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.
Is the new version the one he co wrote with Greg Haff? Thought this was a good read myself.
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 And all it was was the previous edition (with a LOT of outdated information such as the bioenergetics of different sports, all of which is completely wrong) with some stupid boxes added with extra gibberish (intervals,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).
In your opinion what book would provide a good overview of training theory in general?
Principles of Sport training by Dietrich Harre
Sports Training Principles by Frank W. Dick
Science of Sports Training by Thomas Kurz
Books by Vladimir Issurin or
Supertraining by Siff
Periodization by Bompa
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
6 month GPP (volume oriented)
3 month SPP (intensity oriented)
Comp period (racing oriented)
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.
Lyle, Thanks for explaining. I get you.
My mistake; as you said Poliquin’s model focuses mainly on bodybuilders and athletes who focus on one biomotor quality.
Saying that, he has worked with many other athletes in track and field, speedskating etc so it would be interesting to see how he sets up his periodization for them. Simplified, maybe something like: Accumulaiton/Intensification/Power
before tapering for competition. Who knows. As you said, this is a shorter version of Bompa’s, so detraining of qualities for example in accumulation aren’t lost as time goes on since acc and intensification are rotated.
One interesting point I picked up when I did his level 1 was that volume should be unloading (40%) every third workout in order to allow supercompensation and regeneration. This is something I have seen Bompa recommend and I guess this is also an old concept used by many authors in the field. As you know, Charlie wrote about this in CFTS.
When you put it like that I can see how Poliquin and Issurin’s model is similar in layout to Bompa’s but there’s a far more frequent return to a particular block so detraining doesn’t occur.
“The volume builds performance potential and the intensity realizes it through sports specific means”
If this is true would doing high rep bodyweight squats, push ups, sit ups, and lots of hills, jumping rope, and fitness based stuff over a long period of time (like Alan Wells or Herschel Walker) potentiate better performances once this work was tapered?
I know Herschel ran 10.2 in the 100m I believe, maybe his odd training regime helped him.
The volume builds performance potential and the intensity realizes it through sports specific means.
AND…Does this mean the higher the volume the higher the performance potential once properly tapered?
Bobsanchez, Here are a few thoughts for discussion:
-
The general work you mention may indeed increase the height of the competitve result, however, to what degree does this take place with higher level athletes? From Charlie’s model, we know that as training age increases, time spent on GPP decreases, so it becomes less emphasised. The GPP done as a beginner may allow skills to be more easily learnt and developed, decrease muscle imbalances etc along with many other benefits, but does GPP help to the same degree as an advanced athlete?
-
Regarding higher volume, I guess this is like when people in the gym ask “is doing more sets better?” Well yes, it has been documented that multiple sets are often superior to single sets, however, training gains are likely to increase up until a point and then you will eventually hit diminishing returns. So yes more volume of GPP may be appropriate for some athletes, however this is up to a point.
Sorry I can’t specifically answer your question, I’m not an expert but I’ve tried to provide some points for discussion.
Well, so he says anyhow. I know folks who have worked perosnally with him. What he says he does and what he does…
One interesting point I picked up when I did his level 1 was that volume should be unloading (40%) every third workout in order to allow supercompensation and regeneration. This is something I have seen Bompa recommend and I guess this is also an old concept used by many authors in the field. As you know, Charlie wrote about this in CFTS.
Old a the hills.
When you put it like that I can see how Poliquin and Issurin’s model is similar in layout to Bompa’s but there’s a far more frequent return to a particular block so detraining doesn’t occur.
Poliqin’s stuff is nothing like Issurins’. Wait til you get his texts and this will all make more sense.
Don’t read things into what I said that I did not say.
The old Russian model was sort of what your’e last sentence was. Hammer them for 6 months until they are all overtrained and then taper and pray they hit their peak. It works when you have thousands of throwaway athletes and lots of drugs.
Do’nt take this to a stupid extreme.
AS to your other post, there has to be some degree of specifiity and it’s not pointless volume for the sake of pointless volume.
As well, most (e.g. modern OL’ing) has moved to a much more intensity based regime. Working at 75% in the OL’s simoply doesn’t prepar you to work at 90%
Same reason that jogging doesn’t prepare you for sprinting even though it’s high volume/lower intensity.
It’s a matter of degrees.
Lyle
To put this in more concrete terms, beyond a certain point, there is an intensity threshold that has to be crossed to have a training effect. Endless pushups or whatever probably don’t do that.
But consider a powerlifter with two options
doing 10 sets of 3 (30 reps) at 80-85% of maximum. A challenging but doable workout
doing 6 sets of 1-2 (6-12 reps) as 90%
The first is triple the volume above the required intensity threhsold to stimulate gains. But it wo’nt prepare him for competitino per se. The singles at 90%+ will prepar him for competition but may be too hard on his body, CNS do do regularly.
So he might do 4-6 weeks of volume oriented work waving around 80-85% with the occaaional single at 90% and then move to more 90% work for 2-3 weeks before tapering to a peak.
I hope that makes sense.
Lyle
thank you for the informative responses lylemcd and gymrob. it is much appreciated.