Periodization is dead?

[oldborn]

Some coaches and scientists do not beleive in periodization at all (started with Verhoshansky).

Main criticism are: periodization disregards biological adaptation, it is mechanical (lack of reality), it provides no resarch that this thing work.

So by Verhoshansky we do not need peek form at all cos it is difficult to segregate race and training period these days, there is so many races that is impossible to peek just for 2 or 3 and others just consider as training.

By his theory and others, we do need one of the standard block system like,
3 weeks training and 1 week recovery, because our organism are to way complicated to just work on numbers (in this case 3-1)

He questioned compensation and supercompensation process, cycles and everything what we consider like training Bible.

Maybe they are all Russians after all (Verhoshansky passed last year)

So what do you think about it, just train all year round with similar intensity and volume? Without any peek form momentum, two hard one easy week, race period, build phase, performance week etc. Is it possible that those things do not work?

 

[Oldman]

You need some form of it if you race clean.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Some coaches and scientists do not beleive in periodization at all (started with Verhoshansky).

Main criticism are: periodization disregards biological adaptation, it is mechanical (lack of reality), it provides no resarch that this thing work.

So by Verhoshansky we do not need peek form at all cos it is difficult to segregate race and training period these days, there is so many races that is impossible to peek just for 2 or 3 and others just consider as training.

By his theory and others, we do need one of the standard block system like,
3 weeks training and 1 week recovery, because our organism are to way complicated to just work on numbers (in this case 3-1)

He questioned compensation and supercompensation process, cycles and everything what we consider like training Bible.

Maybe they are all Russians after all (Verhoshansky passed last year)

So what do you think about it, just train all year round with similar intensity and volume? Without any peek form momentum, two hard one easy week, race period, build phase, performance week etc. Is it possible that those things do not work?

I don't know where to start. First of all, periodization is always needed to avoid burnout, particularly with the vast majority of racers who are not making money.

If you are making 6 or 7-figures from racing, then it is much easier to maintain a high level of performance. But if you are making no money and attempt to train at a high level for 10 months out of the year, year after year, you will eventually implode and quit.

Amateurs who make no money in the sport must peak because any amateur rider who trains intensively to be in top form throughout the year for no financial gain will eventually have a bad date with Brenda Burnout.

Second, peaking for one particular event allows a rider to subject his body to increased loads of training that can only be maintained for very short periods of time (both psychologically and physically). The rider who uses peak-training methods will almost always perform better than the rider who uses a minimal ramp-up.

Therefore, riders who use peaking-type training methods will fare better in isolated events than those who use the garden variety moderated program. This is why pros peak for Grand Tours and the Olympics...follow the money.

Only stupid riders and management like the lot on Team Sky think they are accomplishing something when they win these silly meaningless pre-season races that the real pros use to work on their tan. Come July, Sky will find itself in the toilet in the results column and they will wonder why even though I just explained it.

Doping allows one to peak even higher. When doping is used in conjunction with peak training....that's called the Lance Armstrong Training Program.

Hopefully I won't get banned again by the righteous moderators on here who live in politically correct Europe for criticizing their pathetic Sky team. I think so long as I don't say anything bad about Kate Middleton, I should be okay.

 

[oldborn]

You need some form of it if you race clean.

Agree, but what kind.

 

[oldborn]

I don't know where to start. First of all, periodization is always needed to avoid burnout, particularly with the vast majority of racers who are not making money.

If you are making 6 or 7-figures from racing, then it is much easier to maintain a high level of performance. But if you are making no money and attempt to train at a high level for 10 months out of the year, year after year, you will eventually implode and quit.

Amateurs who make no money in the sport must peak because any amateur rider who trains intensively to be in top form throughout the year for no financial gain will eventually have a bad date with Brenda Burnout.

Second, peaking for one particular event allows a rider to subject his body to increased loads of training that can only be maintained for very short periods of time (both psychologically and physically). The rider who uses peak-training methods will almost always perform better than the rider who uses a minimal ramp-up.

Therefore, riders who use peaking-type training methods will fare better in isolated events than those who use the garden variety moderated program. This is why pros peak for Grand Tours and the Olympics...follow the money.

Only stupid riders and management like the lot on Team Sky think they are accomplishing something when they win these silly meaningless pre-season races that the real pros use to work on their tan. Come July, Sky will find itself in the toilet in the results column and they will wonder why even though I just explained it.

Doping allows one to peak even higher. When doping is used in conjunction with peak training....that's called the Lance Armstrong Training Program.

Hopefully I won't get banned again by the righteous moderators on here who live in politically correct Europe for criticizing their pathetic Sky team. I think so long as I don't say anything bad about Kate Middleton, I should be okay.

Well those training critics goes mainly for training pro athletes.

I agree it is easy to burnout, especialy mental stress, but i think that theory against peridization include rest and recovery but in another way.

I am not sure that if we choose only one peak, we are guaranteed for victory it is hard.
So why we do not choose another way?

Some riders like Merckx did not follow that principles, some like Armstrong did.
Now we see Evans changing strategy as well.
And i forgot who?, choose all three GT.

I agree that they are going for money.

Aparently Kenyans (runners) rejected that theory of periodization as well, and they are damn good but they live on high altitude as well and this can be the key.

One of the main hypotesis of Yuri Verhoshansky is ; "Preparation period served as construction of sporting form through exhaustive preparation work, while competition period was expected to "stabilize" and "maintain" form by using corresponding mesocycles for the realiztaion of the form, without any further development. Such a primitve understanding of periodization absolutely fails to correspond to reality" end of quote

So form should be developed further, and preparation period is not enough due very long&hard money greed season.

I agree about Sky Team, i only like their bus.

 

[brianf7]

You need some form of it if you race clean.

even with the best doctors you need some form of recovery and some sort of build to big races cant tqake druge all year round they will kill you.

 

[Oldman]

even with the best doctors you need some form of recovery and some sort of build to big races cant tqake druge all year round they will kill you.

No doubt. On the other hand a talented Pro can take an early build-up period to lower catagory races and still get results without jeopardizing his long term cycle. Add a nice program to his training regime and he can assure his sponsors recieve the results they're paying for. The circus that Pro cycling has become allows sponsors to highlight meaningless early season races and still get the "Money Shot" results they need via a well-tuned team of riders. The game has changed with the bigger teams and you get results from a number of performers rather than the One Big Star. HTC and Sky come to mind immediately.

 

[Finbar]

Ok - so for Pros there seems to be a benefit to some form of periodisation if even to alleviate the mental stress of trying to be in 'peak' fitness year round.

Now what about the normal cyclist - like many of the guys reading here who don't do 50,000km per year?

Do we need to take a break from intensity and 'go slow' in the winter?

 

[oldborn]

Ok - so for Pros there seems to be a benefit to some form of periodisation if even to alleviate the mental stress of trying to be in 'peak' fitness year round.

Now what about the normal cyclist - like many of the guys reading here who don't do 50,000km per year?

Do we need to take a break from intensity and 'go slow' in the winter?

I think that we can benefit more then pros.

Periodization critics goes mainly for team ball sports as well. How the hell NBA team, or Champions League team can choose their peek or goals??

They should be at high level of form throught season in order to enter play off or to win CL.
It is similar in cycling, those guys race how many 9-10 months, with some 20-30 races and 2-3 peeks.

When i think it is impossible to maintain or peek exact race anymore, i think they just relax at the season end, went on Maillorca for a few weeks and race rest of season.

Yes they are having their peeks, and high and low priority races but periodization as 4-5 part plan is questionable and unpractical.

How today can we divide year into 4 cycles or phases?
First phase adaptation or base, second phase development or build, thrid and four phase race as you drop dead.
By my opinion only few principles of that theory can work.

It was designed by some, to control East-block athletes and their lives as well with doping intake. When someone get positive for stereoids, he was "injured".

It is interested that in USSR 1991 Russians banned periodization system for official (Sovietsky Sport 1991)

So it is very, very difficult to pros.
For us is much more simple i think

 

[spessx]

I'm curious if periodization makes sense for an average Joe racer like me. Being almost 40, I rarely train more than 8 hours a week. Can you really get burned out training 6-8 hours a week?

Under this scenario, it seems like I should be training all all zones each week: Endurance, Race Pace, LT Intervals and Anaerobic Intervals.

My coach has my year periodized - but who knows if that's really best for me.

-s

 

[Tapeworm]

From my readings periodisation for nonelite cyclists is largely a waste of time. Even in saying that I know of some pros who have steered away from the "traditional" forms of periodisation, resulting in a more consistent form for the majority of the year. Whether this is a superior way to train is debatable but so far results have not been wanting.

 

[oldborn]

From my readings periodisation for nonelite cyclists is largely a waste of time. Even in saying that I know of some pros who have steered away from the "traditional" forms of periodisation, resulting in a more consistent form for the majority of the year. Whether this is a superior way to train is debatable but so far results have not been wanting.

Same story here, my traithlon club mate, 8th place ITU European Champ. , and 20th place ITU Worlds, change strategy also.
Now he is trained by some US coach who do not beleive in periodization at all.

Consistentcy is key, by his words he barely run slower than IM tempo and faster than Olympic distance (something like Sweet spot).

There is no pre planed rest week, huge volume and crazy intensity, he try to train his body to be fast under fatigue, and not just fast.
I am just curious to see results.