Chris Farhood
f6dd9dfc27
Modular cycling-training skill: periodization logic, workout design, and research-backed protocols that companion an Intervals.icu MCP server (the server owns all data + computed metrics; the skill owns knowledge + reasoning). Structure: - SKILL.md router + README (companion-to-MCP architecture, install steps) - references/: durability, mtb-xco-demands, strength-for-cyclists, vo2max-intervals, periodization, data-confounds, citations - assets/: base + build plan templates, durability field-test protocol Every quantitative claim carries an inline citation; citations.md is the single source of truth with PMID/DOI, each verified against PubMed on 2026-07-20. Notable honesty flags baked in: - VO2 rep-length: running (Fleckenstein 2025) vs cycling (Ronnestad) conflict documented rather than asserted; cycling evidence favors short intervals. - 'Yu et al. 2025' (frequency > distribution) could not be found; not cited. - Under-researched doses (durability, taper TSB, CTL ramp) flagged 'track response'. - HR-confound doc forbids naive decoupling<5% / RHR+5 rules. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TqrhBhC3GEcKyaw8RTk8G6
4.8 KiB
Periodization, distribution & taper
Load this doc when: structuring a season, choosing an intensity distribution, setting a CTL ramp, or planning an A-race taper.
Data/knowledge split: MCP supplies CTL / ATL / TSB, the load ramp, and TSS. This doc supplies the logic for how fast to ramp, how to distribute intensity, and what TSB to target.
Distribution is a principle, not a recipe
Do not treat polarized (or pyramidal) training as a fixed formula. The right distribution is context-dependent — set by training age, weekly volume, life stress, and the current phase.
The framing to internalize: effective endurance training is "the long game, not epic workouts." HIIT should not be prescribed as an acute-response "maximization problem"; what matters is the long-term integration of intensity, duration, and frequency, adapted to the athlete's context (Seiler 2024, Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 49(11):1585–1599; PMID 39079169; DOI 10.1139/apnm-2024-0012 — a peer-reviewed Perspective, open access).
On "frequency matters more than the exact distribution": this is a reasonable working heuristic consistent with Seiler's long-game argument, but note the honest state of evidence — a 2025 review of training-intensity-distribution models concludes no single model is universally superior and that model choice must be adapted to sport, phase, and athlete (Sun, Yu et al. 2025, Front Physiol 16:1657892; PMID 41169886; DOI 10.3389/fphys.2025.1657892). Treat "get enough quality hard sessions in, don't obsess over polarized-vs-pyramidal labels" as a defensible principle, not a quantified finding.
Citation honesty note: a specific "Yu et al. 2025" paper claiming frequency of hard sessions outweighs distribution could not be located in PubMed. Do not cite one. Ground the point in Seiler 2024 (the long-game argument) and the Sun/Yu 2025 review (no model universally superior). See
citations.md.
Standard periodization: base → build → peak
Work backward from the A-race (backward mapping). Each phase sets up the next.
| Phase | Primary job | Emphasis |
|---|---|---|
| Base | Raise sustainable CTL, aerobic base, durability, and strength capacity | High volume, mostly low intensity, small hard dose kept alive; build heavy strength |
| Build | Sharpen threshold & VO2max; add race-specific top-end; preserve durability & strength | Fewer, sharper hard sessions; strength → maintenance |
| Peak/Taper | Shed fatigue, keep fitness, arrive fresh | Reduce volume, keep some intensity, hit TSB target |
Templates: ../assets/plan-template-base.md, ../assets/plan-template-build.md.
Mesocycle rhythm
| Athlete | Rhythm | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Younger / high recoverability | 3:1 (3 load weeks : 1 recovery) | Standard |
| Masters / higher life stress | 2:1 (2 load : 1 recovery) | Favor recovery — masters recover slower; the 2:1 protects adaptation |
Recovery weeks ≈ 40–60% of the preceding load week's TSS. These are adaptation weeks, not lost time — the fitness is expressed during them.
CTL ramp guidance
- Ramp CTL gradually — a common, conservative guide is ~3–7 CTL points per week sustained, lower for masters or when life stress is high. Faster ramps raise injury/illness/overtraining risk without proportional benefit.
- Read the actual CTL/ATL/TSB and ramp rate from MCP (
get_athlete_summary); this doc only tells you whether the ramp is sane. A runaway ramp with a deeply negative TSB trend is a flag — cross- check wellness before pushing (data-confounds.md).
⚠️ The CTL ramp numbers are heuristics, not laws. Individual tolerance varies widely — track response (wellness, performance, durability) rather than forcing a fixed points/week.
A-race taper & TSB targets
- Goal: arrive with fitness intact and fatigue gone — a positive but not deeply detrained TSB. A common target window is TSB ≈ +5 to +15 on race day (higher for shorter/punchier events where freshness dominates; lower for long events where fitness retention matters more).
- How: cut volume substantially over the final 1–2 weeks while keeping some intensity (short race-specific efforts) so you sharpen rather than go flat. Don't cut intensity to zero.
- Durability caveat: durability decays if load drops too far for too long (
durability.md). For long/marathon events, taper less aggressively than for short punchy events, or you arrive fresh but unable to hold late-race power. - Read TSB from MCP and steer it into the target window; this doc sets the target, MCP measures it.
⚠️ Taper TSB targets are individual. The +5 to +15 window is a starting point; some riders peak flat at +5, others need +15–20. Track how the athlete has raced at known TSB values and personalize.