Planning a 9-week training cycle?

[tango]

    I'm hoping to get some feedback on building a 9-week training cycle.  Due to the nature of my work schedule (I work as a teacher), I'm playing with the idea of fitting two training cycles into a semester.


For basic guidelines, my semester is 20 weeks long.  The idea I'm toying with is as follows:

• 9 week training cycle.
• 1 week performance phase (roughly Spring Break).
• 1 week rest.
• 9 week training cycle.
• Summer Break.

In RCTM, the Beginner's Training Plan breaks down as such:

• Base Fitness - 4 weeks.
• Strength - 3 weeks.
• Power - 2 weeks.
• Power Endurance - 3 weeks.

Given 9 weeks for a training cycle, my thoughts were:

• Base Fitness - 2 weeks.
• Strength - 3 weeks.
• Power - 2 weeks.
• Power Endurance - 2 weeks.

    Essentially I'm weighing the advantage/s of having two (slightly shorter) training cycles versus having one (quite longer) training cycle that fits inside of my semester-based work schedule.
    Is this idea entirely unreasonable?  Am I short-changing myself?  Is this within the realm of reasonable planning?
    Any feedback, guidance much appreciated.

[andrew]

I'm a teacher, and I did something similar to that this spring- though the cycle before spring break was closer to a full cycle and the cycle after spring break was closer to your 9 week scheme.  It worked fairly well for me, with some minor drawbacks.  I'm also someone who is new enough to the RP routine that I could see gain even from a curtailed cycle.  In the short cycle between spring break and summer I simply couldn't fit everything in.  I only did a couple campus days- matched my previous highpoint and moved on to PE.  In the performance phase, my fingers felt strong and I had good endurance, but my pulling power was not up to par.  I suppose if you had specific goals, you could de-emphasis the parts of the training which would serve you the least in the shorter cycle.  Because I can get away for a longer climbing trip in June, next year I'm simply going to do a full training cycle that culminates then, and take my spring break doing whatever part of the cycle I'm in outdoors.  

[jessebruni]

I would think it would matter a lot what level you climb at and also what your goals are. For instance if your 1 week performance is going to be in the Red I would emphasize Base Fitness a bit more. If you're planning on going bouldering you can probably skip the PE phase entirely.

[tango]

    Both good points. As Andrew stated, maybe it's worth considering extending one of the cycles into the summer in order to have something closer to a full-length cycle.

    In response to jessebruni, my goals are generally route-based. I'm not much of a boulderer, or seeking to get better at it. More sport climbing and some trad.  My weaknesses are everything, as far as I'm concerned.  Long pumpy routes, and sustained overhangs seem to be problems for me.

[MarkAnderson]

Jul 2, 2015 13:42:53 GMT -7 jessebruni said:

I would think it would matter a lot what level you climb at and also what your goals are.

+1.

Also, considering the week of Performance and week of Rest, I would call it an 11-week cycle. I make that distinction because I routinely do cycles that last ~13 weeks (to try to squeeze four seasons into a year).  My approach works very well for me.  It might work for you if you have similar goals, strengths, and weaknesses.  When I do short cycle I'm usually training for power and perhaps some high-end PE.  It would be harder to do if I were training for endurance or low-end PE.

[tango]

    As an alternative solution (and I feel fairly silly for not having considered it), it would also be possible to simply start my first training cycle before the semester begins, and allow the second training cycle to finish after the semester ends.
     It wouldn't be quite as pretty on a calendar, but it would properly solve the problem and allow for full-length cycles.

    +1 for having a "duh" moment.