.png?width=100&height=100&name=Untitled%20design%20(3).png "Elevate Coaching")
How to structure a taper
In the previous blog series, I gave you a little background on the basic scientific principles behind endurance training. We spoke about a few critical factors that contribute to the design and success of endurance training programmes; training intensity distribution, low intensity training, high intensity training, and the supercompensation cycle, to name a few. In this blog series, we are going to move away from training principles and focus a little more acutely on race-day itself, starting with the taper down from our last training block to the event.
What is a taper and why should we do one?
So, I’m sure we all know what a taper is – that last bit before competition where we reduce our training load, freshen up, and get ready for the event. Conceptually, tapering is not complicated. Even if we quote world-leading tapering expert and exercise physiologist Iñigo Mujika, the definition does not become complicated: “A taper is the training phase characterised by a reduction of the amount of training that athletes undergo during the final days leading to a major competition” (2).
Even the why behind tapering is relatively intuitive. Endurance training, particularly a solid cycle of endurance training, makes us tired. We become progressively more fatigued as our cycle progresses and the hours on the bike or running kilometres mount up. We get fitter throughout the training programme by accruing all those physiological adaptations we talked about in the last blog series, but this is offset in terms of our readiness to actually compete at our best by the progressive fatigue built up in training. We therefore use a taper prior to competition to dissipate training-induced fatigue and allow us to make the most of those new-found adaptations to perform at our best on race-day. The primary feature of a taper is therefore a reduction in overall training load that allows us to freshen up. Unsurprisingly, performing some kind of taper has been shown to be effective in scientific research at enhancing endurance performance compared to simply carrying on with training as normal right up until competition day (1, 4).
Obviously, though, we don’t want to detrain and lose some of those hard earned training adaptations during the tapering period when we are training less. Therefore, tapering is a balancing act; a balance between dissipating the fatigue accrued during the last training cycle and the desire to not lose any of its beneficial adaptations. This is where tapering becomes a little more complicated.
How should we reduce our training load?
The obvious question is therefore how do we organise a taper that effectively balances the need to dissipate fatigue with our desire to maintain beneficial adaptations accrued through training? We need to consider whether our taper should involve a progressive reduction in training load or if we should simply reduce training load all in one go, how long the taper needs to last, and, remembering that training load is training intensity multiplied by training volume, decide upon the means by which we should reduce our training load.
We have good evidence to support decision-making in some of these areas. For instance, a number of studies have suggested the most effective tapers maintain training intensity, whilst reducing training volume to reduce overall training load (2, 4). Perhaps the best example of a study in this domain was published by a Canadian team of researchers back in 2003, which took trained male cyclists through a seven-week training programme, followed by a 40-km time-trial performed before and after different week-long tapers. The tapering conditions involved reducing training intensity, reducing training volume, or not tapering at all. Performance improved as a result of tapering in the group that maintained intensity and reduced volume, but did not change in the group that reduced intensity and maintained volume. These results were subsequently echoed by a 2007 meta-analysis synthesising all available data on the topic (1). Practically, this might mean that our 12-km tempo run at 4:15 pace instead becomes a 6-km tempo run, still at 4:15 pace, during the tapering period.
Training volume can be reduced in two ways; by reducing the length of our training sessions, or by reducing the frequency at which we train. The evidence in this domain is less clear, although the best recommendation we can make seems to be that we should train as often as we ordinarily do during the tapering period, but just reduce the duration of the sessions (1, 3). This might make sense when we consider that the fatigue developing after our important low-intensity training sessions is really a result of long session durations, related to things like depletion of our carbohydrate energy stores and repeated eccentric loading and muscle damage (during running, at least), and the fatigue associated with a 10 x 3-min higher-intensity workout, for instance, is progressive and exacerbated with each repetition as neuromuscular fatigue develops and the metabolic disturbance becomes greater. With shorter, but still frequent, sessions, we may be able to keep our engines firing without initiating long-lasting fatigue.
Knowing that, generally speaking, we might seek to maintain training intensity and frequency during our taper, whilst reducing training duration and therefore volume and overall load, we now need to consider how long our taper should last and how it should be organised. The honest answers to those questions, at least from a scientific perspective, is both it depends and we aren’t really sure. The meta-analysis I mentioned pointed towards 8-14 days being possibly the ideal duration (1), which aligns generally with what most endurance athletes tend to do in practice, although context here is key. If the last training cycle has been executed well, and has been consistent and demanding, a longer taper duration is going to be required to offset the fatigue generated during that cycle than if training has been interrupted and sporadic throughout, as training-induced fatigue is likely to be less pronounced. Athlete preferences are also key, as for some individuals the psychological stress associated with a long taper of 14 days might offset any physiological benefits, meaning that a taper of say 7-10 days might be a better approach. Being a good coach is about being able to consider the available scientific data and integrate it with knowledge of the individual athlete in question and identify the most effective strategy. Research studies do not provide one size fits all plans for application under all circumstances.
The information on how to organise a taper is even less clear. Tapering can feature a linear, progressive reduction in a training load towards the event, an exponential reduction in training load characterised by an initially rapid and then slower reduction in training load, or a step-like reduction in training load. What is the best model? There probably isn’t one (1). I personally feel as though the choice made by the coach here needs to be guided by the characteristics of the last cycle. A longer, more fatiguing cycle may require a slower, longer, more progressive taper, whereas a shorter, less fatiguing cycle may require a shorter, punchy taper that drops down to the reduced training load straight away. As always, context is key.
Conclusion
That was a whistle-stop tour of tapering and its considerations. To summarise, tapering is a balancing act between dissipating training-induced fatigue and maintaining beneficial adaptations where context is always key. The broad principle of reducing our training load via reduced training duration, whilst maintaining intensity and frequency, is a scientifically supported one.
References
1. Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I. Effects of tapering on performance: A meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 1358–1365, 2007.
2. Mujika I. Intense training: The key to optimal performance before and during the taper. Scand J Med Sci Sport 20: 24–31, 2010.
3. Mujika I, Goya A, Ruiz E, Grijalba A, Santisteban J, Padilla S. Physiological and performance responses to a 6-day taper in middle-distance runners: Influence of training frequency. Int J Sports Med 23: 367–373, 2002.
4. Neary JP, Martin TP, Quinney HA. Effects of taper on endurance cycling capacity and single muscle fiber properties. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 1875–1881, 2003.