If you don’t follow your training plan exactly as it’s laid out… does it really matter? By Mark Carroll

Many of us take on rigid training plans, with exact drill and interval layouts, to achieve a desired result within a set time. Although the idea is to follow the plan diligently, life invariably gets in the way, and we need to shuffle things around a little bit – thus ruining the plan.

The reason we’re compelled to follow training plans so precisely is because they progress and build in intensity as the weeks go by, leaving the most intense sessions for the final weeks before the race. But does shaking up the training plan affect the end result, once the plan is done and dusted?

To answer this question, sports scientist Professor Stephen Seiler and a leading research team from Norway designed a 12-week training programme consisting of 24 high-intensity interval sessions, along with low-intensity training. Then they took 63 well-trained cyclists, split them into three groups, and took them all through the same programme – but in very different ways.

Specifically:

Group 1: Started with lower intensity, and progressed to higher intensity over time – the traditional approach.
Group 2: Did the exact opposite of Group 1; they started with higher intensity, and progressed to lower intensity.
Group 3: Did the various high-intensity sessions in completely random order.

The result? All three groups improved – equally!

Logically, this result shouldn’t surprise us too much. All three groups trained consistently for 12 weeks, and as is normal, their systems were stressed with training and adapted to that stress; it was just the timing that changed. These were well-trained cyclists, and as a group, they improved; the training was ‘effective’.

So is there merit in the traditional approach of ‘peaking’ for your planned A-race? Or is quality of session design more important than the timing of when the sessions are done?

The results of this study should not suggest that you can do just anything, and you will improve; rather, it means that provided the quality of training is appropriate, the order in which sessions are done isn’t likely to have much effect on the outcome. This is a welcome discovery, and brings some relief from the belief that having to stick rigidly to a plan is the only way to reap its full benefits. Quality and appropriateness, rather than timing, is what counts.

Several studies on the effectiveness of this training model on well-trained cyclists prove that the subjects out-performed those following a more traditional approach of two interval sessions per week. This was despite the fact that in total, both groups did the same volume over the four-week period

While we may not be TdF pro riders duking it out on the slopes of Alpe d’Huez, it’s still fun to attack during a group ride, or even in a race. The best way to attack is to get out of the saddle, whether you’re doing it on a flat or an uphill. To do this you need to be efficient – and that’s a skill that’s lacking in many cyclists, because it’s rarely practised.

To develop this skill, start with lower-intensity-effort uphill sessions, building towards race-pace effort, and then attack-pace effort. Stand for one to three minutes at a time; and focus on feeling the bike. Do this for a few weeks, and you’ll be dancing on the pedals like Contador.

READ MORE ON: Skills training programmes workouts