Vladimir B. Issurin

New Horizons for the Methodology and Physiology of Training Periodization

The theory of training was established about five decades ago when knowledge of athletes’ preparation was far from complete and the biological background was based on a relatively small amount of objective research findings. At that time, traditional ‘training periodization’, a division of the entire seasonal programme into smaller periods and training units, was proposed and elucidated. Since then, international sport and sport science have experienced tremendous changes, while the traditional training periodization has remained at more or less the same level as the published studies of the initial publications. As one of the most practically oriented components of theory, training periodization is intended to offer coaches basic guidelines for structuring and planning training. However, during recent decades contradictions between the traditional model of periodization and the demands of high-performance sport practice have inevitably developed. The main limitations of traditional periodization stemmed from: (i) conflicting physiological responses produced by ‘mixed’ training directed at many athletic abilities; (ii) excessive fatigue elicited by prolonged periods of multi-targeted training; (iii) insufficient training stimulation induced by workloads of medium and low concentration typical of ‘mixed’ training; and (iv) the inability to provide multi-peak performances over the season. The attempts to overcome these limitations led to development of alternative periodization concepts. The recently developed block periodization model offers an alternative revamped approach for planning the training of high-performance athletes. Its general idea proposes the sequencing of specialized training cycles, i.e. blocks, which contain highly concentrated workloads directed to a minimal number of targeted abilities. Unlike the traditional model, in which the simultaneous development of many athletic abilities predominates, block-periodized training presupposes the consecutive development of reasonably selected target abilities. The content of block-periodized training is set down in its general principles, a taxonomy of mesocycle blocks, and guidelines for compiling an annual plan.

Training Transfer: Scientific Background and Insights for Practical Application

Training transfer as an enduring, multilateral, and practically important problem encompasses a large body of research findings and experience, which characterize the process by which improving performance in certain exercises/tasks can affect the performance in alternative exercises or motor tasks. This problem is of paramount importance for the theory of training and for all aspects of its application in practice. Ultimately, training transfer determines how useful or useless each given exercise is for the targeted athletic performance. The methodological background of training transfer encompasses basic concepts related to transfer modality, i.e., positive, neutral, and negative; the generalization of training responses and their persistence over time; factors affecting training transfer such as personality, motivation, social environment, etc. Training transfer in sport is clearly differentiated with regard to the enhancement of motor skills and the development of motor abilities. The studies of bilateral skill transfer have shown cross-transfer effects following one-limb training associated with neural adaptations at cortical, subcortical, spinal, and segmental levels. Implementation of advanced sport technologies such as motor imagery, biofeedback, and exercising in artificial environments can facilitate and reinforce training transfer from appropriate motor tasks to targeted athletic performance. Training transfer of motor abilities has been studied with regard to contralateral effects following one limb training, cross-transfer induced by arm or leg training, the impact of strength/power training on the preparedness of endurance athletes, and the impact of endurance workloads on strength/power performance. The extensive research findings characterizing the interactions of these workloads have shown positive transfer, or its absence, depending on whether the combinations conform to sport-specific demands and physiological adaptations. Finally, cross-training as a form of concurrent exercising in different athletic disciplines has been examined in reference to the enhancement of general fitness, the preparation of recreational athletes, and the preparation of athletes for multi-sport activities such as triathlon, duathlon, etc.

Benefits and Limitations of Block Periodized Training Approaches to Athletes’ Preparation: A Review

The present review introduces innovative concepts of training periodization and summarizes a large body of findings characterizing their potential benefits and possible limitations. Evidence-based analysis of the traditional periodization model led to elaboration of alternative versions of athletic preparation. These alternative versions postulated the superiority of training programs with a high concentration of selected workloads compared with traditionally designed plans directed at the concurrent development of many athletic abilities at low/medium workload concentration. The training cycles of highly concentrated specialized workloads were coined “training blocks” by experts and practitioners; correspondingly, the alternative versions were termed “block periodized (BP) preparation systems” by their presenters. Ultimately, two BP training models were proposed: a concentrated unidirectional training model (CU) and a multi-targeted BP approach to athletes’ preparation. The first innovative version postulated administration of highly concentrated training means for enhancement of one leading fitness component, whereas the second version proposed the development of many targeted abilities within sequenced block mesocycles containing a minimal number of compatible training modalities. Both versions differ in their methodological background, duration and content of training blocks, possibilities of providing multi-peak performances, and applicability to various sports. In recent decades, many studies have evaluated the effects of both BP training versions in different sports. Examination of the training effects producing by the CU model in combat and team sports has found significant gains in various fitness estimates but not in sport-specific performances. Similarly, utilization of a CU program by elite swimmers did not lead to substantial enhancement of their peak performances. In contrast, studies of multi-targeted BP training programs have revealed their distinct superiority compared with traditional preparation in endurance, team, and dual sports, and strength/power training and recreational athletes (28 studies). It is suggested that the CU training strategy suits athletic disciplines demanding one fitness component like explosive strength in jumping performances. Unlike this limitation, the multi-targeted BP system prompted a beneficial increase of specific preparedness in sports and disciplines in which peak performances require the application of many targeted athletic abilities.

A Single-Unit Design Structure and Gender Differences in the Swimming World Championships

Abstract Four 50 meter male/female finals - the freestyle, butterfly, breaststroke, and backstroke - swum during individual events at the Swimming World Championships (SWCs) can be defined in four clusters. The aim of the present study was to use a single-unit design structure, in which the swimmer was defined at only one scale, to evaluate gender differences in start reaction times among elite swimmers in 50 m events. The top six male and female swimmers in the finals of four swimming stroke final events in six SWCs were analyzed. An unpaired t-test was used. The p-values were evaluated using Neo-Fisherian significance assessments (Hurlbert and Lombardi, 2012). For the freestyle, gender differences in the start reaction times were positively identified for five of the six SWCs. For the backstroke, gender differences in the start reaction times could be dismissed for five of the six SWCs. For both the butterfly and breaststroke, gender differences in the start reaction times yielded inconsistent statistical differences. Pooling all swimmers together (df = 286) showed that an overall gender difference in the start reaction times could be positively identified: p = 0.00004. The contrast between the gender differences in start reaction times between the freestyle and backstroke may be associated with different types of gender adaptations to swimming performances. When the natural groupings of swimming stroke final events were ignored, sacrificial pseudoreplication occurred, which may lead to erroneous statistical differences