Week 8 Discussion – Power Athlete Academy

This topic contains 8 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by DavidMck 9 years, 9 months ago.

Author

Posts
March 22, 2016 at 6:39 pm #662

Ben Kucharik
Participant

*WEEK 8 DISCUSSION*

I have limited experience with other coaches philosophies in periodization. What I can gander from Hatfield is that periodization is, for certain people, difficult to understand. Based on normal human tendencies, I would assume they look at it in a negative light because they heard that from someone they learned from and have been too lazy to actually try to learn it themselves or they have been doing it one way all their career and it’s “what worked for them”. People will procrastinate or not have patients to develop a large scale periodization with the meso, micro, and macro cycles to successfully prepare the athlete for competition.

A criticism which holds water against periodization is the exact science it tends to use. the body and it’s reaction to stress can be predicted but not in a perfect manner. what I mean by this is the increases in volume and/or intensity may come too late or too early in the periodization to accelerate adaptation. Siff states periodization should not be held to being doctrine but more of a guideline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0 (p. 331). periodization also does not work in all adaptations. an example is running we say in Charlie Francis’ reading exactly why periodization didn’t work.

In my mind, you should stick to the “code” (guidelines) when it comes to periodization and have it be about of the art and science of coaching with the coach knowing how and when to use it to the benefit of the athlete through experience.
March 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm #665

Ben Kucharik
Participant

*WEEK 8 DISCUSSION*
I have limited experience with other coaches philosophies in periodization. What I can gander from Hatfield is that periodization is, for certain people, difficult to understand. Based on normal human tendencies, I would assume they look at it in a negative light because they heard that from someone they learned from and have been too lazy to actually try to learn it themselves or they have been doing it one way all their career and it’s “what worked for them”. People will procrastinate or not have patients to develop a large scale periodization with the meso, micro, and macro cycles to successfully prepare the athlete for competition.
A criticism which holds water against periodization is the exact science it tends to use. the body and it’s reaction to stress can be predicted but not in a perfect manner. what I mean by this is the increases in volume and/or intensity may come too late or too early in the periodization to accelerate adaptation. Siff states periodization should not be held to being doctrine but more of a guideline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0 (p. 331). periodization also does not work in all adaptations. an example is running we say in Charlie Francis’ reading exactly why periodization didn’t work.
In my mind, you should stick to the “code” (guidelines) when it comes to periodization and have it be about of the art and science of coaching with the coach knowing how and when to use it to the benefit of the athlete through experience.
March 22, 2016 at 7:18 pm #667

chobbs
Participant

*Week 8 Discussion*

“The overall long-term cyclic structuring of training and practice to maximise performance to coincide with important competitions is known as periodisation.” (Siff, M. p.314) This is a great definition, but an open one that I can see can lead to some of the intimidation factor Hatfield points out in his chapter. Setting up a periodized long term program for court and field sport athletes can be very challenging and intimidating on the surface, but if we don’t panic, follow some general guidlines and have “contingency” plans in order for unexpected occurrences it becomes a more manageable task.

I think many people can look at it in a negative light for a couple reasons. Coaches may stick to the same thing all the time because it worked great on one athlete or group and continues to “work” on others thus developing some monotony. Also, I use “work” much like Luke described in his video about if you do his chest blast program and gained 15 lbs on your bench that programmed worked but if John’s programmed added 200lbs then that obviously worked better and had a higher rate of accelerated adaptation. Or some programs may be installed on a group from a coach that just borrowed it from another coach without doing their due diligence on the type of athlete that was being worked with, training age, level, etc. Others may look at it as not enough variety and that it could not “constantly confuse” the muscles, a popular fucking tagline these days, so people will adapt to quickly thus it wouldn’t be effective.

There are valid points to be skeptical of periodisation, but that doesn’t mean you throw it out. Skepticism should drive corrections, innovation, and improvements not necessarily saying fuck it though. Siff lays out some great points, going back to the definition though it is really just a system of organization. He even states, “Whichever system of organisation is chosen, the underlying principle to be applied is that of optimal stress and restoration.” (p.312) Code for whatever you choose to due with a trainee, make sure it is optimal for them to reach their goals!

Have a plan, take into account the athlete’s schedule, figure out if the plan can be organized in such a way for the athlete (given their schedule) can efficiently reach said goals.
March 23, 2016 at 7:08 am #668

Carl Case
Participant

Like been said I don’t have a lot of experience with other coaches opinions on periodization.

Looking at Hatfield he brings up the point that periodized training is this method that is passed down from sports scientist that are hidden hidden their labs, with no regards into making it easily understandable for those outside their realm. Making my way through Siff, I can definitely understand the overwhelmingness of it. This can a big contributor to people looking at periodization. Things you don’t understand tend to lead to fear, or make snap judgements of. Hatfield does a good job of breaking it down into more digestible chunks.

Charlie Francis’s problems with classic periodization arise from the lack of volume or opportunities. “Perfection requires adequate exposure, and while large volumes of practice may not lead to perfection if the practice is of poor quality, poor quality of practice and low volumes will certainly never result in perfection.” Along with the reduction of volume come a sharp increase in intensity, “Clearly a steeper intensification curve will be dangerous for an athlete.”

Siff points out that some coaches contention with periodization training is that method of training organization is unnecessary. And points out that other athletes have been successful in other methods, however this doesn’t discredit all variants of periodization. I think that lack of organization could “work” for the novice athlete simply because of the novice affect, and work into the intermediate. But it comes back to what Luke said do you want works, or what really works. It’s all about accelerated adaptations.

Looking back to Hatfield as to why it is important, “The stepwise procedure you set up is your roadmap, your cycle, your periodicity of training protocol” (143). You should have an plan of how you are going to get your athlete from where they are to where they need to be in the time you have with. But remember it is just a roadmap to guide you, there may have to be some detours along the way you have to take, but ultimately you are still working towards the same destination.
- March 23, 2016 at 8:12 am #670
  
  Tony Fu
  Participant
  
  Do you think Francis’ problem of a lack of opportunity is exclusive to sprinting? I’m by no means a sprinting expert but have come to believe that in order to be fast you have to run fast and the energy expended in a full on sprint is such that significant rest is needed. To me Francis doesn’t have a problem with periodization in theory as much as how it is applied to sprinting. If Hatfield and Francis were drinking, I assume Hatfield is drinking a boilermaker and Francis a vodka tonic, and Hatfield said “Whichever system of organization is chosen, the underlying principle to be applied is that of optimal stress and restoration”, wouldn’t Francis agree? I tend to think he would.
March 23, 2016 at 7:37 am #669

Harry
Participant

Oh Dr.Squat how I love thee: Hatfield(chapter 15) “The stepwise procedure you set up is your roadmap, your cycle, your periodicity of training protocol” . I am glad that I am not alone on this one. I have never applied a periodization sample on any client. I’ve learned some aspects of it through some of my mentors. Bas Rutten would quit any type of training up to 7-10 days from a fight . He wanted his body to yearn the fighting and also he knew his body so well that he could tell how long it would take him to start to “lose” some of his conditioning. Knowledge and application of a good periodization template is by far is in my opinion one of the reasons it is looked negatively.

Siff I found was more wishier-washier than usual and gave some pointers on how either the training cycle organization was unnecessary but never discredited any other templates that included periodization. 


In all periodization is not a new concept: “Evidence suggests that a simplified form of periodization was used in the ancient Olympic Games (776 BC to 394 AD). Philostratus is considered to be one of early promoters of periodization. He referred to the simple annual plan used by the Greek Olympians where a preparatory phase preceded the ancient Olympic Games with few informal competitions before and a rest period after the Olympic Games
March 23, 2016 at 8:30 am #671

Tony Fu
Participant

Why is periodization looked at in a negative light, simple, it’s presented as complicated and there are a lot of lazy people out there. In reality I can’t even say I’ve had any meaningful conversations with coaches (disclaimer: I primarily interact in the CF world) concerning the pro’s and con’s of periodization. Until now I’ve not really been able to wrap my head around it precisely for the reason that Hatfield states, the damn scientists making it more difficult than than it needs to be. I now view it as a form or organization and that’s it. The particulars of the organization and who they should be applied to can be debated for forever but the systematizing of training can not. So the pro’s to me are obvious: you have a plan. Without a plan, you’re planning to fail, and you will. The con for me and it’s been mentioned above is a coaches unwillingness to change a program when the data supports it. I think coaches get married to an idea because it’s worked in the past and are unwilling to admit or are unable to see when there are better alternatives. A quote that jumped out to me was “the need for regular updating of any periodization organization training model or even changing to another one which may differ radically from that of a previous stage in an athlete’s career” (Siff, 318). This ability or willingness is what makes a great strength coach, to recognize the need to change and doing it. Mike Boyle referenced this in the last PA podcast and how his training of a client has changed of the last 17 years. Any coach worth his/her salt has changed their views of training, programs, exercises, etc. from when they began and if more people would be willing to do the same our knowledge as an industry would be much better.
March 23, 2016 at 8:41 am #672

DavidMck
Participant

<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Problems with Periodization- 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>To be blunt, the depth of and involvement required for programming is a big deterrent to most people because it requires significant amounts of research, planning and execution. Most people simply do not have the patience, knowledge, or desire to invest this much time into training. Because of this issue, I personally see a lot of bastardization with bits and pieces of training theories pieced together, mainly following GAS and not adhering to the complexity of training or the SAID principle and people will refer to this as periodization. I constantly hear people refer to training in the classical periodization model when what they really mean is they are following a program of progressive overload, which is present in periodization, but neglecting the finer points and nuances of training, especially when training athletes for sport specific performance. We see a move away from SAID principle in favor of a very basic progressive overload model. Where volume and intensity are the only factors people rely on. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Periodization in the “western” world seems to be limited to the Matveyev model. Where we see a generalization of the periodization model, where volume and intensity become the only relevant factors. Siff notes that, too little is actual known to deduce any real results from this method outside of training “less qualified athletes” (Pg. 319) It doesn’t take into account the complexity of training for sport and the real effects of the SAID principle and GAS, especially in advanced athletes. There is a real lack of understanding as to what periodization really is, and in the “western world” it appears as if the general periodization model where volume increases as intensity decreases, culminating in a peaking moment before a single or season of competition seems to be the only one. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Too much emphasis is placed on the volume/intensity trade off and not enough is placed on the nuances of training, like neuromuscular efficiency, mobility, stability, etc. One example from the text being “work capacity is of little consequence to performance if changes in technical mastery are not constantly monitored….Excellent maximal strength, Vo2max, muscle endurance, reaction times and so forth, simply identify the potential offered by the athletes work capacity and not functional preparedness, which relies on the mastery of specific motor skills to produce top-level performance” (Siff, PG 318) Again, their are incredibly pertinent nuances to training athletes for sport and if these are not addressed we may see increases in strength but no real changes in performance which is our ultimate goal. The periodization model typically adhered to in the western world is lacking in its approach to this very important piece of training, technical mastery, and neuromuscular efficiency. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Other problems that arise in the general periodization model are WHICH exercises should follow a volume/intensity regime (pg 319), and again, “the nuances in training: maintenance of volume at a certain fixed value while the intensity is increased does not necessarily lead to overtraining or injury” (Siff 319) the opposite has been found to be true. This points to the inherent problem with adhering to a strict volume intensity scheme. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>It does not take into account the detrimental effects the training of one particular aspect of strength can have on another…”the stress imposed by distance work and sprints can seriously impair one’s capabilities in many strength exercises”(siff pg.319) . Ive personally experienced this when training for endurance events, as the volume of distance work increases it is not possible to keep up the intensity of the strength work. There is a diminishing return at a certain point. 
 
<span style=”font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;”>Initially high volumes of training, even at low intensity…is likely to cause post-exercise soreness, impaired adaptation, and reduced motivation”(siff pg 320) because of this High volume low intensity is not always the best approach, especially in novice athletes. 

I think the overarching problem with periodization is it incorrect interpretation in western circles, it perceived simplicity and lack of specific adaptation, and the nuances that are actually present in periodization but completely ignored by most people. People believe that if they simply decrease volume and increase intensity they are following periodization, not taking into account the varying degrees of strength, SAID principle, the complexity of the in-season/off-season and the differences between novice and advanced athletes.
Author

Posts

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.