Periodization

It seems as if very few people in here are periodizing their training. Are those of you lifting with relatively low reps (5 reps or less) doing this year in and year out?

It seems like most of the strongman and powerlifters I talk to in person engage in some type of periodized program still. But in the S&P forum it appears that everyone is lifting 'heavy' (read low rep) year in, year out.

My understanding has always been that when lifting for strength it was important to have 6-12 week periods of heavy lifting followed by similair periods of medium (6-8) and higher reps (8-12 reps) with correspondingly lower percentages of 1RM used.

Is this 'old-school' and no longer typically followed? What am I missing here?

 

I have found that linear periodization is a good way for me to spin my wheels for 8+ weeks at a time. Right now, I'm lifting heavy this week and trying to outperform myself next week, and it's working very well. Every 4-6 weeks I take a week off and it seems to work out fine.

 

Here is the first part of an article by Dr Verkhoshansky (translated) with an introduction by the late Dr Mel Siff, regarding Dr Verkhoshansky's opinion of Periodisation. Especially the work of Dr Leonid Mateev who is widely regarded as the modern pioneer of periodisation. I found Dr Verkhoshansky's opinion very interesting and it made me view Periodisation in a whole different light.


Since many of you may be unfamiliar with recent debate on the validity of
periodisation as a method of organising sports training, I would like to
share with you a liberal translation of a very long recent article by Dr
Verkhoshansky on this topic (Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi Kultury
29/10/97). Due to its length, I will serialise this article in a few
episodes, then follow it with another article by a Bulgarian scientist who
criticised Dr V's article.

You will notice that attention is focused on the work of Dr Leonid Mateev who
is widely regarded as the modern pioneer of periodisation. His book,
"Fundamentals of Sports Training" (Progress Publ, Moscow, 1977) was published
in English and the type of material in there is what Dr V criticises
vehemently.

The implications of Dr V's critique are vast, because periodisation in many
circles is the only reigning doctrine, yet, here we have a proponent of one
of its forms ('Concentrated Loading' and "Conjugated Training'), criticising
it.

Before impulsively accepting all of the article as definitive, remember that
it offers the opinion of one expert, who has spoken in terms of
generalisations and not discussed any specific related issues such as
research into rhythmicity in adaptation, biological cycles, 'body clocks',
diurnal cycles, and other issues in the cyclical behaviour of the human body.
In our textbook,"Supertraining" (1999, Ch 6), we mentioned that some of the
origins of periodisation in the earth's seasons and in the communist
philosophy of 5 year plans etc. Later, you will notice that Dr V analyses
such origins in some depth.

Whatever your opinion on this topic, you will find Dr Vs comments to be great
interest. Those of you who own "Supertraining" should read the introductory
section of Ch 6 to refresh your memory of the evolution of periodisation
theory.

Mel Siff

------------------------------------------------------------

THE PATH TO A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
OF SPORTS TRAINING (PART 1)

JV Verhoshansky

THE PROBLEM

Already there is no official program in physical education for teaching the
theory of sports training as based upon the concept of so-called
'periodisation' born in the 1960s. Until now, it strongly guided sports
practice, but already for a long time it has lost the theoretical and
practical importance. Today, quantitative facts from adjacent sciences (first
of all the issue of biological cycles), have elevated sports training to a
new qualitative level, but similar publications to those of the past have reta
rded progress of scientific knowledge in sports, causing irreparable harm to
the professional training of domestic experts and sportsmen of all levels of
skill. Finally, periodisation is one factor that has belittled the former
stature of our sports science.

Worldwide recognition of this theory, putting it mildly, do not represent the
real facts. On the contrary, the opinion of the broad foreign authorities in
the field of sports training and trainers reveals just the opposite. Here
the out-of-date concept of 'periodisation' is promoted as the appropriate
scientific theory and methodology of sports training. Such theory is
represented by knowledge drawn completely from pedagogical sources and not
the biological sciences.

And because biological sciences undoubtledly should lay the foundations for
sports science and training, the recognized authorities from allied sciences
(physiology, biomechanics, biochemistry, medicine, psychology) should be
involved to balance out the opinions of philosophers and methodologists.

This article analyzes the state of the art of the 'official' theory of
sports training and the causes of its crisis.

STATUS OF THE PROBLEM

The fundamental methodology of the present system of sports training was
developed by Russian trainers in the early 1950s, in connection with the
preparation of the Soviet sportsmen for the XV Olympic Games in Helsinki
(1952) and other international competitions. The practical experience up till
that time was generalized and submitted as the concept of "periodisation"
training (abbreviated as periodisation). Because at that time questions about
the theory of training did not become subject matter for the attention of
more serious experts, and because Soviet athletes successfully performed on
the world stage, periodisation, as the first generalised aspect of the
theory of sports training to emerge from behind the "Iron Curtain", naturally
attracted the attention of foreign experts.

The concept of "periodisation" has gradually become a synonym for "the
scheduling of training", so that many experts and trainers from the Soviet
Union, and overseas, till now have used this far-fetched, conceptual device
called periodisation, referring to it as one of the more progressive ways of
organising the training process. However, periodisation not only has not
necessarily found broad support in practice, but also has been criticized in
our country, and abroad.

Experts consider, that the out-of-date periodisation notion of training does
not answer the demands of present sports, does not assist growth of the
functional reserves of sportsmen and it hinders the progress of achievements
in sport. Finally, it has caused recent wasteful results.

Periodisation is not a model of system of training for elite sportsmen and
should be rejected or modified according to features of a present calendar of
competitions and tendencies in progress of world sports. At best, separate
forms of periodisation can be used by novice and young athletes.

The typical mechanical division of annual training into periods and
'mesocycles' in periodisation has been based on the short-term experience of
preparation of athletes during the early stage of formulating the Soviet
system of training (of the 1950s) and mainly on the example of three sports
(swimming, weightlifting, track and field athletics), therefore cannot be
plausible or universal. It is emphasized, that any system of training should
be based not so much on logic and empirical experience, but much more on
physiology.

Many publications indicate that the principles and methodical recommendations
of periodisation do not conform to the demands and progress of the major
sports. They do not conform, in particular, to actual conditions of
preparation of athletes in sports requiring endurance, in gymnastics, track
and field and other sports. Periodisation does not provide or propose
methodical decisions for the effective physical preparation of athletes in
different sports. Periodisation also incorrectly stresses certain
objectives, tasks, principles, ideas and tendencies of the training process.

Russian experts in cyclic sports, guided by periodisation, have applied
outdated training methods which for many years have retarded progress of
sports results. Such procedure is insufficiently scientifically proven and is
not capable of providing preparation of athletes. Plans to produce high
results should not be based on training to achieve notorious "peaks of sports
form", but to meet the ongoing demands over all the competitive season as
required by the present sports calendar.

The causes of the crisis in cyclic sports in Soviet Union are considered in
detail in Mellenberga's work. This author emphasizes that extensive
experimentation has not confirmed the efficiency of the stage-by-stage
technique of constructing training as proposed by Matveev, and states that
"it is not known how much our athletes will continue to be disadvantaged by
methodical miscalculations using similar concepts".

Experts point out that the successful African (in particular, Kenyan)
athletes train in the mountains and have certain genetic predispositions as
confirmed by Soviet experts, and that they have not implemented periodisation
in their training. They have added that African athletes should not imitate
Europeans.

In an article entitled "Periodisation - Plausible or Piffle?", Horwill
examines why the concept of periodisation, based on the theory of Matveev, is
inapplicable in the present preparation of runners. In another publication
the same author condemns "the slavish worship of the theory of periodisation
as used by some runners in different countries". He stresses that "Soviet
runners did not improve world records in running middle distances and the
British runners who used the Russian concept of periodisation did not gain
gold medals on Olympic games over the last 30 years, but produced great
achievements before they used such concepts. British runners started to use
Matveev's block scheme of periodisation widely after 1980 and from then on
their results showed a disturbing tendency to decline".

It is interesting to note that, even if periodisation has been accepted
without reservation in many countries of the world, it has not found
universal use.

One of sports magazines has published an interview with the expert S Zanon
regarding the knowledge which the USSR and countries falling under its
influence developed in the field of sports training during the period from
1960 to 1980, He emphasized the importance of rejecting this theory and
replacing it with a doctrine that is more scientifically adequate. He states
that "if the concept of training is defined not on the basis of biological
research. As it is offered by this Soviet theory based on concepts which
bear no relation to the actual conditions of sports progress, it follows that
programs of training show a high probability of loss of sporting talent."

The well-known German theorist,Tschiene, who has analysed a number of present
training concepts, has noted that periodisation has not changed from the
moment of its first publication (1965). Although the big sports and
scientific achievements have moved far ahead, many trainer's doctrines have
not progressed or given way to other more progressive approaches. In this
connection it is difficult for me to understand why Professor Matveev has not
noticed the signs or has not wanted to notice them, even though difficulties
concerning the use of his block diagram in sports for a long time became
noticeable. Therefore the theory that he proposed for periodizing the yearly
cycle should be transformed or replaced with more current doctrines,
involving more specific principles stressing the role of competitive
exercises and the individualization of training according to changes in
international practice.

In Italy the fundamental work on periodisation training not only was not
translated into any other languages, but also has undergone critical analysis
in a specially issued booklet. It questions the certainty and practical
efficiency of a concept based only on the training of swimmers,
weightlifters and athletes in the period approximately from 1950 to 1960.

From many other remarks one should stress the artificiality and clumsiness of
classifying the various "micro-" and "meso-" cycles, as well as how
misunderstanding of those terms can distort the design of a training program.
For instance, the use of an unloading microcycle in a given "mesocycle"
while the body of the sportsman is in a state of supercompensation does not
take into account the sometimes random effects of average and small waves of
loads on the body. As a result, the authors conclude that "organizing
training according to the model of Matveev can be used only by athletes of
low qualification".

So, we see that periodisation relies on old data, but its creator does not
cease to state that it is still appropriate. He persistently does not
acknowledge the critic, declaring that his concepts are still significantly
productive, theoretically valid and methodologically attract broad
international recognition. He is offended by complaints which he ignores, so
that the distorted interpretation of his doctrine have virtually become the
most fashionable phenomenon in some training publications of recent years.

Despite numerous invitations to "creative and efficient critical discussion"
of his ideas, Matveev nevertheless considers periodisation as a one-way
street with traffic that is legally adjusted to only one viewpoint, that as
German expert, Tschiene, has noted, excludes any possibility of creative
discussion for the advancement of the theory of sports training. This is one
of the main causes of the crisis in our domestic theories of sports training.

 

most people here dont periodize very well. periodization can be somewhat redundant when you have few motor qualities to train (lifting). i periodize my lifting and my track workouts.