bloques_isurin

8/12/2019 bloques_isurin

1/4

SportsMed 2010:4 0 9): 603.8070112 1642/10/0009 O803/S49 95/0 2010 Adis Data infa rmat ian BV. Aii rights reserved

ew orizons for theandof TrainingPeriodization: Newor a False Dawn?

Professor Issurin's review''' is to be commended

I suggest, premature and unsupported.To substantiate this position, consider the two

of evidence and rationale within Professor

However, within the elite sports environment

ring planning models. Hence, while

ical comparisons.The second layer of supporting evidence refers

but, rather, refer to self-referenced opinion

period after training is terminated (the residualeffect) are, perhaps, better described as self-evidenttruths, as opposed to scientific constructs. In-deed, Matveyev,'^ the foremost formulizer of thetraditional periodization model, also considersthe cumulative training effect and concepts cor-responding to the residual training effect in hisinfluentialFundamentals of Sports Training Whatis not clear is how an awareness of such poorlyunderstood concepts provide scientific supportfor block-periodization principles. In order todiscriminate between either traditional or block-planning methods on the basis of these verybroad concepts, specific knowledge would be re-quired relating to (i) the projected timeframes forretention or decay of specific fitness attributes;(ii) an understanding of how ongoing traininginteracts with previously conducted training toeither accelerate or delay the erosion of previouslydeveloped fitness components; and (iii) an un-derstanding of how these factors interact with aspectrum of individual-specific considerations,such as training histories and genetic predisposi-tions.This is a knowledge base that clearly doesnot exist.

Consequently, while the proffered anecdotalexamples and accompanying logic may be allur-ing, block periodization cannot be rightly framedas a scientifically-validated planning construct,any more than could Matveyev's seminal modelor the raft of subsequently proposed periodiza-tion derivations.'"''J Here, I hasten to add, ex-perienced coach/scientist opinion is certainly notto be devalued or dismissed. However, beforeblock periodization can rightly claim to be scienti-fically supported, an evidence-led, conceptually-valid chain of reasoning surely needs to be morecoherently outlined.

As an additional concern, while there is anapparent dearth of evidence supporting the block-periodization concept, there is existing evidencethat would appear to strongly challenge its cen-tral premise, i.e. that "each of these (fitness) targetsrequires specific physiological, morphologicaland psychological adaptation, and many of these


2/4

804 Letter to the Ed

through large amounts of training stimuh thatcan hardly be obtained using multi-targeted mixedtraining''''^ (page 194). Unravelling the inter-activity of multi-targeted mixed training modes isobviously a complex task to address empirically.However, it has been tangentially explored instudies investigating the effects of concurrentstrength and endurance training. The trainingmodes required to develop strength and endu-rance frequently appear diametrically opposed,and these attributes would seem prime candidatesfor exhibidng inhibited training responses con-sequent to concurrent training. Hickson^^' classi-cally demonstrated an 'interference effect' betweenconcurrent strength and endurance training re-sulting in compromised strength development inpreviously untrained subjects, with similar find-ings subsequently reported by several other au-thors.P'' ^ More recently, studies have demonstratedthat concurrent training can be as effective indeveloping both strength and endurance as singleattribute-focused interventions.''-' '''^ More perti-nently, studies in a variety of sports, variouslyusing well trained, ehte and world-class athletes,have established that simultaneously training forboth strength and endurance can bestow syn-ergistic benefits to a variety of athletic perfor-mance measures, above and beyond the benefitsrealized by single modality training.''^ ^^'

Without doubt, there is still much to belearned in relation to the intricacies of concurrenttraining. However, it appears clear that (i) the'optimized' development of a single fitness attri-bute does not necessarily preclude the simultaneousadvancement of other attributes; and (ii) mixedmodality training has the potential, in an evidencedrange of circumstances, to bestow synergistically-additive performance benefits.A more conceptual, less demonstrable, chal-lenge to the logic presented in Professor Issurin'sreview, relates to an implicit conceptual dogmaevident throughout the periodized planning lit-erature. Specifically, the paradoxical assumptionthat, despite the evident complexity and inherent

mechanistic design frameworks and generalizrules.ReOecting on the evidence, it would apppremature to herald block periodization as a 'nhorizon' in training planning, partly because ofundamental lack of supporting evidence aclearly delineated rationale, and partly becacontradictory evidence exists questioning its uversal efficacy in elite contexts. What block peodization does positively contribute to currplanning methodologies is a more formal scription of particular planning tactic that mbe advantageously added to the elite coacmenu of potential planning options.Therefore, while blocked-training schemmay be useful ploys in specific training contexthe claim that this framework represents a ndeparture in training planning may be somewoverly enthusiastic. Hence, perhaps a more propriate description of block periodization'new variation', rather than a 'new horizon',sports training planning.

ohn KUK Athletics, SolihuU, cknowledgementsThe author has no conflicts of interest that are direrelevant to the content of this letter.eferences1. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and phy

logy of training periodization. Sports Med 2010; 40 189-2062. Bondarchuk AP. Transfer of training in sports. Muske(MI);Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 20073. Matveyev L. Fundamentals of sports training. MoscFizkultura i Sport, 19814. Brown LE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization moStrength Cond J2001;23 (1); 42-45. Brown LE, Greenwood M. Periodization essentials andnovations in resistance training protocols. J Strength CRes 2005; 27 (4); 80-56. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, et al. A comparisonlinear and daily undulating periodized programs w

equated volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 2May; 16 (2); 250-5


3/4

805

9. Hennessy LC, Watson WS. The interference effects of train-ing for strength and endurance simultaneously. J StrengthCond Res 1994; 8(1): 12-9

10. Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance- andstrength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985;59: 1446-5111. Hunter G, Dem ment R, Miller D. Development of strengthand maximum oxygen uptake during simultaneous trainingfor strength and endurance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness1987;27 (3): 269-7512. Nelson AG, Arnall DA, Loy SF, et al. Consequences ofcombining strength and endurance training regimens. PhysTher 1990 May; 70 (5): 287-9413. McCarthy JP, Agre JC, Graf BK, et al. Compatibility of

adaptive responses with combining strength and endurancetraining . M ed Sei Sports E xerc 1995 Mar; 27 (3): 429-3614. Shaw BS, Shaw L Brown GA . Comparison of resistance andconcurrent resistance and endurance training regimes inthe development of strength. J Strength Cond Res 2009Dec;23 (9): 2507-1415. Yam amoto LM , Klau JF , Casa D J, et al. The effects of re-sistance training on road cycling performance amonghighly trained cyclists: a systematic review. J StrengthCond Res 2010 Feb; 24 (2): 560-616. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, Gonzlez de Txabarri Expsito R,Garcia-Pallars J, et al. Concurrent endurance andstrength training not to failure optimizes performance

gains.Med Sei Sports Exerc. Epub 2009 Dec 917. Balabinis CP, Psarakis CH, Moukas M, et al. Early phasechanges by concurrent endurance and strength training.J Strength Cond Res 2003 May; 17 (2): 393-40118. Davis WJ, Wood D T, Andrews RG , et al. Concurrent train-ing enhances athletes' strength, muscle endurance, and othermeasures. J Strength Cond Res 2008 Sep; 22(5):1487-50219. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potentialfor strength and endurance training to amplify enduranceperforman ce. J Appl Physiol 1988 Nov; 65 (5): 2285-9020. Mikkola JS, Rusko HK, Nummela AT, et al. Concurrentendurance and explosive type strength training increases

activation and fast force production of leg extensor musclesin endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2007 May;21 (2): 613-2021. Mikkola J, Rusko H, Nummela A, et al. Concurrent en-durance and explosive type strength training improvesneuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics in youngdistance runners. Int J Sports Med 2007 Jul; 28 (7): 602-1122. Paavolainen L, Hkkinen K, Hmlinen I et al. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improv-ing running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol1999 May; 86 (5): 1527-3323. Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borrani F , et al. Effects of conc urrentendurance and strength training on running economy and

V02 kinetics. Med Sei Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 1351-924. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potentialfor strength and endurance training to amplify endurance

26. Hoff J, Gran A, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training im-proves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med SeiSports 2002; 12:288-95

27. Hoff J, Helgerud J, Wisloff V. Maximal strength trainingimproves work economy in trained female cross countryskiers. Med Sei Sports Exerc 1999;31:870-728. Steren 0, Helgerud J, Stoa EM, et al. Maximal strengthtraining improves running economy in distance runners.Med Sei Sports Exerc 2008; 40; 1087-9229. Kudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, Wust S. Why do we re-spond so differently? Reviewing determinants of humansalivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuro-endochrinology 2009; 34: 2-1830. Bouchard C, Rankinen T, Chagnon YC , etal .Genom ic scan

for maximal oxygen uptake and its response to training inthe HER ITA GE Family Study. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (2):551-931. Skinner JS, Jasklski A, Jasklska A, et al. Age, sex, race,initial fitness, and response to training: the HERITAGEFamily Study. J Appl Physiol 2001 May; 90 (5): 1770-632. Van Regenmortel M. The rational design of biological com-plexity: a deceptive m etaphor. Proteomics 2007; 7: 965-7533. Foster RG, Kreitzman L. Rhythms of life: the biologicalclocks that control the daily lives of every living thing. NewHaven (CT) and London: Yale LIniversity Press, 200434. Beavan CM, Gill ND, Cook CJ. Salivary testosterone andcortisol responses in professional rugby players after four

resistance exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res 2008Ma r; 22 (2): 426-3135. Beavan CM, Cook CJ, Gill ND. Significant strength gainsobserved in rugby players after specific resistance exerciseprotocols based on individual salivary testosterone re-sponses. J Strength Cond Res 2008 Mar; 22 (2): 419-25

The Author s ReplyA letter to the editor has become a reason tocontinue consideration of training periodization

on the pageso Spo rts Medicine^^^I appreciate it andwould like to thank Mr Kiely for this opportunity.The letter to the editor contains a number ofissues, which need clariflcation. I will address themin the order of their appearance in the letter. Blockperiodization (BP) as an alternative to the tradi-tional model has drawn the attention of Mr Kiely,who has ma rked two layers of evidence andrationale ... based on his unde rstanding of theirimportance.1.The first layer in Mr Kiely 's view belongs to ane cdo tal repo rts which, as far as I could un-derstand, he estimates as having low value as a


4/4

Copyright of Sports Medicine is the property of ADIS International Limited and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

bloques_isurin