Six case studies: the decisions and metrics behind Friel’s plans
See what Friel changes across six cyclist profiles, including consistency, scheduling, power, priorities and recovery.
Chapter 11 allows you to observe how general principles produce different plans. Your interest is not in finding a person of the same age and copying the table. It is in understanding which problem each decision tries to resolve.
The six profiles below belong to the book. Its numbers are references of these cases, not required performance standards for men, women or competitive categories.
Tom Brown: Continuation before Sophistication
Tom has 39 years, demanding work and family. His resistance is limited by a somewhat consistent history. The plan organizes a season with a main peak and seeks to create continuity within real availability.
The conclusion is that a limiter may result from the difficulty of sustaining the program. Adding complex sessions does not solve an irregular execution base. Initial investment needs to allow you to repeat productive weeks.
Lisa Harvey: Having time doesn't mean being able to absorb everything
Lisa, from 27 years, has relatively more space on the agenda, but enough of an unstructured preparation with several limiters. Friel organizes progression and accompanies the response, instead of immediately filling all free time.
The teaching is to distinguish resources from agenda and tolerance to training. It is also necessary to choose priorities between different difficulties, so that the program does not try to develop everything in the same intensity.
Sam Crooks: Three peaks require planning between events
Sam has 37 years, strengths suitable for criteria and family responsibilities that change some weekends. The calendar seeks three priority moments and considers these restrictions in advance.
The plan shows that life outside the bike must enter the original design. Between peaks, it is necessary to reorganize development and maintenance; it is not enough to repeat load reductions before each competition.
Randy Stickler: Base can also appear in summer
Randy, from 25 years, is experienced and goes through a competitive period with reduced training duration. Friel includes a return to base in the middle of the season to rebuild resistance.
In the example, the block comes after eight weeks of shorter duration. Some group sessions start to have instruction to remain protected, reducing intensity while the volume gains space. The detail reveals the priority: it is not about adding long to an equally intense routine.
Marlene Ziehl: Power goals make the goal verifiable
Marlene is 39 and starts using a power meter to prepare for time trials. The case gives a CP60 reference of 210 W and a body mass of approximately 57 kg: 210 ÷ 57 ≈ 3.68 W/kg.
An intermediate goal is to reach at least 220 W. To reach 4 W/kg while maintaining 57 kg, the calculation requires approximately 228 W. The book roundes the references and discusses an elevation around 10% throughout the preparation. They are goals formulated for this athlete.
Friel also intends to raise its power of six minutes, from approximately 255 to 275 W, for road needs. This shows how different competitions require distinct points of the profile.
The plan also considers its agenda: ten-hour workdays have less space, while others allow priority sessions. time trial training is performed in the specific position. The meter makes the objective measurable, but does not choose alone when and how to train it.
Ralph Hearth: develop capacity and stop wasting it
Ralph, from 56 years, receives goals of CP60 and CP6, as well as a tactical goal: to save energy and protect himself from the wind. The plan does not reduce the competitive problem to physiological numbers.
Its initial values are 230 W in CP60 and 276 W in CP6, with about 72 kg. Friel proposes approximate targets of 260 and 300 W in that competitive context. The weight ratio helps to keep up with the project without making these values a requirement for any master.
The case uses three-week cycles, with recovery after two weeks of work, and strength maintenance. The conclusion is to adapt density and recovery to the response. The food explanation about alkalinity presented in the case belongs to the vision of 2009 and is not adopted here as an established mechanism.
What unites the six plans?
Each change has a justification: to preserve continuity, develop a limiter, fit in the routine, rebuild resistance or recover better. Metrics give direction when connected to these decisions.
The main lesson is to copy the reasoning, not the spreadsheet. Ask which problem was identified, why that stimulus was chosen and what evidence will show that the solution is working.
Reference: FRIEL, Joe. The Cyclist’s Training Bible. 4th ed. VeloPress, 2009. Chapter 11, “Case Studies”. Pages in the PDF file: 236–269. A selective synthesis written in our own words. Examples labeled as editorial are Enduran-se’s own examples; they are not additional cases reported by the author.
Cada um no seu ritmo. Juntos no caminho.