Accumulation is generally described the same amongst different schools of thought.
Transmutation is an intensification of the load; however, it is not synonymous with intensification as intensification encompasses the height of training intensity.
From the standpoint of synonym, transmutation is same as concentration whereas realization is more closely matched with intensification
restoration is restoration
Thanks Sprinter and James.
Hopefully will understand it a bit more…
James,
Can you expand on why you accomunate transmutation and concentration?
Order for Block model according to Issurin goes as follows:
For the trainee who has reached a level of trainedness/preparedness that renders him/her unable to continue to benefit from more of a multi-lateral approach (concurrent) I have found no superior alternative to the block model.
The higher the level of preparation the longer the residual effects from the training of previous emphasis. this is what the block model relies upon, thereby, allowing the trainee to perform shorter blocks of uni-directional loading, in precise sequence, that secure a much more potent/powerful training effect.
Keep in mind, however, that retention volumes exist throughout in order to prevent adaptation and re-adaptation stiffness.
For the trainee who has reached a level of trainedness/preparedness that renders him/her unable to continue to benefit from more of a multi-lateral approach (concurrent) I have found no superior alternative to the block model.
The higher the level of preparation the longer the residual effects from the training of previous emphasis. this is what the block model relies upon, thereby, allowing the trainee to perform shorter blocks of uni-directional loading, in precise sequence, that secure a much more potent/powerful training effect.
Keep in mind, however, that retention volumes exist throughout in order to prevent adaptation and re-adaptation stiffness
I very much agree, still, I don’t understand why he calls specifically the transmutation mesocycle a “concentration” one when the whole block system is based on concentration of loads.
Thanks for the clarification on this, James. I hope to be able to reference this with you when I purchase the text. Do you still have your original e-mail address or do you have a more official e-mail now?
The transmuation block, more than accumulation or realization is truly a concentration of the load, with respect to increased frequency of more intensive training. This is where the special work capacity is forged.
All I use is my university email which you can retrieve through the university website.
The transmuation block, more than accumulation or realization is truly a concentration of the load, with respect to increased frequency of more intensive training. This is where the special work capacity is forged.
By now I know what Issurin means, but the concentration concept is normally used in theory and methodology of training to indicate the programming characteristic of the block system in opposition to the “diluted training” (don’t know how it is translated into english) typical of the concurrent approach.
I very much agree, still, I don’t understand why he calls specifically the transmutation mesocycle a “concentration” one when the whole block system is based on concentration of loads.
In the DVDs Issurin defines a block a concentration of specialized work (no matter if it’s aerobic, strength or speed), which is exactly what I was saying in my previous posts.
We are on the same page.
The concentration is an intensification regardless due to the fact that the emphasis of that block demands that the capacity trained be trained in a fashion that intentionally accumulates fatigue due to a greater frequency, and typically a greater intensity, of training.
I have few question to consider:
Is Block periodization appropriate in team sport settings with 6-8 weeks prep period and 4-5 months of competition? My answer is… hell, it depends, but I am more leaned toward concurrent with load adjustment based on current level of fatigue/preparedness/identified weak points
Why is concurrent so ‘bad’ these days? Charlie uses concurrent scheme (Vertical Integration), I guess Sebastian Coe’s coach (father) used it too (Multi Tier training), Westside use it too… I guee the KEY to concurrent programming is to carefully identify training goals and methods that don’t negate each other, ie. Charlie kicked out Intensive Tempo (80-95%), if this was included then it would be some issues with recovery. When I said that, another key to concurrent programming is RECOVERY.
Most of the data for Block training comes from swimming, kayaking, discus/hammer throw and another individual sports with clearly defined competition calendar.
I am not critisizing Block periodization, I am just curious? Another thing to consider is that if something is important, then it is important doing it all the time, hence: sprinting, skill work, etc, etc.
Duxx, Charlie’s system is much more similar to block periodization than it is to a concurrent model.
I remember discussing this in a thread a couple years ago here on the forum- perhaps someone will find it.
You must remember that concurrent training is much less defined in that all than can be said in absolute terms is that various tasks are trained in parallel.
While Charlie’s model includes nearly all training components year round it is the fact that the volumes vary, thereby allowing for the concentration of certain tasks (e.g. max strength), that makes it very similar to block periodization.
Charlie’s model includes GPP- Accumulation- Intensification-Maintenance, SPP blocks, etcetera. This is strikingly similar to block periodization especially as Issurin describes it regarding retention/maintenance volumes of work to prevent adaptation-re-adaptation stiffness and so on.
I even recall Charlie acknowledging the similarities between his model and the block model when we discussed this a couple years back.
My point here is that we must not confuse all training components present throughout the annual plan (CFTS) with training multiple tasks in parallel (concurrent).
the largest distinguishing factor being the dissection of the training load volume and how it is appropriated towards various targets.
by definition, the concurrent model does not exist to provide for the emphasis of one task over another.
I’m not sure why you stated that concurrent is “viewed badly” these days because it’s all a matter of using appropriate methodology.
The concurrent model is fantastic for youths, developing athletes, and many team sports in which the annual calendar is too unforgiving and there are too many tasks to format into the block model. Bondarchuk emphasized this during his lecture.
remember now that Verkhoshansky ‘invented’ block training and Issurin later pioneered it. Verkhoshansky utilized it in the training of many disciplines in T&F with high success.
- Is Block periodization appropriate in team sport settings with 6-8 weeks prep period and 4-5 months of competition? My answer is… hell, it depends, but I am more leaned toward concurrent with load adjustment based on current level of fatigue/preparedness/identified weak points
Same here. The short macrocycle model of Issurin might have some application for team sports, not so the longer macrocycle of Verkhoshanskij.
- Why is concurrent so ‘bad’ these days?
Concurrent is widely used and liked.
carefully identify training goals and methods that don’t negate each other, ie.
Hard to do when you have all biomotor abilities trained at the same time.
- Most of the data for Block training comes from swimming, kayaking, discus/hammer throw and another individual sports with clearly defined competition calendar.
That’s true and linked to point # 1, although I recall Verkhoshanskij did some studies with team sports, too.
Charlie’s system is much more similar to block periodization than it is to a concurrent model.
I disagree.
No sequentiality of biomotor abilities training, no exploitation of residual effects of one biomotor ability training to the other (conjugation).
GPP- Accumulation- Intensification-Maintenance, SPP blocks, etcetera
This is common terminology to all periodization models.
The shift from MxS to Maintenance is pretty similar to Block Periodization, but the fact that speed and power are trained all year long and that speed is still prioritized during the MxS phase make it VERY different from Block Periodization.
Sprinterouge,
I disagree with you disagreeing.
As you eluded to: The residual effects of the second max strength block are absolutely relied upon to facilitate the heightened improvement of speed strength during the maintenance/conversion period leading into final taper.
The very graphic illustration of the vertical illustration model in the Vancouver 04 notes supports even the visual similarity to a block model.
I’m not sure that I would agree that speed is still ‘prioritized’ during max strength. While the point of all training is to increase speed in CFTS there is certainly a clear emphasis on weights during max strength.
There is a strong argument for the weights being the priority during max strength as the increase in max strength during this block, even though supported by the speed work, is what is facilitating further improvements in speed.
A symbiotic relationship in this case no doubt; however, an ‘emphasis’ on increasing max strength none the less, thereby, providing for an acceptable labeling of a block emphasis more in the favor of strength than speed.
It is for this very reason why the height of speed will not be realized during the max strength block.
The fact that the terminology of GPP, accumulation, and so on is common amongst different periodization models only serves to support me pointing out the similarity between the methods.
Block periodization is similar to linear periodization in that the block model is miniature versions of the longer linear model.
Block model takes linear model and ‘says’ ok, I appreciate the conjugate sequence; however, you are stretched out over too great a duration and do not provide for peaking/more than one increase in target capacity over various stages of annual plan.
CFTS is similar to block model in that, as I stated, I very much think the CFTS does rely upon the residuals of not only the max strength block but also the power conversion block in which the allowed increase in jumps, which are then deloaded prior to taper, also serve their residual purpose leading in to the window of suprcompensation in which the competition would take place.
Again, the Vancouver graphs paint a very convincing picture as to a ‘block’ sequence and certainly distinguishes the model from a concurrent one in which we would observe no contour amidst the training load volume over time.
James,
I think it all comes down to the “purity” of the model. Nevertheless your points convinced me that Charlie’s system is something in between block and concurrent periodization.
Regarding the prioritization of speed, I base that on what has been written many times, that is strength training, which comes second in the day, is done with whatever energy is left from the track. And speed, as a biomotor ability, is worked from the very early part of GPP. Both things are not in line with a “pure” block periodization.
Block model takes linear model and ‘says’ ok, I appreciate the conjugate sequence; however, you are stretched out over too great a duration and do not provide for peaking/more than one increase in target capacity over various stages of annual plan.
This is Issurin interpretation of block periodization. Verkhoshanskij uses a large macrocycle. That’s what I am referring to in my earlier reply to Duxx.
Issurin model reminds me both the one of Tschiene (frequent peaking) and Zatsiorsky (pendularity), yet being a block periodization.
Yes, these discussions can certainly become reduced to semantics regarding our views on theoretical vs actual similarities or dissimilarities.
Upon each one of us providing further clarity to our individual thinking it appears as if we certainly share a perception much closer to one another vs distant.
As the esteemed Dr. Koprivica said to me:
We are more similar in what we don’t know than we are different in what we know.
I have not read Issurin’s book, I did read a a recnt review paper by him
the entire premise of block training is based on an, IMO, faulty starting point: that athletes need voluminous loading to improve fitness.
Charlie disproved that 30 years ago even if the Russians never got the memo. Of course, the Russians never produced crap in most sports either.
you don’t have to bury athletes with volume to stimulate gains.
Period.
Lyle
Of course you don’t have to bury an athlete with volume, but you do have to emphasize each area now and again.
It would behoove you to read the text because your assumption regarding Issurin’s model is not correct.
It would also behoove you to review Olympic history; because unless you were being sarcastic, it appears as if you know very little about sports history because the Russians have performed incredibly well in world level competition in a myriad of Olympic disciplines. Have a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_at_the_Olympics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_at_the_Olympics
all the way up to the world championships in Spain a couple weeks ago in which they fell just behind the US in the medal count.