Interview with Tudor Bompa

a-j · June 24, 2009, 12:43pm

yeah your start was good was ahead at 40, i noticed your front side was nt as good, but didnt realise it was you, looked to be your hip position though perhaps stronger core maybe? esp abs, thats where we have worked alot.

The vid on youtube?

lkh · June 24, 2009, 1:21pm

Charlie said to just train normally and use the 10 day taper as the final hit, so I’m just training normally. The weights are maintenance at this point and I’ve removed squats with the contrast workout. I’ll kill the weights entirely the last 2 weeks or so.

Now, John Smith wouldn’t be “training” at all at this point–nothing more than 6X80 submax and starts/drills, somewhat like what Nikoluski mentioned above. But, when I started with the contrast workouts, I cut the volume way back to avoid injury and didn’t get in any training to consolidate gains and set up something to taper off of. With the high stress of the contrast workout, the training volume does have to be cut down, but now that I can do the workouts more or less normally, I’m getting in that training phase, and I’ll be cutting down the workload to more of a comp load after I’ve had around 3 weeks of “training” as Charlie said somewhere above.

Next year, of course, I’ll have this training in the last few weeks of SPP2 and my training during comp will be as John Smith has it.

One last question Instead of racing distances in training why not something like 60-80-120 on wednesday and on sunday 60-80 or one hard 120 after the contrast? Just asking b/c I hate to use racing distances training. Mentally I feel if I go into a meet not knowing my time exactly for my distances I feel less stress. If I go in saying I just ran 11.xx in practice so I know it should be 11.xx in a race then if I dont get the time I wanted I get bummed out. On the other hand if I go in knowing my training times have been improving over the distances I use in training I just go in feeling confident b/c my prep has been going well… I know it sounds the same or maybe even crazy but that’s just my feel on training distances…

There’s a section in one of Verkhoshansky’s papers where the prof mentions that after you’ve done your SPP-type work, you can still improve by doing the competition distance in training or doing competition-style training (in one of the papers he has short-long this way). Obviously, you can’t do the race distance in training if your competition distance is 10000 meters, but you can with 100 or 200, and Clyde Hart has this for 400 (actually 320 for Clyde). I start in the beginning of SPP2 with 2X3X80 (same parameters Charlie gave for Ben) and through the phase move this up to 100, then a single 120 effort–classical short to long, I think.

So in the 2nd half of a SPP I have competition distances in training. It might only be one rep in a speed workout (5X50+100 or 2X40+2X30OS+100) but it’s in there. Notice all the sessions of 3X60 or 4X60 that Charlie has in his short-long SPP1.

100m001 · June 24, 2009, 4:22pm

Drills

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sports-coaching-interview-periodization-coach-tudor-bompa-40858

Tudor Bompa has been called the father of periodization (training planning) and I bet there are very few athletes in the world who don’t owe their successes (even if they don’t realise it) to the former Romanian’s theories in some way or another.

Tudor Bompa

Bompa has had his detractors (maybe because he advised ‘drugs cheat sprinter’ Ben Johnson and his coach Charlie Francis in the Eighties), but I believe he is the genuine article. He did the research, proved the theory by coaching Olympic and world champions and should be hailed as one of the greatest practical sports sport scientists of all time.
Having training advice provided by coaches such as Bompa on Peak Performance Premium is what makes our online site such an exciting and informative resource.
PPP: How did you get involved in sport?

TB: Like almost every kid in Romania, I started to play football. Track and field also captivated me so much so that during my mid-teens I was very busy training and competing in both sports. I quickly realised that the athleticism I gained from track and field greatly helped my football. I was the fastest and the strongest in our junior football league and by the time I was 17 I was selected for the Romanian national under-18 side. And I was still training for track. I won a silver and two bronze medals in the under 18 national championships. These were in the sprints and the pentathlon, so I was busy! However, an unfortunate ankle injury terminated my football career.

Some of my best friends were rowers and due to my injury I found myself turning to this sport. Since I was genetically equipped for speed and power, I had to struggle to achieve a decent performance level in a sport where endurance is crucial. But somehow I managed and kept going to such an extent that I won a silver medal in the ‘four’ at the 1958 European Championships.

Professionally, I feel that I owe a great deal to my own sports involvement. I think that without the knowledge I gained from tens of thousand of hours of training and coaching I would never have reached my best as a professor, a sports training specialist and author.
Why and how did you get involved in sports science?

I realised that I lacked a great deal of scientific training knowledge. Therefore, for several years I read everything I could put my hands on. And remember, this was in a Communist society where access to information was available to only a selected few. I was coaching rowing and track and field. I was having success with the javelin in particular. I was also invited to coach the national rowing team level.

From that point on I had access to everything I wanted, including the chance to research many of the training elements that have captivated me: for example, strength training as it applies to different sports and the development of endurance. This was in the 1960s, and those were the years that really shaped my professional training philosophy.
You are widely acknowledged as one of the fathers (if not the father) of periodization. Do you accept this tag and what made you interested in this field?

Your statement greatly honours me, but it is slightly exaggerated. Let me share with your readers the evolution of periodization.

From the early years of the ancient Olympics, athletes have followed a very simple but logical method of training. They train to compete; compete in pre-Olympic and Olympic Games and then rest and relax. This is periodization – the athlete follows training phases (now called ‘preparatory, competitive and transition’ phases).

A Russian professor, Leonid Matveyev, was the first to use the term periodization in terms of planning the phases of an athlete’s training. He borrowed the term from history, where periodization describes the phases of human history – for example, antiquity, the Middle Ages, and so on.

Matveyev was the first author to really analyse statistically what the Soviet athletes used in training for the 1952 Olympic Games. His work validated the concept of periodization… that is, that the annual training plan should be divided into phases of training, with each phase having a specific training objective. And that these phases themselves should also be subdivided into even smaller training phases called ‘macro-cycles’ (of two to six weeks’ duration) and ‘micro-cycles’ (a week of training).
How did you get on with the Russians?

It’s funny, looking back on my time then, as the Russians wanted to steal everything that had been successful in any of the Eastern European countries. So much so that, in the West, it’s often thought that the Russians discovered everything in training!
What’s the difference between the periodization methods that evolved in the Fifties and those of the present day?

The difference between periodization in the 1950s and nowadays is that 1) we have created several variations of periodization and 2) in our planning and periodized training we apply sports science more effectively. With research and through the efforts of top coaches we constantly discover and produce better information that enriches the science of training.
How did you and your colleagues determine if periodization worked?

As I indicated, many elements of periodization have evolved as a result of a better understanding of sports science or through research – for example, at the Romanian Olympic training centre in Bucharest and Timisoara. It started when we tried to work out why our athletes failed to reach peak performances at the most important competitions!

We are particularly interested in your work on the development of sport-specific strength – where did this interest develop?

In 1963, Mihaela Penes, a junior javelin thrower from Romania, was left without a coach when she moved to another city. I was approached to help her. I applied what is now known as the ‘periodization of strength’ to her training. At that time nobody regarded maximum strength (‘MxS’) as a key determinant of power.

The logic of the time – and one that is still held by many coaches today – was that, since power is the dominant ability in javelin, for example, it (power) has to be trained all the time. However, my logic was different. Since power is a function of MxS, you have to develop MxS first and then convert it into power, prior to participating in major competitions. Many coaches ridiculed me for training MxS. They said that ‘MxS will make you slow’!

However, the knowledge we now have of exercise physiology justifies what I believed back then and still believe in: that is, the scope of MxS to recruit more fast-twitch (speed- and power-producing) muscle fibres. This contrasts with power training, which increases the discharge (firing) rate of the muscle fibres.

During my first winter with Mihaela I tested my theory and realised that levels of power were much higher following the periodization of strength. This was in contrast to other athletes who followed the standard training methodology of year-round power training. This was further vindicated by practice, as Mihaela achieved outstanding testing results and a national senior record.
Mihaela won the 1964 javelin Olympic gold…

Yes… since Mihaela was an athlete unknown outside of Romania, I wanted to surprise all her competitors at the Tokyo Olympics. To achieve this, I added another different ingredient into the training plan. This was, that her first attempt had to be the best of the day when throwing and strength/power training!

We did this in training for almost two years. In Tokyo, none of the other throwers were looking out for Mihaela, and with her first throw she threw an Olympic record. Shock! All the other throwers had long faces. And they still had them by the end of the competition, as she climbed the podium to collect her gold medal.
Why the emphasis on weight training for power – if there are still those that need convincing?

The best way to answer this question is to show the relationship between strength and other motor abilities.

During an athletic action such as sprinting, the athlete recruits a certain number of fast-twitch muscle fibres – the higher the number, the greater the ability to display both strength and power. Let’s assume that athlete ‘A’ can recruit 60% of all their fast-twitch fibres and athlete B only 55%. Who will display the higher level of power?
But it should be remembered that, according to the periodization of strength, maximum levels of power can only be reached after the MxS phase. The training time to achieve this is as follows:

Anatomical adaptation: three to six weeks

MxS: six weeks

Conversion to power: five to six weeks
You said there are different periodization models…

Yes – the double(two peaks), and triple (three peaks) periodization models resulted from detailed studies.
In the 1960s, most athletes used a mono-cycle, or one-peak annual plan – this used to be a typical plan in track and field. At first, I also used the one-peak annual plan in rowing, too. But it soon became apparent that the best performance was achieved in early summer (June) and could not be replicated in the late summer (August) – during the World Rowing Championships, for example – with these methods.
This failure made me critically analyse what I was doing with my athletes. More testing and research followed and I finally realised that for sports where a coach has to plan at least two peaks per season, he/she has to use a plan which I called, at that time, ‘double-peak periodization’.
An example: between the first peak in June and the second peak in August, I had to put in a mini- preparatory phase (involving mostly MxS and power training). A very short transition period was also included in June, at the end of the first peak – this lasted for two weeks. The result, the following year, was two world champions in rowing.
This variation of periodization evolved into what I now call a ‘bi-cycle’ or ‘double-peak’ annual plan.
You’ve had your detractors…

Yes, despite the success of my methods I have my detractors, especially in the USA. Several sports scientists have claimed that I didn’t really create all the elements of periodization I have described in my books. They claim that the Russians developed them! And that I ‘just’ brought them to the West!

My reaction: show me a Russian book or article written anywhere between 1960 and 1980 that discusses periodization of strength/power! The periodization of endurance! The periodization of speed and agility! And so on.
In fact, two books of mine have been translated into… Russian!
Has periodization theory changed significantly?

There have been a number of articles recently, touting ‘the end of periodization’. These, to me, just supplant linear periodization with undulating periodization (UP).

I read such an article and was very disappointed to realise that the author confused loading patterns with the periodization of training! Anyway, for those who claim the end of periodiszation, I have two questions/comments to make:

a) do they really understand periodization? I regret to say this, but the more a person questions periodization, the more I question his/her understanding of sports science and training in general. Let me simply say that for as long as you want to be an effective coach, you have to be well- organised and conduct a well-organised and planned periodized training methodology.

And

b) if periodized training is ineffective, what is left to us? We either have periodization or chaos! Choose what you want.
And what is undulating periodization?

So-called undulating periodization is nothing but changes to the patterns and magnitude of training loads during a week of training. Olympic weight-lifting athletes have used variations of loading patterns for generations. Since the Sixties, the variation of loading magnitude per week has also been used in most sports, matching strength- training intensities to the intensities planned for specific training days (days with low-, medium- or high-intensity training, for instance). This is better expressed as alternating training loads as a percentage of 1RM.
Is there truly a ‘key’ weight lift for a power athlete, such as a sprinter? Recently I read an article where the dead-lift was identified by one coach…

For sprinting and any sports that desire quickness, maximum speed and agility, the triple extensor muscles – gastrocnemius and soleus, quadriceps, and gluteus maximus – are determinant for ultimate performance. When sprinting, the propulsion phase (the push-off against the ground) is crucial. Weak propulsion potential will increase the duration of the contact phase, making the athlete slower. The stronger the triple extensor muscles, the shorter the duration of the contact phase. A short duration contact phase means improved speed.

Now, the dead-lift does not strengthen the calf muscles! Period! It strengthens the hamstrings – which are essential in terms of power and strength in terms of shortening the recovery phase of the running step (bringing the heels up toward the buttocks).

[b]I recommend the following exercises for sprinters (and any athletes) who want to become faster and more agile (in this order):

a) calf (heel) raise[/b]

b) squats

c) a suitable hamstring exercise.
What makes a successful coach?

A few simple comments… have an inquisitive mind! Experience as many methods as possible
to realise what works best. Beware of salesmen! Always challenge instructors promoting ‘novelties’! Read, read! and read again! You’ll find out what is good and what is…trash!

Tudor Bompa has written 15 books and these have been translated into 18 languages. To date, these have sold 650,000 copies worldwide.As a coach in Romania he coached numerous top athletes, including the 1964 Olympic javelin champion Mihaela Penes.

He is the only coach who has produced Olympic and world champions in two different sports – track and field, and rowing.

To find out more, go to www.tudorbompa.com

Where are the triple extensor muscles? I looked on a anatomy online website but I don’t see the muscle listed.

mortac8 · June 24, 2009, 4:29pm

For sprinting and any sports that desire quickness, maximum speed and agility, the triple extensor muscles – gastrocnemius and soleus, quadriceps, and gluteus maximus – are determinant for ultimate performance.

nycjay01 · June 24, 2009, 4:35pm

Hmm I have not tried it in practice by my self but I think 1 session a week of a “practice meet” or a competive practice would not be a bad idea. Here in westchester county NY were I live they have mini meets every tuesday night. Maybe I will give your idea a try…

Thanks again. This has been a great thread.

a-j · June 25, 2009, 7:54am

Remember cheater you now qualify for the nationals in 2 weeks

UKcheetah · June 29, 2009, 7:03am

Lkh was wondering whether the performance benefits of contrast last longer i believe… so you continue getting pr’s. Well a-j’s athlete, Joel Fearon, pr’d at 10.60 7days from contrast. Then this weekend he pr’d at 10.48 14 days from contrast…

a-j · June 29, 2009, 7:16am

Very true think we timed his peak spot on lol however of couse he now has senior nations in 2 weeks so its what to do to move forward from here

Charlie_Francis · June 29, 2009, 9:49am

What do you need to do? Wasn’t the new PB a contrast of sorts? How many races were run around the date of the 10,48 and what were they?

Nikoluski · June 29, 2009, 10:19am

What contrast training is this, do you know? Is it simply a case of drills with and without resistance, since no over-speed work is involved?

Was the PB you got after the first OS session in a one off race? And then 3 weeks of normal training have followed?

Any recent update on your racing? Thanks!

a-j · June 29, 2009, 10:29am

He got senior nationals in 2 weeks, he has raced last 2 weekends running 10.67 and 10.60 to win regional champs this weekend ran 10.61 in heat then 10.48 to finish 4th 4 hundredths from a medal lol

matrick · June 29, 2009, 11:44pm

There is also a very recent interview with Tudor Bompa at http://www.thetrainingtalk.com if anyone is interested.

lkh · June 30, 2009, 1:21am

This is the LSU training week that Tamfb linked well up in this thread:

http://www.trackshark.com/features/images/2008/LSU%20Sprints-Hurdles%20Weekly%20Workout.pdf

This was buried in the Trackshark article, so unless you read the whole thread carefully, you would miss it. The contrast training listed (remember, it was November) was 5X50 resisted, followed by 5X20 blocks, so no overspeed here, but it looks like they use the basic concept for the entire season.

Was the PB you got after the first OS session in a one off race? And then 3 weeks of normal training have followed?

I was doing this as the cutdown to racing as Charlie shows in the SPP download. Through the SPP, I went from ~1500m/wk HI at the beginning, declining down to 500m or in the last 2 weeks. I did 2 contrast workouts, and the second was VERY fast, so thinking about Charlie’s 10-day rule, I did 6 days of NOTHING, then had the PR. The race that followed by 8 days didn’t work out for another PR due to a couple of false starts (the first of these was me).

Any recent update on your racing? Thanks!

Since the second race following the PR didn’t work out, I’m doing what Charlie said about going back to training for a few weeks, so I’m really doing Phase III per CFTS right now. I’ve had three contrast workouts (all 2X40m uphill, 2X30 flying downhill, 1X90-100m flat) and each has been faster, with a 4th to come this week.

What I’ve noticed matches almost perfectly with the UK results mentioned above. You are NOT recovered in a true peak sense after 1 week. Also, it seems that starts are compromised–at least they feel compromised–which might be CNS/explosiveness effects of not being recovered, or it might be the effect of not doing much accel while doing the contrast workouts (and you have to cut the overall workload because the stress is so great).

Racing for Phase III doesn’t start for a couple of weeks and basically runs all summer.

twhite03 · June 30, 2009, 1:59am

This has been a very enlightening and interesting thread. From the looks of it, the primary effect of the contrast training is on MaxV and as a result I wouldn’t think it would be nearly as beneficial for a football player or other team sport athlete. While it would increase the speed reserve, most FB players have limited to no exposure to MaxV in their training and would probably benefit more from flying 20’s or something similar. However the concept itself is intriguing and I’ve even seen some people substitute the overspeed section with bounding (I think tamfb mentioned this), perhaps for safety reasons.

I suppose you could modify the workout to focus on acceleration by simply shortening the distances and substituting overspeed downhill starts for the fly work. Thoughts?

Nikoluski · June 30, 2009, 5:11am

Thanks for the detailed reply!

So, were the first two contrast workouts During or After the two-week cutdown from Charlie’s SPP?

About the PB, I meant to ask if the first race was a meeting or a championship, but the mentioning of the 2nd race 8 days after is a valuable input, too!

Just to clarify, some details of your current Phase III?

Also, since Charlie had suggested you go back to some training for 3-4 weeks, have the contrast workouts mentioned above come on a weekly basis?

Overall, it may be a preparedness issue, as mentioned by James a few posts back.

Good luck! Let us know how it goes, please!

star61 · June 30, 2009, 2:22pm

Verkhoshansky gives the time to maximum potentiation for the second activity at ~5 minutes.

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but I don’t fully understand the implementation of this training. If the potentiation lasts only a few to 5 minutes, won’t only the first overspeed rep receive this benefit unless you alternate the resisted and unresisted/assisted reps, rep for rep? In other words, if you do 5x50 resisted, rest a few minutes and then start the 5x20 blocks, won’t only the first 5x20 benefit from potentiation effects?

As far as definition of terms, doesn’t contrast apply when the two activities are alternated rep for rep, and complex training apply when the two activities are conducted in succession during the same training session?

UKcheetah · June 30, 2009, 3:57pm

My understanding was the other way around. And so contrast is the right term.

This is a good point. However, everytime I’ve used this method the 1st overspeed rep is way off the quality of the 2nd and 3rd. The potentiation ‘window’ may also be lengthened as the resistance exercise is repeated, then the 1st OS adds another huge CNS stimulus… probably potentiating the later reps even further.

lkh · June 30, 2009, 4:03pm

They were the 2-week cutdown. See post #66 in this thread to avoid duplicating a long post here. At the time I thought the only way you could do this stuff within a CF SPP phase was right at the end because of the LSU training linked by Tamfb. But after doing it, I’ve learned that I can do the contrast training every week like this if I want:

Mon: contrast/overspeed
Wed weights (no squats or very light squats)
Fri 80+100+120

So, I may do it a little differently next season with more time. But that depends on whether every other week gives better results.

About the PB, I meant to ask if the first race was a meeting or a championship, but the mentioning of the 2nd race 8 days after is a valuable input, too!

Not championship races, but on fairly fast tracks.

Just to clarify, some details of your current Phase III?

This is what I have on my spreadsheet:

14-Jun 2X70(wu) + 100m race
16-Jun weights
17-Jun 3X20+80 submax
20-Jun 2X40uphill+2X30OS+100flat
22-Jun 3X20+80 submax
23-Jun weights
26-Jun 3X100 + 50
28-Jun weights
30-Jun 4X50 + 100
2-Jul weights
4-Jul 2X40uphill+2X30OS+100flat
6-Jul weights
7-Jul 3X20+50 submax
11-Jul Comp Starts

I would have had some more time off and some 2X200 early in the phase (III) as Charlie did with Ben (I also do these during GPP), but the timing didn’t work out.

I’m not planning much contrast/overspeed stuff during comp and not during the 10-day taper. From what I see above in this thread regarding more optimal peaking performance, I’m planning one contrast/overspeed 3 weeks out from the last race, leading into the next-to-last race, with the 10-day taper following.

I will adjust this based on what I learn here and what I actually see in workouts. I know that 3 contrast workouts spaced at least 1 week apart continue to improve performance, but have too much load to give a true peak performance. But I don’t know how long this works, and as soon as I don’t see a benefit, I will stop taking the risk and go to more standard training.

Also, since Charlie had suggested you go back to some training for 3-4 weeks, have the contrast workouts mentioned above come on a weekly basis?

Yes (see above), but I’m trying to find out if this is optimal. I know that the hardest workouts HSI does are 2X4X100 with 45 sec or 3X3X100 with 30 sec (and these are NOT tempo), and John Smith only does these during SPP every other week with some additional time off following. I get the impression that the same phasing with contrast/overspeed may work better than doing it every week. Just because I CAN do it every week, doesn’t mean more recovery won’t deliver more optimal results.

lkh · June 30, 2009, 4:15pm

I tried the potentiation the way James mentioned well above in this thread, but I’ve gotten much better results with the overspeed portion using rest periods along the lines that Charlie gave (probably years ago) for flying sprints: 10-12 min.

Possibly the difference may be that Verkhoshansky in his “stimulus” approach is using sub-max weight loads. But if you run the resisted portion at ~100%, you may benefit from significantly longer rest periods. That’s the way it works for me, at least.

UKcheetah · July 2, 2009, 5:13am

I think it may be a question of ability. In my dissertation I used a 4.5 minute rest from 3RM Squat to a flying-20 and found potentiation. But although I was using international jumpers and decathletes, there were no international sprinters…

I origianlly wanted to look at a possible potentiation effect of overspeed, but there seemed to be a real lack of literature.

Have you ever considered using some contrast in a competition warm-up? (Facilities allowing)