Functional Path Training

Taking A Break

I am going to take a break from writing the blog until August 15. I just need a little time to recharge the creative batteries and work on a couple of major projects. I have an ambitious, some say daunting and my wife says overwhelming schedule over the next several months, not that the last two months have been a walk in the park. I hope there will be opportunities to catch up with some of you during my travels.

Here is my schedule:

July 24 to 28 Working with Trinidad and Tobago Cricket in Trinidad

August 13 – Teaching Rebuilding the Athlete – Return to Play Strategies seminar at Rebound Sport Performance in Topeka, Kansas. If you are interested contact Mike Flynn at 785.271.5533 or [email protected]

August 24 to August 27 I will be in Carmel Indiana with Carmel swim Club

August 28 I will be in Long Beach California presenting at the Perform Better Summit on Teaching Speed – Theory and Practice.

September 24 and 25 I will be in Seattle Washington teaching the Rebuilding the Athlete – Return to Play Strategies seminar, a two day version for Integrated rehab. Contact Jill Glaser for information [email protected]

September 26 & 27 in California visiting friends and family

September 28 to October 17 I will be in Australia. I will start my trip in Canberra at the Australian Track & Filed Coaches Annual convention and then some time in Canberra for professional development at AIS. The rest of my schedule is not quite finalized but it looks like I am going to get to Western Australia for the first time and to also to the state of Victoria for the first time.

October 28 to October 30 off to Glasgow Scotland to speak at the International Festival of Athletics Coaching (IFAC)

October 23 to 26 off to London for the UKSEM Conference to attend and speak.

As you can see I will max the frequent flyer miles and I am sure there will be a couple of more trips to Trinidad squeezed in as well.

 

 

 

 

What should you Coach?

What are faults and flaws in an athletes movement skills and what is their movement signature that gives the athlete their athletic identity? Each individual has a unique individual way that they solve movement problems. It can be as simple as running gait or as complex as pitching a baseball, individuals can achieve the same result while looking quite different doing it.

So the question is what should you coach and what you should leave alone?  Today I am not as quick to intervene or to try to change a movement pattern as I was earlier in my coaching career. I learned the hard way that cloning movements created robots, it took away instincts and didn’t allow the athlete to solve movement problems effectively. I have progressions that I use to teach movement skills. Those progressions have evolved and are adaptable to the situation and the athlete. Those progressions go from programmed and rehearsed and progress to random and chaotic. The steps in the progression are based on observation as to how they solve the increasingly complex problems I present to them. Different athletes progress at different rates and they look different doing it. That is the art of coaching. I coach what I need to coach to help the athlete achieve proficiency and enhance their physical literacy. If it looks connected and coordinated then it is right for that athlete. As coaches we need to give the athletes the tools to express their athleticism and then let them go with it.

Posture - Part Two

There is a trend today to identify muscular imbalances in static positions and seek to correct them. Once again these supposed “imbalances” are measured statically. What happens to these “imbalances” when the athlete is asked to move? We must remember that the body is fundamentally asymmetric. It is unrealistic to think of muscular balance right to left or front to back. The body is just not designed that way. We must think of proportionality rather than symmetric muscle balance. From a historical perspective it is valuable to see where the idea of posture as a static quality originated. Just as in muscle function, it was derived from studies of cadavers. As we are well aware, cadavers don’t move, but that did not seem to bother those people who were looking for a “normal standard” to measure against. We need to get away from the concept of the “ideal posture” and think in terms of individual needs and adaptations. “… the postural pattern is that of many small parts moving definite distances in space, in a scheme perfectly timed, and with the exact amount of effort necessary to support the individual weights and to cover the time-space movement. These delicate, accurate and intricate regulations are made in the substrata, below the ‘threshold of consciousness.’ Through such adjustment man preserves his unity and copes with his world.” (Todd, page 22) That was written over eighty years ago! Mabel Todd did not have the benefit of the sophisticated evaluation methods we have today, she had to rely on a feeling for movement in the context of the desired outcome of the activity.

Basically, posture allows the body to maintain normal length – tension relationships of the muscles relative to the activity being performed. The test of good dynamic posture should be easy transition to the next posture. Each posture in movement is a momentary alignment of body segments. Successful movement is determined by the ease of movement into the next posture. Unfortunately much of the visual imagery in athletic movements is derived by still photos of static positions. This reinforces the mistaken notion of posture as a still position. Therefore when we assess posture and subsequently train posture it should be in motion, not in stillness. Static postural measurements are a non-functional baseline. It can potentially red flag things to look for, but I have found over the years that static posture has very little relationship to movement unless there is some clearly evident pathology or deformity. Once the athlete begins to move, especially in their chosen skill pattern, everything seems to smooth out and even up. If it does not smooth out, if there are breaks in the movement, a lack of rhythm, then there is a problem. It is also important to point out that posture is highly dependent on strength, flexibility, balance, and fundamental movement skills. Any deficiencies will result in compensations. Great athletes are very good compensators, that is why you see them get away with some of the movements they do and avoid injury. Sometimes the athlete can overcome and succeed in spite of compensation, at times the compensations can come back to haunt you, especially as the athlete gets older or in a fatigued state. A good sound strength training program coupled with an individualized flexibility routine can go a long way toward correcting any postural deviations that could interfere with efficient movement.

The strength training programs that enhance a good functional posture incorporate multi-joint and multi - plane movements that put the body into positions that will enhance its ability withstand the force of gravity and meet the strength needs of the sport. A good distribution of pulling, pushing, and squatting movements will accomplish this task. The body must be put in positions that force it to work against gravity in postures similar to the sport. Therefore an overemphasis on work in a supine and prone position will not transfer to dynamic postural improvement. Obviously work on the anti gravity muscles are a key element of any sound strength training program. Although in many cases this work is quite transparent because it is accomplished in the context of total body large amplitude movements. It is very easy to see the results of improper strength training on the body and its effect on posture. A common error is overemphasis on the bench press which causes in a round shouldered posture. This round shouldered posture is caused by tight pectorals which coupled with upper back weakness leads to shoulder problems. In the lower extremity an overemphasis on quad work can have many negative connotations. The glutes and hamstrings are more important in many ways, but tend to be neglected because they can’t be seen in the mirror. Basically proportional muscular development is rewarded. That is achieved by focusing on movements, not individual muscles. For movement to be efficient, muscles must be recruited in patterns that allow for optimum firing frequency and patterns as demanded by the activity.

Because the core is so important in postural integrity and transition through the various postures it must be trained daily. It should be incorporated as part of warm-up to wake up the core muscles. It should have a distinct module within the actual workout itself and it also can addressed as part of cooldown. The majority of core work should be done standing and moving to enhance the transfer to postural improvement and activate the muscles of the core as they are used in movement,

Tight muscles can contribute to poor dynamic posture, therefore a sound program of functional flexibility that addresses the target muscles must be part of the athlete’s daily routine. Starting from the ground up stretch the gastroc/sloeus group, if this group of muscles is tight this will lead to the inability to properly reduce and produce into the ground. The psoas must be stretched daily, a shortening of the psoas will have a profound negative effect on the ability to go through the postures necessary to perform. The lats as the connecter of the hip, to the shoulder must be stretched and the pectorals must be stretched.

Training to enhance dynamic posture is all of this is part of a sound well rounded athletic development program. Dynamic posture is a major contributing factor to athletic performance so it must be considered daily in training. The actual work to improve posture is quite transparent, it is an integral part of the overall training program. Remember we are training to move, not to stand still.

References

Logan, Gene A. and McKinney, Wayne C. Kinesiology.  Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers. 1970

Todd, Mabel E. The Thinking Body. Princeton Book Company Publishers. Highston, NJ. 1937

Posture – Part One

From a functional perspective posture is dynamic because movement consists of a series of postures. The only time posture is still or posed is in a photograph. As far as I am concerned posture is the ability to move through a multitude of positions with control to be able to reduce and produce force as needed or required by the sport.

Many of us have less than fond childhood memories of being told to sit up straight or to stand tall, don’t slouch. Those childhood memories/ experiences only serve to reinforce the concept of posture as a still and stiff position. Many of us have had our “posture” assessed standing in front of a posture grid. This is further reinforcement of posture as a static quality. Profound conclusions are often deduced from these static posture grid analyses. Some of which are correct and many of which are erroneous. Posture grids and static analysis of posture are easy to administer and convenient to interpret but often have little or no carryover to movement. Remember just because something is convenient does not make it right. It certainly is simpler to have the athlete stand still, but performance is not a static position in one posture, but an endless series of postures. Perhaps the most important aspect of posture is the transition from one posture to another. That demands that you train to observe key points in movement. To be able to do that effectively you must know the athlete and understand the demands of their sport. Seeking to identify and correct imbalance as indicated by static positions is a futile effort. It is very possible that the imbalance will be corrected, but there will be no change in performance. Often when one imbalance is corrected another will appear some where else. Remember posture is highly adaptative and adaptable to the demands of the activity. The longer an athlete pursues a particular activity the more the posture will adapt the activity.

If assessing posture statically is not the best way then what is the best way to assess posture? The most preferable way is in motion using a combination of the naked eye and video. The analysis must be done in the context of the goal of the movement. Observe the flow and pattern of movement; do not try to pick out small defects. Chances are if there a flow and smoothness to the movement then everything is acceptable, even if a defect was detected in a static position.

Optimum posture is an outcome, not a specific performance objective. What does good posture do? It allows optimum ability to reduce and produce force. For example the optimum posture for acceleration is the triple extension of ankle, knee, and hip. This posture will allow the body to exert force back against the ground to propel the body forward. Posture is closely related to functional strength and motor control in regard to recruitment of muscles to produce efficient movement along the kinetic chain. Using strength training to improve posture demands multi plane work coupled with high proprioceptive demand.

In terms of execution of motor skills, dynamic posture is a vital cog in the process. Dynamic postural alignment and subsequent dynamic muscle balance are the basis for all training. Posture is a dynamic quality; it is not static! It is certainly not a posed still position standing in front of a posture grid. Posture is highly individual to each person’s body structure and highly adapted to the sport activity the athlete is engaged in. According to Logan and McKinney, “The mature athlete tends to have a posture which is related to his particular sport if he has trained for years to become expert at his specific position or event. The reason for this phenomenon is the fact that the body tends to adjust or adapt to the various stresses or demands imposed upon it as a result of prolonged muscular activity.” (Logan and McKinney, page 149)

Posture is a dynamic controlling quality. It is helpful to think of athletic movement not as one posture, but as a series of postures. Optimal dynamic alignment of the segments of the kinetic chain throughout movement yield coordinated movement. If one segment or link in the kinetic chain is out of sync, this sets up the potential for performance error as well as a predisposition to injury if the movement is repeated enough. One of the main functions of the muscles of the body is to maintain an upright position. Maintenance of this position requires significant integrated activity of the large muscle groups of the body. Logan and McKinney have termed the muscles that are most active in resisting the force of gravity the anti-gravity muscles. They go so far as to state “the antigravity muscles are the most important muscle groups which make possible the maintenance of body postures in sport, exercise, and dance situation.” (Logan and McKinney, page 150.) The four muscle groups that are the primary antigravity muscle groups are : the gastroc soleus group, the quadriceps group, and the erector spinae group. When the body is upright, as is the case in most over ground sport activities, the antigravity muscle groups work in conjunction with other muscle groups to maintain upright posture. These muscles act on information from three major sensory systems in the body: the proprioceptive, vestibular and visual systems.

Therefore movements that work these muscles must be given prime consideration in a conditioning program. We must understand gravity’s effect on the body and the bodies interaction with the ground, gravity is essentially trying to smash us into the ground when we are just standing still, add to this the complexity of running, jumping or throwing, and it is easy to see how important these antigravity muscles are in determining successful postures for performance. The core muscles play a major role in dynamic posture because the large muscles of the core also act as “anti-gravity” muscles that give the body structural integrity to allow the limbs to position and reposition according to the demands of the activity.

Coaches and Coaching - The Cornerstone

It hardly seems possible that over the past several weeks I have been even more immersed in coaching than normal. Starting with the GAIN Apprentorship, then work in Trinidad and Tobago and finally last week at the California Coach’s Conference at Concordia University in Irvine it has been more coaching coaches rather than hands on coaching athletes. As I progress in my career it seems that the coaching path is leading me more in the direction of coaching the coaches. The role of mentor coach is a role I am enjoying. I know how important my mentor coaches were in guiding and forming my career, I only hope I can be as helpful to others as my mentors were to me.

Many conversations and questions in the past few weeks have served to underscore the importance of coaching and the role of the coach in the development of the athlete and as the cornerstone in the whole development process. An athletes career in their peak performing years is relatively short on average three to four years but a coaches career is on average is much longer up to thirty or forty years spanning many generations of athletes. It is impossible to measure the impact a coach can have over this time span.

The spotlight in the competitive arena is clearly on the athlete but it is the coach in the background who drives the system, who puts in the unseen hours of preparation to enable the athlete to perform. Coaching is not about training, technique, tactics and strategy, it is about people, the ability to communicate and guide people toward fulfillment of their potential as athletes and as people. Coaching matters so lets be sure to value the coach and the positive role they play in the process of growing an athlete.

Some Thoughts on the Training Session

The individual training session is the cornerstone of the entire training plan. Essentially a long-term plan is a succession of linked individual training sessions in pursuit of specific objectives. Because the session is the cornerstone of a training program, it should occupy the most amount of attention in the overall planning process. At the conclusion of each workout, the session must be carefully evaluated and the following sessions adjusted accordingly.

The long-term plan is only a general guide; it is the individual training session where the long-term plan is actually implemented. Therefore it is important to understand the necessity of adjustments and flexibility within the context of the plan, especially at the level of the daily training session. Contingency planning is a very important, and a necessary part of the planning process. It is especially important to have contingency plans ready for individual training sessions.

Every component in the workout must be in pursuit of the specific objectives of the workout and follow the general theme for that particular session. The workout is not an end in itself, it is however a means to an end, therefore it must be put in the context of the whole training plan, so it is important to not let the individual training session get blown out of proportion.

Management considerations sometimes dictate the workouts. Management issues include training time available, weather, size of the facility relative to the number of athletes training, equipment available, coaching personnel available as well a the number of athletes that will participate in the actual training session.

If it is practical and appropriate for the developmental level of the athlete two workouts a day can give outstanding results. This allows the workout to be even more focused and shorter in duration. When two or even three sessions in a day are used it helpful to use the following model of the focused workout for each session:

Focused Training Session - Everything is subservient to the component that is the focus of the workout; in this example the focus is on speed development.

1) Warm-up

2) Power Development

This must be low volume, high intensity work that will enhance the speed development component; it will usually consist of Multi-jumps or multi-throws

3) SPEED DEVELOPMENT

4) Cooldown

This is obviously based on how much time is available for training. It is a matter of reconciling what is ideal and what is realistic.

A more typical model when using one training session in a day is the complex training session. It is called complex because it addresses multiple components within a training session. The following is a model of a complex session:

Complex Training Session - Training more than one component in a session. This is common in team sports.

1) Warm-up

2) Technical and/or Tactical Work

3) Conditioning – Metabolic

4) Strength Training

5) Cooldown

Each training session should a have general theme. This general theme in turn should be supported by objectives for each component that are very specific and measurable. When planning an individual training session, ask yourself what do I most need to accomplish? How does that fit into the bigger picture? Carefully consider the time available. The key is to design the sessions so that there is a seamless flow from one workout into another, so that even though the focus is on that individual workout it always must be placed in the context of the workout leading into and out of it. The ultimate goal is the cumulative training effect, which is what occurs in the long term. In order to evaluate this look carefully at complementary components both intra and inter workouts - Where does the workout fit within the Microcycle plan? The workout is only one component of the big picture.

As a general theme for each training session you can have a teaching emphasis or a training emphasis. In the teaching workout make sure it is correct the first time. Do not be in a hurry; take time to attend to details and individual needs. Allow more time for individual drills and exercises when you are teaching. The training emphasis workout is the refining process. This will involve more repetition. It may not take more time, but it does demand constant attention to detail. Make sure that there is always an injury prevention component in each workout. This is most easily addressed in the warm-up as remedial work. The more transparent this component is the better.

The basis of planning the individual training session is the modular training concept that will make planning and implementation of workouts very easy. The training module is defined as specific combinations and sequences of exercises that are designed to be very specific and compatible. The exercises are carefully selected to sequence and flow from one exercise to the next within the module. Each module is designed to focus on one particular component that should fit with the other modules. The volume and intensity for the exercises within each module is determined for each session based on analysis of the previous session. A training session is nothing more than a collection of modules.

The actual design of the session should carefully consider progression, sequence, time allocation and integration with skill workouts. Training must be targeted and directed to optimizing training time. Training is cumulative. It has been my experience that one session can break an athlete, but one session cannot make an athlete. Focus on the absolute need to do, minimize the nice to do. Training components have a synergistic relationship, therefore whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Placing the components is much like putting together a giant mosaic. All components must be trained throughout all phases of the training year. Just the emphasis and mix should change.

When training a group, carefully plan to meet individual needs in a group context. Everyone will not progress and learn at the same rate. The way to organize this is to group within the workout.

Evaluation is a constant ongoing process that should be part of each training session. Training equals testing and testing equals training. This approach will provide constant feedback. Never lose sight of the fact that the ultimate test is the competition itself.

Drills

The drill or exercise is the smallest component of the entire training process. Basically a workout is a blend of carefully selected drills and exercises designed to achieve a specific objective. Special consideration must be given not only to the selection of the individual drill but also to the sequence of the drills. There is a definite synergistic relationship between drills. It is imperative to be very specific with the goals and objectives of each drill so that they complement each other. Don’t just drill for drill sake, make sure the drill has meaning and purpose.

If you are considering adding a new drill or exercise to your training program it is always important to evaluate any new drill or exercises in the context of what you are already doing and the overall goal of the training program. Does the new drill do it better? Where is the new drill leading? Is it part of a progression? Perhaps the most important question is the new drill an absolute need to do activity or is it just nice do? If it is just a nice to do activity then it should not be included.

The goal is to put the drills or exercises into the context of the whole training program to optimize their effectiveness by choosing the correct drill to use at the correct time and place in the overall training program. To this use the following evaluative criteria:

Why are you doing the drill? Is it just a time filler or does it serve a specific purpose.

What particular athletic component or technical aspect does the drill enhance? Sometimes there is a tendency to try to have a drill do too much. Be very specific in designing the drill to address specific components or athletic qualities.

What is the actual drill? Stress the cues and coaching points that make the drill relevant and effective.

Do you need specialized equipment to do the drill? If so, how specialized? Do you have time within the context of the workout to use this specialized equipment? I know personally that there are many things that I can do using equipment or apparatus that I can do with an individual or a small group that will not work in the context of team training.

How is the drill performed? Correct execution is essential in order to elicit the optimum training adaptation. Be precise.

What are the ranges of sets and reps? This should be congruent with the purpose of the drill. Quality is more important than quantity.

It is doing what you wanted it to do? Mastery is the goal, so correct execution must be stressed. Mastery entails correct execution of the drill within the context of individual variability and sport demands.

When and where in the program does the drill fit? The timing and sequence of the application of the drill can often be more important that the actual drill.

What level of development is the drill best suited for? Certain drills, by their nature are better suited for the developmental athlete than a more advanced athlete.

Rethinking Periodization – Part Three

Periodization is a viable concept that certainly will help improve our sport development system, but we also need trained coaches to plan and then implement the plan. A productive sport development system is coach driven and athlete centered. The solution lies in educating our coaches in the principles of planning in order to optimize resources and time. To achieve athletic success in a systematic manner, certain principles must be observed. The principles are the same regardless of the sport. The plan is the means to execute the principles.

The principles are:

Principle of Progression - This is the most often violated principle. Progression in its simplest form moves from simple to complex, easy to hard and general work to specific work. These simple steps give way to complex interactions. All training variables do not progress at the same rate nor do all individuals progress at the same rate.

To insure proper progression we must clearly define each step. Begin by articulating specific goals and objectives for each step. Then develop evaluative criteria to assess the achievement of each of the goals and objectives of each step. I would go so far as to say that at certain levels of development it should be necessary to show mastery before moving on to the next step. This is especially true in refinement of technical development.

Progression is not linear. We need to begin with a clear picture of what we want the athlete to achieve or look like at the end of a training program as a goal. But we must remember that progression toward that ultimate objective will proceed in a staircase like progression. Constant progress should be made toward the goal, but some of the incremental steps along the way will be smaller than others.

The Principle of Accumulation - Adaptation to the stress of training is a cumulative process. You do not do a workout and gain an immediate positive training response, unless it is a relatively small technical adjustment. Often you will see the true results of a significant investment in training up to a year after the initial training stimulus.

The effect of training accumulates over time, provided training has been consistent and the athlete has been able to stay injury free. Adaptation to different training demands occurs at different rates with the ultimate training adaptation a synergistic accumulation of the collective training responses. Remember one workout cannot make an athlete, but one workout can break an athlete. Be patient, wait for training to take effect.

Principle of Variation - The variables of training volume, intensity, and frequency and exercise selection must be constantly manipulated in a systematic manner. Because the body adapts to training stress so quickly it is important to vary training in order to insure continued adaptation. This variation should not be random, but systematically planned in order to measure the effect of the variation. If training is not varied the body will adapt quite quickly and the training effect will be dulled. If no variation is incorporated there is a significant risk of staleness and eventual overtraining.

Principle of Context - Before we incorporate something into training we need to see where it fits into the context of what is already being done and what is planned. Perhaps the biggest violation of the principle of context is to take one component, for example speed or strength and train those to the exclusion of all other physical qualities. This is fundamentally unsound. It is possible to design program where a component is emphasized for a phase, but it should be kept in proportion to the other components and put into the context of the whole training plan.

Principle of Overload - In order for the athlete to progress they must be subjected to a load at a level beyond that to which they have adapted. Overload is achieved through manipulation of the training variables of volume, the amount of work, intensity, the quality of the work, and frequency of application of the training stimulus. Because there is a reciprocal relationship between volume and intensity it is important to be careful about increasing both at the same time. It is easy to fall into a trap of overload through volume. This happens because it is easier to quantify training in terms of volume, more runs, more jumps or more throws. This quickly becomes a trap because you cannot keep adding volume without quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns. It also happens because at the start of the athletic development process volume loading results in rapid and sometime spectacular gains. Remember that volume is not a biomotor quality. In essence the more you do the better you get. As training age advances that paradigm has to shift and the overload has to come more from intensity.

Principle of Recoverability - The ability to recover both short term and long term from a workload is crucial to positive adaptation to the training stimulus. If the athlete is unable to recover form the training stress then it is not an appropriate load. Different athletes have different abilities to recover. No two athletes are the same in ability, nor are they the same in the ability to recover. Of all the training principles this is the one that is most easy to overlook because it is so easy to get caught up in the work and ignore the ability to recover.

Ultimately Periodization is an educated attempt at prediction of future performance based on evaluation of previous competition and training results. It is achieved through planning and organization of training into a cyclic structure to develop all biomotor qualities in a systematic, sequential and progressive manner. The goal is optimum development of the individual’s performance capabilities. Traditionally the focus has been on Periodization as a model, in order to be more effectively applied I believe we should focus more on the process and the concepts.

The traditional emphasis in Periodization was on the long-term plan. It has been my experience that the longer the period of time for the plan the less accurate the plan will be. In order to be more effective the emphasis in long term planning should be on global themes and training priorities based on competition performance, training results, and testing and evaluation data from previous years performance. A shift in focus to the detailed planning of shorter more immediate time periods is more effective and will better serve to meet the needs of the athletes.

Periodization literature is rife with terminology and jargon. We need to make terminology exact and consistent in order to facilitate understanding and communication. I prefer to use the term Planned Performance Training (PPT) instead of Periodization, which is foreign term left over from the old eastern bloc training schemes. I define Planned Performance Training as the timing, sequence, and interaction of the training stimuli to allow optimum adaptive response in pursuit of specific competitive goals in the required time frame. It is essentially why you do, what you do, in relation to when you do it. This could serve as a step toward updating and revising the concept to fit current sport demands and more accurately reflect current ongoing sport science research

Some Recommendations:

Study the applications of the concepts of Planned Performance Training to team sport training

Reconcile and organize the competitive calendar to allow more thorough planning

Reach consensus on a unified terminology to facilitate effective communication for improved coaching education in the application of the concepts

Educate sport administrators on the necessity and value of planning

Research methods of monitoring training to better guide planning of training

Apply a multidisciplinary approach to planning that draws on history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, biomechanics, physiology and statistics

Study successful training programs from the past to further validate and refine the concept 

Hopefully this overview will help to create further awareness of the necessity of planning and the various influences and ingredients that go into formulating a viable plan as part the whole sport development process.

References

Counsilman, James E. Competitive Swimming Manual for Coaches and Swimmers. Bloomington, Indiana. Counsilman Co., INC. 1977

Franke, Werner W. and Berendonk, Brigitte. Hormonal Doping and androgenization of athletes: a secret program of the German Democratic Republic government. Clinical Chemistry. 43: 1262-1279. 1997

Goralski, Robert. World War II Almanac 1931 – 1945 - A Political and Military Record. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. 1981 pp. 425 - 428

Raposo, A. Vasconcelos. Plainificacion Y Organizacion Del Entrenamiento Deprtivo. Barcelona.Editorial Paidotribo. 2000

Rowbottom, David G. Periodization of Training. In: Exercise and Sport Science. Garrett, William E. and Kirkendall, Donald T. Philadelphia, USA. Lippincot  Williams & Wilkins. 2000

Smith, Dean with John Kilgo and Sally Jenkins. A Coach’s Life. New York, New York. Random House. 1999

Walsh, Chris. The Bowerman System. Los Altos, CA. Tafnews Press. 1983

Rethinking Periodization – Part Two

The United States is no different than any other country in that sport is a reflection of the socio-cultural milieu in which it exists. For many years up to 1976 the United States was able to dominate the world in athletic competition. The basis of our “non system” was a well-defined comprehensive physical education program. Physical education was mandatory in the schools from K-12. The physical education programs provided a cadre of trained coaches well founded in the principles of pedagogy. Planning is inherent in good pedagogy in the form of a “lesson plan.”

We also did not suffer the ravages of war in our country. Our infrastructure was actually modernized and improved by the war effort. Comparatively we did not suffer the same loss of life as the European counties, especially among the civilian population. This gave us a large healthy pool of talent to choose from. We also had a well-defined competitive sport structure based on interscholastic competition culminating in collegiate competition for the more talented. This encompassed all sports, but did not include significant female participation because of antiquated beliefs on the limitations of the female to train and compete. These factors all contributed to our dominance in international sport.

In the US Periodization was not formalized and articulated as such. There certainly was not an overall national plan in any sport. Our training year was loosely divided into off-season, pre-season and in-season. The top coaches certainly had command of the concept of planning. Bill Bowerman, the track and Field coach at the University of Oregon, organized all his training in fourteen and twenty-one day cycles. In his system the training year was divided into three month periods with specific objectives for each period. A cornerstone of his system was the hard easy principle that took into account the unity of work and rest. (Walsh, 1983) In swimming, Doc Counsilman at University of Indiana, certainly had command of an overall annual plan based on physiological concepts. The number of workouts per week, dry-land exercises, total time and distance per week, the type of training and time of sets was planned for each month. (Counsilman, 1977) Dean Smith, former basketball coach at the University of North Carolina, had detailed daily practice plans which were the basis of his program.  These were derived from a master plan for the year as well as a weekly plan. (Smith, 1999) All these coaches are icons in the American ”non-system” who used the principles of what came to be called Periodization. The common thread is that among these coaches is that they had formal training as teachers.  That was the norm for coaches. Planning was an essential part of their pedagogical training. They also recognized that planning was essential for success.

The bottom line is that for a long time our “non-system” served us quite well. What happened? The first thing that changed was the erosion of mandatory physical education to the point where today there is only one state that has mandatory physical education K – 12. The most obvious impact is that youngsters are no longer exposed to systematic physical activity. They are no longer taught basic movement or sport skills as part of an organized curriculum. What we failed to notice is that because physical education was no longer mandatory that less physical education teachers were being hired. The physical education teacher made up the pool of trained coaches. Then there came an increased emphasis on academic achievement to the exclusion of physical education. In addition there were budget cuts due to declining enrollment and tax cuts. Therefore less qualified coaches were hired in the schools. Club sports began to take the place of school sports. These coaches had no educational requirement. Teacher training colleges changed their mission from teaching to research. Title IX put an increased burden on the schools because in many sports it was now necessary to field two teams instead of one. This served to further deplete the pool of trained coaches creating an obvious staffing problem. These problems are a reality in the United States today.

Rethinking Periodization – Part One

I have been thinking a lot about Periodization lately. I see the term misused and abused. I see blind imitation of a model that is outdated and passé. These outdated and antiquated concepts pervade the coaching literature and are taught in the “Training Theory” section of coaching education schemes. Any connection with current reality is purely coincidental. The following three-part post is my attempt top shed some light on the area from my perspective. I my 42 years of coaching I have carefully studied this area and worked to apply the concepts first to individual sports and in the last 20 years to team sport settings. I have learned a lot, I learned to read between the lines in the translated articles, I learned the disconnect between what we were allowed to see and what actually happened. Hopefully what I have learned is reflected in the following post. If nothing else I hope this will stimulate a dialogue on the subject that will result in a contemporary model.

Periodization is simply planning. It is something that effective coaches have done forever. Planning gives direction and purpose to the training. It also provides a context to evaluate performance aside from wins and losses or personal records. Periodization is a concept not a model. It is a systematic attempt to gain control of the adaptive response to training in preparation for competition.

There is little “hard science” to substantiate Periodization. It is mostly based on scientific inferences rather than hard scientific evidence. On the other hand there is an immense body of coaching evidence going back into the early twentieth century that underscores the key elements of what eventually became known as Periodization. These key elements are:

• Systematic approach
• A strategy to distribute training loads in relation to competition goals
• A defined structure for progression
• A sequential building block approach
• A set time frame for execution of the plan
• All components of training are addressed
• In pursuit of specific competition goals
• Reflects the undulatory nature of the adaptive process
• Systematic manipulation of the variables of volume, intensity and density
• A method for monitoring training and evaluating competition results

The concept of Periodization works the best when the majority of the variables can be controlled. The most important variable is that of competition. Recognizing that success in the competitive arena is the ultimate goal of any plan or training system. Therefore control of the competitive schedule is essential to the success of any plan. One of the stated goals of Periodization is optimum performance at the desired time, whether an individual competition or a series of competitive efforts. Today the undefined nature of the extended competitive calendar represents the biggest change from when the concept was formalized in the 1950’s and 60’s. There is an abundance of high level competitions at the elite level and also for that matter at the developmental level that do not allow for long developmental periods of training.

It is important to frame Periodization within the concept of the sport development system. The diversity of our nation has always been an overwhelming strength in the development of our elite athletes for international competition. This diversity resulted in a “non-system” sport development system. We cannot blindly copy the traditional eastern European Periodization models. Our sport system operates in an entirely different socio cultural political milieu. We must take the principles and concepts and adapt them to our current reality.

Periodization as a concept is certainly not new, or particularly contemporary. The name may be new to many, but it first appeared in coaching literature in the fifties and sixties. Periodization as we know it today was articulated by L.P. Matveyev who studied specific sports and looked at the periodic and cyclic nature of training necessary to achieve peak performance at the time of major competitions. The nature of Periodization as it has evolved represents a reflection of the socio- cultural reality of the countries where the concept was first articulated rather than any science of the cyclic nature of performance. The science came later in order to better quantify and verify the concept.

After the Russian Revolution the Soviet Union organized virtually everything in society into five-year plans. Specific measurable production goals were articulated and all effort was directed toward the achievement of those goals whether it was agriculture, industry, or education. It was only logical that this approach would eventually be applied to the sport development process. Therefore, when they decided to pursue sport internationally as a glorification of the communist system, the same systematic long term planning that was used in the rest of society was applied to sport. Rather than five or ten year plans the time period in sport development was the quadrennial cycle culminating every four years in the Olympic Games. They recognized that success in international sport, especially as the stature of the Olympic games gained more international prestige in the sixties and the seventies, would result in a validation and glorification of the communist system.

It is also important to consider the impact of two world wars fought on the European continent. World War Two devastated the male populations of what was to become the eastern bloc nations after the war, as well as Germany, England and France. The Soviet Union had 21,320,000 people killed out of a population of 194,000,000, included in this number were 7,720,000 civilians killed. Germany had 5,600,000 killed out of a population of 78,000,000 including 2,300,000 civilians killed. In contrast the United States had 292,131 killed out of a population of 129,000,000 with no civilians killed. (Goralski, 1981)

In short after the devastation of WWII there was no talent to waste! Systematic development of the limited human resources for sport development was a necessity if they wanted to compete. Periodization was a tool to enable those countries to optimize their human resources. It is also important to consider that physical culture was an inherent part of the communist ideology. A healthy physically fit populace was needed for a strong military.

Matveyev was one of many who formalized the concept. Because he was Russian, and the Soviet Union was the dominant geopolitical force in the communist bloc, Soviet ideology tended to prevail even in sport. This explains the dominant influence of the Soviets in the literature of training methodology. Certainly, there were others like Harre in the GDR who made significant contributions.  Still, most of what we see in the literature today, including the work of Tudor Bompa, who has done much to popularize the concept in North America, is basically a rehash of the Soviet literature. Not much has been done to modify, study, change or adapt the concept to the contemporary challenges that exist in sport today. Over the years most of the science underlying Periodization has been in the form of studies of overtraining and lately there has been a focus on the periodization of strength training. Although today there does seem to be more sports science research directed to studying training adaptation which certainly has the potential to add science to the art of planning. (Rowbottom, 2000) The international sport environment is very different today than it was  twenty years ago. Where previously the focus was the Olympic Games as a culmination of the quadrennial plan, now there are frequent world championships in many sports. Competition schedules are not clearly defined. In most sports, especially at the elite level, there is no defined off-season. None of the literature on Periodization has ever effectively addressed team sports. In addition one would be naïve not to recognize the huge impact of systematic doping on the development of the former eastern bloc sport development systems. In fact much of the cyclic nature of classical Periodization was based on sophisticated manipulation of drug cycles. (Franke & Berendonk, 1997)

We should also be aware that the strict control of the athlete’s lives inherent in the socialist system was key factor in the success of classic Periodization model. Competition schedules were carefully planned and strictly adhered to. Once the athlete was identified their lives were strictly controlled. This control certainly did not exist in the west nor does it exist today except in Cuba and to a certain extent in China. Even though it may be a value judgment, we certainly recognize the limitations and human cost of such an approach. Nevertheless we must consider that factor when we look at the training literature on Periodization from the former eastern bloc nations and attempt to adapt those principles to our society. This control allowed the system to limit competition and control many variables that we are unable to control in our society. There was an emphasis on volume loading and long periods of general preparation leading up to a few major competitions that is unrealistic in our system and unrealistic in the sports world today. To apply the concepts of Periodization to our reality we must challenge these notions, they must be framed in the context of our “non-system.”