PP 121 Training Variety Paradox
Insistence on regular variation in physical training to improve results may be seriously overstated and unnecessary.
BACKGROUND
One of the most common pieces of advice to be given to an athlete who reaches a 'sticking point' in performance is to change or vary the training program. While there is adequate research and more than enough experience to support this contention, is it not possible that the importance of variation by completely rewriting a training program, or including or excluding certain exercises or types of training is being exaggerated or overstated?
Certainly, many of us have done research and written about the importance of variation to prevent stagnation or adaptation to stimuli which, by overuse, tend to lose their training effect. We have revised an athlete's training routine and soon afterwards have noted distinct improvements in performance. The runner becomes faster, the bodybuilder grows larger, the high-jumper reaches greater heights and the weightlifter lifts heavier loads, so we would appear to be more than justified in extolling the virtues of variation.
At the same time, too much variation and insufficient regularity may interfere with the acquisition or refinement of motor skills and the ability to exercise efficiently, especially with less elite athletes, so it appears as if there may be an optimal degree of variation for anyone at any stage of training. In the case of strength training, too much variation may reduce the fatigue, volume or intensity of muscular stress which are deemed to be necessary to increase hypertrophy and strength.
So, how does one determine if variation is necessary, and if so, exactly how much is needed, which type of variation is relevant and how should it be introduced into a training program?
Of course, when we refer to variation, we would be very hesitant to consider regular changes in technique of training, since certain aspects of human performance, such as neuromotor control, must remain very specific for a given individual. In fact, some sports such as gymnastics, diving, trampolining and synchronised swimming are assessed on aesthetic appeal and very finely controlled motor patterns, so that variations in training might not be the wisest course of action. Even in most other sports, the exact skills required for success in competition should become as automatic and technically proficient as possible, with minimal deviation from personally optimal patterns.
This implies, when one considers the introduction of variation, that variations which modify technique may be inappropriate and that variation should focus on fairly crude aspects of training, such as order of exercises, the number of exercises, the number of repetitions, the duration of training, and the addition or subtraction of certain exercises.
While speculating on the issue of necessity and the amount of variation, is it not possible that even very subtle variations may be quite adequate to prevent stagnation? Is it not possible that the so-called 'progressive overload principle' and the concept of cycling or 'periodisation' of training parameters are simply the most basic forms of variation and little more than those variations are necessary for avoiding stagnation and enhancing performance?
After all, athletes in some sports do very little in the way of exercise variation, such as distance runners, cyclists and swimmers and many of them manage to improve year after year. Even some weightlifters, bodybuilders and powerlifters have been known to use programs which they found suited them and they have used them with little variation over the years and still managed to progress. Is it possible that significant training variations are not needed by some athletes and that progressive overload and/or periodisation provide more than adequate training variation for them?
Is it possible that the need for variation has more to do with one's state of mind in many cases and that there are some personality types in sport which can cope quite easily with sameness, routine and predictability?
In some cases is it something other than lack of variation - such as too much or premature variation, inadequate concentration, or poor technique - which may be more to blame for stagnation?
Comment on the issues raised above, drawing on relevant references or your own experience to resolve any apparent paradoxes.
-------------------
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
) 
