PERIODIZATION AND THE SYSTEMATIC SPORT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
By Vern Gambetta, Gambetta Sports Training Systems

Of all the tools available to coaches, periodization might be the most misunderstood and misapplied. My gut feeling is that many coaches are put off by the jargon and terminology. I thought that looking at it from a slightly different perspective would make it more user-friendly and applicable. In order to avoid confusing the issue we must recognize it for what it is. It is simply planning. That is something that effective coaches have done forever. Planning gives direction and purpose to the training because without a plan--there is chaos and inconsistent results. It also provides a context to evaluate performance aside from wins and losses or personal records.

Periodization is a concept, not a model. It is a systematic attempt to gain control of the adaptive response to training in preparation for competition. There is very little “hard science” to substantiate periodization. It is mostly based on scientific inferences rather than hard scientific evidence. On the other hand there is an immense body of coaching evidence going back into the early twentieth century that underscores the key elements of what eventually became known as periodization. These key elements are:


The concept of periodization works the best when the majority of the variables can be controlled. The most important variable is that of competition. Control of the competitive schedule is essential to the success of any plan. One of the stated goals of periodization is optimum performance at the desired time, whether an individual competition or a series of competitive efforts. The undefined nature of the competitive calendar presents the biggest change, from when the concept was formalized in the 1950’s and 60’s. There is a plethora of high level competitions demanded at the elite level and also for that matter at the developmental level that mitigates against long developmental periods of training.

In an attempt to clarify some of the confusion surrounding periodization, it is important to frame periodization within the concept of the sport development system. The diversity of our nation has always been an overwhelming strength in the development of our elite athletes for international competition. This diversity resulted in a “non-system” sport development system. Teaching coaches to use and adapt the concepts of periodization would be a major step toward producing consistent reproducible results. This would add an element of structure to our “non-system.” To do this we cannot blindly copy the traditional eastern European periodization models. That will not work for the reasons I detail in this article. We must take the principles and concepts and apply them to our athletes who live and train in a vastly different society than the society that existed in the former eastern bloc nations.

Periodization as a concept is certainly not new, or particularly contemporary. The name may be new to many, but it first appeared in coaching literature in the fifties and sixties. Periodization as we know it today was articulated by L.P. Matveyev who studied specific sports and looked at the periodic nature of training necessary to achieve peak performance at the time of major competitions. The nature of periodization as it has evolved represents a reflection of the socio- cultural milieu of the countries where the concept was first articulated rather than any science of the cyclic nature of performance. The science came later in order to better quantify and verify the concept.

After the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union organized virtually everything in society into five-year plans. Specific measurable production goals were articulated and all effort was directed toward the achievement of those goals whether it was agriculture, industry, or education. It was only logical that this approach would eventually be applied to the sport development process. Therefore, when they decided to pursue sport internationally as a glorification of the communist system, the same systematic long term planning that was used in the rest of society was applied to sport. Rather than five or ten year plans, the time period in sport development was the quadrennial cycle culminating every four years in the Olympic Games. They recognized that success in international sport, especially as the stature of the Olympic Games gained more international prestige in the sixties and the seventies, would result in a validation and glorification of the communist system.

It is also important to consider the impact of two world wars fought on the European continent. World War Two devastated the male populations of what was to become the eastern bloc nations after the war, as well as Germany, England and France. There was no talent to waste!

Systematic development of the limited human resources for sport development was a necessity if they wanted to compete. Periodization was a tool to enable those countries to optimize their human resources. It is important to consider that movement and physical culture were an inherent part of the communist ideology. A healthy, physically fit populace was needed for a strong military.

Matveyev was one of many who formalized the concept. Because he was Russian, and the Soviet Union was the dominant geopolitical force in the communist bloc, Soviet ideology tended to prevail even in sport. This explains the dominant influence of the Soviets in the literature of training methodology. Certainly, there were others like Harre in the GDR who made significant contributions. Still, most of what we see in the literature today, including the work of Tudor Bompa, who has done much to popularize the concept in North America, is basically a rehash of the Soviet literature. Not much has been done to modify, study, change or adapt the concept to the contemporary challenges that exist today. Over the years most of the science underlying periodization has been in the form of studies of overtraining. Although today there does seem to be more sports science research directed to studying training adaptation which certainly has the potential to add science to the art of planning. (Rowbottom, 2000)

The international sport environment is very different today than it was even twenty years ago. Where previously the focus was the Olympic Games as a culmination of the quadrennial plan, now there are more frequent world championships in many sports. Competition schedules are not as clearly defined. In most sports, especially at the elite level, there is no defined off-season. None of the literature on periodization has ever effectively addressed team sports. In addition, one would be naïve not to recognize the huge impact systematic doping had on the development of the former eastern bloc sport development systems. In fact, much of the cyclic nature of classical periodization was based on sophisticated manipulation of drug cycles. (Franke & Berendonk, 1997)

We should also be aware that the strict control of the athlete’s lives inherent in the socialist system was a key factor in the success of the classic periodization model. Competition schedules were carefully planned and strictly adhered to. Once the athlete was identified their lives were strictly controlled. This control certainly did not exist in the west nor does it exist today. Even though it may be a value judgment, we certainly recognize the limitations and the human cost of such an approach. Nevertheless we must consider that factor when we look at the training literature on periodization from the former eastern bloc nations and attempt to adapt those principles to our society. This control allowed the system to limit competition and control many variables that we are unable to control in our society. There was an emphasis on volume loading and long periods of general preparation leading up to a few major competitions that is unrealistic in our system. To apply the concepts of periodization to our reality we must challenge these notions, they must be framed in the context of our “non-system.”

The United States is no different than any other country in that sport is a reflection of the socio-cultural milieu in which it exists. For many years up to 1976, the United States was able to dominate the world in athletic competition. The basis of our “non system” was a well-defined comprehensive physical education program. Physical education was mandatory in the schools from K-12. The physical education programs provided a cadre of trained coaches well founded in the principles of pedagogy. Planning is inherent in good pedagogy in the form of a “lesson plan.”

We also did not suffer the ravages of war in our country. This gave us a large healthy pool of talent to choose from. We had a well-defined competitive sport structure based on interscholastic competition culminating in collegiate competition for the more talented. This encompassed all sports, but did not include significant female participation because of antiquated beliefs on the limitations of the female to train and compete. These factors all contributed to our dominance in international sport.

In the U.S., periodization was not formalized and articulated as such. There certainly was not an overall national plan. Our training year was loosely divided into off-season, pre-season and in season. The top coaches certainly had command of the concept of planning. Bill Bowerman, the track and field coach at the University of Oregon, organized all his training in fourteen and twenty-one day cycles. In his system, the training year was divided into three-month periods with specific objectives for each period. A cornerstone of his system was the hard easy principle, which took into account the unity of work and rest. (Walsh, 1983)

In swimming, Doc Counsilman at the University of Indiana, certainly had command of an overall annual plan based on physiological concepts. The number of workouts per week, dry-land exercises, total time and distance per week, the type of training and time of sets was planned for each month. (Councilman, 1977) Dean Smith, former basketball coach at the University of North Carolina, had detailed daily practice plans, which were the basis of his program. These were derived from a master plan for the year as well as a weekly plan. (Smith, 1999) All these coaches are icons in the American ”non-system” who used the principles of what came to be called periodization. The common thread among these coaches is that they had formal training as teachers. That was the norm for coaches. Planning was an essential part of their pedagogical training. They also recognized that planning was essential for success.

The bottom line is that for a long time our “non-system” served us quite well. What happened? The first thing that changed was the erosion of mandatory physical education to the point where today there is only one state that has mandatory physical education K – 12. The most obvious impact is that youngsters are no longer exposed to systematic physical activity. They are no longer taught basic movement or sport skills as part of an organized curriculum. What we failed to notice is that because physical education was no longer mandatory that less physical education teachers were being hired. The physical education teacher made up the pool of trained coaches.

Then there came an increased emphasis on academic achievement to the exclusion of physical education. In addition, there were budget and tax cuts due to declining enrollment; therefore, less qualified coaches were hired in the schools. Club sports began to take the place of school sports. These coaches had no educational requirement. Teacher training colleges changed their mission from teaching to research. Title IX put an increased burden on the schools because in many sports it was now necessary to field two teams instead of one. This served to further deplete the pool of trained coaches creating an obvious staffing problem. These problems are a reality in the United States in 2004. Understanding and adapting the principles of periodization is imperative to reverse these trends.

Periodization is a viable concept that certainly will help improve our sport development system, but we also need trained coaches to plan and then implement the plan. A productive sport development system is coach driven and athlete centered. The solution lies in educating our coaching in the principles of planning in order to optimize resources and time. To achieve athletic success in any kind of systematic manner, certain principles must be observed. The principles are the same regardless of the sport. The plan is the means to execute the principles. The principles are:

Principle of Progression - This is the most often violated principle. Progression in its simplest form moves from simple to complex, easy to hard and general work to specific work. These simple steps give way to complex interactions. All training variables do not progress at the same rate nor do all individuals progress at the same rate.

To insure proper progression, we must clearly define each step. Begin by articulating specific goals and objectives for each step. Then develop evaluative criteria to assess the achievement of each of the goals and objectives of each step. I would go so far as to say that at certain levels of development it should be necessary to show mastery before moving on to the next step. This is especially true in refinement of technical development.

Progression is not linear. We need to begin with a clear picture of what we want the athlete to achieve or look like at the end of a training program as a goal. But we must remember that progression toward that ultimate objective will proceed in a staircase like progression. Constant progress should be made toward the goal, but some of the incremental steps along the way will be smaller than others.

Principle of Accumulation - Adaptation to the stress of training is a cumulative process. You do not do a workout and gain an immediate positive training response, unless it is a relatively small technical adjustment. Often times you will see the true results of a significant investment in training up to a year after the initial training stimulus.

The effect of training accumulates over time, provided training has been consistent and the athlete has been able to stay injury free. Adaptation to different training demands occurs at different rates and the ultimate training adaptation is the synergistic accumulation of the collective training responses. Remember one workout cannot make an athlete, but one workout can break an athlete. Be patient, wait for training to take effect.

Principle of Variation - The variables of training volume, intensity, frequency and exercise selection must be constantly manipulated in a systematic manner. Because the body adapts to training stress so quickly it is important to vary training in order to insure continued adaptation. This variation should not be random, but systematically planned in order to measure the effect of the variation. If training is not varied the body will adapt quite quickly and the training effect will be dulled. If no variation is incorporated there is a significant risk of staleness and eventual overtraining.

Principle of Context - Before we incorporate something into training we need to see where it fits into the context of what is already being done and what is planned. The biggest violation of the principle of context is to take one component, for example speed or strength and train those to the exclusion of all other physical qualities. This is fundamentally unsound. It is possible to design a program where a component is emphasized for a phase, but it should be kept in proportion to the other components and put into the context of the whole training plan.

Principle of Overload - In order for the athlete to progress they must be subjected to a load at a level beyond which they have adapted. Overload is achieved through manipulation of the training variables of volume, the amount of work, intensity, the quality of the work, and frequency of application of the training stimulus. Because there is a reciprocal relationship between volume and intensity, it is important to be careful about increasing both at the same time. It is easy to fall into a trap of overload through volume. This happens because it is easier to quantify training in terms of volume, more runs, more jumps or more throws. This quickly becomes a trap because you cannot keep adding volume without quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns. It also happens because at the start of the athletic development process volume loading results in rapid and sometime spectacular gains. Remember that volume is not a bio-motor quality. In essence, the more you do the better you get. As training age advances that paradigm has to shift and the overload has to come more from intensity.

Principle of Recoverability - The ability to recover both short term and long term from a workload is crucial to positive adaptation to the training stimulus. If the athlete is unable to recover from the training stress, then it is not an appropriate load. Different athletes have different abilities to recover. No two athletes are the same in ability, nor are they the same in the ability to recover. Of all the training principles-- this is the one that is most easy to overlook because it is so easy to get caught up in the work and ignore the ability to recover.

Ultimately all of this is an educated attempt at prediction of future performance based on evaluation of previous competition and training results. It is achieved through planning and organization of training into a cyclic structure to develop all bio-motor qualities in a systematic, sequential and progressive manner. The goal is optimum development of the individual’s performance capabilities. Traditionally, the focus has been on periodization as a model. In order to be more effectively applied, I believe we should focus more on the process and the concepts.

The traditional emphasis in planning has been on the long-term plan. It has been my experience that the longer the period of time for the plan, the less accurate the plan will be. In order to be more effective, the emphasis on long term planning should be on global themes and training priorities based on competition performance, training results, and testing and evaluation data from previous years performance. A shift in focus to the detailed planning of shorter more immediate time periods is more effective and will better serve to meet the needs of the athletes.

Periodization literature is rife with terminology and jargon. We need to make terminology exact and consistent in order to facilitate understanding and communication. I propose that we use the term Planned Performance Training (PPT) instead of periodization, which is a foreign term left over from the old eastern bloc training schemes. Planned Performance Training is defined as the timing, sequence, and interaction of the training stimuli to allow optimum adaptive response in pursuit of specific competitive goals. It is essentially why you do, what you do, in relation to when you do it. This could serve as a step toward updating and revising the concept to fit current sport demands and more accurately reflect current ongoing sport science research.

Recommendations:

Hopefully, this overview will help to create further awareness of the necessity of planning and the various influences and ingredients that go into formulating a viable plan as part the whole sport development process.


REFERENCES:

Counsilman, James E. Competitive Swimming Manual for Coaches and Swimmers. Bloomington, Indiana. Counsilman Co., INC. 1977

Franke, Werner W. and Berendonk, Brigitte. Hormonal Doping and androgenization of athletes: a secret program of the German Democratic Republic government. Clinical Chemistry. 43: 1262-1279. 1997

Goralski, Robert. World War II Almanac 1931 – 1945 - A Political and Military Record. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. 1981 pp. 425 - 428

Rowbottom, David G. Periodization of Training. In: Exercise and Sport Science. Garrett, William E. and Kirkendall, Donald T. Philadelphia, USA. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins. 2000

Smith, Dean with John Kilgo and Sally Jenkins. A Coach’s Life. New York, New York. Random House. 1999

Walsh, Chris. The Bowerman System. Los Altos, CA. Tafnews Press. 1983