How do I analyze training? Throwback on 2018

In the article below, I’d like to introduce you to the various analysis tools I use to monitor and individualize my athletes’ training.
I’m using the analysis of my 2018 sports season as a support to explain some of the nuts and bolts of my method. Enjoy your reading! ????

 

1) TRAININGSHARP PERFORMANCE RADAR:

It’s very important for me to carry out tests to assess the current level of my athletes, so that I can be objective about their progress in 2 areas (physical and technical).
As an example, here’s what my performance radar would look like this year (see graph below).

The radar is constructed from 6 selected reference data. 3 of these relate to the ability to run efficiently (stride economy, data from the Stryd sensor), and 3 to the physical (and physiological) level.
Other important data are not included in the radar to make it sufficiently explicit (@VMA and PC support times, etc.).

  • VO2max (estimated) –> 71.9 ml/min/kg
    • Numerous studies have demonstrated that VO2max is decisive in endurance sports. However, it should be noted that the VO2max-Performance relationship is largely based on studies with a fairly heterogeneous level. When studies focus on more homogeneous groups, the relationship between VO2max and performance on highly trained runners (with similar time performances), there seems to be little relationship between VO2max and performance. It is clear, however, that a highly developed aerobic capacity (VO2max) is a prerequisite for endurance performance, but there are parameters other than VO2max that would be more important in explaining endurance performance, such as running economy (see parameters below). It is therefore a reliable yardstick for assessing a runner’s level, but it should not be the only one!
  • PMA / VMA–> 5.9 W/kg / 20-21 km/h
    • Maximum Aerobic Power (and Speed) is undoubtedly the parameter most frequently assessed in the field. Like VO2max, it provides a reliable indication of a runner’s level. However, in longer-duration sports (such as trail running), studies show that PMA becomes less decisive than other parameters (muscular resistance, running economy, glycogen reserves…), which is why I attach more importance to threshold values (such as critical power), which are more decisive in competition than PMA/VMA. But I’m still interested in them, because they’re the basis!
  • Critical threshold power/speed –> 5.1 W/kg / 17.5 km/h
    • Calculated from an analysis of the distance-time relationship, it’s the highest power/speed a runner can maintain in a quasi-stable state “without tiring”, i.e. around the 10 km pace for the average runner. In simple terms, it’s a figure calculated on the basis of performance in the field, and which would be confused with MLSS (lactatemia steady state max) or SL2 (lactic threshold). The advantages of this measurement are its low cost, its reliability (because it’s close to reality in the field), and its relevance for long-duration sports (trail running, road running…). It’s the data I follow the most!
  • Rebound potential @PC –> 0.156 LSS/kg
    • LSS (Leg Spring Stiffness) is a measure of how well a runner recycles elastic (so-called “free”) energy after impact with the ground. Imagine your leg as a spring bouncing off the ground. The stiffer the spring, the less energy you need to propel yourself with each step. This value estimates your musculo-tendinous stiffness. I use this data over the long term to analyze the overall evolution of running economy. It can also be used as a guide if your value is too low (–> pliométrie).
  • Horizontal/Vertical Power Ratio @PC –> 75.23
    • It’s a parameter linked to stride efficiency. Horizontal power is the component of raw external power that is directed horizontally. What does this mean? For example, if two runners compare themselves over a 10 km race and they both have an average power of 290W, the faster one will be the one with the better ratio, because a greater proportion of the 290W produced by this athlete is directed horizontally. I look at this data over the long term and to identify a weak point in running technique.
  • Stride efficiency @PC –> 0.937 kg/N
    • It is calculated from the ratio between speed (in m/s) and power (in W/kg). In other words, it’s the ability to transform energy into speed. Stride efficiency is generally around 1 kg/N. The higher the value, the more efficient the stride. It’s an interesting long-term indicator of technical progress in running.

TrainingSharp performance radar

I have a good regional/average national running level

 

My performance radar shows my weak points as a runner. You can see that I’m at around 70% (compared with the best runners) from a physical point of view, but that I have a big gap in my running technique. In fact, it’s clear that my stride isn’t as efficient as that of a pure runner, and that’s my biggest weakness. This can easily be explained by the fact that I come from an orienteering background and my stride is more adapted to off-road and unstable terrain.

Stride technique and running economy are VERY DIFFICULT parameters to improve (taking into account anthropometric parameters that are impossible to change) and it takes time and hard work. But I know what I still have to work on for 2019 😉

 

2) PERFORMANCE PROFILES (FLAT AND UPHILL):

It’s thanks to these two curves that I can create intensity zones for training (7-zone model, see below)
Below, here’s a graph with two curves that I look at with interest, especially for trailers.

The record performance profile is split into 2 curves, one flat and one uphill. It’s essential to be able to separate flat and uphill performance levels in trail training (without forgetting technique and muscular resistance on the downhill). This allows you to adjust your pace perfectly to the objective of the session and, above all, to know how to manage your pacing according to the gradient during races.

In my case, there’s more than a 30W difference (334W vs 299W) between my critical power on the flat and on the climb. This difference is explained by greater muscular fatigue on the climb, as more muscle groups are mobilized for similar power on the flat, and there’s less of an economy effect and free energy on the climb vs. the flat. On the other hand, over shorter durations, it’s possible to produce more power uphill, precisely because it’s easier to recruit more muscle fibers to push harder, compared to the flat, where you’re quickly limited by speed and running technique.
To sum up, I push harder but not for as long when climbing. I’ll have to work on my strength endurance in 2019 to try and get closer to my critical flat power!

Performance profile, flat (red) and uphill (yellow)

 

The 2 curves modelled by my analysis software (WKO4) enable me to build training zones that are entirely individualized and updated every 90 days according to progress. So for each athlete, I have 2 tables with their training zones, for flat and uphill! This enables me to precisely target the right intensity zones in training and plan pacing in races.

Above, my current training zones (early 2019) on the flat (I’ll come back to the choice of these zones in another article).

 

 

3) ANALYSIS OF MY 2018 SEASON:

It’s all very well to do tests, to evaluate yourself, to know your training zones… but how do you know if you’re training correctly? How do we know that the planning is relevant and that the loads are well handled?
Below is an analysis of my 2018 season with the main indicators I use to analyze training load modulation:

 

 

 

 

Sounds like the altimeter profile of a trail run, doesn’t it? I’ve had some great training phases, as explained below, but also some nice lows, as shown by my performance level (VO2max and PC), which has fluctuated between 300 and 326 W (and between 67 – 72 ml/min/kg) this season. I always keep an eye on these data to know how much work I still have to do and also to situate myself in relation to my known low and high values. For example, we can see that I resumed my preparation well at the end of 2018, but that I still have some way to go to get back to my 2018 high values to perform at my level.
The point of tracking this data (as with the TrainingSharp performance radar) over the long term is to get to know yourself better and to be able to put your season’s performances into context.

Analysis of the season with the Ramp Rate, an indicator I keep a close eye on.

 

I use the “ramp rate” to analyze the evolution of fitness as a function of training loads. This tool represents the value of the increase or decrease in CTL (chronic training load), or in simpler terms: “physical condition” (if you’d like to find out more about training loads and control ratios, I’ll be doing an article on the subject).
It is calculated on the basis of the Training Stress Score (TSS), which is itself calculated for each session (basically, the TSS is the workload of a session as a function of duration and intensity).
I use the TSS for myself, but I prefer to use the TRIMP (Training Impulse) with my athletes, because it takes into account the athlete’s feelings, and that’s essential for getting to know your athlete. In any case, the example of the analysis that follows remains the same.

The graph shows 3 zones at the top (red, green and yellow). The “ideal” training zone is between 0 and 3 TSS/week (green zone).

A value close to 0 means that you train just enough to maintain your physical condition, so the risk of injury and overtraining is very low, but progress is quickly limited.

In the red zone, beyond 3 TSS/week, the training load becomes too dangerous (progression/injury risk ratio not recommended). So, yes, fitness will climb faster (theoretically), but the Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR) will quickly move into the red as a more propitious sign of overtraining and injury. It’s time to ease off the pace, because the game isn’t worth the candle (word to the wise 😉 ). I try never to exceed 3 TSS/week with my athletes, except in exceptional cases such as the preparation of an ultra trainer, but in any case it never lasts long (2-3 weeks max), and the program is well thought out. I prefer my athletes to maintain their physical integrity, even if it means taking longer to reach their target fitness level.

The yellow zone, below 0 TSS/week, is a sign that training is too light to maintain physical condition. Either you’re in the fine-tuning phase, in which case it’s perfectly normal as the aim is to reduce the fatigue accumulated by training, or you’re in the middle of de-training (phases 3, 6, 8 and 11 for me this year) and you need to reframe your training (unless it’s an injury, which needs to be treated first).

This year, I went into the red zone twice at the start of the season (1 and 2) The first time was during a busy training camp in Spain (over 700 Training Stress Score, TSS) in early January 2018. This led to a minor injury a few weeks later (3). It just goes to show that the risk of putting on heavy training loads isn’t really worth it, even if it sometimes “passes”…

From February to April, I was able to put in place my best training phase of the year (4 and 5) as part of my preparation for selection for the French OC team.
Then there’s the rest and “de-training” phase following the selection races (6), which was necessary to rest and, above all, heal an Achilles tendon injury that would later prevent me from taking part in the Tiomila (one of the biggest popular races in CO) with my Swedish club OK Denseln.

The second phase of preparation and competition (7) in May-June-July was well managed, with no risk-taking on the training load (between 0 and 2 TSS/week). This well-optimized phase (never more than 400 TSS per week) paid off handsomely, with some good results in both CO and Trail (French long-distance runner-up, Trail podiums, OOcup podium – an international CO competition…) and, above all, no injuries or overtraining! This confirms my philosophy that well-optimized and safe training is more interesting in the long term, because it allows you to limit risks while still performing well!

The last part of the season (9) was more chaotic due to a lack of time and specific objectives (8: vacations + 2nd place Trail relay UTV; 10: French CO championships; 11: end-of-season break). Instead, I tried to keep in shape as best I could… There’s more to life than training ????

Now it’s time for the 2019 season and the setting of new goals! As far as I’m concerned, I’ll be focusing on a bit of OC, and especially Trail running, where I’ll be trying to improve my performance! ????

by Olivier Blanc-Tranchant