Hi Joe. I read the book after having used the blog posts that preceded it for running. I've laid out the schedule for the categories of workouts over a 9-day calendar (7-day during my base periods). But I plan to train now not just for running, but for triathlon. In the Training Bible, you say to mark in X for each week for each sport. But in the old folks schema, there is a specific day for a category (Aerobic Capacity, LT, AT). How does one distribute the workouts for each sport across those categories? Surely I don't don't do all three AC workouts the same day? It's easy to understand for running, but I am unable to translate the book into a triathlon rotation of sports. Or did I miss something in the book? Thanks for your wonderful book, btw!

I should have mentioned this: my question about the constants on the PMC derives from reading Hunter Allen's description of those constants on the TrainingPeaks site. The defaults are 42 & 7, but these seem to presume 7-day microcycles. I thought perhaps that these should be 46 and 9, respectively, given your comparison, because your paradigm sees 6 microcycles as 46 days, and sees the acute load in terms of 9-days. I've decided to create another PMC chart with those constants for comparison to the defaults of 42 & 7. But it sure would be good to hear your thinking about how aging might affect these monitoring tools by altering assumptions about the effects of training load on our bodies.

Joe, I'm now finishing my second 23-day cycle (actually beginning my 2nd 5-day R&R period today). When viewing my Performance Management Chart in TrainingPeaks, I've noticed that the slope of the Chronic Training Load has flattened significantly by incorporating all this rest. I've not missed any key workouts, but the H-R-R x3 pattern has resulted in a slightly positive CTL slope. I feel much more refreshed than on my 7-day microcycle, but now I'm wondering if my CTL (which I take to be my measure of fitness) will reach the peak I want to reach by May 2014. I understand that I lose virtually no muscular fitness if I rest for 5 days, but by focusing on CTL as my measure of fitness, I have the visual sense that the longer microcycle and 5-day R&R is maintaining rather than building fitness, but qualitatively I feel I am building in fitness (and I see that in the mirror). Wondering if that chart is right and it means my easy days need more mileage or if the problem is that the parameters underlying the PMC need to be tweaked to reflect this aging paradigm. I was wondering about the PMC constants for ATL and CTL, for example. Does the PMC presuppose something that ought to change in this new aging paradigm?

Joe, I'm curious what you recommend for transition for seniors. I have 19 calendar weeks between A races (the second is a marathon). On p. 117 (your 3rd ed, TTB), you say to mark off a single calendar week for Transition. 19 -1 (transition) - 1 (taper) - 1 (race)= 16 weeks (112 days) for base and build. But 4x23-day mesocyles=92 days. That leaves 20 days before beginning the four complete mesocycles. My assumption is that the four complete mesocycles would be Base 3b, Build 1, 2a, and 2b. My instinct is that the extra 20 days would be a special 20-day base 3a mesocycle, with two 8-day microcycles plus one 4-day rest cycle. Does that fit your logic?

Just to confirm: so you are saying that my interpretation is correct - that the entire buildup for us - from prep to race - will be longer. As in my example, if it once took me 18 7-day microcycles, I will now prepare over a longer duration for the same event (such as 18 9-day microcycles or more). My question was triggered by wondering whether you felt that the build periods or particular workouts needed to be at least (or no more than) X weeks or X days before the race, regardless of the duration of my buildup. For example, many folks suggest that the last long run should be a specified number of days before the race, and Jack Daniels used to raise concern about the length of time one could sustain the high quality (race-specific) training. Hence my question about your specifying 12-weeks. Is that a judgment about the maximum duration you feel a senior should spend in that phase?

Thought I'd ask you something that may reflect a gross conceptual error on my part. I've been thinking about the build and peak periods and your specific prescriptions based on calendar weeks before the A race. Why is the number of calendar weeks the same even after one switches to the 9-day microcycle? For example, if, when I did a 7-day cycle, I did a 12-week build, why would I not now do a 12-microcycle build (108 days now rather than 84)? It seems in once case the focus is microcycles, and in other cases it is calendar weeks. But it occurs to me that perhaps if it took my 18 weeks before to train for a race, it should now take me 18 microcycles. Seems like it should take me longer to train for the same race. Can you explain?

Joe, Thought I'd run this flexible approach to microcycles by you to see if it makes sense. As mentioned in an earlier comment on your prep period post, I planned my 2014 calendar with a faulty assumption about R&R. My assumption was that I could do some MP tempo runs in the R&R period since MP running is relatively low intensity and also that I could some 19km endurance runs. My microcycles were 9+9+5 as you suggest. Based on your correction of my misconception, I re-did the calendar, but felt I occasionally needed those endurance and MP runs in the timing I had them. So I decided to try a flexible approach. In almost all cases, I followed the 9+9+5 mesocycle and eliminated everything by active recovery or rest from the R&R periods. However, on 4 occasions between now and Memorial Day - all during the extended base cycles and Build 1, I used a 10-day microcycle by adding the 19km or MP run (H-R-R-H-R-R-H-R-R-H) followed by a 4-day R&R microcycle. My reasoning is that I am only 53 and I believe my body currently responds a bit better to high doses than is assumed in your 23-day cycle, so a moderate dose on day 10 followed by 4 real rest days would achieve a similar (if lesser) training effect. Am I missing something in my logic?

My confusion came from p 107 in the training bible, where it talks of scheduling E and S and a strength session. I guess MP runs are muscular endurance sessions technically, so I get that. But 19km run at base pace seems like just another E run to me. I'll have to re-think my R&R cycles, clearly. Glad I asked.

If I may ask a clarifying question as a followup: Right now I'm focused on my goal of qualifying for the Boston Marathon and so not involved in cycling that much. I rely entirely on pace data using the wonderful tools in Training Peaks (although I do like to watch EF). I set up my prep and base periods based on your nine-day misocycles. I am not clear on what ought to happen for me as a runner during the five-day R&R. Historically, I've used the weekly cycle, scheduling a rotation of long and marathon pace runs on Monday. In constructing a 9-day cycle, I treated these as high dose days and they float throughout the cycles. However, since you say to schedule endurance runs during the five-day R&R period, I also scheduled endurance and marathon pace runs during those periods, such that they were always 2 days after a high dose and followed by 2 days of recovery. In other words, I scheduled a single run up to 19km in the R&R period and the other four days were always reduced volume and low intensity. Occasionally these are marathon pace cruise intervals instead of 14-19Km base pace run. I did not add any speed workouts or tests during the R&R periods. Is that correct treatment of the R&R period?

I am confused by how to structure the R&R periods when they are only five days. The TB says to reduce training hours and to schedule an Endurance, Speed, and a Test (during Base and Build). But that seems to assume a seven-day microcycle. How does the five day R&R period work if I am doing a nine-day microcycle? Do I schedule E, S, and a Test each R&R period (if not racing)?