Editors Note: My new site is now at www.just-fly-sports.com Check it out for a wealth of information on jumping higher and running faster, all backed by research and practical experience!I recently purchased a book written in 1985 by Dr. Yuri Verkhoshanski on periodization and training organization. So far it has been pretty good, a lot of concepts in it were touched on in "Supertraining", but some things have stuck out to me enough to start thinking about them again. One of the studies which the book notes is that of Khodykin (couldn't find the date). Basically this study compares periodized training against parallel training with intermediate athletes in one study.
A quick definition of terms.
Periodized or "conjugate" training: The gradual, month-by-month replacement of weaker training methods with stronger ones through the course of a macrocycle (training year). An example would be to start out doing an "air alert" style training scheme for a few months, and then replace it with weightlifting as the primary exercise for a few months, then replace the weightlifting with depth jumping. Here is a helpful visual:
As you can see, the training program starts out using repeated jumps (air alert style work) and after that training modality begins to plateau, a new, stronger training modality begins to replace it, in this case weightlifting. The program is finalized by the introduction of the most powerful stimulus of all, depth jumping.
Parallel Training: This is the type of training which is the most common amongst many internet trainees and internet training programs. Several "jump" programs are periodized for the 12-16 weeks for which the user is instructed to complete them, but rarely longer. In essence, parallel training involves combining many training modalities and using them in the same micro and meso-cycles throughout the yearly training plan. Basically this means that someone on a parallel training plan will use plyometrics, weights, and submaximal jumps/sprints all in the same training week for the majority of the year. It has been suggested that this type of training is effective for relative beginners but advanced athletes require periodization. I will later explain why this may be a faulty suggestion.
The study by Khodykin investigated the effects of two, three month training blocks on intermediate level high jumpers. The first group did a 3-month block of barbell exercises, followed by a 3-month block of plyometrics. The second group completed a 3-month block of plyometrics and then did a 3-month block of weightlifting, basically, group 1 in reverse. The third group did one 6 month program with both weightlifting and plyometrics in parallel. At the end of the study, the only group which improved their explosive strength was the first group. A negative training effect was found in groups 2 and 3 (they actually decreased in explosiveness). Reasoning for this is that in group 2, the ordering of periodization is faulty (too high of training effect too early) and in group 3, since the program extended so long, the training effect of each modality wore off and plateued, producing staleness. The moral of this study is that, in advanced athletes, it is important not to use a single modality for too great of a period of time.
Personally, I beleive that this is true to an extent, but in the practical world, I would make a few changes. I feel that weightlifting certainly does reach a point of plateu, and as I have stated in my earlier blogs, this is around 3-4 months time. From my own experience, however, I feel that one can lift weights as an exclusive modality longer than they can do plyometrics. Plyometrics are just very demanding on the nervous system, and it is easy to hit a roadblock with them. That said, I feel that one can lift
weights for the majority of the training year, I just think that there are definite points in the year when the volume should be high, and then there are points when it should be miniscule or nonexistant. In my own experience a few concentrated blocks of 3 lower body days per week in the fall and early winter are helpful, but in-season, one to two days a week is best. As far as points in the year when weightlifting should be eliminated, I would say that after a 3 month period of weightlifting, most coaches would do well to have a 2 week "washout" of the barbell training effect. Of course, in a periodized program when the focus is, say, depth jumping, weight lifting should still be done, just in small amounts, enough to maintain previous strength and hypertrophy in the primary muscle groups. In periods of peaking, it depends on the athlete whether or not weights should be eliminated. I have known high-jumpers who have set lifetime records after not lifting for 3-4 months, and I know other high-jumpers who just plain lose it after stopping weights for too long.
I am in the latter group for sure. The best track meet of my life was at an interesting point in my training schedule. I had done a good concentrated strength block right before indoor started, and then shaved down to 2 lifting days a week for the first three meets. I had also lifted weights regularly for the preceding 6 months, although the percentages and focuses were very different in each phase. I also took various weeks off of heavy lifting to delay the plateau of the lifting effect. My fourth meet of the season I did depth jumps, bounding and no weights and set a high jump PR at 2.09 meters. The following week, I did not lift weights except for 3 sets of 3 "2/3" squats with very heavy weight. I did a lot of plyometrics, however, and I ended up high jumping 2.08m easily and almost making 2.14m (the height was there, the form was not). I also went on to set an incredible 1.1 meter PR in the triple jump that day. This is where it is important to know your athletes.....I do lean towards thinking that the taller, leaner, and lankier high jumpers who have more of a natural build for the event can do better without weights for a longer period of time than their "power" counterparts. This is just an opinion though based on my jumpers ,acquaintances, and competitors.....and may not entirely reflect reality.
Anti-Periodization Commentary:
Like any good sport scientist, it is important to look at both sides of the issue from people who actually know what they are talking about....
Now for a quick counter-point on periodization from the man who supported it all these years, Dr. V: In 1998, Verkhoshanksy published a short article on the reasons why traditional periodization was an outdated method.
This article can be found here:
http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Planning%20&%20Periodization/General%20Concepts/Verhoshansky%20The%20End%20of%20Periodization.pdf
A large complaint of Verkhoshansky is that traditional periodization is not a realistic form of training because the fact that it creates several problems. A big problem that he had with it (and that I have with it, and many other coaches) is that an extensive and exhaustive amount of preparation work is done, and then the competitive period is just used to work o
n form, and the specific strength conditioning level of the athlete is neglected. This can be even more harmful with international athletes where the competitive periods are very, very long. Obviously, most modern coaches have adapted a form of periodization which brings heavier training loads into early competitions and "peaks" at the end, but this style of work still may be able to be improved upon.
Another problem that Verkhoshansky had with traditional periodization, and most likely the main one, is that the yearly process of periodization is somewhat unsubstantiated by long term research. There are the shorter-term studies of a preparation period type setup such as the one I listed at the beginning, but apparantly, there is little to no research saying that periodization is the ultimate method of adaptation. Here I am not just talking about doing training in blocks (which is still a good method) but the idea of doing a "familiarization phase" and then a "general strength phase" and so on. Perhaps that absolute anti-thesis of this type of training is Brad Nuttal's "modern" setup at the now "dead" inno-sport, in which only the training modalities which directly aid the athlete in their specific strength requirement are emphasized. Verkhoshanski does also say that a large problem of periodization was that the specific exercises which are needed to provoke adaptation were often, not involved. Of course one might say that those exercises are indeed important for building a "base", but on the grounds of how effective that base truly is, is not substantiated. I am certainly a strong beleiver in a large work-capacity for high-level athletes, but I think that there is a better way to accomplish this than a 2 month "junk-volume" session in the early part of the season.
With that out of the way, here is an example of a more modern Soviet adaptation of periodization, keeping the good peices (conjugation of exercises) while dropping some of the un-needed peices. (un-necessary phases and volumes)
Cyclic Blocks System for Jumping Events: Taranov, Mironenko and Sergejev, 1994.
(I apologize for the poor copy!)
The scribbled section after "restoration" is "limited load" in case you were curious. Some interesting points about this setup is that is works in 3 week blocks, with the tail end of each block being a rehabilitation week with a decreased training load. Only 2 weeks are spent in what you would really call "basework" and functional adaptation is started right away. An interesting point here though, is that the preparation period before competitions begin is only around four months, where in a college system, it is around 7 months! I think that quite often, we don't realize that some of these big-time international level programs don't have to deal with staleness in the prep-period as much as us college guys do, simply because we have a much larger period between our competitive seasons. This cyclic blocks system also is unique in the fact that it starts with specific adaptation work early in the year (it is still important to be sensitive to the intensity this early).
So what is the moral of this story? I would say that if you are not already doing so, be willing to try organizing your training in a manner that weightlifting is not always the primary focus. Even if you are "weak" you still may want to install phases of training which focus on repetitive jumps or sprints. This doesn't mean that you can't lift, just don't focus on it. This will allow you not to plataeu as soon and hopefully have a better and more explosive season. These periods don't have to be long, but they should be in there. Simply put, vary your training emphasis from time to time. You can work training qualities in parallel, just don't do it for more than 3 months! Finally, there are 1,000,000 ways to skin a cat, especially in this profession. I am certainly not trying to tell you exactly how to do things, just some principles which you should always be aware of. Stay tuned for more on this exiting subject.......
GOOD LUCK! Sport scientists have been debating these issues from the beginning of sport-sciencedom.
A quick definition of terms.
Periodized or "conjugate" training: The gradual, month-by-month replacement of weaker training methods with stronger ones through the course of a macrocycle (training year). An example would be to start out doing an "air alert" style training scheme for a few months, and then replace it with weightlifting as the primary exercise for a few months, then replace the weightlifting with depth jumping. Here is a helpful visual:
As you can see, the training program starts out using repeated jumps (air alert style work) and after that training modality begins to plateau, a new, stronger training modality begins to replace it, in this case weightlifting. The program is finalized by the introduction of the most powerful stimulus of all, depth jumping.Parallel Training: This is the type of training which is the most common amongst many internet trainees and internet training programs. Several "jump" programs are periodized for the 12-16 weeks for which the user is instructed to complete them, but rarely longer. In essence, parallel training involves combining many training modalities and using them in the same micro and meso-cycles throughout the yearly training plan. Basically this means that someone on a parallel training plan will use plyometrics, weights, and submaximal jumps/sprints all in the same training week for the majority of the year. It has been suggested that this type of training is effective for relative beginners but advanced athletes require periodization. I will later explain why this may be a faulty suggestion.
The study by Khodykin investigated the effects of two, three month training blocks on intermediate level high jumpers. The first group did a 3-month block of barbell exercises, followed by a 3-month block of plyometrics. The second group completed a 3-month block of plyometrics and then did a 3-month block of weightlifting, basically, group 1 in reverse. The third group did one 6 month program with both weightlifting and plyometrics in parallel. At the end of the study, the only group which improved their explosive strength was the first group. A negative training effect was found in groups 2 and 3 (they actually decreased in explosiveness). Reasoning for this is that in group 2, the ordering of periodization is faulty (too high of training effect too early) and in group 3, since the program extended so long, the training effect of each modality wore off and plateued, producing staleness. The moral of this study is that, in advanced athletes, it is important not to use a single modality for too great of a period of time.
Personally, I beleive that this is true to an extent, but in the practical world, I would make a few changes. I feel that weightlifting certainly does reach a point of plateu, and as I have stated in my earlier blogs, this is around 3-4 months time. From my own experience, however, I feel that one can lift weights as an exclusive modality longer than they can do plyometrics. Plyometrics are just very demanding on the nervous system, and it is easy to hit a roadblock with them. That said, I feel that one can lift
weights for the majority of the training year, I just think that there are definite points in the year when the volume should be high, and then there are points when it should be miniscule or nonexistant. In my own experience a few concentrated blocks of 3 lower body days per week in the fall and early winter are helpful, but in-season, one to two days a week is best. As far as points in the year when weightlifting should be eliminated, I would say that after a 3 month period of weightlifting, most coaches would do well to have a 2 week "washout" of the barbell training effect. Of course, in a periodized program when the focus is, say, depth jumping, weight lifting should still be done, just in small amounts, enough to maintain previous strength and hypertrophy in the primary muscle groups. In periods of peaking, it depends on the athlete whether or not weights should be eliminated. I have known high-jumpers who have set lifetime records after not lifting for 3-4 months, and I know other high-jumpers who just plain lose it after stopping weights for too long.I am in the latter group for sure. The best track meet of my life was at an interesting point in my training schedule. I had done a good concentrated strength block right before indoor started, and then shaved down to 2 lifting days a week for the first three meets. I had also lifted weights regularly for the preceding 6 months, although the percentages and focuses were very different in each phase. I also took various weeks off of heavy lifting to delay the plateau of the lifting effect. My fourth meet of the season I did depth jumps, bounding and no weights and set a high jump PR at 2.09 meters. The following week, I did not lift weights except for 3 sets of 3 "2/3" squats with very heavy weight. I did a lot of plyometrics, however, and I ended up high jumping 2.08m easily and almost making 2.14m (the height was there, the form was not). I also went on to set an incredible 1.1 meter PR in the triple jump that day. This is where it is important to know your athletes.....I do lean towards thinking that the taller, leaner, and lankier high jumpers who have more of a natural build for the event can do better without weights for a longer period of time than their "power" counterparts. This is just an opinion though based on my jumpers ,acquaintances, and competitors.....and may not entirely reflect reality.
Anti-Periodization Commentary:
Like any good sport scientist, it is important to look at both sides of the issue from people who actually know what they are talking about....
Now for a quick counter-point on periodization from the man who supported it all these years, Dr. V: In 1998, Verkhoshanksy published a short article on the reasons why traditional periodization was an outdated method.
This article can be found here:
http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Sport%20Science/Planning%20&%20Periodization/General%20Concepts/Verhoshansky%20The%20End%20of%20Periodization.pdf
A large complaint of Verkhoshansky is that traditional periodization is not a realistic form of training because the fact that it creates several problems. A big problem that he had with it (and that I have with it, and many other coaches) is that an extensive and exhaustive amount of preparation work is done, and then the competitive period is just used to work o
n form, and the specific strength conditioning level of the athlete is neglected. This can be even more harmful with international athletes where the competitive periods are very, very long. Obviously, most modern coaches have adapted a form of periodization which brings heavier training loads into early competitions and "peaks" at the end, but this style of work still may be able to be improved upon.Another problem that Verkhoshansky had with traditional periodization, and most likely the main one, is that the yearly process of periodization is somewhat unsubstantiated by long term research. There are the shorter-term studies of a preparation period type setup such as the one I listed at the beginning, but apparantly, there is little to no research saying that periodization is the ultimate method of adaptation. Here I am not just talking about doing training in blocks (which is still a good method) but the idea of doing a "familiarization phase" and then a "general strength phase" and so on. Perhaps that absolute anti-thesis of this type of training is Brad Nuttal's "modern" setup at the now "dead" inno-sport, in which only the training modalities which directly aid the athlete in their specific strength requirement are emphasized. Verkhoshanski does also say that a large problem of periodization was that the specific exercises which are needed to provoke adaptation were often, not involved. Of course one might say that those exercises are indeed important for building a "base", but on the grounds of how effective that base truly is, is not substantiated. I am certainly a strong beleiver in a large work-capacity for high-level athletes, but I think that there is a better way to accomplish this than a 2 month "junk-volume" session in the early part of the season.
With that out of the way, here is an example of a more modern Soviet adaptation of periodization, keeping the good peices (conjugation of exercises) while dropping some of the un-needed peices. (un-necessary phases and volumes)
Cyclic Blocks System for Jumping Events: Taranov, Mironenko and Sergejev, 1994.
(I apologize for the poor copy!)
The scribbled section after "restoration" is "limited load" in case you were curious. Some interesting points about this setup is that is works in 3 week blocks, with the tail end of each block being a rehabilitation week with a decreased training load. Only 2 weeks are spent in what you would really call "basework" and functional adaptation is started right away. An interesting point here though, is that the preparation period before competitions begin is only around four months, where in a college system, it is around 7 months! I think that quite often, we don't realize that some of these big-time international level programs don't have to deal with staleness in the prep-period as much as us college guys do, simply because we have a much larger period between our competitive seasons. This cyclic blocks system also is unique in the fact that it starts with specific adaptation work early in the year (it is still important to be sensitive to the intensity this early).
So what is the moral of this story? I would say that if you are not already doing so, be willing to try organizing your training in a manner that weightlifting is not always the primary focus. Even if you are "weak" you still may want to install phases of training which focus on repetitive jumps or sprints. This doesn't mean that you can't lift, just don't focus on it. This will allow you not to plataeu as soon and hopefully have a better and more explosive season. These periods don't have to be long, but they should be in there. Simply put, vary your training emphasis from time to time. You can work training qualities in parallel, just don't do it for more than 3 months! Finally, there are 1,000,000 ways to skin a cat, especially in this profession. I am certainly not trying to tell you exactly how to do things, just some principles which you should always be aware of. Stay tuned for more on this exiting subject.......
GOOD LUCK! Sport scientists have been debating these issues from the beginning of sport-sciencedom.
1 comment:
Any specific recommendations for including explosive training for a phase where maximal strength is the main goal?
The modalities I guess I prett obvious, olys, sprints, jumps, plyos, throws etc But are yout alking like a Bagget style Ultimate split where he includes a movement efficiency exercise (usually a "light" plyo) and an explosive movement (oly lift, sprint, depth jump etc) every workout?
Post a Comment