Residual Training Effects

[jonmd123]

For the last 2-3 weeks, myself and a few others have been having a friendly debate regarding residual training effects (basically how long a training adaption will last before it needs to be trained again).

We are using Issurin's chart in his "Block Periodization" book. Some believe it's accurate, other think he is way off.

Here is a link to the chart, and also to his research.

http://rudytapalla.blogspot.com/2011...g-effects.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27098820/Block-Periodization

I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on whether they believe the time frames are accurate (and why). I'll wait for a few responses before giving my opinion.

[jonmd123]

Bump.

[shesprints]

What's interesting is how long it takes to 'lose' an adaptation appears directly proportional to how long it takes to train. For example: top-end speed doesn't take much time to train OR to lose (in fact, if you hammer at it for too long while peaking you'll slip back, or at least I do). Aerobic endurance, on the other hand, takes months and years to develop but doesn't diminish very quickly.

Now, here's a question for runners. In the preseason I ideally want to develop both absolute strength (before explosiveness) AND endurance (before speed). So how do I do this? Easy miles + heavy lifting? Those do not complement each other.

[Floider]

From my limited personal experience here is what I would say:

Aerobic Endurance 30+/-5 days -> about right
Maximum Strength 30+/-5 days -> 10 days
Strength Endurance 15+/-5 days -> about right

The other two I have never focused for prolonged periods of training that I could tell what times seemed to train/detrain me. So my biggest disagreement would be with maximum strength. If I go more than about a week and a half without training a compound t I can really see a dip in strength. To keep my strength up I really need to work these movements more than once a week.

On the other hand for strength endurance I usually do best on something like max body weight pull-ups if I haven't done that movement for a week (but typically do at least one set 5x a week).

Aerobic endurance, on the other hand, takes months and years to develop but doesn't diminish very quickly.

For this list in the article I would say strength max/endurance is measured in years, aerobic endurance is measured in months, and max speed in a couple of months or less. Max speed also is heavily genetic dependent though.

[shesprints]

For this list in the article I would say strength max/endurance is measured in years, aerobic endurance is measured in months, and max speed in a couple of months or less. Max speed also is heavily genetic dependent though.

That's fair, I could see strength taking a long time to develop. I think I meant more like the insane endurance of really good marathoners, which takes years, as well.

[NewbieX2]

Now, here's a question for runners. In the preseason I ideally want to develop both absolute strength (before explosiveness) AND endurance (before speed). So how do I do this? Easy miles + heavy lifting? Those do not complement each other.

They don't compliment each other if the aerobic endurance training reaches a certain threshold. If you do a mile every other day or a couple miles a few times a week, you should be fine. Keyword being easy miles.

[jonmd123]

What's interesting is how long it takes to 'lose' an adaptation appears directly proportional to how long it takes to train. For example: top-end speed doesn't take much time to train OR to lose (in fact, if you hammer at it for too long while peaking you'll slip back, or at least I do). Aerobic endurance, on the other hand, takes months and years to develop but doesn't diminish very quickly.

Now, here's a question for runners. In the preseason I ideally want to develop both absolute strength (before explosiveness) AND endurance (before speed). So how do I do this? Easy miles + heavy lifting? Those do not complement each other.

I think it really comes down to the distance you're running. A 100 meter runner only needs an aerobic base to help them train, where obviously a distance runner needs a large work capacity for competition.

Following the block system you would do your work capacity before strength because aerobic adaptions are retained for the longest period of time (according to the research). You would then revisit your oxidative block every 30 days or so. Again, it depends on what parameters are most important for you/your event. If you were a distance runner you would obviously address this parameter more often.

[jonmd123]

My opinion is the chart fairly accurate. Most of the people I have discussed this with are using themselves as subjects with no real data to back up their argument. Most have argued that if they stopped training, they would lose their strength before their speed. My rebuttal is that they aren't "trained" in speed. In other words, if you are only lifting weights without doing any speed work you will be at your genetic baseline for speed, and the only way you could get slower is to lose a large amount of strength.

Something else to consider, is the fact that the longer you have been trained at a parameter the longer you retain it. If a person adds 50 pounds to their squat in 3 months and then ceases training for a month, I'd be willing to bet almost all of that 50 pounds would be gone. That would not coincide with Issurin's chart.

I think the reason most people say strength decreases faster than speed is the fact that it is much more trainable. Virtually anyone can become big and strong, where only a select few can be fast. Most of those fast people were born that way, and have only made small strides from training.

This creates quite the conundrum. Speed is the most important factor in an athlete, but the hardest to train. Strength is less important, but easier to train. Which is more important to train?

[EndLineTraining]

What's interesting is how long it takes to 'lose' an adaptation appears directly proportional to how long it takes to train. For example: top-end speed doesn't take much time to train OR to lose (in fact, if you hammer at it for too long while peaking you'll slip back, or at least I do). Aerobic endurance, on the other hand, takes months and years to develop but doesn't diminish very quickly.

Now, here's a question for runners. In the preseason I ideally want to develop both absolute strength (before explosiveness) AND endurance (before speed). So how do I do this? Easy miles + heavy lifting? Those do not complement each other.

Top-end speed doesn't take much time to train? I would argue it takes quite awhile to train but up for differing opinions.
As for your question. Wouldn't strength increase explosiveness? They are one in the same although different. As far as preseason is concerned I feel that you have to be general in nature but also don't make it so general that it isn't leading towards your goals. If you are a sprinter everything you do should be for the sake of speed. Now that doesn't mean you don't do aerobic work but even that should be focused to allow one to focus on form which is why I follow Charlie Francis' model for aerobic training by using tempo runs done at 60-75% intensity. It allows for similar running mechanics as the sprint while allowing for aerobic capacity to be developed at a low cost to the body, which is what you should be looking for in the sprinter. Aerobic capacity must be developed but to what extent and what cost. This needs to be calculated. A properly designed aerobic program is only going to compliment strength and power work so don't worry about it. I'd suggest you pick up a copy of GPP essentials by Charlie Francis. Lots of great info.

I think the residual training effects were pretty accurate when I trained my football players using a block periodization model. We did not use any Lactic or purely aerobic blocks so I can not speak on that.

[101pro]

Interesting topic.

I used a program based on the LTDTE with our combine guys to great effect. We used a model based more on Verkhoshansky's research and really overreached the strength phase. The idea being that you want the athlete to be getting stronger during the time away from heavy lifting. Then we switched to a power phase, and finished with a short peaking phase.

More recently, if there isn't a hard peaking day, I don;t overreach the strength as much.

Generally I use the tables as a guideline

So strength phases are about 4-6 weeks, power phases are 3-4 weeks and peaking/velocity phases are 1-3.

Regarding strength and endurance have hat helps lead to the longer residual is the physiologic support structure adaptations. With strength for example there is the addition of actin and myosin, development of the sarcoplasmic reticulum, etc.. (hypertrophy). With endurance we are looking at, increases in mitochondrial density, capilarization, increases in RBC's. It is these adaptations that make the traits last longer.

With speed, for example, you see improvements in rate coding, etc... Those are more neural. You may see some increases in neurotransmitters, but these effects are more transient.

I like the discussion and will keep an eye on this.

[101pro]

Aerobic endurance and strength training.

Couple thoughts on this.

1. Running economy has been called the determining factor in distance running performance.
2. Research shows that strength training in the 4-6rm range and plyometrics are the two most efficient ways to develop running economy.

So heavy lifting and plyos belong in and endurance athletes program. When I work with XC I basically follow a Pavel Tsatsouline approach of lift heavy not hard. So maybe pick your 5rm and do 3x2-3. With the load high, not reaching, or coming close to, failure we can increase strength while improving aerobic fitness. During high volume weeks we may do 2-5x1 with our 5rm (or even a taper week).

A distance runner need not be as strong as a powerlifter or even a 100m sprinter. They just need to be stronger and have more economy than their opponents.

An approach like this can effectively increase strength over time without interfering with aerobic endurance.

When we are in early off season we may hit a harder strength block to jumpstart the gains.

Then as we peak for a race it is a similar progression to the block program.

Plyos in a strength block focus on explosiveness, then as the phases shift we work into more reactivity as that is the quality that we are looking for in an economical athlete.

[jonmd123]

Does anyone know of any studies on the topic? It appears that most of the research on residual training effects have been on only 1-2 parameters at a time. It would be fun to see a study on a group of athletes after a training block to stop training, and then test every parameter every 5-7 days.

I'm not sure if there would be any way to set something like this up without seeing adaptions from the testing though.

[braskibra]

Aerobic endurance and strength training.

Couple thoughts on this.

1. Running economy has been called the determining factor in distance running performance.
2. Research shows that strength training in the 4-6rm range and plyometrics are the two most efficient ways to develop running economy.

So heavy lifting and plyos belong in and endurance athletes program. When I work with XC I basically follow a Pavel Tsatsouline approach of lift heavy not hard. So maybe pick your 5rm and do 3x2-3. With the load high, not reaching, or coming close to, failure we can increase strength while improving aerobic fitness. During high volume weeks we may do 2-5x1 with our 5rm (or even a taper week).

A distance runner need not be as strong as a powerlifter or even a 100m sprinter. They just need to be stronger and have more economy than their opponents.

An approach like this can effectively increase strength over time without interfering with aerobic endurance.

When we are in early off season we may hit a harder strength block to jumpstart the gains.

Then as we peak for a race it is a similar progression to the block program.

Plyos in a strength block focus on explosiveness, then as the phases shift we work into more reactivity as that is the quality that we are looking for in an economical athlete.

Interesting topic.

I used a program based on the LTDTE with our combine guys to great effect. We used a model based more on Verkhoshansky's research and really overreached the strength phase. The idea being that you want the athlete to be getting stronger during the time away from heavy lifting. Then we switched to a power phase, and finished with a short peaking phase.

More recently, if there isn't a hard peaking day, I don;t overreach the strength as much.

Generally I use the tables as a guideline

So strength phases are about 4-6 weeks, power phases are 3-4 weeks and peaking/velocity phases are 1-3.

Regarding strength and endurance have hat helps lead to the longer residual is the physiologic support structure adaptations. With strength for example there is the addition of actin and myosin, development of the sarcoplasmic reticulum, etc.. (hypertrophy). With endurance we are looking at, increases in mitochondrial density, capilarization, increases in RBC's. It is these adaptations that make the traits last longer.

With speed, for example, you see improvements in rate coding, etc... Those are more neural. You may see some increases in neurotransmitters, but these effects are more transient.

I like the discussion and will keep an eye on this.

very well written, I also do like throwing some concentrated training cycles in.

Does anyone know of any studies on the topic? It appears that most of the research on residual training effects have been on only 1-2 parameters at a time. It would be fun to see a study on a group of athletes after a training block to stop training, and then test every parameter every 5-7 days.

I'm not sure if there would be any way to set something like this up without seeing adaptions from the testing though.

I also have not been able to locate anything on training residuals aside from aforementioned work. My real life experience is that he is relatively correct.