of training and new fitness gains to manifest.
This is what we could call “concentrated loading” as we concentrate a very high amount of work in one single area (one physiological quality) in order to force an improvement. Thus, the approach I am suggesting could be used with a variety of athletes (not just the most elite trained) and over a variety of different physiological qualities (not just strength/power) provided that the right amount of work is chosen for the athlete and the quality being trained is specific to the needs of their sport.
The Cost of Doing Business
When we train we get two outcomes – fitness & fatigue. We gain some fitness and get faster, stronger, more conditioned, etc. We also gain some fatigue and break down a little bit (remember, training is a stress that the body needs to recover from). Together, these outcomes can be represented graphically in the Fitness-Fatigue Model:
As I like to say with training, “There is always a cost of doing business”. When we train a lot, we may have a large spike in fitness but the cost of doing business is also higher, thus we end up burning out a lot quicker. If we train with a more long term approach in mind, slow and steady over time, we accrue less fatigue and fitness gains can keep being made. When we apply this brief period of concentrated loading there will be a very large cost of doing business, fatigue will rise higher than fitness (causing the athlete to report a greater amount of fatigue and perhaps even a bit of decrease in performance); however, once the recovery phase is performed and fatigue dissipates the new gains in performance made will be revealed and the athlete’s level of preparation (seen as the middle line in the graph above) will rise higher.
By taking the long term approach to training (lowest cost of doing business) we can now see that during certain weeks of the year an application of this concentrated load to a specific physiological quality can be very beneficial, force us to have increased gains in fitness, and perhaps help us to break through some plateaus. A cautionary note: A lot of people want to use these high intensity methods all the time, year round. Unfortunately, this tends to break the body down a significant amount and lead to burnout and overtraining. Additionally, if used too frequently there is less potential benefit when we attempt to apply a concentrated phase of work as the body has already adapted to that training stimulus – the stimulus is no longer novel.
Concentrated Loading For Conditioning
In 2013, Ronnestad and colleagues conducted a study using a block periodization type format over 4 weeks on endurance trained cyclists. There were two training groups who were matched for training volume:
- Block Training Group
-The block training group performed 1 week of very concentrated aerobic intervals. During this week they trained 5 times alternating each day between intervals of 6x5min @ 88-100% max HR; Rest = 2.5min and intervals of 5x6min @ 88-100% max HR; Rest = 3min. The following three weeks consisted of only 1 high intensity workout per week (one of the workouts from week one) and the rest of the week they performed high volume/low intensity training in one of two aerobic training zones: (1) 60-82% max HR; (2) 83-87% max HR. - Traditional Training Group– The traditional training group performed two high intensity training sessions per week for four weeks (they did one session of 6x5min and one session of 5x6min with the intensity and rest interval parameters being the same as the block training group) and the rest of the week they performed high volume/low intensity training in one of two aerobic training zones: (1) 60-82% max HR; (2) 83-87% max HR.
Key Findings
- The block training group reported a greater amount of perceived heaviness in their legs during week one. However, this dissipated over the remaining three weeks of the program.
- The block training group saw greater improvements in VO2max, Max Aerobic Power, and Power Output following their one week of high volume/high intensity training.
Take Home Points & Application
Only one week of the high volume/high intensity training was needed to force an improvement in the cyclists’ fitness. As I discussed in part 1 – whether you call it “shock training”, concentrated loading, or block periodization (I am not too worried about the naming convention that surrounds such things) – these training phases are best utilized when they are brief, 1-2 weeks, with higher intensity, volume, and/or frequency. Subjectively, during this 1 week phase the athletes reported greater heaviness in their legs, which is typical during a week with that much intensity and frequency, and this heaviness dissipated during the following 3 week period (and the athletes also saw performance improvements).
Following the high intensity/frequency week the athletes only performed one high intensity session per week. This could be thought of as a a way of stimulating the system following the high intensity block so that continued improvements can be made at a much lower cost of doing business (lower training volume and frequency of the high intensity work). I do wonder what would have happened if after this four week phase (1 week of concentrated loading and 3 weeks of low intensity with one stimulation workout) the athletes then took a 7-10 day restoration phase? Perhaps the fitness gains would have been even higher?
The traditional training group did a more mixed approach with some high intensity workouts and some high volume workouts throughout the week. I don’t think this concurrent approach is wrong or bad and I would hope that people don’t interpret the study to be saying that this approach is inferior. I believe there are times when this sort of training structure can be helpful and warranted. Typically, when we are in a phase of training where the goal is to build the athlete’s fitness I program high intensity workouts, similar to what was used in this study, once every 7-10 days, which usually ends up being every fourth or fifth conditioning workout. I find that this is enough to keep the system stimulated and provide us a good period of time between high intensity workouts that, when they are performed, we have a chance to look at any KPIs we are trying to improve upon – it is sometimes amazing to see how much higher volumes of submaximal work can improve maximal efforts when programmed properly. We then use the 1-2 week phase of concentrated loading as we approach certain periods of the year to get the most out of those training methods.
This sort of concentrated loading can be very powerful. It is important not to overdo it and risk burnout or overtraining. A less is more approach is best utilized here. Thus, if you think about something like a 10-12 week training cycle this week of concentrated loading/shock might be used somewhere towards the end of the training cycle a week or two prior to testing or competition, depending on how long it takes the athlete to recover (and each athlete is a little different so some trial and error may be needed first). Athletes who are more fit and have a larger training background may be able to tolerate two 1-week phases within the 10-12 week training cycle (for example in week 5 and week 10) provided that this training cycle. Finally, if volume/frequency are slowly built up (which is the opposite of what they did in the study, opting to go straight to the one week phase of with high amounts of work) the cycle can be drawn out over a longer period of time and can have greater undulations in it.