|
Researched
and Composed by
Jacob Wilson, BSc. (Hons), MSc. CSCS and
Gabriel “Venom” Wilson, BSc. (Hons), CSCS
Abstract
The
purpose of this paper was to analyze the concept of periodization. It
is subdivided into sections discussing adaptation, the historical basis
and physiological basis of periodization.
Introduction
Adaptation can be defined as an acute or chronic modification of an
organism or parts of an organism that make it more fit for existence
under the conditions of its environment. In this context, modification
is triggered by a change in the environment. These changes are known as
variation, and can occur quantitatively through an increase in magnitude
of a given stimulus, or qualitatively through introduction of novel or
unaccustomed stimuli. For the human athlete the environment can be
thought of as training conditions, with subsequent adaptation occurring
in response to variation in these conditions.
Perhaps the most thorough description of training stimuli was provided
by Kraemer (1983 a, b, 1984 a, b, c, d, e, f, 1988, 2004). Utilizing
statistical analyses Kraemer (1983) developed an approach to
operationally describe any workout protocol through identification of
five specific acute training variables. These variables consist of the
(1) choice of exercise, (2) order of exercise, (3) number of sets
performed (4) rest period lengths and (5) resistance used or intensity
of exercise. Given the above combinations, a virtually endless quantity
of training sessions can be developed, each yielding somewhat differing
adaptations. Kraemer ( 1984 f, 1988, 2004 ) also identified the need
for individualization. That each program must be prescribed in the
context of the uniqueness of the individual. Typically prescriptions
are issued based on the stage that the learner is in for the specific
criterion task performed
(Fitts and Posner, 1967), as well as the goal or outcome desired. The
situation becomes more complex when the scope is broadened to how each
training session fits into a week long period. In this case, exercise
frequency must be addressed. When broadened to medium to long term
planning, each week must fit within the context of a month, a year, and
finally a career.
Periodization is the science which seeks to take both acute and chronic
training variables, and organize them into manageable periods, in such a
way as to elicit optimal adaptations. The periodization concept has
been progressively studied throughout the last century. The purpose of
this paper was to review both the historical and physiological basis for
periodization.
Historical Basis for Periodization
Periodization was originally used to describe photoperiods of the sun
(Stone, 2004). Scientists noticed that athletes typically performed
better during the summer season, with lower performance in the winter
season. Mang (1928) and Pikala (1930) expanded on this by postulating
periods of training based on internal biorhythms in human beings. These
rhythms are daily (circadian), monthly (circa trigtan) as well as annual (circa annual),
and are thought to govern energy needs and availability of nutrients.
For example Melatonin, which is related to the onset of sleep rises at
night, as well as growth hormone which stimulates the release of fatty
acids to fuel the human body during this fasting period (Knowlden, 2002,
2003, 2004). Annual rhythms would govern greater activity in the summer
months, and lowered activity in winter months, which is manifested in
some animals in the form of hibernation (Wilson, 2004). However, the
lowered training performance noticed may have simply been due to greater
food supply during the summer months than winter months. Pedemonte
(1986) suggests that seasons and climates, cannot be the basis for
periodization (though it certainly influences it). If it was the cause
then it would be impossible for athletes living in colder climates to
appropriately prepare for competition, and peaking could only occur in
the summer months. What has provided the basis for periodization can be
found in the transition from short to long duration training protocols.
At the beginning of the last century structuring training for long
periods was not highly investigated as scientists suggested that only a
few weeks were needed to prepare for competition. For example Butowskik
(1910) wrote that ‘ we already have tried to prolong preparation up to
5 to 6 weeks, but always we have noticed that athletes instead of
becoming versed, grow week.’ As further illustration Murphy (1913)
suggested that in all sport events “ the athlete has to devote 8 to 10
weeks to training. Nobody should train hard for a longer period.”
Of revolutionary importance was work performed by Kotav (1917) who went
against the grain by suggesting the use of long uninterrupted training
periods. Longer periods of training called for the need for an
organized, periodical formulation. In this context Kotav (1917)
proposed that training should be divided into three phases. These
included a general fitness stage, a preparatory stage to develop
specific musculature relevant to the sport, and a specific phase in
which the athlete mainly practiced their event.
Pihkala (1930) of
Finland
refined the idea of periodization by publishing a series of principles.
First he addressed that a program must incorporate a proper ratio of
work to rest. Secondly he suggested that a long term program should
begin with higher workloads to prepare the athlete, at relatively lower
intensities, and that these should reverse as the athlete neared
competition. He also created a year long training cycle, which
consisted of a preparation phase, spring phase, summer phase, and rest
phase. The preparatory phase developed a general base for fitness in
muscular, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. The spring and
summer phases were focused on developing motor skills and were generally
attained through competition. While the rest phase, was a period of
active rest.
According to Pedemonte (1986), the idea of year round training did not
spread until the 1940s through 50s. Pedemonte (1986) suggests that the
popularization of year long training is what ultimately generated the
key question of ‘what are the rules that govern training periodization.’
In this time period, forms of periodization such as the Pihkala (1930)
model discussed above were governed by playing season schedules.
However, Letunow (1950) suggested that this was the wrong approach, and
that scheduling of training should be weighted more heavily on the
physiological state, needs and training status of an organism. In this
context, Matvejev (1977), considered by many to be the true father of
scientific periodization suggested that periodization was not simply a
plan, but an objective set of laws that govern the training process.
These laws dictate the need for variation to bring about adaptation and
rest to avoid overtraining and accommodation (see physiological basis
for periodization below). In this context, Plisk (2004) defined
periodization as programmed ‘variation in training means (content) and
methods (load) on a cyclic basis.’ Kraemer (2004) adds that along with
variation, periodization includes planned rest periods to augment
recovery and restoration of an athletes potential. Zatsiorsky (1995)
furthers this concept by suggesting that periodization is a
division of a training season, typically 1
year long, into smaller more manageable intervals with the ultimate goal
of reaching the best performance during the primary competition(s) of
the season and that ultimately periodization is a trade off between
conflicting demands.
Basis for Periodization
The physiological basis of periodization is grounded in four main
adaptation models. Each of these models attempts to explain how an
organism modifies itself in response to magnified or novel stimuli.
General Adaptation Syndrome
Seyle (1936, 1956, 1974) in breakthrough research on stress described
what is known as the General Adaptation Syndrome, comprised of three
stages. These are known as the Alarm Reaction Stage, Resistance Stage,
and Stage of Exhaustion.
1. Alarm reaction
stage – Here the introduction of a stressor, leads to a decrease in
performance. This decrease in performance is accompanied by a fight or
flight response as well as the release of various stress hormones such
as adrenaline, and cortisol. In training, the stress would be in the
form of a change in the environment manifested through manipulation of
acute training variables. This change would result in overload of the
system.
2. Stage of Resistance – The organism’s defense mechanisms fight
to gain resistance. This is known as adaptation and is characterized by
elevated levels of homeostasis. In training this could manifest itself
in muscular hypertrophy, enhanced neural drive, or metabolic
adaptations.
3. Stage of
Exhaustion – If the stimulus is continuous then accommodation or monotony
occurs. Accommodation is a Biological law which states that the
response of a biological object to a given constant stimulus decreases
over time. This means that when an athlete trains the same way for
extended periods of time, they either plateau or experience
maladaptation. The maladaptation according to Seyle reflected similar
symptoms to the Alarm reaction stage, and was the result of a depletion
of the organisms defense mechanisms caused by chronic stress.
In periodization models, this translates to a need for variety in
training to avoid accommodation, and programmed rest to allow for
complete adaptation.
It is important to realize that the transition from the stage of
resistance to exhaustion is multileveled.
1. Overreaching followed by rest for example, can lead to adaptation
2. If the overreaching stimulus is not removed then overtraining occurs
(chronic overreaching symptoms)
3. If the stimulus is still not removed then sickness and or death of
the organism results.
Rest and variation (which can allow for rest of specific stressors)
allows full adaptation, while avoiding monotony and maladaptation.
Following the cycle a new stage of preparedness is reached and the
organism can train at a higher level. Therefore cycles accumulate and
summate adaptations, thus escalating the organism closer and closer to
his or her genetic potential.
Figure 1.0 Hans Seyle’s General Adaptation Theory
Figure 1 graphically depicts Hans Seyle’s General Adaptation
Theory. The organism progresses from an original or untrained state,
through Alarm, Resistance and Exhaustion Stages. If the stress is
removed through rest defenses are allowed to recover and a rebound
effect is seen revealing a new state of preparedness. If the stress is
not removed, accommodation, followed by overreaching and overtraining
occur. Each period of training represents a repeat of the cycle of the
syndrome; and each period is triggered by a change in the surrounding
environment.
One Factor Theory
The One Factor, or Supercompensation Theory is a simplified version of
the General Adaptation Theory and is clearly based on a cause and effect
mechanism. Its simplicity makes it extremely useful as a scientific
model, due to the law of parsimony (given two theories of equal
predictive ability, the simpler explanation should be selected).
The One Factor theory views an athlete’s state of readiness as the
concentration and or absolute amount of a biological substance (Zatsiorsky,
1995). The most utilized example is the amount of glycogen stored in a
muscle.
Training is said to result in depletion of the biological substance
which lowers the athlete’s state of readiness. When rest is allowed a
period of recovery occurs, which is followed by a period of
supercompensation in which the organism increases the biochemical
substance over habitual levels. It should be noted that three
possibilities exist during the rest period (Zatsiorsky).
1. Restoration period = Too short: level of readiness decreases.
2. Restoration period = Right length: readiness increases
3. Restoration period = Too long: no change
In this context, the athlete must therefore select out an optimal rest
interval between sessions, to ensure that the subsequent training
session coincides with the supercompensation phase. The athlete again
must be exposed to a stimulus great enough to deplete the organism, or
supercompensation will not be stimulated.
In this model, the length of the restoration period is contingent on
prior depletion, as is the supercompensation effect. Therefore greater
depletion requires greater time periods to compensate and hopefully
supercompensate.
This concept has led to a short period of overreaching known as the
‘shock cycle.’ During a Shock cycle, the athlete trains in such a way
as to accumulate fatigue or depletion, followed by a longer than normal
rest period. This combination is thought to lead to an even greater
supercompensation effect. An example would entail training a body part
three days straight, followed by greater rest periods between sessions.
Fitness fatigue model
Wilson and Wilson (2005 a, b, c) have covered the Fitness Fatigue Model
in depth in their three part series on the Taper. An overview of their
research is as follows:
Taper Part 1 – Provides an In Depth Discussion of the Fitness Fatigue
Model
Taper Part 2 – Provides and In Depth Discussion on How the model can be
applied to a taper.
Taper Part 3 – Provides an overview of article one and two in a
simplified manner.
The Fitness Fatigue model has its roots in Hulls work, but is credited
to Banister et al. (1975). They proposed that the stimulus provided by
training, termed the training impulse acts to produce two internal
effects on the organism. These are classified as fatigue (negative
effect) and fitness (positive effect). Performance or readiness is
calculated by subtracting fatigue from fitness. The model also predicts
that fatigue originally is greater in magnitude than fitness. However,
the fitness lasts longer than the fatigue. It is for this reason that
strength detriments immediately following a workout are greater than
strength gains seen in subsequent days following. In this context the
athlete must alternate work which provides the training impulse, with
rest periods to dissipate the fatigue.
Currently this is the dominating model, which governs periodization, and
has given rise to the concept of the taper. The model predicts that
chronically over weeks of training, fatigue accumulates. Therefore a
period in which the training impulse is lowered is needed before
competition so that the underlying fitness can be truly revealed. As an
example an athlete first hits a plateau and responds by increasing the
training load. Following this gains are seen. However, another plateau
is reached. Once this occurs the load is again increased but without
subsequent gains. The athlete then lowers the training load, and
experiences gains. This is known as delayed transformation of gains,
and is thought to occur due to the dissipation of accumulated fatigue.
Figure 2 – Fitness
Fatigue Model of Human Performance
Figure 2 graphically depicts the Fitness Fatigue Model of Human
Performance. Where w(t) is the training impulse, fitness and fatigue
are internal factors, E represents the summation of these two variables,
and p(t) represents performance.
Sequencing Theory of Periodization
The
Sequencing Theory is based on several concepts, such as specificity of
fatigue and successive potentiation. Specificity of fatigue suggests
that fatigue is specific to the exercises utilized during a training
session. It also suggests that the transfer of fatigue from one
exercise to another will reflect the number of shared variables between
those exercises. This information can be utilized in several ways. For
example, a very important component of strength training is the total
amount of work performed in a session. By alternating workouts such
that the previous workout trains musculature with little shared
components to the musculature trained in the current workout, more
overall work can be performed. For example, training biceps in the
morning and back at night would lower the work capacity of the back
workout. Therefore periodization, in both acute and chronic training
attempts to properly sequence such that one period of training does not
negatively effect a subsequent training period.
Successive potentiation theory seeks to acutely and chronically program
exercise sequences, in a manner which utilizes transfer from one method
to another. This takes periodization to a new level of scientific
prowess, as it not only avoids fatigue through sequencing, but actually
attempts to enhance successive workouts through properly ordering them.
A classic example in chronic training is to train peripheral factors
followed by central factors. Bench press strength exemplifies this
approach. The skill of bench pressing requires a large learning
component. This means that the participant learns to activate as many
motor units ( the most amount of muscle ) as is possible to lift as much
weight as possible. However, if the motor units recruited contain small
amounts of muscle then only a small amount of weight will be able to be
lifted. One method of periodization requires the athlete to begin by
entering into a hypertrophy or muscle building phase, which increases
the peripheral (muscle cross sectional and contractile ability)
factors. It then follows this with strength and power phases in which
this new capacity is translated into specific preparedness such as the
ability to recruit more motor units.
Summary
Early theories of scheduling suggested that training periods should only
last weeks in length. However, in the 1940s – 50s athletes began to
realize that year long training had a potent effect on adaptation. This
led to the need for greater organization of the training plan. In this
context Letunow (1950) suggested that the scheduling of training periods
should be weighted heavily on the physiological state, needs and
training status of an organism. In this context, Matvejev (1977),
considered by many to be the true father of scientific periodization
suggested that periodization was not simply a plan, but an objective set
of laws that govern the training process. Four adaptation models were
presented which attempt to explain these laws. The first was the
General Adaptation Theory, which proposes that the organism cycles
through three stages of adaptation. The second was the One Factor
Theory, which views adaptation as the effect, with depletion of a
biochemical substance as the cause. The third model was the Fitness
Fatigue Theory, which views readiness as the difference between fitness
and fatigue. The fourth model presented was the Sequencing Theory based
on specificity of fatigue and successive potentiation.
Jacob Wilson
President Abcbodybuilding / The Journal of HYPERplasia Research
jwilson@abcbodybuilding.com
Gabriel “Venom” Wilson
Executive of Bioenergetic Research
Venom@abcbodybuilding.com
References and Sources Cited
Kraemer (1983) Exercise Prescription in Weight Training: Manipulating
Program Variables. National Strength and Conditioning Association
Journal, 5, 58-61
Kraemer (1983) Exercise Prescription in Weight Training: A Needs
Analysis. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal,
5, 64-65
Kraemer (1984, a )Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables:
Exercise Prescription: Number of Sets National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47
Kraemer (1984, b), Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables:
Exercise Prescription: Needs Analysis National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47
Kraemer (1984, c) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables:
Exercise Prescription: Order of Exercise National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47
Kraemer (1984, d) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables:
Exercise Prescription: Choice of Exercise National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47
Kraemer (1984, e) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables:
Exercise Prescription: Rest Periods National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47
Kraemer (1984, f) Program Design: Programming: Variables in Successful
program design. National Strength and Conditioning Association
Journal, 6, 54-55
Kraemer (1988) Exercise Physiology Corner: Factors in exercise
prescription of resistance training National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 10, 36-42
Kraemer (2004 a) The use of Science In Exercise Prescription Degelopment
National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 56-70
Fitts, P. M, & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Stone, H. (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part
I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26,
50-69
Pinkala, L. (1930). Athletics Munick
Mang, P (1928) Running, Jumping, and Throwing Events
Knowlden, A. (2002) Z-Factor, Journal of HYPERplasia Research
Knowlden, A. (2003) Z-Factor 2, Journal of HYPERplasia Research
Knowlden, A. (2004) Z-Factor 2, Journal of HYPERplasia Research
Wilson, Gabriel (2004) An Investigation of the Satiety Mechanism: A
Research Initiative. Journal of HYPERplasia Research
Pedemonte, J Foundational Basis for Periodization I, National
Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 8, 26-28
Butowskik, A.D. (1910) Course on the History and Methodology of Physical
Exercise in Moscow.
Kotov ( 1917) Olympic Sport
Murphy, M. (1913) Training in Athletics Berlin.
Pinkala, L. 1930. Athletics Munick
Letunov (1950) Reflections on the Systematic Formulation of Training: 'Sovietskii
Sport',
Matveyev (1977) 'Fundamentals of Sports Training'
Matveyev, L.P. Modern procedures for the construction of macrocycles.
Mod. Athl. Coach. 30:32–34. 1992.
Matveyev, L.P. About the construction of training. Mod. Athl. Coach.
32:12–16. 1994.
Plisk, (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I.
National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69
Plisk, (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I.
National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69
Kraemer (2004 b) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part
I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26,
50-69
Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.
Selye, H., (1936) A Syndrome Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents, Nature
(July).
Selye, H., (1956) The Stress of Life,
New York, McGraw Hill.
Selye, H., (1974) Stress Without Distress, New York, Philadelphia, J.D.
Lippincott, Co.
Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., Tapering Part I. Journal of Hyperplasia
Research. January, 2005. (a)
Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., Tapering Part II. Journal of Hyperplasia
Research. January, 2005. (b)
Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., Tapering Part II. Journal of Hyperplasia
Research. January, 2005. (c)
Banister, E. W., Calvert, T. W., Savage, M. V. (1975) A systems model of
training for
athletic performance. J. Sports. Med. 7, p.57-61.
© ABC Bodybuilding Company. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer |
