Training

A Comparison of the Five Training Elements - Continued

Part 2 - Reduced Training Frequency Study

With a baseline of fitness established with the 10 week training program, Dr. Hickson then had the subjects decrease frequency of training by either 1/3 or 2/3.  One group continued exercising for 4-days per week for 15 weeks with 2 days per week of running and 2 days per week of cycling.  A second group continued exercising for 2-days per week for 15 weeks with 1 day a week of running and 1 day per week of cycling.  Both groups maintained workout duration of 40 minutes per workout, following the exercise protocols from the initial 10 weeks.  Intensity was maintained at the same rate as on the tenth week of training.  Note that the level of resistance was held constant during the 15 week reduced frequency period – it was not increased weekly as it had been during the initial 10 week training program.  All of the subjects in each group did not perform any additional exercise other than the reduced training.

Additionally, two subjects who completed the 4-days per week reduced training volunteered to continue reduced training at 2-days per week.

What were the results of reducing the training frequency to either 4 or 2 days per week?  No decrease in performance for either group.  Both the 2 and 4 day groups maintained the high level of performance and VO2max that had been gained during the initial 10 weeks.  This high level of performance was maintained for the entire 15 weeks of reduced frequency training.  You might want to read that again.  Performance was maintained for the entire 15 week period for both groups.  Performance was even maintained in the two subjects who reduced training for 4-days per week for 15 weeks and then reduced training to 2-days per week for an additional 15 weeks (30 weeks of total reduced training).  Performance was maintained even with a 66% decrease in overall training volume.

 Table 1:  Effects of 10 wk training and 15 wk reduced training either 4/d wk or 2/d wk on performance

The researchers observed that “These results support the finding that more exercise is required to increase VO2max during training, than is required to maintain it at the training level.”  (Note – while I am not an advocate of VO2max, I do recognize that it is often used as a proxy for both improvement and performance.)

Discussion

The researchers could be correct that a higher volume of exercise is required to improve performance than is required to maintain it.  On the other hand, I would point out that since the level of resistance was plateaued from week 10 on, intensity was effectively decreased.  During the initial 10 week training period, the subjects were tested each week to determine if exercise capacity had increased.  If capacity increased, and it did during all 10 weeks, the level of resistance was increased so that intensity was maintained.  During the 15 week reduced training period this did not happen.  Resistance was maintained at the same level as it had reached during week 10.  Even though the researchers noted that performance did not show any signs of leveling off, they did not test to see if capacity increased in weeks 11 – 14.  Indeed, subsequent studies on tapering have shown increases in performance of as much as 3% in 5km time during a one week taper where volume was decreased 85% while intensity was increased (5).  If the exercise capacity of the subjects increased during week 11, as it had increased the previous 10 weeks and as the tapering study would suggest, then plateauing the level of resistance effectively reduced the intensity of effort.  Since the subjects’ capacity was likely increased in week 11, the intensity required to maintain their previous work rate was decreased.  The plateau in resistance would explain the plateau in performance.

Also, while the subjects exercised six days per week during the initial 10 week training period, they performed each mode of exercise only three days per week.  These subjects ran 3 days per week during the initial 10 week training period.  During reduced training they ran either 2 days per week or 1 day per week.  Three days per week of training would be considered by many advocates of conventional training to be a very minimal training frequency, even with each bout lasting 40 minutes.  Despite a training frequency that many might consider as a “beginner” level the improvements in fitness were quite profound.  In the first study, the average increase in the VO2max was 44% and was accompanied by an equally linear increase in performance.  The fact that mode training 1 or 2 days per week were sufficient to maintain a markedly improved performance level for 15 weeks (and in the case of 2 subjects, for 30 weeks) argues strongly against the importance conventional wisdom places on weekly training volume.

Lastly, research on tapering has shown improvements in performance when a taper is conducted for 1 – 3 weeks.  Dr. Hickson’s studies would not be considered tapering since the reduced training period was both 50% longer than the initial training period (and 100% longer for two subjects), and 12 – 14 weeks longer than the longest recommended taper.

Summary

This study illustrates that, at a minimum, a high level of performance can be maintained on reduced training volume of as much as 66%, even when the initial training volume would be considered by many to be the minimum necessary for improvements.  Considering the fact that during the reduced training period the level of effort was plateaued resulting in a decrease in intensity, I suggest that the plateaus in performance observed during the reduced training period were likely caused by the plateau in level of resistance and the subsequent decrease in intensity.

Next:  Part 3 - Reduced Training Duration