CORRESPONDENCE

Sports Med 2010:40 (9): 603.807

0112-1642/10/0009.O803/S49.95/0
2010 Adis Data infarmatian BV. Aii rights reserved.
New Horizons for the
Methodology and
Physiology of Training
Periodization
Block Periodization: New
Horizon or a False Dawn?
Professor Issurin's review''' 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.'^1 In reahty, ac-
knowledging that the benefits of physical training
gradually accumulate over time (the cumulative
effect) and that these benefits persist for some
period after training is terminated (the residual
effect) are, perhaps, better described as self-evident
truths, as opposed to scientific constructs. In-
deed, Matveyev,'^! 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.'"''J 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
work^loads are not,compatible, causing confiicting
responses," and that hence, "high performance ath-
letes enhance their preparedness and performance
804
Letter to the Editor
through large amounts of training stimuh that
can hardly be obtained using multi-targeted mixed
training''''^ (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 exhibidng inhibited training responses con-
sequent to concurrent training. Hickson^^' 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.P''^^ More recently, studies have demonstrated
that concurrent training can be as effective in
developing both strength and endurance as single
attribute-focused interventions.''-'"'''^ More perti-
nently, studies in a variety of sports, variously
using well trained, ehte 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.''^"^^'
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,'^^"^^' the future
training of an inherently complex biological sys-
tem is best pre-planned using deterministic logic.
mechanistic design frameworks and generalized
rules.
ReOecting 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, SolihuU, 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
2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Sports Med 2010; 40 C9)
Letter to the Editor 805
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 Sei Sports Exerc 1995 Mar; 27 (3): 429-36
14. Shaw BS, Shaw L 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, Gonzlez de Txabarri Expsito R,
Garcia-Pallars J, et al. Concurrent endurance and
strength training not to failure optimizes performance
gains. Med Sei 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, Hkkinen K, Hmlinen 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
V02 kinetics. Med Sei 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. Ronnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. Strength training
improves 5-min all-out performance following 185 min of
cycling. Scand J Med Sei Sports. Epub 2009 Nov 9
26. Hoff J, Gran A, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training im-
proves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sei
Sports 2002; 12:288-95
27. Hoff J, Helgerud J, Wisloff V. Maximal strength training
improves work economy in trained female cross country
skiers. Med Sei Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 870-7
28. Steren 0, Helgerud J, Stoa EM, et al. Maximal strength
training improves running economy in distance runners.
Med Sei 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, Jasklski A, Jasklska 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 LIniversity 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 o Sports Medicine^^^ 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 clariflcation. 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 hfe in close cooperation with coaches
2010 Adis Data Intormation 8V. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)
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.