See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273771215

New Horizons for the Methodology and Physiology of Training Periodization:

Block Periodization, New Horizon or a False Dawn?

Article  in  Sports Medicine · September 2010

DOI: 10.2165/11535130-000000000-00000

CITATIONS READS

23 4,974

1 author:

John Kiely
University of Central Lancashire
56 PUBLICATIONS   818 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Athletic Coordination -- Influences on Performance and Injury Resilience View project

Utilization of genetic information in Elite sport and Health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Kiely on 20 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


CORRESPONDENCE
New Horizons for the
Methodology and
Physiology of Training
Periodization
Block Periodization: New
Horizon or a False Dawn?
Professor Issurin’s review[1] is to be commended
on its overview of the historical evolution of
periodization planning theory and the interesting
general discussion. However, the central conten-
tion of the review, i.e. that block periodization
represents a ‘new horizon’ in training planning,
is, I suggest, premature and unsupported.
To substantiate this position, consider the two
layers of evidence and rationale within Professor
Issurin’s review promoting the superiority of block
periodization in elite training contexts. The first
layer is anecdotal, and consists of selected exemplar
cases of athletes and coaches who have achieved
high levels of success employing block-training de-
signs. However, within the elite sports environment
it would seem readily apparent that high honours
are commonly achieved using a variety of training
approaches, reflecting distinct coaching philoso-
phies and differing planning models. Hence, while
the offered examples are undoubtedly interesting
and deserve consideration, they remain unconvinc-
ing as evidence, lacking both contextual detail and
critical comparisons.
The second layer of supporting evidence refers
to ‘‘two contemporary scientific concepts’’ that
have been instrumental in the formulation of the
block-periodized model; namely, the cumulative
training effect and the residual training effect.
However, within the review, the key citations for
these concepts do not pertain to scientific evi-
dence but, rather, refer to self-referenced opinion
pieces by the author and another well known
block-periodization advocate.[2] In reality, ac-
knowledging that the benefits of physical training
gradually accumulate over time (the cumulative
effect) and that these benefits persist for some
Sports Med 2010; 40 (9): 803-807
0112-1642/10/0009-0803/$49.95/0
ª 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
period after training is terminated (the residual
effect) are, perhaps, better described as self-evident
truths, as opposed to scientific constructs. In-
deed, Matveyev,[3] the foremost formulizer of the
traditional periodization model, also considers
the cumulative training effect and concepts cor-
responding to the residual training effect in his
influential Fundamentals of Sports Training. What
is not clear is how an awareness of such poorly
understood concepts provide scientific support
for block-periodization principles. In order to
discriminate between either traditional or block-
planning methods on the basis of these very
broad concepts, specific knowledge would be re-
quired relating to (i) the projected timeframes for
retention or decay of specific fitness attributes;
(ii) an understanding of how ongoing training
interacts with previously conducted training to
either accelerate or delay the erosion of previously
developed fitness components; and (iii) an un-
derstanding of how these factors interact with a
spectrum of individual-specific considerations,
such as training histories and genetic predisposi-
tions. This is a knowledge base that clearly does
not exist.
Consequently, while the proffered anecdotal
examples and accompanying logic may be allur-
ing, block periodization cannot be rightly framed
as a scientifically-validated planning construct,
any more than could Matveyev’s seminal model
or the raft of subsequently proposed periodiza-
tion derivations.[4-7] Here, I hasten to add, ex-
perienced coach/scientist opinion is certainly not
to be devalued or dismissed. However, before
block periodization can rightly claim to be scienti-
fically supported, an evidence-led, conceptually-
valid chain of reasoning surely needs to be more
coherently outlined.
As an additional concern, while there is an
apparent dearth of evidence supporting the block-
periodization concept, there is existing evidence
that would appear to strongly challenge its cen-
tral premise, i.e. that ‘‘each of these (fitness) targets
requires specific physiological, morphological
and psychological adaptation, and many of these
workloads are not compatible, causing conflicting
responses,’’ and that hence, ‘‘high performance ath-
letes enhance their preparedness and performance
804
through large amounts of training stimuli that
can hardly be obtained using multi-targeted mixed
training’’[1] (page 194). Unravelling the inter-
activity of multi-targeted mixed training modes is
obviously a complex task to address empirically.
However, it has been tangentially explored in
studies investigating the effects of concurrent
strength and endurance training. The training
modes required to develop strength and endu-
rance frequently appear diametrically opposed,
and these attributes would seem prime candidates
for exhibiting inhibited training responses con-
sequent to concurrent training. Hickson[8] classi-
cally demonstrated an ‘interference effect’ between
concurrent strength and endurance training re-
sulting in compromised strength development in
previously untrained subjects, with similar find-
ings subsequently reported by several other au-
thors.[9-12] More recently, studies have demonstrated
that concurrent training can be as effective in
developing both strength and endurance as single
attribute-focused interventions.[13,14] More perti-
nently, studies in a variety of sports, variously
using well trained, elite and world-class athletes,
have established that simultaneously training for
both strength and endurance can bestow syn-
ergistic benefits to a variety of athletic perfor-
mance measures, above and beyond the benefits
realized by single modality training.[15-28]
Without doubt, there is still much to be
learned in relation to the intricacies of concurrent
training. However, it appears clear that (i) the
‘optimized’ development of a single fitness attri-
bute does not necessarily preclude the simultaneous
advancement of other attributes; and (ii) mixed
modality training has the potential, in an evidenced
range of circumstances, to bestow synergistically-
additive performance benefits.
A more conceptual, less demonstrable, chal-
lenge to the logic presented in Professor Issurin’s
review, relates to an implicit conceptual dogma
evident throughout the periodized planning lit-
erature. Specifically, the paradoxical assumption
that, despite the evident complexity and inherent
unpredictability of the human adaptive response
to any set of imposed stressors,[29-35] the future
training of an inherently complex biological sys-
tem is best pre-planned using deterministic logic,
ª 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Letter to the Editor
mechanistic design frameworks and generalized
rules.
Reflecting on the evidence, it would appear
premature to herald block periodization as a ‘new
horizon’ in training planning, partly because of a
fundamental lack of supporting evidence and
clearly delineated rationale, and partly because
contradictory evidence exists questioning its uni-
versal efficacy in elite contexts. What block peri-
odization does positively contribute to current
planning methodologies is a more formal de-
scription of a particular planning tactic that may
be advantageously added to the elite coaches
menu of potential planning options.
Therefore, while blocked-training schemes
may be useful ploys in specific training contexts,
the claim that this framework represents a new
departure in training planning may be somewhat
overly enthusiastic. Hence, perhaps a more ap-
propriate description of block periodization is
‘new variation’, rather than a ‘new horizon’, in
sports training planning.
John Kiely
UK Athletics, Solihull, UK
Acknowledgements
The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly
relevant to the content of this letter.
References
1. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physio-
logy of training periodization. Sports Med 2010; 40 (3):
189-206
2. Bondarchuk AP. Transfer of training in sports. Muskegon
(MI): Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2007
3. Matveyev L. Fundamentals of sports training. Moscow:
Fizkultura i Sport, 1981
4. Brown LE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models.
Strength Cond J 2001; 23 (1): 42-4
5. Brown LE, Greenwood M. Periodization essentials and in-
novations in resistance training protocols. J Strength Cond
Res 2005; 27 (4): 80-5
6. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, et al. A comparison of
linear and daily undulating periodized programs with
equated volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 2002
May; 16 (2): 250-5
7. Verkhoshansky YV. Programming and organization of
training. Livonia (MI): Sportivny Press, 1988
8. Hickson RC. Interference of strength development by
simultaneously training for strength and endurance. Eur
J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1980; 45: 2-3
Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)
Letter to the Editor
9. Hennessy LC, Watson WS. The interference effects of train-
ing for strength and endurance simultaneously. J Strength
Cond Res 1994; 8 (1): 12-9
10. Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance- and
strength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985;
59: 1446-51
11. Hunter G, Demment R, Miller D. Development of strength
and maximum oxygen uptake during simultaneous training
for strength and endurance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
1987; 27 (3): 269-75
12. Nelson AG, Arnall DA, Loy SF, et al. Consequences of
combining strength and endurance training regimens. Phys
Ther 1990 May; 70 (5): 287-94
13. McCarthy JP, Agre JC, Graf BK, et al. Compatibility of
adaptive responses with combining strength and endurance
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995 Mar; 27 (3): 429-36
14. Shaw BS, Shaw I, Brown GA. Comparison of resistance and
concurrent resistance and endurance training regimes in
the development of strength. J Strength Cond Res 2009
Dec; 23 (9): 2507-14
15. Yamamoto LM, Klau JF, Casa DJ, et al. The effects of re-
sistance training on road cycling performance among
highly trained cyclists: a systematic review. J Strength
Cond Res 2010 Feb; 24 (2): 560-6
16. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, González de Txabarri Expósito R,
Garcı́a-Pallarés J, et al. Concurrent endurance and
strength training not to failure optimizes performance
gains. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Epub 2009 Dec 9
17. Balabinis CP, Psarakis CH, Moukas M, et al. Early phase
changes by concurrent endurance and strength training.
J Strength Cond Res 2003 May; 17 (2): 393-401
18. Davis WJ, Wood DT, Andrews RG, et al. Concurrent train-
ing enhances athletes’ strength, muscle endurance, and other
measures. J Strength Cond Res 2008 Sep; 22 (5): 1487-502
19. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potential
for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance
performance. J Appl Physiol 1988 Nov; 65 (5): 2285-90
20. Mikkola JS, Rusko HK, Nummela AT, et al. Concurrent
endurance and explosive type strength training increases
activation and fast force production of leg extensor muscles
in endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2007 May;
21 (2): 613-20
21. Mikkola J, Rusko H, Nummela A, et al. Concurrent en-
durance and explosive type strength training improves
neuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics in young
distance runners. Int J Sports Med 2007 Jul; 28 (7): 602-11
22. Paavolainen L, Häkkinen K, Hämäläinen I, et al. Explosive-
strength training improves 5-km running time by improv-
ing running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol
1999 May; 86 (5): 1527-33
23. Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borrani F, et al. Effects of concurrent
endurance and strength training on running economy and
VO2 kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 1351-9
24. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potential
for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance
performance. J Appl Physiol 1988; 65: 2285-90
25. Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. Strength training
improves 5-min all-out performance following 185 min of
cycling. Scand J Med Sci Sports. Epub 2009 Nov 9
ª 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
805
26. Hoff J, Gran A, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training im-
proves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 2002; 12: 288-95
27. Hoff J, Helgerud J, Wisloff U. Maximal strength training
improves work economy in trained female cross country
skiers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 870-7
28. Støren O, Helgerud J, Støa EM, et al. Maximal strength
training improves running economy in distance runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 1087-92
29. Kudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, Wust S. Why do we re-
spond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human
salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuro-
endochrinology 2009; 34: 2-18
30. Bouchard C, Rankinen T, Chagnon YC, et al. Genomic scan
for maximal oxygen uptake and its response to training in
the HERITAGE Family Study. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (2):
551-9
31. Skinner JS, Jaskólski A, Jaskólska A, et al. Age, sex, race,
initial fitness, and response to training: the HERITAGE
Family Study. J Appl Physiol 2001 May; 90 (5): 1770-6
32. Van Regenmortel M. The rational design of biological com-
plexity: a deceptive metaphor. Proteomics 2007; 7: 965-75
33. Foster RG, Kreitzman L. Rhythms of life: the biological
clocks that control the daily lives of every living thing. New
Haven (CT) and London: Yale University Press, 2004
34. Beavan CM, Gill ND, Cook CJ. Salivary testosterone and
cortisol responses in professional rugby players after four
resistance exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res 2008
Mar; 22 (2): 426-31
35. Beavan CM, Cook CJ, Gill ND. Significant strength gains
observed in rugby players after specific resistance exercise
protocols based on individual salivary testosterone re-
sponses. J Strength Cond Res 2008 Mar; 22 (2): 419-25
The Author’s Reply
A letter to the editor has become a reason to
continue consideration of training periodization
on the pages of Sports Medicine.[1] I appreciate it and
would like to thank Mr Kiely for this opportunity.
The letter to the editor contains a number of
issues, which need clarification. I will address them
in the order of their appearance in the letter. Block
periodization (BP) as an alternative to the tradi-
tional model has drawn the attention of Mr Kiely,
who has marked two ‘‘layers of evidence and
rationale...’’ based on his understanding of their
importance.
1. The first layer in Mr Kiely’s view belongs to
‘‘anecdotal reports’’ which, as far as I could un-
derstand, he estimates as having low value as a
source. My own evaluation of these sources is
quite the opposite. Having worked for the major
part of my life in close cooperation with coaches
Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)
806
(including world known and highly recognized
experts in their sports), I have developed great
respect for anecdotal reports as a source of suc-
cessful experience, common sense and real crea-
tivity. However, be that as it may, in this concrete
case my opponent is wrong; the sources cited in
the review are not ‘‘anecdotal’’ they are serious
publications, which summarize the data of well
documented long-term projects with world-class
athletes who have acheived the highest awards.[2-7]
In saying that, the outcomes of the projects men-
tioned are not supported by ‘‘contextual details
and critical comparisons,’’ which makes no sense;
the review format does not allow the insertion of
details, which interested readers can find in the cited
items. In addition to the references mentioned, a
number of newer publications can be listed in which
the results of block periodized preparations are
considered in accordance with standards of peer
reviewed journals. A long-term project of a Spanish
research group, complete with critical comparisons
and serious analysis, resulted in a gold medal in
the Beijing Olympic Games;[8] a similar project by
Belorussian researchers was followed by high awards
at the Athens and Beijing Olympic Games;[9] and
a well balanced study in Alpine skiing was com-
pleted in Switzerland.[10] A number of PhD disserta-
tions devoted to various aspects of BP training
were defended.[11-13] Of course, as a new branch
of the coaching science, BP needs many serious stud-
ies. In the meantime, curious readers can refer to
my own recently published books,[14,15] which are
also listed in the review.[1]
2. The second layer, as Mr Kiely has defined it,
refers to concepts of cumulative and residual train-
ing effects. These essential basic concepts of train-
ing theory are qualified in the letter as ‘‘self-evident
truths.’’ Having expressed familiarity with one
book on the theory of training, Mr Kiely has con-
fused the commonplaces of training science reality.
Professor Matveyev[16] as ‘‘the foremost formuliser
of traditional periodization,’’ described the cumu-
lative training effect approximately 4 decades ago,
but he never used or even mentioned the term
‘‘residual training effect,’’ not in Russian, not in
English, not in Chinese. This term was proposed
and conceptualized by James and Brian Coun-
silman 3 decades later.[17] The importance of these
ª 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Letter to the Editor
generalized concepts for coaching science and
training practice can not be underestimated. The
text on page 260 of the review[1] clarifies the role of
‘‘residual training effect’’ in elucidating BP. Those
requiring additional explanations for a better un-
derstanding of BP and how it differs from the
traditional model can refer to earlier publications
where these issues are clarified.[14,15,18]
3. Another part of the letter is devoted to con-
sideration of the potential benefits of concurrently
developing many targeted abilities, as proposed
in the traditional model. Mr Kiely has cited 16 publi-
cations where the benefits of combined training
for strength and endurance are proposed. He does
not take into account that the number of targeted
abilities (about nine to ten) greatly exceeds the
number of proposed abilities by BP block meso-
cycles. Apparently, each mesocycle should be
focused on developing a number (usually three)
of abilities – but not one. Mr Keily totally ignores
the fact that the block-mesocycle accumulation
for developing basic motor abilities (page 201) pre-
scribes concurrent training for muscular strength
and aerobic endurance. Therefore, the 16 refer-
ences cited in the letter do not refute, but rather
support the methodic approach of BP, which pro-
poses combined development of compatible abilities
and separating work on incompatible training
modalities. Thus, this critical attack seems to
stem from a careless reading of the review.
4. The final part of the letter contains a passage
on the ‘‘...inherent unpredictability of the human
adaptive response to any set of imposed stres-
sors... ,’’ which is supported by citations from a
number of scientific publications. Addressing such
a statement to a serious sport science journal seems
strange at best. It is commonly accepted that each
training system, every researcher and the approach
of each coach is based on the supposition that
expected response will be adequate for transmit-
ting athlete stimulation. This doesn’t mean that
each estimate of adaptive response can be numer-
ically predicted. However, limitations on predict-
ability do not imply a lack of determinism in
training response but could be caused by an in-
sufficiency of available information. This generally
accepted deterministic approach completely corres-
ponds to evidence provided by Professor Bouchard
Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)
Letter to the Editor
and co-workers in publications[19,20] cited by
Mr Kiely in support of his agnostic declaration. On-
going studies by this research group are intended
to unravel the reasons underlying human hetero-
geneity in response to regular training.
Finally, Mr Kiely considers pre-planned train-
ing following deterministic logic and generalized
rules as a ‘‘paradoxical assumption.’’ It is known
that various paths can be used to lead to outstand-
ing athletic achievements but it is hard for me to
imagine that anyone can excel in contemporary
sport by working contrary to deterministic logic
and generalized rules.
I hope this additional consideration of my
paper will attract further interest by the Sports
Medicine audience in the actual problems of high-
performance athletic training.
Vladimir Issurin
Professor of Exercise and Sport Science, Elite Sport
Department at the Wingate Institute for Physical
Education and Sport, Netanya, Israel
Acknowledgements
The author has no conflict of interest that is directly re-
levant to content of this letter.
References
1. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology
of training periodization. Sports Med 2010; 40 (3): 189-206
2. Bondarchuk AP. Training of track and field athletes. Kiev:
Health Publishing (Zdorovie), 1986
3. Bondarchuk AP. Constructing a training system. Track
Technique 1988; 102: 3254-69
4. Issurin V, Kaverin V. Planning and design of annual pre-
paration cycle in canoe-kayak paddling. In: Samsonov EB,
Kaverin VF, editors. Grebnoj sport (Rowing, Canoeing,
Kayaking) [in Russian]. Moscow: FiS Publishing, 1985: 25-9
5. Kaverin V, Issurin V. Performance analysis and preparation’s
concept of the USSR canoe-kayak national team in the
ª 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
View publication stats
807
XXIV Seoul Olympic Games. Sport-Science Gerald 1989; 1-2:
45-7
6. Pyne DB, Touretski G. An analysis of the training of
Olympic Sprint Champion Alexandre Popov. Australian
Swim Coach 1993; 10 (5): 5-14
7. Touretski G. Preparation of sprint events. 1998 ASCTA
Convention. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Sport,
1998
8. Garcia-Pallares J, Garcia-Fernandes M, Sanches-Medina L,
et al. Performance changes in world-class kayakers fol-
lowing two different training periodization models. Eur J
Appl Physiol. Epub 2010 Apr 23
9. Shantarovich VV, Narskin AG, Shantarovich AV. Block
training system within Olympic preparation cycle of top-
level canoe-kayak paddlers. In: Bondar AI, editor. Actual
problems of high-performance sport towards the XXIX
Beijing Olympic Games. Minsk: Research Sport Institute
of Belarus, 2006: 113-7
10. Breil FA, Weber SN, Koller S, et al. Block training period-
ization in alpine skiing: effects of 11-day HIT on VO2max
and performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. Epub 2010 Apr 3
11. Klementiev II. Training program of long standing technical
improvement for achievement and maintenance of out-
standing sportsmanship [dissertation]. Riga: Latvian Sport
Pedagogical Academy, 1993
12. Kaufman LY. Individual simulation of specialized training
and strength improvement in high-level swimmers coaching
[dissertation]. Riga: Latvian Pedagogical University, 2001
13. Shkliar VI. Structure, organization and steering in high-
performance sport on the regional level (on the example of
Jerusalem) [dissertation in Russian]. Moscow: All-Russian
Research Institute for Physical Culture and Sport, 2002
14. Issurin V. Block Periodization: breakthrough in sport training.
Muskegon (MI): Ultimate Training Concepts Publishing, 2008
15. Issurin V. Principles and basics of advanced training of athletes.
Muskegon (MI): Ultimate Athletes Concepts Publishing, 2008
16. Matveyev LP. The bases of sport training [in Russian].
Moscow: FiS Publishing, 1977
17. Counsilman BE, Counsilman J. The residual effects of
training. J Swim Res 1991; 7: 5-12
18. Issurin V. Block Periodization versus traditional training theory:
a review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2008; 48 (1): 65-75
19. Bouchard C, Rankinen T, Chagnon YC, et al. Genomic
scan for maximal oxygen uptake and its response to training in
the HERITAGE Family Study. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (2):
551-9
20. Skinner JS, Jaskólski A, Jaskólska A, et al. Age, sex, race,
initial fitness, and response to training: the HERITAGE
Family Study. J Appl Physiol 2001 May; 90 (5): 1770-6
Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)