I would like to purchase a couple of Tudor’s books but he has quite a few texts out, with similar titles so I was wondering if they differ that much. If anyone has read his books or owns them may I get some recommendations please? Which do you feel are best? He also has numerous editions out, but I take it the most up to date are best?
Has anyone used Bompa’s set up before? If so how well did it go?
Also, just out of interest do Bompa’s methods differ greatly from Issurin’s?
Thanks for the reply. I’m not an expert so I don’t like to make statements, but from my readings I agree that his model is not great for most athletes, largely due to the detraining of certain qualities, unlike vertical integration and conjugate sequencing etc.
However, I have glanced through a couple of his books before and I was quite impressed with information that is often not mentioned by so many authors. Simple things like load progressions for athletes of various levels and I particularly like his anatomical phase which I think so many ignore and just jump into maximal loads. This is something you have pointed out in one of your articles on your website (excellent article btw). Sorry to ask a lot of questions but regarding this: if an athlete begins the GPP with an anatomical adaptation phase, are these adaptations not detrained as time goes on and you progress through the SPP and finally to comp? Or does simply the athletes training maintain these adaptations?
It is not a bad idea to go through Bompa’s text to understand the shortcomings identified by Charlie and to understand the realities of coaching athletes at different levels and athletes from different sports. I own copies of Bompa’s books and while I do not follow his linear periodization approach, he does identify some important considerations for general athlete preparation and development.
Thats the one I settled on, a lot is on team sports but on whole a pretty good read. There is a chart that explains some of the signs for overtraining, suggest you know the athlete well before using it though.
Periodization by Bompa is a must read book. You don’t need to follow to the script, but it is a still a must read.
Lyle, what is linear periodization in your opinion? I am asking because if you check Bompa’s templates like this one, you can easily see that in general definition it is CONCURRENT (mixed-parallel or traditional) since all aspects of performance are developed simultaneously, although he progress in each of the individual aspect more ‘sequentially’. If you only look at strength work it is sequential in nature. But if you look at the overall system it is parallel. I don’t see how this doesn’t work in team sports with some tune up based on current competition organizations.
I do agree that some of the information is weird and plain wrong, and that it is out of date for current state of competition, but still, don’t throw the baby with the bathwater. There is still decent overview of training theory. I like Issurin more and I would follow periodization by both Issurin’s book.
Even though there is overlap between diffferent biomotor capacities, each is programmed linearly
AA -> Hyp -> Mx S - > P
Aerobic -> Anaoerbic lactic -> Anawerobic alactic
etc.
It’s linear in the senes that you move linearly from one capacity to the next with little overlap (he makes slight concession to this between Hyp/Mx phases in his original strength training book) but you’re going to detrain stuff worked months earlier in that type of scheme. And, for example, you don’t get into alactic speed until after base period and anaerobic work. Good luck with that.
Nothing to disagree with here. Those are the ‘flaws’ I identified too. For this reason I would suggest studying Bompa and then checking Charlies thoughts on this ‘traditional’ template.
As a side note, this would be similar flaws to ‘block’ system if there were no maintenance loads.
Thus, my suggestion is not to follow any ‘template’ but rather study basic training theory principles and the way organism adapts to loads and their interference and build up your own template based by the goals, level of athlete and context at hand.
We tend to learn more from mistakes than successes. So, examining models with flaws is not always a bad thing, as long as you go in with an open, analytical mind.
Don’t disagree, I have all of Bompas books including the new (crap) edition of Periodization. But the above isn’t really relevant to what the OP was asking so far as I’m concerned.
Tudor has a ton of information to be analyzed and applied. A great rule I like to follow is =
What has the person in question acccomplished?
Tudor has done plenty and coaching Olympic Champions is something not too many can add to their resume.
Yes, that one. And all it was was the previous edition (with a LOT of outdated information such as the bioenergetics of different sports, all of which is completely wrong) with some stupid boxes added with extra gibberish (intervals, yayy).
I also have a book byCvetan Zheljaskov (Romania) that was demanded by my s/c course back at college (need to re-read it though) and there is a book on training theory by Bulgarian professor Platonov (Spanish Edition).
I can recommend to get them all though
Issurins books, IMO, are the most current in terms of actual information. Keep in mind that even his block training isn’t appropriate for all sports.
Transfer of Training vol 2 by Bondarchuk is also worth looking at. Skip Vol 1 it says nothing useful.
Harre is all old school linear periodization. Only long duration enduros and beginners even consider that model. SAme for Matveyev’s book (Harre’s book is just the german version of Matveyev)
Dick’s stuff is the same, old school linear.
Kurz is Russki gibberish
Supertraining, well…good damn luck if you can get anything applied or useful out of it. It’s also years out of date. And Russki gibberish.
Honestly, the best overview I’ve seen of periodization models was, in all places, the ISU hadnbook of speed skating. It looked at Matveyev periodization, Verkoshanksy, Tschiene and anther I forget. And even talked about how each might apply to different events and goals (e.g. long duration specialists vs. sprinters and beginners vs. elite).,
Thanks Lyle. I think I have that chapter from Speed Skating book. Will check it out.
I guess your new series of articles should cover this. Just a though.
Regarding “Lose it or Lose it Law”-
IMO, I think is over bloated argument for sequential approach. Yes, it is true law, but on the flip side some motor abilities (after all what are they?) rely on other and cannot be fully developed before others are already in place. Maximum strength and explosive strength comes to mind (although the transfer is dependent on external forces in terms of %age of maximum strength), anaerobic capacity and aerobic power/capacity.
Then we have delayed transmutation, transformation and residual effects.
All of this demands smart planning not a set of dogmatic ideas/templates.
Thanks for your replies everyone! Certainly food for thought. I think that I will purchase one or two of Bompa’s books in order to critically analyse the model in order to learn (as Number 2 and Angela recommended-thank you).
Lyle, thanks for your discussion. I agree that Bompa’s model is not appropriate for high level athletes and I will keep this in mind.
I have ordered 2 of Issurin’s books and I’m sure they will be great. I have also read Zatsiorsky’s book and he breifly mentions the alternating of biomotor qualities where one is emphasised whilst another is maintained. I think Charles Poliquin’s Accumulation/Intensification is similar to this. Out of interest does anyone know where Poliquin got his periodization model from? I think he draw’s from Schmidtbleicher’s work but I may be wrong.
Duxx, thanks for posting those books they look very interesting. May I ask, what do you consider to be most suitable for a beginner? I’m guessing not block periodization. So would it be either linear or concurrent or possibly undulated?
No, that model is more about alternating volume and intensity. It says nothing baout biomotor capacities per se.
Issurin’s block training is a hybrid though, you do blocks of accumulation (i.e. volume oriented) with blocks of intensification (i.e. intensity oriented) but he also addresses how to deal with activitie with multiple biomotor capacities.
People get misled with sports like PL’ing, Ol’ing and bodybuilding that have at most one biomotor capacity (strength output). The models tend to be simpler because you only have one thing to really improve.
Even the 100m has speed, power, starts, accel, SE, etc. Much more complicated and much more balance to be found in the training model.
Out of interest does anyone know where Poliquin got his periodization model from? I think he draw’s from Schmidtbleicher’s work but I may be wrong.
The idea of using volume to build potential to intensity to realizes it is as old as the hills. Think about the original Bompa-esque periodiation model
Just squeeze that into shorter periods and you get Issurin’s block trainign (4-6 weeks volume, 2-3 weeks intensity, peak, repeat) or Poliquin’s acc/int (3 weeks volume/3 weeks intensity).
The volume builds performance potential and the intensity realizes it through sports specific means.
