Bompa has a macrocyle defined as 2-6 weeks;
whereas, Zatsiorsky has a mesocycle defined as 2-6 weeks and a macrocyle has a one year period in a single periodization scheme in track and field (3 macrocycles would be present in a triple periodized scheme).
Who’s right?
How and why did the west screw up this definition?
From ancient greek roots:
macro: long, large
meso: middle,intermediate
I was aware of the possible discrepancies in the use of macro and meso cycles definitions in western versus more tipically eastern literature. Is it due to the context the terms are used as related to each other, or they stand as solid definitions per se?
What’s the poll, Super?
Who’s right about mesocycles or who writes the better periodization book? From the notes I took from Theory and Methodology by Bompa, I have him saying mesocycle is 2-6 weeks, so you may be seeing a typo.
supervenom, the more appropriate question, as adapted from your inquiry, would be as follows:
How and why did the West screw up the developmental training of athletes, and how many years until we catch up to what Russia was doing 40years ago
40 years! AND BY THAT TIME THEY WILL HAVE HAD OTHER SECRETS THAT WE JUST FIND OUT ABOUT WILL BE PLAYING CATCH UP AGAIN FOR THE NEXT 40!
HEY ROCKY BALBOA WARNED US ABOUT THEIR TRAINING METHODS! SLY SHOWED US EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES! THE AMERICANS WOULD DIE BEFORE LISTENING TO A COMMY!
Yes I believe that he mentions this but then states that macrocycles are 2-6 weeks long! I know the contradiction is intentional bc apparently the west as adapted to it as such. Can someone please shed further light on the subject!
Thank You. I believe you are right and therefore a macrocyle should be defined in Track and Field as PHASE 1 = GPP I, SPP I, COMP I, TRANSITION I! And the same for Phase 2 and 3! i.e. PHASE 2 = GPP II, SPP II, COMP II, TRANSITION II! PHASE 3 = GPP III, SPP III, COMP III, TRANSITION III!
The reason the poll was included was bc Bompa has decided to stick with defining macrocyles 2-6 weeks whereas Zatsiosrky has mesocycles defined 2-6 weeks and macrocycles as defined above i.e. PHASE 1 is one macrocycle! I guess the definition is vague and seeing as the term PHASE (BOMPA)TAKES IS THE SAME DEFINITION AS MACROCYCLE (ZATSIOSKRY) THAN YOU CAN INTERCHANGE THE TWO! But seeing as I read Bompa first and also realizing the fact that CF also categorizes his material this way then I will stick with both definitions as being acceptable. I guess most of North America is stupid so why try and confuse them with another greek term like MESOCYCLE? 
Ah Ha I found it!
Annual training programmes and the sport specific fitness levels of world class athletes
by Felix Suslov
Felix P. Suslov is Professor at the Russia state Academy for Physical Culture in Moscow. He is author and co-author of ten manuals on the theory of coaching, running, youth athletics and a dictionary of sports. As a middle distance runner he competed for the national team of the former USSR. From 1955-1969 he worked as senior coach of Kazakhstan and from 1969-1982 as a senior coach of the USSR national team.
Different theories have been put forward suggesting that the structure of an annual cycle may include up to 6-7 macrocycles. The authors of these theories base them on the experiences of some outstanding individual athletes, and so are worthy of consideration.
The fundamental basis of training theory confirms that [b]the duration of the macrocycle is related to the individual phases in sport specific fitness development, [/b] and its culmination marks the optimal development of all the key aspects of the athlete's programme.
So the west did fuck up pretty bad in terms of the definition of the macrocycle when compared to the Europeans! :mad: