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.
