The process of strength-power training and the subsequent adaptation is a multi-factorial process. These factors range from the genetics and morphological characteristics of the athlete to how a coach selects, orders, and doses exercises and loading patterns. Consequently, adaptation from these training factors may largely relate to the mode of delivery, in other words, programming tactics. There is strong evidence that the manner and phases in which training is presented to the athlete can make a profound difference in performance outcome. This discussion deals primarily with block periodization concepts and associated methods of programming for strength-power training within track and field.
Recent reviews have attempted to refute the efficacy of applying Selye's general adaptation syndrome (GAS) as a conceptual framework for the training process. Furthermore, the criticisms involved are regularly used as the basis for arguments against the periodization of training. However, these perspectives fail to consider the entirety of Selye's work, the evolution of his model, and the broad applications he proposed. While it is reasonable to critically evaluate any paradigm, critics of the GAS have yet to dismantle the link between stress and adaptation. Disturbance to the state of an organism is the driving force for biological adaptation, which is the central thesis of the GAS model and the primary basis for its application to the athlete's training process. Despite its imprecisions, the GAS has proven to be an instructive framework for understanding the mechanistic process of providing a training stimulus to induce specific adaptations that result in functional enhancements. Pioneers of modern periodization have used the GAS as a framework for the management of stress and fatigue to direct adaptation during sports training. Updates to the periodization concept have retained its founding constructs while explicitly calling for scientifically based, evidence-driven practice suited to the individual. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide greater clarity on how the GAS serves as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize the periodization of training.
Planning training programs for strength/power track and field athletes requires an understanding of both training principles and training theory. The training principles are overload, variation, and specificity. Each of these principles must be incorporated into an appropriate system of training. Conceptually, periodization embraces training principles and offers advantages in planning, allowing for logical integration and manipulation of training variables such as exercise selection, intensification, and volume factors. The adaptation and progress of the athlete is to a large extent directly related to the ability of the coach/athlete to create and carry an efficient and efficacious training process. This ability includes: an understanding of how exercises affect physiological and performance adaptation (i.e., maximum force, rate of force development, power, etc.), how to optimize transfer of training effect ensuring that training exercises have maximum potential for carryover to performance, and how to implement programs with variations at appropriate levels (macro, meso, and micro) such that fatigue management is enhanced and performance progress is optimized. The training process: putting it togetherAs described by DeWeese et al., 1 the training process describes the blending of many factors that provide for athlete enhancement. In addition, these training aspects are embodied within the annual plan. This comprehensive list of aspects can include the training plan (length of periods, exercises, workloads), forms of recovery (nutrition, sleep, physiotherapy), sport-science (evidence-based approach to training), and the athlete-monitoring program (tests that ensure proper development through objective assessment).Periodization provides the basic framework in terms of fitness phases and timelines, while programming involves making decisions related to the number of repetitions, sets, intensity of exercise and training, volume, and rate of progression. As introduced in Part 1, 1 the "Block " method of meeting the tenants of periodization has been demonstrated to be a superior method attacking the complications associated with training and competition for the majority of track and field events in a modern competition setting. For instance, Block Programming may promote more efficient training priorities while maximizing the maintenance of strength/power characteristics, which can ultimately bolster the tapering/peaking phase leading into a major competition. PeriodizationRecall that periodization is an integral part of annual planning and represents the theoretical framework for developing a training program. Based on the definition presented in Part 1, a basic tenet of periodization is training nonlinearity. The primary goals of periodization include (a) an appropriate balance of training loads and competitive readiness during the season, (b) fatigue management and the reduction of overtraining potential, and (c) adequately staging and timing of the peak. These goals are primarily met by appropriate variation (no...
Stone, MH, Hornsby, WG, Haff, GG, Fry, AC, Suarez, DG, Liu, J, Gonzalez-Rave, JM, and Pierce, KC. Periodization and block periodization in sports: emphasis on strength-power training—a provocative and challenging narrative. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2351–2371, 2021—Periodization can be defined as a logical sequential, phasic method of manipulating fitness and recovery phases to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for nonfunctional over-reaching, overtraining, and injury. Periodization deals with the micromanagement of timelines and fitness phases and is cyclic in nature. On the other hand, programming deals with the micromanagement of the training process and deals with exercise selection, volume, intensity, etc. Evidence indicates that a periodized training process coupled with appropriate programming can produce superior athletic enhancement compared with nonperiodized process. There are 2 models of periodization, traditional and block. Traditional can take different forms (i.e., reverse). Block periodization has 2 subtypes, single goal or factor (individual sports) and multiple goals or factors (team sports). Both models have strengths and weaknesses but can be “tailored” through creative programming to produce excellent results for specific sports.
The purpose of this monitoring study was to investigate how alterations in training affect changes in force-related characteristics and weightlifting performance. Subjects: Seven competitive weightlifters participated in the study. Methods: The weightlifters performed a block style periodized plan across 20 weeks. Force plate data from the isometric mid-thigh pull and static jumps with 0 kg, 11 kg, and 20 kg were collected near the end of each training block (weeks 1, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20). Weightlifting performance was measured at weeks 0, 7, 11, and 20. Results: Very strong correlations were noted between weightlifting performances and isometric rate of force development (RFD), isometric peak force (PF), peak power (PP), and jump height (JH). Men responded in a more predictable manner than the women. During periods of higher training volume, RFD was depressed to a greater extent than PF. JH at 20 kg responded in a manner reflecting the expected fatigue response more so than JH at 0 kg and 11 kg. Conclusions: PF appears to have been more resistant to volume alterations than RFD and JH at 20 kg. RFD and JH at 20 kg appear to be superior monitoring metrics due to their “sensitivity.”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.