Block Periodization: Breakthrough in Sport Training

Members Area Book Reviews
61

This is exactly what created all that confusion. I tried to adress this ‘emphasis’ issue in my article ‘Concurrent Strategies in Strength Training’ where I tried to draw a line between Modified/Emphasis Concurrent Method and Block training.

Dan,

Thanks for your input. Thanks for a book tip once again and thanks for trying to clarify the confusion.
What I am confused now is, that Issurin defined ‘traditional’ periodization as mixed-paralel (concurrent) and most of the guys I have read define tradiotional periodization as sequential, where volume dominates at first and then intensity, and then define ‘new’ periodization as concurrent or just the opposite of Issurin.

My question is as follows: what is the difference between sequential and block periodization then?

P.S.
You asked me to do a ‘review’ for my last article, but you havent critizized me since :). I would love to read your thoughts on ‘concurrent strategies’

62

Duxx,

From an historical perspective, first came the concurrent periodization then the block periodization; pendular models even later (Arosiev, Kalinin, Zatsiorsky, Forteza).

The main concepts of periodization are the periodization of the annual plan and the periodization of biomotor abilities. The latter can be further defined according to the periodization and loading scheme at various levels (phase, macrocycle, microcyle; or macrocycle, mesocycle and microcycle if you prefer the soviet terminology) of each biomotor ability and to the integration of all biomotor abilities.

Some of the more recent concurrent models are very refined in the loading scheme, sometime more so than the older block periodization models. In other words, the periodization models have evolved from concurrent to block to pendular (although they all have a situation that suits them better) but the periodization of loading parameters has evolved as well, usually toward less volume and higher intensity, sometime toward higher specificity.

This means that you can have a sequential or a concurrent model that doesn’t follow a linear decrease of volume, as that is a characteristics that defines the periodization of loading of each biomotor ability and not the whole planning and programming.

Hope this helps.

63

Duxx,

Issurin is right. Sequential models originated post complex-parallel, and to address some of the shortcomings of this system with respect to elite athletes.

Further, I want to clarify one thing. In no sequential model of organization I know of there is an artificially imposed limit of training one and only one biomotor quality at one time. Not in Verkhoshansky’s , not in Issurin’s . Certainly nor in others , like Bompa’s.

The systems call for developing as little as possible biomotor abilities at the same time, and endure that if more than one biomotor ability is targeted during a concentrated block, there is a physiological compatibility (Issurin calls them “compatible modalities” )

You mention that most guys you’ve read mention traditional periodization as linear sequential. I think that many individuals are confused when it comes to periodization models, and this is, IMO, because in most “bible” materials like for example NSCA’a Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning , presented very simplified and artificially limited versions of Bompa’s periodization.

Anyone who try to portray concurrent methodologies as something new , all the rage, the funeral of sequential models, is, in fact, wrong. As is the critique they make to sequential models, I guess they did not made the effort to understand Bompa’s model , not too mention Verkhsohansky;s and Issurin;s block models.

IMO the important thing is to to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each model, the limits in their applicability (as imposed by competitional calendar, nature of sport, training age of the athlete … ), and correctly choose one model for your particular situation. Know your tools.

I will try to give you my input on your article, Im sorry but I was pretty busy those weeks.

64

The systems call for developing as little as possible biomotor abilities at the same time, and endure that if more than one biomotor ability is targeted during a concentrated block, there is a physiological compatibility (Issurin calls them “compatible modalities” )

I guess they did not made the effort to understand Bompa’s model , not too mention Verkhsohansky;s and Issurin;s block models.

IMO the important thing is to to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each model, the limits in their applicability (as imposed by competitional calendar, nature of sport, training age of the athlete … ), and correctly choose one model for your particular situation. Know your tools.

Very good points.

65

James will you be speaking about Block Periodization at the elite seminar in may? Also I am wondering if you could give any input on these staements by Dr. Yessis. He stated that arm action duplicates what goes on in the hip joint yet you should ignore arm action. Arm action is not a key action, and that we should focus on what the legs are doing. He stated this in Advanced Training for High Level Sports: The Transfer of Training and Block Periodization.

66

Sprinterouge,

Basically what you are saying is that there is:

  1. Periodization of annual/multi-year training (determining comp dates, transitional phases, preparatory period and their structure)
  2. Periodization of motor-abilities/goals (should they be training mixed-parallel, sequential/block*, pendular** and how their sequence/conjugation should be organized)
  3. Progression/programming of development of motor-abilities (how should loading protocols should be organized: means [general/specific/competition], methods, intensity, frequency, volume, etc based on training/retaining/recovery loading) over time
  • Are Block and Sequential synonims then?
    ** I guess pendular means ‘emhasis method’, or developing one motor-ability and maintaining other and then swithing back and forth

Yes this helps but it also creates a lot of confusion and more questions (which is good).

This should be sticky and bolded!
So, basically what is the difference between Bompa’s, Verkhoshansky’s and Issurins sequential periodization models? I guess the difference is that Verkhoshansky and Issuring purposelly use and try to induce residual and delayed training effects, while Bompa does not? Am I missing something here?
I got so much more questions and I would really love a direction if you don’t mind sprinterouge and Dan… books besides Issurin?

67

Apologies to the group for the brief departure from the discussion.

Yes I will bball2020.

I have been asked to intentionally not prepare anything with great detail as Dave Tate has granted the VIP customers with having a certain degree of influence as to the content of the speakers presentation.

I am prepared to speak about the block model; however, I am also prepared to speak to any subject matter that is of the interest of the audience (assuming I am knowledgeable enough to speak intelligently about the requested subject matter).

Regarding what you have quoted Dr. Yessis stating. I do not agree.

In my experience in training sprinters, and in training non-track athletes to become faster in short sprints, I have found great success in making the trainee’s mindfulness of arm action paramount.

This is not to state, however, that I do not devote an equal amount of attention towards what the legs are doing.

68

Sprinterouge and Dan have shared very meaningful information regarding the characteristics of the different means of programming and organizing the training.

All should take note.

69

Training residuals are not something you try to 'induce". They inherently exist as a result of applying a trainable load to the organism.

The term was coined relatively recently, but it means “period of time a training effect persist , after application of training load ceased”.

I personally subscribe to the hypothesis that most training effects are mediated through adaptive protein synthesis. In the light of this theory , training residuals, and more broadly speaking, detraining phenomena, is linked to the half life of proteins which mediate the training effect.

So you dont try to induce a residual, but you account for it.

As for some periodization lectures (in no particular order)

  1. Bompa’s "Periodization: Theory and methodology of training’

    You really owe to the man to read his work, and not try to understand his system through the distorted vision of 3rd parties

  2. Programming and Organization by Y.V Verkhsohansky

    Again, do not read Supertraining’s last edition by Siff. Go directly to the source and read this book. It could benefit from some Human Kinetics like editing, but it’s a jewel.

  3. “Fundamentals of strength training in sports” by Y. V. Verkhoshansky

A good grasp of the fundamentals help with programming and organization.

  1. I already mentioned “Adaptation in sport training” by the regretted A. Viru

  2. Issurin’s “Block Periodization: Breakthrough in Sport Training” published by Ultimate Athlete Concepts

    Yosef, if you read this , you should really pay me for the pimping I did for your products :stuck_out_tongue:

This list in not exhaustive.

70

Basically what you are saying is that there is:

  1. Periodization of annual/multi-year training (determining comp dates, transitional phases, preparatory period and their structure)

I prefer not to talk about multi-year planning as it is such a rare event nowdays that to me it’s mere scholastics but yes, periodization of the annual plan is the structure of periodization (planning).

  1. Periodization of motor-abilities/goals (should they be training mixed-parallel, sequential/block*, pendular** and how their sequence/conjugation should be organized)
  2. Progression/programming of development of motor-abilities (how should loading protocols should be organized: means [general/specific/competition], methods, intensity, frequency, volume, etc based on training/retaining/recovery loading) over time

Yes.

  • Are Block and Sequential synonims then?

Sequential is a wider concept, depends if you define sequential under the integrative aspect (block) or under the loading aspect of each biomotor ability (linear). I have read both things, but I think the former is more correct.

** I guess pendular means ‘emhasis method’, or developing one motor-ability and maintaining other and then swithing back and forth

Yes, but there are also different pendular models, depending on the length of each stage. For istance, Arosiev propose a one week alternation between general and competition specific loads during the competitive phase.

Sprinterouge and Dan have shared very meaningful information regarding the characteristics of the different means of programming and organizing the training.
All should take note.

Thank you for the appreciation.

I will answer the rest of the questions later tonight.

71

Few points to ponder:
1: Compatable modalities: High/low works because the low is so low it isn’t recognized by the organism as stress and what’s left is all complimentary High Intensity.
2: The limited capacity to stress H.I. modalities makes it obvious that the fewer modalities in the program the better and that prioritization is essential.
3: The Vanc downloads show the graph of maximum improvement periods for High Intensity modalities.
this must be considered when establishing the training plan.
4: Where possible, try to go to the ‘horse’s mouth’ to get your info and even then make sure it works for you before implimenting anything new.

72

IMO the key of optimal designed concurrent plan is usage of carefull and ‘checked’ traning modalities (means, methods, load) which don’t have great negative effect on each other, like extensive tempo and speed work. Shotgun approach should be eliminated or this would lead to ‘mixed results’ and poor performance and recovery issues.

IMO the second key to optimal desing of concurrent plan is recovery. Volume of KEY training modalities (especially H.I.) should be planned carefully, and the volume of other training elements also, because of limited adaptation/recovery capacityof the athletes. For this reasons optimalization of training volume and prioritization are a must.

Do you reffer to Charniga translation? I have italian translation but my italian is bad.

73

So, basically what is the difference between Bompa’s, Verkhoshansky’s and Issurins sequential periodization models? I guess the difference is that Verkhoshansky and Issuring purposelly use and try to induce residual and delayed training effects, while Bompa does not? Am I missing something here?

When I will finish to watch Issurin’s DvDs I will be able to better answer this one, anyhow Verkhoshanskij peculiarity is the emphasis on the strength block. In a way you are correct regarding the delayed effect. Although the conjugation still exists in all these models, Verkhoshanskij demands that the strength block suppress strength and power indexes. Bompa require a much faster realization (within the same macrocycle). This difference influence the volume of training, the integration of biomotor abilities and the strength retaining loads. Bompa strength training must be lower in volume to allow the realization of strength/power gains within the macrocycle; speed, for istance, could be reaching high intensity already by the end of the max strength macrocycle especially if it is particularly long, whereas Verkhoshanskij demands that the speed training during the strength block be of just lower intensities. The strength retaining load is higher in Bompa’s model, whereas Verkhoshanskij’s requires almost the elimination of strength training (used only for NS tonic purposes) from the speed block as it starts with such lowered power indexes.

On a side note, if you look at page 218 of Periodization. Theory and Methodology of Training. You will see how during the general preparation phase, Bompa suggests concentrate the work on just one or two biomotor abilities. The same happens in Verkhoshanskij’s model. Also, Verkhoshansky suggest to start the metabolic training during the first block (strength) and by the time of the technical/speed block it should have reached the specific endurance stage. That is so much like Harre and Bompa.

On another side note, both Platonov and Harre, I mean Harre wrote this in the 1972, write that team sport need a different periodization model where specific training has a higher than usual component starting from the beginning of preparation.

74

Yes. But I cant really recommend them them to you since prof. Verkhoshansky stated that they where done without his approval, so they break copyright laws.

75

Indeed. There is an absolute priority of special strength training in Verkhoshanky’s system. This is formulated as one of the basic principles of the system he developed, “the principle of priority of SST in the year round training system”.

So basically everything (technical-tactical preparation,speed training, and so on ) revolves around SST. This doesn’t mean ignoring the importance of speed training, or technical-tactical preparation.

76

Thanks for clearning this up sprinterouge. I got the Bompa’s book by HK and I will re-read it in due course, altought I have already read the translated version.
Just one more question: shouldn’t Bompa’s scheme be looked as concurrent scheme at the motor-abilities level (their integration; speed, strength, endurance…) but sequential at their individual development? This reffers to 2. and 3. points we already discussed

77

Dejan,

Bompa is closer to the classic models than to Block Models.

I dont think its necessary to try to define it as “concurrent but sequential”. In fact, this would only complicate things, and offer over-analyzers yet another subject to engage in endless talk.

Easiest way to see differences is to look
at the annual plans provided by Bompa in his book, and the plans provided by Issurin in his pdf.

78

This makes no sense to me can you explain it further. I thought it would be a more of a neurological phenomena.

79

Very broadly speaking:

For example anaerobic endurance is mediated through (enumeration not exhaustive):

  • increase sensitivity of enzymes to activation conditions .

  • synthesis of isozymes resistive to low pH

  • increased buffered capacity (enhanced synthesis of buffer proteins)

  • increased stores of glycogen

All of the above factors are the result of enhanced protein syntheses. Once the training load ceases, and activity becomes insufficient for maintenance , enhanced & adaptive protein synthesis cease. Some proteins may cease totally to be expressed by the genetic machinery, while for others, the rates of synthesis return to pre-training values.

Proteins in the human body are not build today and last for a century. There is a constant turn-over of proteins in the human body. So pretty fast, amount of proteins which mediate training effects return to pre-training values.

When you state that

more of a neurological phenomena

I assume you refer to expression of strength, speed and so on. Yes, you are right. (Except that the term neurology refers to “Diagnosis and treatment of diseases and disorders of the nervous system”) A part of expression of strength is mediated through neural factors.

But you must consider that the nervous system itself, structurally, is living matter. In the end, expressed by the genes.

The adaptive processes inside the nervous system do exist. For example, increase oxidative potential in motoneurons, increased cholynesterase activity on motor end plates, changes in axonal conduction velocity, and so on.

There is a inextricable link between training and performance and the genetic machinery inside every cell of your body.

Hope this helped you at least a little bit.

80

Yessis doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.