- Lid sinds
- 7 okt 2002
- Berichten
- 22.064
- Waardering
- 3.682
PERIODIZATION: FANCY NAME FOR A BASIC CONCEPT
By Steven Plisk, Sports Performance Director for Velocity Sports Performance
Textbook definitions of periodization usually go something like this: "the planned distribution or variation in training workload and content on a cyclic (periodic) basis." The bad news is that, while this is a mouthful, it’s one of the simpler definitions; most are even more complex. The good news is that the underlying idea really isn’t tricky at all; it’s just a matter of not getting hung up on details. In fact, periodization is nothing more than basic coaching strategy applied to the training process.
Why All The Complicated Terms?
Macrocycles, mesocycles and microcycles … extensive and intensive workloads … training means and methods … general and special tasks … no doubt about it, periodization has its share of jargon!
There are probably two reasons for that: First, periodization theory originated in Eastern Europe, and many of the original terms don’t translate well. Second, we try to impress our peers with our ability to speak “coacheze”. This has enhanced periodization’s mystique, but also alienated people in the process. At the very least, many coaches in the West still perceive it as a foreign idea. This is unfortunate because the central idea couldn’t be much more straightforward.
Demystifying The Concept
Training periodization is the equivalent of game planning. In much the same way that coaches use certain plays or tactics to set up others during competition — and do so much advance planning and preparation in general — certain training tactics can be used to set up the effect of others. It’s basic game theory, or strategic thinking, applied to one’s training program. But, as is the case when designing a game plan, it’s easy to miss the overall strategy if you’re focusing only on the X’s and O’s.
So here’s an alternative definition of periodization*: the use of planned unpredictability to manipulate or outmaneuver another player — which in this case is the body’s adaptive mechanism. The goal is to influence your counterpart to adjust or redirect its actions in probable ways and prevent it from accommodating your tendencies. This is no easy task considering that our adversary is very “smart”, having the collective wisdom of millions of years of evolution (and all the accompanying stressors it is prepared for). We need a principle-based approach to the game because there’s no reason to expect simplistic methods to be effective.
This brings us to a critical distinction: In contrast to athletics, where a competitive strategy is used to achieve a “win-lose” outcome, the key in training is a cooperative strategy aimed at a “win-win” result. Although the basic principle of game theory applies in either case, complementing rather than defeating another player is the strategy of choice in this situation. In this sense, periodization is a form of “coopetition”.
* A game is any situation of strategic interdependence where one player’s decisions and/or actions interact with another’s. Such “games” can be very real, the players need not be persons, and their interactions need not be adversarial. Indeed, a recurring concept in game theory is that convergence (not conflict) of interest is the rule rather than the exception in many circumstances.
Coaching is often described as the science of total preparation. In some respects (e.g. game planning, play calling), it can also be described as the art of systematic unpredictability. The trick is to mix your plays with no demonstrable pattern in order to prevent your adversary from effectively countering your tactics. This involves a randomized plan intended to thwart an opponent’s ability to anticipate your next move or concentrate its resources at a single point of attack.
The essence of a periodized program design is to skillfully combine different training methods in order to yield better results than can be achieved through exclusive or disproportionate use of any single tactic — even a dominant one. A “mixed methods” strategy can exploit certain physiological responses and achieve specific objectives. The first step in the planning process is to classify training tactics into a rational system. Tables 1-2 outline two reasonable schemes of strength and endurance development methods, respectively, that can be used as a sort of “playbook”. These reflect general agreement in the literature, making them useful examples.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Applied Coaching Strategy
Having clarified what periodization is, let’s discuss the goal of one’s training strategy. Typically it’s threefold:
exploit complementary training effects at optimal times
manage fatigue, thereby preventing stagnation or overtraining
optimize training time and effort
Achievement of these objectives involves long-term, intermediate and short-term planning, usually expressed in terms of macro-, meso- and microcycles. These cycles, in turn, should progress on two fronts — i.e. workloads (extensive to intensive) and tasks (general to special). Corresponding decisions should be made with respect to several factors including the biological responses to training stimuli, athlete’s developmental status, and specific demands of the sport.
All of this seems simple enough on the surface. In practice, however, some challenging trade-offs need to be resolved.
Decision Making
When designing a training program, strategy would be unnecessary if the pieces of the puzzle fell together automatically. Following are some paradoxes that influence the decision making process:
Fitness vs. Fatigue. The prevailing theory of training adaptation is the fitness-fatigueparadigm (Figure 1). According to this theory, an athlete’s preparedness is defined as the summation of two after-effects of training: fatigue and fitness. In contrast to the “supercompensation” theory based on a cause-and-effect relationship between these factors, the fitness-fatigue model proposes that they have opposing effects.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Figure 1: Fitness-Fatigue Theory. An athlete’s preparedness is determined by the summation of positive (fitness) and negative (fatigue) responses. In contrast to the “supercompensation” theory based on a cause-and-effect relationship between these two processes, this model proposes that immediate training effects are characterized by their opposing action. Reprinted from V.M. Zatsiorsky. Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995; p. 16.
This has a simple but profound implication for program design and implementation: Preparedness can be optimized with strategies that maximize the fitness responses to training stimuli while minimizing fatigue.
Since fatigue is a natural consequence of training stress (especially with high volume-loads) — and adaptations are manifested during subsequent unloading periods — fatigue management tactics are integral to a sound program.* These can be implemented at different levels:
Macrocycle … active rest/transition periods after competitive periods
Mesocycle … restitution microcycles after overreaching microcycles, concentrated blocks or stressful competitions
Microcycle … maintenance/restitution workloads or recovery days; daily training routines distributed into modules separated by recovery breaks; and additional intra-session relief breaks
* Rational program design is one prong of a restoration plan that should also address regenerative/therapeutic techniques, nutrition and sleep.
Intensity vs. Volume. The idea of a trade-off between intensity and volume seems pretty basic, but has important ramifications because the interaction of these variables drives many of the decisions made when designing training programs. Periodization involves fluctuating emphasis between intensity and volume such that adaptation is steered toward specific objectives, but it is rather meaningless to consider one variable independently of the other; hence the practical value of the volume-load concept as an indicator of training stress.
Volume-load prescription should be viewed in the context of productive workload ranges. At the lower end is the stimulus threshold required to trigger desired effects; whereas at the upper end is a point of diminishing returns, beyond which further application yields no beneficial — or perhaps even detrimental — effects. These tend to be moving targets as an athlete’s fitness and adaptivity improve with long-term development.
Primary emphasis is generally placed on training quality (i.e. intensity), which can be expressed in quantitative terms such as impulse or power output during task execution. In practice, such parameters are useful indicators of stimulus intensity and corresponding training effect. The central issue regarding programming strategy is the method by which increased intensity is achieved. Variable rather than linear workload progressions tend to yield superior results and can be accomplished through different tactics.
By definition, high work volumes are associated with the development of endurance qualities (Tables 1-2). But work volume also fulfills several other important functions when rationally applied with respect to intensity. In terms of general preparation, extensive volume-loads:
establish a functional base of work capacity;
influence the duration and stability of corresponding training effects; and
are an important prerequisite for intensive efforts involved in special/technical preparation.
Two basic tactics are often associated with extensive work volumes: high-repetition sets with corresponding reductions in workload or increased number of sets and/or exercises. Other tactics, however, should also be considered. For example, volume-loads can be adjusted by periodically manipulating density variables (e.g. training session distribution and frequency) in order to achieve certain objectives.
Specificity vs. Variation. Vladimir Zatsiorsky (Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995; pp. 108-135) points out that a sound periodization plan is a trade-off between the conflicting demands for fluctuation (according to the law of variability) vs. stability (to satisfy the demand for specificity). Optimal effects are achieved through systematic variation in training content and/or workload, whereas monotonous loads or tasks — e.g. entirely activity-specific movements — can predispose an athlete to accommodation or stagnation problems. This is the rationale for regular application of novel stressors. In practice, the challenge is to structure these into appropriate variation “bandwidths”.
A basic principle of training is that adaptation becomes increasingly specific to the demands imposed on an athlete as his/her preparation level improves. Specificity exists on several fronts including biomechanical, coordinative and energetic, all of which are useful criteria for selecting and prioritizing training tasks. After completing a needs analysis, the relative emphasis placed on different means and methods should be influenced by the athlete’s developmental status, especially with regard to critical or sensitive periods. Pre-adolescence seems to be the optimal window for enhancing the “coordinative abilities” upon which motor skills are based. Although these are still trainable to an extent during and after adolescence, training should shift toward a greater emphasis on strength/power improvement upon reaching puberty. This issue has intriguing implications in all aspects of program planning, but receives little attention in the West.
Strength vs. Endurance. Certain types of endurance training can hinder strength and power development when performed concurrently, at least in previously untrained subjects. This creates a dual problem:
High levels of these qualities must be developed in specific combinations in order to optimize athletic performance. Even brief, explosive “power sports” require special endurance qualities in order to achieve the prescribed volume-loads in training; whereas prolonged “endurance sports” often involve a series of brief, explosive spikes in power output. And, of course, most transitional sports involve a blend of sub-maximal activity and repetitive, intense bursts of power output with limited relief allowance.
Although advanced athletes can tolerate greater training stress than novices, cumulative fatigue can be problematic when developing multiple fitness qualities simultaneously. Unfortunately, such compatibility studies on trained subjects are lacking.
The challenge in practice is to integrate strength and endurance training effects such that they enhance (rather than interfere with) one another. In basic applications, this may be achievable with fairly simple training and recovery tactics. For qualified athletes, however, advanced strategies are valuable in minimizing cumulative fatigue and compatibility problems.
Periodization vs. “Programming”. If there is one self-limiting tendency among coaches, it is that we often focus on numerical models rather than underlying strategy when designing programs. This may be an artifact of the rep/set counting mentality that was prevalent before periodization became popular in the West. In any case, it poses an interesting problem: A given training stimulus (input) results in a response (output) that is not entirely predictable.
According to Mel Siff (Supertraining [5th Edition]. Denver CO: Supertraining Institute, 2000; p. 326): “The use of numerical computations as the sole descriptor of loading often overlooks the fact that apparently objective measures like this do not take into account the athlete’s subjective perception of the intensity and overall effects of the loading.” He recommended a combined objective-subjective approach referred to as “cybernetic periodization” where zones of workload intensity are planned in advance, but tactics are adjusted as necessary based on technique evaluation by the coach as well as performance feedback from the athlete (e.g. regarding perceived effort/fatigue).
This is not meant to dissuade coaches from calculating a thoughtful game plan. The salient point is that volume-load parameters, rep/set schemes, and so on are secondary to training goals and objectives. Furthermore, rather than applying them rigidly, intuitive factors can be used to make prudent adjustments during implementation.
Cyclic Program Structure
Early periodization models were usually based on the competitive calendar more so than on adaptive processes because information regarding the latter was limited. As our knowledge base has expanded, it has become apparent that there are opportunities to augment training effects by exploiting certain biological phenomena. For example, by using appropriate sequencing or timing strategies, the after-effect of one training stimulus can modulate the response to another. This is a fundamental objective of contemporary periodization: to systematically converge the cumulative or interactive effects of different means and methods — i.e. to set up one play with another.
Rate of involution (decay) of various training effects is a central consideration in cyclic program design. Acutely, involution is a function of the half-life of structures synthesized during adaptive tissue remodeling. As might be expected, their time courses vary (e.g. the half-life of glycolytic enzymes is relatively brief, ranging from ~1½ hours to a few days; whereas oxidative enzymes turn over less rapidly, and myofibrillar proteins have a comparatively greater life span). Chronically, involution is modulated by the length of the preparation period. In general, the greater the duration of a training program, the more stable its residual training effect. This allows fitness qualities acquired during one phase to be maintained with relatively small volume-loads during the next, such that emphasis can be redirected and cumulative fatigue problems can be minimized.
The consensus arising from the literature is to organize training programs into 4-week periods, which seem to be an optimal biological window for integrating responses:
Leo Matveyev (Fundamentals of Sports Training. Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1977; Moscow: Progress, 1981 [translated by A.P. Zdornykh]; pp. 245-259) cites natural monthly bio-cycles as a rationale for constructing training cycles that are approximately 1 month in duration, each consisting of 3-6 subcycles of approximately 1 week duration, in order to exploit cumulative training effects.
Atko Viru (Adaptation In Sports Training. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995; pp. 241-299) cites the half-time of training effect involution as the rationale for a 24-28 day cyclic training structure consisting of 4-6 subcycles, each 4-7 days in duration, in order to summate their training effects.
Vladimir Zatsiorsky (Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995; pp. 344-421) cites the need to structure training cycles around a 4 ±2 week window in order to superimpose the delayed training effects of distinct targets distributed over that time.
Even the most advanced training strategies generally agree with this monthly cycle guideline.
This period can be structured in at least two different ways: as a mesocycle to be subdivided into multiple microcycles and objectives (for basic and intermediate applications); or as a “block” with essentially one objective arranged as part of a series (for advanced applications).
Summary
Perhaps the most important take-home message regarding periodized training is to use cooperative program design strategies. Clearly we want to influence, but not defeat, our athletes’ adaptive processes. Mix your plays and think win-win!
Periodization is the use of planned unpredictability to manipulate or outmaneuver another player — in this case, the body’s adaptive mechanism. Influence your counterpart to adjust or redirect its actions in probable ways while preventing it from accommodating your tendencies. This is a simple extension of coaching strategy: Mix your plays with no demonstrable pattern so your adversary can’t effectively counter your tactics.
Training effects can be optimized — and adaptation directed toward specific goals — by prescribing a bandwidth of appropriate stimuli such that the response to one amplifies another. Organize training programs into 4-week periods. This seems to be an optimal biological window for integrating responses.
Finally, periodization is just one example of game theory applied to sports training. For example, consider the possibilities in skill instruction and acquisition: The “contextual interference” effect is a well-established motor behavior/learning phenomenon, where random and variable practice methods result in short-term performance decrements but improved long-term retention. This has important teaching ramifications for skill-based training programs.
Suggested Reading
Haff G. (chair), Kraemer W., O’Bryant H., Pendlay G., Plisk S., Stone M. Roundtable discussion: periodization of training [part 1-2]. Strength & Conditioning Journal 26(1): 50-69, 2004; 26(2): in press, 2004.
Plisk S.S, Stone M.H. Periodization strategies. Strength & Conditioning Journal 25(6): 19-37, 2003.
NOTE: Part II of this article is available on www.usolympicteam.com/sportscience
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
[Link niet meer beschikbaar]
By Steven Plisk, Sports Performance Director for Velocity Sports Performance
Textbook definitions of periodization usually go something like this: "the planned distribution or variation in training workload and content on a cyclic (periodic) basis." The bad news is that, while this is a mouthful, it’s one of the simpler definitions; most are even more complex. The good news is that the underlying idea really isn’t tricky at all; it’s just a matter of not getting hung up on details. In fact, periodization is nothing more than basic coaching strategy applied to the training process.
Why All The Complicated Terms?
Macrocycles, mesocycles and microcycles … extensive and intensive workloads … training means and methods … general and special tasks … no doubt about it, periodization has its share of jargon!
There are probably two reasons for that: First, periodization theory originated in Eastern Europe, and many of the original terms don’t translate well. Second, we try to impress our peers with our ability to speak “coacheze”. This has enhanced periodization’s mystique, but also alienated people in the process. At the very least, many coaches in the West still perceive it as a foreign idea. This is unfortunate because the central idea couldn’t be much more straightforward.
Demystifying The Concept
Training periodization is the equivalent of game planning. In much the same way that coaches use certain plays or tactics to set up others during competition — and do so much advance planning and preparation in general — certain training tactics can be used to set up the effect of others. It’s basic game theory, or strategic thinking, applied to one’s training program. But, as is the case when designing a game plan, it’s easy to miss the overall strategy if you’re focusing only on the X’s and O’s.
So here’s an alternative definition of periodization*: the use of planned unpredictability to manipulate or outmaneuver another player — which in this case is the body’s adaptive mechanism. The goal is to influence your counterpart to adjust or redirect its actions in probable ways and prevent it from accommodating your tendencies. This is no easy task considering that our adversary is very “smart”, having the collective wisdom of millions of years of evolution (and all the accompanying stressors it is prepared for). We need a principle-based approach to the game because there’s no reason to expect simplistic methods to be effective.
This brings us to a critical distinction: In contrast to athletics, where a competitive strategy is used to achieve a “win-lose” outcome, the key in training is a cooperative strategy aimed at a “win-win” result. Although the basic principle of game theory applies in either case, complementing rather than defeating another player is the strategy of choice in this situation. In this sense, periodization is a form of “coopetition”.
* A game is any situation of strategic interdependence where one player’s decisions and/or actions interact with another’s. Such “games” can be very real, the players need not be persons, and their interactions need not be adversarial. Indeed, a recurring concept in game theory is that convergence (not conflict) of interest is the rule rather than the exception in many circumstances.
Coaching is often described as the science of total preparation. In some respects (e.g. game planning, play calling), it can also be described as the art of systematic unpredictability. The trick is to mix your plays with no demonstrable pattern in order to prevent your adversary from effectively countering your tactics. This involves a randomized plan intended to thwart an opponent’s ability to anticipate your next move or concentrate its resources at a single point of attack.
The essence of a periodized program design is to skillfully combine different training methods in order to yield better results than can be achieved through exclusive or disproportionate use of any single tactic — even a dominant one. A “mixed methods” strategy can exploit certain physiological responses and achieve specific objectives. The first step in the planning process is to classify training tactics into a rational system. Tables 1-2 outline two reasonable schemes of strength and endurance development methods, respectively, that can be used as a sort of “playbook”. These reflect general agreement in the literature, making them useful examples.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Applied Coaching Strategy
Having clarified what periodization is, let’s discuss the goal of one’s training strategy. Typically it’s threefold:
exploit complementary training effects at optimal times
manage fatigue, thereby preventing stagnation or overtraining
optimize training time and effort
Achievement of these objectives involves long-term, intermediate and short-term planning, usually expressed in terms of macro-, meso- and microcycles. These cycles, in turn, should progress on two fronts — i.e. workloads (extensive to intensive) and tasks (general to special). Corresponding decisions should be made with respect to several factors including the biological responses to training stimuli, athlete’s developmental status, and specific demands of the sport.
All of this seems simple enough on the surface. In practice, however, some challenging trade-offs need to be resolved.
Decision Making
When designing a training program, strategy would be unnecessary if the pieces of the puzzle fell together automatically. Following are some paradoxes that influence the decision making process:
Fitness vs. Fatigue. The prevailing theory of training adaptation is the fitness-fatigueparadigm (Figure 1). According to this theory, an athlete’s preparedness is defined as the summation of two after-effects of training: fatigue and fitness. In contrast to the “supercompensation” theory based on a cause-and-effect relationship between these factors, the fitness-fatigue model proposes that they have opposing effects.
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
Figure 1: Fitness-Fatigue Theory. An athlete’s preparedness is determined by the summation of positive (fitness) and negative (fatigue) responses. In contrast to the “supercompensation” theory based on a cause-and-effect relationship between these two processes, this model proposes that immediate training effects are characterized by their opposing action. Reprinted from V.M. Zatsiorsky. Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995; p. 16.
This has a simple but profound implication for program design and implementation: Preparedness can be optimized with strategies that maximize the fitness responses to training stimuli while minimizing fatigue.
Since fatigue is a natural consequence of training stress (especially with high volume-loads) — and adaptations are manifested during subsequent unloading periods — fatigue management tactics are integral to a sound program.* These can be implemented at different levels:
Macrocycle … active rest/transition periods after competitive periods
Mesocycle … restitution microcycles after overreaching microcycles, concentrated blocks or stressful competitions
Microcycle … maintenance/restitution workloads or recovery days; daily training routines distributed into modules separated by recovery breaks; and additional intra-session relief breaks
* Rational program design is one prong of a restoration plan that should also address regenerative/therapeutic techniques, nutrition and sleep.
Intensity vs. Volume. The idea of a trade-off between intensity and volume seems pretty basic, but has important ramifications because the interaction of these variables drives many of the decisions made when designing training programs. Periodization involves fluctuating emphasis between intensity and volume such that adaptation is steered toward specific objectives, but it is rather meaningless to consider one variable independently of the other; hence the practical value of the volume-load concept as an indicator of training stress.
Volume-load prescription should be viewed in the context of productive workload ranges. At the lower end is the stimulus threshold required to trigger desired effects; whereas at the upper end is a point of diminishing returns, beyond which further application yields no beneficial — or perhaps even detrimental — effects. These tend to be moving targets as an athlete’s fitness and adaptivity improve with long-term development.
Primary emphasis is generally placed on training quality (i.e. intensity), which can be expressed in quantitative terms such as impulse or power output during task execution. In practice, such parameters are useful indicators of stimulus intensity and corresponding training effect. The central issue regarding programming strategy is the method by which increased intensity is achieved. Variable rather than linear workload progressions tend to yield superior results and can be accomplished through different tactics.
By definition, high work volumes are associated with the development of endurance qualities (Tables 1-2). But work volume also fulfills several other important functions when rationally applied with respect to intensity. In terms of general preparation, extensive volume-loads:
establish a functional base of work capacity;
influence the duration and stability of corresponding training effects; and
are an important prerequisite for intensive efforts involved in special/technical preparation.
Two basic tactics are often associated with extensive work volumes: high-repetition sets with corresponding reductions in workload or increased number of sets and/or exercises. Other tactics, however, should also be considered. For example, volume-loads can be adjusted by periodically manipulating density variables (e.g. training session distribution and frequency) in order to achieve certain objectives.
Specificity vs. Variation. Vladimir Zatsiorsky (Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995; pp. 108-135) points out that a sound periodization plan is a trade-off between the conflicting demands for fluctuation (according to the law of variability) vs. stability (to satisfy the demand for specificity). Optimal effects are achieved through systematic variation in training content and/or workload, whereas monotonous loads or tasks — e.g. entirely activity-specific movements — can predispose an athlete to accommodation or stagnation problems. This is the rationale for regular application of novel stressors. In practice, the challenge is to structure these into appropriate variation “bandwidths”.
A basic principle of training is that adaptation becomes increasingly specific to the demands imposed on an athlete as his/her preparation level improves. Specificity exists on several fronts including biomechanical, coordinative and energetic, all of which are useful criteria for selecting and prioritizing training tasks. After completing a needs analysis, the relative emphasis placed on different means and methods should be influenced by the athlete’s developmental status, especially with regard to critical or sensitive periods. Pre-adolescence seems to be the optimal window for enhancing the “coordinative abilities” upon which motor skills are based. Although these are still trainable to an extent during and after adolescence, training should shift toward a greater emphasis on strength/power improvement upon reaching puberty. This issue has intriguing implications in all aspects of program planning, but receives little attention in the West.
Strength vs. Endurance. Certain types of endurance training can hinder strength and power development when performed concurrently, at least in previously untrained subjects. This creates a dual problem:
High levels of these qualities must be developed in specific combinations in order to optimize athletic performance. Even brief, explosive “power sports” require special endurance qualities in order to achieve the prescribed volume-loads in training; whereas prolonged “endurance sports” often involve a series of brief, explosive spikes in power output. And, of course, most transitional sports involve a blend of sub-maximal activity and repetitive, intense bursts of power output with limited relief allowance.
Although advanced athletes can tolerate greater training stress than novices, cumulative fatigue can be problematic when developing multiple fitness qualities simultaneously. Unfortunately, such compatibility studies on trained subjects are lacking.
The challenge in practice is to integrate strength and endurance training effects such that they enhance (rather than interfere with) one another. In basic applications, this may be achievable with fairly simple training and recovery tactics. For qualified athletes, however, advanced strategies are valuable in minimizing cumulative fatigue and compatibility problems.
Periodization vs. “Programming”. If there is one self-limiting tendency among coaches, it is that we often focus on numerical models rather than underlying strategy when designing programs. This may be an artifact of the rep/set counting mentality that was prevalent before periodization became popular in the West. In any case, it poses an interesting problem: A given training stimulus (input) results in a response (output) that is not entirely predictable.
According to Mel Siff (Supertraining [5th Edition]. Denver CO: Supertraining Institute, 2000; p. 326): “The use of numerical computations as the sole descriptor of loading often overlooks the fact that apparently objective measures like this do not take into account the athlete’s subjective perception of the intensity and overall effects of the loading.” He recommended a combined objective-subjective approach referred to as “cybernetic periodization” where zones of workload intensity are planned in advance, but tactics are adjusted as necessary based on technique evaluation by the coach as well as performance feedback from the athlete (e.g. regarding perceived effort/fatigue).
This is not meant to dissuade coaches from calculating a thoughtful game plan. The salient point is that volume-load parameters, rep/set schemes, and so on are secondary to training goals and objectives. Furthermore, rather than applying them rigidly, intuitive factors can be used to make prudent adjustments during implementation.
Cyclic Program Structure
Early periodization models were usually based on the competitive calendar more so than on adaptive processes because information regarding the latter was limited. As our knowledge base has expanded, it has become apparent that there are opportunities to augment training effects by exploiting certain biological phenomena. For example, by using appropriate sequencing or timing strategies, the after-effect of one training stimulus can modulate the response to another. This is a fundamental objective of contemporary periodization: to systematically converge the cumulative or interactive effects of different means and methods — i.e. to set up one play with another.
Rate of involution (decay) of various training effects is a central consideration in cyclic program design. Acutely, involution is a function of the half-life of structures synthesized during adaptive tissue remodeling. As might be expected, their time courses vary (e.g. the half-life of glycolytic enzymes is relatively brief, ranging from ~1½ hours to a few days; whereas oxidative enzymes turn over less rapidly, and myofibrillar proteins have a comparatively greater life span). Chronically, involution is modulated by the length of the preparation period. In general, the greater the duration of a training program, the more stable its residual training effect. This allows fitness qualities acquired during one phase to be maintained with relatively small volume-loads during the next, such that emphasis can be redirected and cumulative fatigue problems can be minimized.
The consensus arising from the literature is to organize training programs into 4-week periods, which seem to be an optimal biological window for integrating responses:
Leo Matveyev (Fundamentals of Sports Training. Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1977; Moscow: Progress, 1981 [translated by A.P. Zdornykh]; pp. 245-259) cites natural monthly bio-cycles as a rationale for constructing training cycles that are approximately 1 month in duration, each consisting of 3-6 subcycles of approximately 1 week duration, in order to exploit cumulative training effects.
Atko Viru (Adaptation In Sports Training. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1995; pp. 241-299) cites the half-time of training effect involution as the rationale for a 24-28 day cyclic training structure consisting of 4-6 subcycles, each 4-7 days in duration, in order to summate their training effects.
Vladimir Zatsiorsky (Science & Practice of Strength Training. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 1995; pp. 344-421) cites the need to structure training cycles around a 4 ±2 week window in order to superimpose the delayed training effects of distinct targets distributed over that time.
Even the most advanced training strategies generally agree with this monthly cycle guideline.
This period can be structured in at least two different ways: as a mesocycle to be subdivided into multiple microcycles and objectives (for basic and intermediate applications); or as a “block” with essentially one objective arranged as part of a series (for advanced applications).
Summary
Perhaps the most important take-home message regarding periodized training is to use cooperative program design strategies. Clearly we want to influence, but not defeat, our athletes’ adaptive processes. Mix your plays and think win-win!
Periodization is the use of planned unpredictability to manipulate or outmaneuver another player — in this case, the body’s adaptive mechanism. Influence your counterpart to adjust or redirect its actions in probable ways while preventing it from accommodating your tendencies. This is a simple extension of coaching strategy: Mix your plays with no demonstrable pattern so your adversary can’t effectively counter your tactics.
Training effects can be optimized — and adaptation directed toward specific goals — by prescribing a bandwidth of appropriate stimuli such that the response to one amplifies another. Organize training programs into 4-week periods. This seems to be an optimal biological window for integrating responses.
Finally, periodization is just one example of game theory applied to sports training. For example, consider the possibilities in skill instruction and acquisition: The “contextual interference” effect is a well-established motor behavior/learning phenomenon, where random and variable practice methods result in short-term performance decrements but improved long-term retention. This has important teaching ramifications for skill-based training programs.
Suggested Reading
Haff G. (chair), Kraemer W., O’Bryant H., Pendlay G., Plisk S., Stone M. Roundtable discussion: periodization of training [part 1-2]. Strength & Conditioning Journal 26(1): 50-69, 2004; 26(2): in press, 2004.
Plisk S.S, Stone M.H. Periodization strategies. Strength & Conditioning Journal 25(6): 19-37, 2003.
NOTE: Part II of this article is available on www.usolympicteam.com/sportscience
[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
[Link niet meer beschikbaar]
