Let's Talk About Periodization

[Jason Silvernail]

Hi everybody.

The concept of Periodization of training is very popular in the training and conditioning world.

For some resources on periodization, look here:
Wiki on Periodization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_periodization)
Periodization Explanation for Endurance Sports (http://www.trifuel.com/triathlon/triathlon-training/what-does-periodization-mean-and-how-does-it-work-000625.php)
Periodization for Strength Training (http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/periodization.html)

I attached a review article about periodization as well.
Despite all the positive press, there are a few people out there who aren't convinced that periodization is either clearly superior or that it has a very good research base.

John Cissik has written a great article called "Is Periodization Dead or Just Very Sick?", that I've attached. This calls into question the claims of many of the superiority of the periodization model. John tells me that there is a forthcoming larger review article in a similar direction to be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

What do our esteemed members think of the periodization concept, and why?

[Nick]

Despite all the positive press, there are a few people out there who aren't convinced that periodization is either clearly superior or that it has a very good research base.

I'd have to count myself as one of the unconvinced.

Progression in strength training.
Practice for performance.

[anoopbal]

I think more than 100 years of strength training through periodization by athletes, strongman and powerlfifters, coaches all over the world is enough empirical evidence for periodization.

I would hate that day where all the top strength coaches in the world like poliquin, Charlie Francis, Christian thibeadeu, Loui simmons, Pendlay, abadjiev, ian king unanaimously decalre they all made a great mistake by folowing periodization

I woud love to hear Nicks rationale for non-periodization

Anoop

[Bas]

Well anoop, I just read the "Dead or Sick" opinion piece and I must say - some very good points are made.
The "100 years" is a mite long according to what I know of the start of periodization.

I am not saying it is bogus, but length of time and numbers of faithful followers has never been a very good scientific argument for effectiveness. You know that (look at Soviet style communism - and hand-washing for doctors!). And John Cissik makes some very good points. The risk of such a well-established and accepted approach being wrong is worth examining scientifically. Any solid scientific tenet is tested like that.

[Jason Silvernail]

Anoop-
I'm with Bas and Nick on this one. I really accepted the gospel of periodization when I was learning real exercise science (for me this happened after my PT education, when I was self-teaching in preparation for the CSCS exam). It was only after reading John Cissik's article that I really started to wonder. He makes a lot of really good points there, I think.
Nick and I talked about the overall poor quality of research in exercise science in the Strength Training thread, and that concept applies here. Cissik relates that there do not appear to be any real long term examinations of Periodization to really compare it against simpler program designs that address conditioning. He talks about how much of periodization is based on work in the 60s and 70s in communist countries who were dominant in certain sports - and that dominance does not appear to continue when those coaches move to western countries and you subtract drugs. Some have suggested that periodization was designed to match loading doses of performance- enhancement drugs. Now, I think periodization does make some physiological sense, but it remains to be seen whether you really need to work that hard on program design to get good results with people, so I think the jury is still out.

A quick search for support finds several small studies that are a few months long at most, showing small differences between the periodized group and a comparison group doing a simple progression program. Now either there isn't much difference, or there is insufficient time to demonstrate it. In either case, we can't draw too many strong conclusions, I don't think.

[anoopbal]

Hi Jason & Bss,
I come from more of strength and bodybuilding background, so my thinking of periodization mostly revolves around them rather than multi year training based on meso cyles, and phases and peaking. But I do think principles remains the same.

The rationale for periodizations has always been:

1)Breaking down of time into manageable components
2)recognition that peak performance cannot be maintained at all times Hence ensuring that peaking occurs at the right time

This is the basics of periodization and I think is pretty logical and based on simple. physiology. Simply put, it is just planning ahead your program.

The breaking down to anatomical phases, hypertrophy, power and so on and how long they have to be are just details. For ex, I don’t believe that hypertrophy and strength are that separate that you should have separate phases for it. Some coaches take the hypertrophy phase out, some coaches shorten the anatomical adaptation phase. I don’t think anybody follows the periodization program to an exact T barring some Anyhow, my whole point is that the basics of periodization is just simple and plain common sense.

I just read the Cissick’s whole article again. To be honest, what is his point? I like how he talks about the problems in research and periodization and then concludes with section abt “What can be done”, which basically says nothing. He says picks tests which are valid and reliable, pick the right exercises (basically be specific), when exercises are employed and to what degree they are employed.

Honestly, what has all three of his “solutions” got to do with anything regarding the basics of periodization? His problems with periodization research is very well relevant to ANY strength training study, and some of them to ANY scientific study. I can give better reasons for why all ALL training studies are a bunch of crap

First, nobody gives grants to support research to make people bigger and stronger. Who really cares? Even if there is, that’s way tooooo less compared to what NIH and AHA gives out for studying physiology and disease. And usually MOST (inclues the good reaseachers) who started out researching exercise performance gradually move out to other areas of study, like how exercise prevents disease and the mechanisms which gets better funding. Mainly bcos they require funding to keep their job and studying performance will never get you into that elite level of researchers or the top journals. And usually almost all exercise journals are just average (or below average journals) which makes it easy to get your stuff published. There is much less competition and the review committee is not that stringent either.

Some statements abt periodization was manily for olymic lifters, mainly theoritical and not- so-natural are valid points, but I just don't understand what else he is suggesting instead of periodization. Maybe I am missing something here

Anoop

[Jason Silvernail]

Well, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to do some good exercise studies. I mean, this isn't a cholesterol drug or the treatment of pain - it's strength training, for crying out loud.

While you seem to agree that there isn't much research out there, there are an awful lot of people (and organizations) talking about periodization as if it's got all sorts of science behind it - but it doesn't.

I can't/won't speak for Mr Cissik, but maybe he's not suggesting something else. Maybe he's just saying we should stop talking about it in such strong terms if the science just isn't there.
I think that's a pretty good point to make, don't you?

[anoopbal]

Well, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to do some good exercise studies. I mean, this isn't a cholesterol drug or the treatment of pain - it's strength training, for crying out loud.

I don't think oneday all of a sudden someone will publish a couple of excellent studies which will clear all our questions abt periodization and strength training. Unless there is more funding for exercise studies, this feild will always be lagging in good reaserchers and good publications. That's the root of the problem. Most of the exercise stdies still comes from Denmark, finaland and other european countries who are still passionate abt this feild.

While you seem to agree that there isn't much research out there, there are an awful lot of people (and organizations) talking about periodization as if it's got all sorts of science behind it - but it doesn't.

I think I agree here.

Might be NSCA and ACE and all other certification who wants to make it look it is "evidence based". It is pretty muh known that Supertraining by Mel Siff is just theoritical wanking. Most of the top coaches around the world have their own way of periodization. Charlie Francis ( arguably the best sprint coach) had a periodization plan which was entirely different from the other sprint coaches around the world in 70s. I am pretty sure most top coaches do not follow periodization as it is layed out in NSCA or Bompas text book. They are pretty much aware that it is just planning ahead.

I think the people who really into scince of periodization are those who are fresh out of school or high school coaches , D1 schools, and people who never really read beyond what they have to. Probabaly similar to the mesodermal proponents in your PT feild. I think for those its a good article.

Forget abt periodization, I have even written an article about how there is no real evidence to back up the claim that 8-12 reps is better for hypertrophy. And this is everywhere just like periodization. But most of the good strength coaches kind of know all this stuff.

Anoop

[Keats Snideman]

Interesting thread and a great topic for those dealing with strengthening their clients/athletes/patients.

I think the real question with regard to periodization is periodization of what and for who? Traditional periodization was based upon political and societal constructs of Soviet and Eastern Bloc athletes who were most likely on drugs and basically full time athletes. Eventually these athletes had to go home to visit their families, etc.. so there were planned "periods" of unloading, less drugs, etc.

Taking a system designed in a totally different political and cultural context is bound to fail when followed ver badum in more Western or "Democratic" type of societies. However, as a theoretical concept, periodization of some sort makes sense. You can't do the same thing over and over again or the body will just accomodate and stagnate.

However, too much variety isn't good either as the body continually de-trains/de-adapts to the missing stimulus if it isn't presented to the body at some minimum interval (i.e. once a week for maintenance purposes). As Vladamir Zatsiorsky states in his Science and Practice of Strength Training textbook:

"if you want to scale the summit of a high mountain, why get halfway up the mountain, go back down, and then climb the whole mountain?"

This is where some of the more advanced ideas of periodization (i.e. Non-linear periodization, etc...) come in where mutliple motor/fitness qualites are trained simultaneously with the key qualities remaining in the training progam all year round.