A Theoretical Guide to Work Capacity
Multi-Pace Theory
Author’s Note: I wrote this piece several years ago for no particular audience at all; rather, the idea was to get some thoughts down on paper based on gym experimentation I’d been doing with my special operations guys. A lot of credit is due to James Fitzgerald of OPEX, as he and I spent some good hours in front of a whiteboard expanding on the OPEX work capacity model and tweaking things in such a way that it might make sense for the tactical setting. In all honesty, sitting here now several years removed from initially putting pen to paper, I don’t think I would make too many changes to my original thoughts save for maybe allowing for a bit more programming flexibility in terms of when we implement Accumulation versus Intensification phases.
“Work Capacity” is a vague term in the human performance space, but I feel like its mastery is crucial for an effectively designed tactical training program. I have left my original thoughts unedited in this post to hopefully inspire some discussion in the coaching and training community.
BACKGROUND
The idea for Multi-Pace Theory came about due to the inability of traditional linear endurance training models to adapt to the fluidity of the average tactical athlete's schedule. Simply put, progressing from “long and slow” to “short and fast” over an extended period of time was inefficient when trying to account for unpredictable gaps in training schedules due to deployments, TDYs (temporary duty assignments), on-the-job skills training, etc. Considering that an optimistic mesocycle was often around three to four weeks, an abbreviated and often cyclical interpretation of linear endurance training models was required.
OVERVIEW
From a broad perspective, Multi-Pace Theory (MP) consists of eight time domains progressing from 60 minutes to 60 seconds. When multiple rounds (i.e. “pieces”) of a given interval are prescribed, each domain is paired with an appropriate aerobic work:rest ratio.
It’s important to note that the given intervals and pieces are meant more as general guidelines than hard-and-fast rules. For example, if the coach decides that a 12-minute piece is more appropriate than a 10-minute piece for MP5, that’s entirely appropriate.
MULTI-PACE BREAKDOWNS
Multi-Pace 8 (MP8)
Multi-Pace 8 is unique from the remaining seven intervals in that the duration and intensity can serve as intentional prescriptions (i.e. a 60-minute ruck) or as active recovery (i.e. 60-minute steady-state bike). Oftentimes the exercises used within this interval will be cyclical in nature. Options include biking, rucking, rowing, swimming, etc. From the coach’s perspective, this interval is important for establishing the aerobic base.
Multi-Pace 7 (MP7)
Multi-Pace 7 begins what I like to consider the “long work capacity” intervals. In previous iterations of this theory, these sessions were labeled “Gym Stamina” in the sense that exercise selection most often consisted of multi-modal circuits designed to create a “grind” effect. Examples can include combining cyclical modalities from MP8 with more gym-based, non-eccentric exercises such as sled pushes, farmer’s carries, isometric holds, etc.
Multi-Pace 6 (MP6)
As with Multi-Pace 7, Multi-Pace 6 consists of multi-modal circuits completed in a “grind” fashion. The differentiating factor here is that the pace should be subjectively faster (from an athlete’s perspective) than the pace used for MP7.
Multi-Pace 5 (MP5)
Multi-Pace 5, at 10 minutes in length, bridges the gap between “work capacity long” and “work capacity medium.” This time domain is the bread-and-butter for the tactical athlete, as it’s oftentimes where they need to be able to express the most sustainability in a combat or work-specific scenario. As with previous paces, the coach should prescribe multiple modalities within the interval; however, due to the demand for a faster pace, care should be taken to select exercises with faster turnover rates (i.e. assault bike) to ensure power output remains high.
Multi-Pace 4 (MP4)
Multi-Pace 4 starts to reverse the trend of the earlier intervals by reverting back to a constrained exercise selection menu. “Triplets” (i.e. circuits with three modalities) can be appropriate with the right exercise selection, however, “couplets” are often more effective as they will allow an athlete to move at a significantly faster pace than MP5. A common example here would be a 500m row (around 2:00) followed by as many dumbbell box step-overs as possible in the remaining time.
Multi-Pace 3 (MP3)
Multi-Pace 3 follows many of the same guidelines as Multi-Pace 4. As with earlier examples, the athlete should be moving at a subjectively faster pace than in Multi-Pace 4.
Multi-Pace 2 (MP2)
For the final two intervals, exercise selection should in most cases be limited to a single modality to ensure high power output across the entire interval. Rowing, assault bikes, sprints, etc. all work well here.
Multi-Pace 1 (MP1)
The final interval, MP1, should be the fastest of all intervals.
PACING INSTRUCTIONS
As with traditional aerobic pacing models, the expectation for each prescription is that the athlete should aim for a pace that they could sustain for 4x longer than the work interval prescribed. For example, at a 10-minute MP5 prescription, the athlete should aim for a pace that they could sustain for 40 minutes if necessary. With multi-modal prescriptions, there is an obvious level of subjectivity at play here. Still, it is important for athletes to be able to start to gain a “feel” for what kind of output level they can sustain across multiple intervals. Similarly, for a 60-minute MP8 prescription, the athlete should hold a pace that they feel they could sustain “for hours,” an important lesson to learn in the development of true aerobic base building.
Across multiple rounds of a given pace (i.e. Three rounds of MP5), the coach should monitor the athlete’s output to ensure as close-to-equal results as possible for each round. Let’s consider a sample circuit for a fictional MP5 prescription:
10-minute Grind
250m Row
10x KB Renegade Row
50yd Farmer’s Carry
Each time an athlete returns to the rower within the 10-minute interval, a split time would be noted by the coach. If the split time starts to waiver within the interval, the athlete hasn’t achieved an appropriate level of sustainability. Similarly, total output for the entire 10-minute interval should be considered relative to output for the remaining two 10-minute intervals. For each 10-minute piece, a similar number of rounds should be completed to show mastery of that particular pace. Only when this is achieved should the coach consider adding more rounds (as in an Accumulation phase) or tweaking rest (as in an Intensification phase).
PROGRAMMING
Through many iterations of Multi-Pace programming with many athletes and multiple cycle lengths, I’ve come to favor two broad approaches depending on where in the yearly cycle the training is taking place.
Option 1: Cyclical
The Cyclical approach to Multi-Pace programming is the standard protocol for the majority of the athlete’s training year. In this approach, the athlete works from MP8 down to MP1 in a linear fashion. A standard concurrent training cycle (3x strength per week and 2x aerobic per week), will see the athlete completing an entire 8-to-1 run in four weeks. When the athlete revisits each pace in later cycles, the goal is to complete more work (rounds, distance, etc.) to show improvement at that particular pace.
A standard 4-week Cyclical Multi-Pace approach assuming 2x aerobic-specific sessions per week
Option 2: Randomized
The Randomized approach is often used closer to a deployment to force the athlete to adapt to each pace in a non-linear fashion. An example might be to jump from MP7 to MP3 in a week and then back to MP8 before hitting MP1, etc. Unlike the Cyclical approach, the athlete is unable to simply “go slightly faster than last time,” something that has proven effective in preparing for sport-specific phases of training.
A standard 4-week Randomized Multi-Pace approach assuming 2x aerobic-specific sessions per week
ACCUMULATION AND INTENSIFICATION
In considering a macro-level view of Multi-Pace training across an entire annual cycle, I utilize two broad categories of progression: Accumulation and Intensification. The nature of each progression will determine what each prescription looks like when the athlete arrives back at a particular pace.
Accumulation
In the Accumulation phase, the intent is to develop the athlete’s capacity at each pace through the addition of more volume. The easiest way to achieve this effect is to simply add more rounds. Where the original table illustrates MP5 as consisting of four rounds, additional rounds can easily be added so long as the athlete is able to maintain pace. If, in later rounds, the pace falls off (i.e. less distance achieved, fewer rounds, etc.) then the athlete needs to maintain the original number of rounds until capacity is improved.
An important consideration when adding volume is training time. Aerobic work:rest ratios have a tendency to add up over time, and it’s recommended that training sessions take no longer than 60- to 90 minutes overall.
Intensification
In the Intensification phase, the intent is to increase the intensity of each pace to force the athlete to adapt to a faster effort, more work, or less rest. Once an athlete has shown mastery of a particular pace in an Accumulation phase, the coach has a few options to consider. The easiest way to increase intensity is to reduce the rest. Once rest is reduced, monitor the athlete’s output to check for sustainability across each round at the reduced rest. Another option for increasing intensity is to adjust exercise selection. More weight can be added, more modalities can be included, faster cyclical turnover can be required, etc. The important point to consider throughout an intensification phase is that one variable should be changed at a time while constantly monitoring athlete output to ensure sustainability.
MULTI-MODAL VS. CYCLICAL AEROBIC TRAINING: PACE REGULATION
In traditional aerobic literature, exercise selection is limited to cyclical modalities (bikes, row ergs, treadmills, etc.) that allow for the use of computers/monitors to carefully calibrate output in order to achieve a desired stimulus. While this approach works well for tactical athletes, we can’t escape the fact that the nature of combat requires an athlete to be comfortable in a multi-modal environment requiring the ability to quickly adapt to a new instrument, objective, or obstacle. In a gym-based scenario, these experiences are easily replicated using a variety of different modalities (hence “multi-modal”) such as sleds, sandbags, kettlebells, ropes, etc. To the coach and athlete, however, the introduction of multi-modal training presents an obvious problem: how to regulate pace. How do we determine exactly what MP5 should feel like versus MP6 or MP4? One approach I have started to play with is the use of two identical Multi-Pace intervals in a given week (i.e. MP5 on Tuesday and Thursday). In the first instance of a given interval, the prescription will be cyclical. In the second instance, the prescription will be multi-modal. By prescribing a cyclical session, we can use traditional endurance training modalities coupled with appropriate assessment metrics to ensure the athlete is working at the desired pace (i.e. a particular row pace based on a 2K erg test). This approach allows the athlete to establish a “feel” for the pace that they can then replicate (through RPE, etc.) during the multi-modal prescription later in the week.
By taking this approach, the length of a full Multi-Pace cycle stretches from four weeks to eight weeks (since each pace is prescribed for two consecutive days as opposed to once per week). As such, I only use this approach during an Accumulation phase earlier in the training year to allow the athlete to adjust to each pace prior to hitting later phases closer to deployment.
Obviously, this longer approach runs the same risks as a traditional linear model in that the tactical athlete oftentimes will not be able to complete a full eight weeks. Having said that, I’ve still found the Pace Regulation Approach to be an effective tool to introduce an athlete to a given prescription even when I may only be able to work three to four weeks at a time. A “long game” approach is important here.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Multi-Pace Theory is still in its infancy, although it has proven incredibly effective thus far as a means of creating a “sport/combat-specific” aerobic stimulus for the tactical athlete. Perhaps the best feature of this theory is its ability to remain flexible in the face of the fluid demands of the tactical athlete’s schedule. If only three weeks are available for training, an athlete can work through an abbreviated cyclical approach getting quick touches on as many paces as possible. Similarly, if a longer period of time is available for training an athlete may experience some work on Pace Regulation leading into an Accumulation or Intensification phase.
Finally, the Multi-Pace approach has allowed for a true understanding of Multi-Modal training, a powerful tool in the tactical athlete toolbox. This sort of “controlled chaos” in the gym is the closest thing I’ve seen to being able to replicate the unpredictable demands of a combat situation. By exposing athletes to any number of exercise circuits, intervals, ladders, etc. the coach can constantly challenge athletes to quickly adapt to whatever sort of work is put in front of them—a valuable lesson to be learned in today’s tactical environment.
If effective work capacity training is what you’re after, I’d highly encourage subscribing to our Long and Strong program on TrainHeroic. The principles discussed in this article will appear regularly in our ongoing training.