New Horizons for theMethodology andPhysiology of TrainingPeriodizationBlock Periodization: NewHorizon or a False Dawn?

Professor Issurins review[1] is to be commendedon its overview of the historical evolution ofperiodization planning theory and the interestinggeneral discussion. However, the central conten-tion of the review, i.e. that block periodizationrepresents a new horizon in training planning,is, I suggest, premature and unsupported.

To substantiate this position, consider the twolayers of evidence and rationale within ProfessorIssurins review promoting the superiority of blockperiodization in elite training contexts. The firstlayer is anecdotal, and consists of selected exemplarcases of athletes and coaches who have achievedhigh levels of success employing block-training de-signs. However, within the elite sports environmentit would seem readily apparent that high honoursare commonly achieved using a variety of trainingapproaches, reflecting distinct coaching philoso-phies and differing planning models. Hence, whilethe offered examples are undoubtedly interestingand deserve consideration, they remain unconvinc-ing as evidence, lacking both contextual detail andcritical comparisons.

The second layer of supporting evidence refersto two contemporary scientific concepts thathave been instrumental in the formulation of theblock-periodized model; namely, the cumulativetraining effect and the residual training effect.However, within the review, the key citations forthese concepts do not pertain to scientific evi-dence but, rather, refer to self-referenced opinionpieces by the author and another well knownblock-periodization advocate.[2] In reality, ac-knowledging that the benefits of physical traininggradually accumulate over time (the cumulativeeffect) and that these benefits persist for some

period after training is terminated (the residualeffect) are, perhaps, better described as self-evidenttruths, as opposed to scientific constructs. In-deed, Matveyev,[3] the foremost formulizer of thetraditional periodization model, also considersthe cumulative training effect and concepts cor-responding to the residual training effect in hisinfluential Fundamentals of Sports Training. Whatis not clear is how an awareness of such poorlyunderstood concepts provide scientific supportfor block-periodization principles. In order todiscriminate between either traditional or block-planning methods on the basis of these verybroad concepts, specific knowledge would be re-quired relating to (i) the projected timeframes forretention or decay of specific fitness attributes;(ii) an understanding of how ongoing traininginteracts with previously conducted training toeither accelerate or delay the erosion of previouslydeveloped fitness components; and (iii) an un-derstanding of how these factors interact with aspectrum of individual-specific considerations,such as training histories and genetic predisposi-tions. This is a knowledge base that clearly doesnot exist.

Consequently, while the proffered anecdotalexamples and accompanying logic may be allur-ing, block periodization cannot be rightly framedas a scientifically-validated planning construct,any more than could Matveyevs seminal modelor the raft of subsequently proposed periodiza-tion derivations.[4-7] Here, I hasten to add, ex-perienced coach/scientist opinion is certainly notto be devalued or dismissed. However, beforeblock periodization can rightly claim to be scienti-fically supported, an evidence-led, conceptually-valid chain of reasoning surely needs to be morecoherently outlined.

As an additional concern, while there is anapparent dearth of evidence supporting the block-periodization concept, there is existing evidencethat would appear to strongly challenge its cen-tral premise, i.e. that each of these (fitness) targetsrequires specific physiological, morphologicaland psychological adaptation, and many of theseworkloads are not compatible, causing conflictingresponses, and that hence, high performance ath-letes enhance their preparedness and performance

CORRESPONDENCE Sports Med 2010; 40 (9): 803-8070112-1642/10/0009-0803/$49.95/0 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.

through large amounts of training stimuli thatcan hardly be obtained using multi-targetedmixedtraining[1] (page 194). Unravelling the inter-activity of multi-targeted mixed training modes isobviously a complex task to address empirically.However, it has been tangentially explored instudies investigating the effects of concurrentstrength and endurance training. The trainingmodes required to develop strength and endu-rance frequently appear diametrically opposed,and these attributes would seem prime candidatesfor exhibiting inhibited training responses con-sequent to concurrent training. Hickson[8] classi-cally demonstrated an interference effect betweenconcurrent strength and endurance training re-sulting in compromised strength development inpreviously untrained subjects, with similar find-ings subsequently reported by several other au-thors.[9-12] More recently, studies have demonstratedthat concurrent training can be as effective indeveloping both strength and endurance as singleattribute-focused interventions.[13,14] More perti-nently, studies in a variety of sports, variouslyusing well trained, elite and world-class athletes,have established that simultaneously training forboth strength and endurance can bestow syn-ergistic benefits to a variety of athletic perfor-mance measures, above and beyond the benefitsrealized by single modality training.[15-28]

Without doubt, there is still much to belearned in relation to the intricacies of concurrenttraining. However, it appears clear that (i) theoptimized development of a single fitness attri-bute does not necessarily preclude the simultaneousadvancement of other attributes; and (ii) mixedmodality training has the potential, in an evidencedrange of circumstances, to bestow synergistically-additive performance benefits.

A more conceptual, less demonstrable, chal-lenge to the logic presented in Professor Issurinsreview, relates to an implicit conceptual dogmaevident throughout the periodized planning lit-erature. Specifically, the paradoxical assumptionthat, despite the evident complexity and inherentunpredictability of the human adaptive responseto any set of imposed stressors,[29-35] the futuretraining of an inherently complex biological sys-tem is best pre-planned using deterministic logic,

mechanistic design frameworks and generalizedrules.

Reflecting on the evidence, it would appearpremature to herald block periodization as a newhorizon in training planning, partly because of afundamental lack of supporting evidence andclearly delineated rationale, and partly becausecontradictory evidence exists questioning its uni-versal efficacy in elite contexts. What block peri-odization does positively contribute to currentplanning methodologies is a more formal de-scription of a particular planning tactic that maybe advantageously added to the elite coachesmenu of potential planning options.

Therefore, while blocked-training schemesmay be useful ploys in specific training contexts,the claim that this framework represents a newdeparture in training planning may be somewhatoverly enthusiastic. Hence, perhaps a more ap-propriate description of block periodization isnew variation, rather than a new horizon, insports training planning.

John KielyUK Athletics, Solihull, UK

Acknowledgements

The author has no conflicts of interest that are directlyrelevant to the content of this letter.

References1. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physio-

logy of training periodization. Sports Med 2010; 40 (3):189-206

2. Bondarchuk AP. Transfer of training in sports. Muskegon(MI): Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2007

3. Matveyev L. Fundamentals of sports training. Moscow:Fizkultura i Sport, 1981

4. Brown LE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models.Strength Cond J 2001; 23 (1): 42-4

5. Brown LE, Greenwood M. Periodization essentials and in-novations in resistance training protocols. J Strength CondRes 2005; 27 (4): 80-5

6. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, et al. A comparison oflinear and daily undulating periodized programs withequated volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 2002May; 16 (2): 250-5

7. Verkhoshansky YV. Programming and organization oftraining. Livonia (MI): Sportivny Press, 1988

8. Hickson RC. Interference of strength development bysimultaneously training for strength and endurance. EurJ Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1980; 45: 2-3

804 Letter to the Editor

2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)

9. Hennessy LC, Watson WS. The interference effects of train-ing for strength and endurance simultaneously. J StrengthCond Res 1994; 8 (1): 12-9

10. Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance- andstrength-training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985;59: 1446-51

11. Hunter G, Demment R, Miller D. Development of strengthandmaximum oxygen uptake during simultaneous trainingfor strength and endurance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness1987; 27 (3): 269-75

12. Nelson AG, Arnall DA, Loy SF, et al. Consequences ofcombining strength and endurance training regimens. PhysTher 1990 May; 70 (5): 287-94

13. McCarthy JP, Agre JC, Graf BK, et al. Compatibility ofadaptive responses with combining strength and endurancetraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995 Mar; 27 (3): 429-36

14. Shaw BS, Shaw I, Brown GA. Comparison of resistance andconcurrent resistance and endurance training regimes inthe development of strength. J Strength Cond Res 2009Dec; 23 (9): 2507-14

15. Yamamoto LM, Klau JF, Casa DJ, et al. The effects of re-sistance training on road cycling performance amonghighly trained cyclists: a systematic review. J StrengthCond Res 2010 Feb; 24 (2): 560-6

16. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, Gonzalez de Txabarri Exposito R,Garca-Pallares J, et al. Concurrent endurance andstrength training not to failure optimizes performancegains. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Epub 2009 Dec 9

17. Balabinis CP, Psarakis CH, Moukas M, et al. Early phasechanges by concurrent endurance and strength training.J Strength Cond Res 2003 May; 17 (2): 393-401

18. Davis WJ, Wood DT, Andrews RG, et al. Concurrent train-ing enhances athletes strength, muscle endurance, and othermeasures. J Strength Cond Res 2008 Sep; 22 (5): 1487-502

19. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potentialfor strength and endurance training to amplify enduranceperformance. J Appl Physiol 1988 Nov; 65 (5): 2285-90

20. Mikkola JS, Rusko HK, Nummela AT, et al. Concurrentendurance and explosive type strength training increasesactivation and fast force production of leg extensor musclesin endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2007 May;21 (2): 613-20

21. Mikkola J, Rusko H, Nummela A, et al. Concurrent en-durance and explosive type strength training improvesneuromuscular and anaerobic characteristics in youngdistance runners. Int J Sports Med 2007 Jul; 28 (7): 602-11

22. Paavolainen L, Hakkinen K, Hamalainen I, et al. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improv-ing running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol1999 May; 86 (5): 1527-33

23. Millet GP, Jaouen B, Borrani F, et al. Effects of concurrentendurance and strength training on running economy andVO2 kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 1351-9

24. Hickson RC, Dvorak BA, Gorostiaga EM, et al. Potentialfor strength and endurance training to amplify enduranceperformance. J Appl Physiol 1988; 65: 2285-90

25. Rnnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. Strength trainingimproves 5-min all-out performance following 185 min ofcycling. Scand J Med Sci Sports. Epub 2009 Nov 9

26. Hoff J, Gran A, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training im-proves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med SciSports 2002; 12: 288-95

27. Hoff J, Helgerud J, Wisloff U. Maximal strength trainingimproves work economy in trained female cross countryskiers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 870-7

28. Stren O, Helgerud J, Sta EM, et al. Maximal strengthtraining improves running economy in distance runners.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 1087-92

29. Kudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, Wust S. Why do we re-spond so differently? Reviewing determinants of humansalivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuro-endochrinology 2009; 34: 2-18

30. Bouchard C, Rankinen T, Chagnon YC, et al. Genomic scanfor maximal oxygen uptake and its response to training inthe HERITAGEFamily Study. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (2):551-9

31. Skinner JS, Jaskolski A, Jaskolska A, et al. Age, sex, race,initial fitness, and response to training: the HERITAGEFamily Study. J Appl Physiol 2001 May; 90 (5): 1770-6

32. Van Regenmortel M. The rational design of biological com-plexity: a deceptive metaphor. Proteomics 2007; 7: 965-75

33. Foster RG, Kreitzman L. Rhythms of life: the biologicalclocks that control the daily lives of every living thing. NewHaven (CT) and London: Yale University Press, 2004

34. Beavan CM, Gill ND, Cook CJ. Salivary testosterone andcortisol responses in professional rugby players after fourresistance exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res 2008Mar; 22 (2): 426-31

35. Beavan CM, Cook CJ, Gill ND. Significant strength gainsobserved in rugby players after specific resistance exerciseprotocols based on individual salivary testosterone re-sponses. J Strength Cond Res 2008 Mar; 22 (2): 419-25

The Authors Reply

A letter to the editor has become a reason tocontinue consideration of training periodizationon the pages ofSportsMedicine.[1] I appreciate it andwould like to thankMr Kiely for this opportunity.

The letter to the editor contains a number ofissues, which need clarification. I will address themin the order of their appearance in the letter. Blockperiodization (BP) as an alternative to the tradi-tional model has drawn the attention of Mr Kiely,who has marked two layers of evidence andrationale... based on his understanding of theirimportance.

1. The first layer in Mr Kielys view belongs toanecdotal reports which, as far as I could un-derstand, he estimates as having low value as asource. My own evaluation of these sources isquite the opposite. Having worked for the majorpart of my life in close cooperation with coaches

Letter to the Editor 805

2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)

(including world known and highly recognizedexperts in their sports), I have developed greatrespect for anecdotal reports as a source of suc-cessful experience, common sense and real crea-tivity. However, be that as it may, in this concretecase my opponent is wrong; the sources cited inthe review are not anecdotal they are seriouspublications, which summarize the data of welldocumented long-term projects with world-classathletes who have acheived the highest awards.[2-7]

In saying that, the outcomes of the projects men-tioned are not supported by contextual detailsand critical comparisons, which makes no sense;the review format does not allow the insertion ofdetails, which interested readers can find in the citeditems. In addition to the references mentioned, anumber of newer publications can be listed in whichthe results of block periodized preparations areconsidered in accordance with standards of peerreviewed journals. A long-term project of a Spanishresearch group, complete with critical comparisonsand serious analysis, resulted in a gold medal inthe Beijing Olympic Games;[8] a similar project byBelorussian researcherswas followed byhigh awardsat the Athens and Beijing Olympic Games;[9] anda well balanced study in Alpine skiing was com-pleted in Switzerland.[10] A number of PhD disserta-tions devoted to various aspects of BP trainingwere defended.[11-13] Of course, as a new branchof the coaching science, BP needsmany serious stud-ies. In the meantime, curious readers can refer tomy own recently published books,[14,15] which arealso listed in the review.[1]

2. The second layer, asMr Kiely has defined it,refers to concepts of cumulative and residual train-ing effects. These essential basic concepts of train-ing theory are qualified in the letter as self-evidenttruths. Having expressed familiarity with onebook on the theory of training, Mr Kiely has con-fused the commonplaces of training science reality.ProfessorMatveyev[16] as the foremost formuliserof traditional periodization, described the cumu-lative training effect approximately 4 decades ago,but he never used or even mentioned the termresidual training effect, not in Russian, not inEnglish, not in Chinese. This term was proposedand conceptualized by James and Brian Coun-silman 3 decades later.[17] The importance of these

generalized concepts for coaching science andtraining practice can not be underestimated. Thetext on page 260 of the review[1] clarifies the role ofresidual training effect in elucidating BP. Thoserequiring additional explanations for a better un-derstanding of BP and how it differs from thetraditional model can refer to earlier publicationswhere these issues are clarified.[14,15,18]

3. Another part of the letter is devoted to con-sideration of the potential benefits of concurrentlydeveloping many targeted abilities, as proposedin the traditionalmodel.MrKiely has cited 16 publi-cations where the benefits of combined trainingfor strength and endurance are proposed. He doesnot take into account that the number of targetedabilities (about nine to ten) greatly exceeds thenumber of proposed abilities by BP block meso-cycles. Apparently, each mesocycle should befocused on developing a number (usually three)of abilities but not one. Mr Keily totally ignoresthe fact that the block-mesocycle accumulationfor developing basic motor abilities (page 201) pre-scribes concurrent training for muscular strengthand aerobic endurance. Therefore, the 16 refer-ences cited in the letter do not refute, but rathersupport the methodic approach of BP, which pro-poses combined development of compatible abilitiesand separating work on incompatible trainingmodalities. Thus, this critical attack seems tostem from a careless reading of the review.

4. The final part of the letter contains a passageon the ...inherent unpredictability of the humanadaptive response to any set of imposed stres-sors... , which is supported by citations from anumber of scientific publications. Addressing sucha statement to a serious sport science journal seemsstrange at best. It is commonly accepted that eachtraining system, every researcher and the approachof each coach is based on the supposition thatexpected response will be adequate for transmit-ting athlete stimulation. This doesnt mean thateach estimate of adaptive response can be numer-ically predicted. However, limitations on predict-ability do not imply a lack of determinism intraining response but could be caused by an in-sufficiency of available information. This generallyaccepted deterministic approach completely corres-ponds to evidence provided by Professor Bouchard

806 Letter to the Editor

2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)

and co-workers in publications[19,20] cited byMrKiely in support of his agnostic declaration.On-going studies by this research group are intendedto unravel the reasons underlying human hetero-geneity in response to regular training.

Finally, Mr Kiely considers pre-planned train-ing following deterministic logic and generalizedrules as a paradoxical assumption. It is knownthat various paths can be used to lead to outstand-ing athletic achievements but it is hard for me toimagine that anyone can excel in contemporarysport by working contrary to deterministic logicand generalized rules.

I hope this additional consideration of mypaper will attract further interest by the SportsMedicine audience in the actual problems of high-performance athletic training.

Vladimir IssurinProfessor of Exercise and Sport Science, Elite SportDepartment at the Wingate Institute for Physical

Education and Sport, Netanya, Israel

Acknowledgements

The author has no conflict of interest that is directly re-levant to content of this letter.

References1. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology

of training periodization. Sports Med 2010; 40 (3): 189-206

2. Bondarchuk AP. Training of track and field athletes. Kiev:Health Publishing (Zdorovie), 1986

3. Bondarchuk AP. Constructing a training system. TrackTechnique 1988; 102: 3254-69

4. Issurin V, Kaverin V. Planning and design of annual pre-paration cycle in canoe-kayak paddling. In: Samsonov EB,Kaverin VF, editors. Grebnoj sport (Rowing, Canoeing,Kayaking) [in Russian]. Moscow: FiS Publishing, 1985: 25-9

5. Kaverin V, Issurin V. Performance analysis and preparationsconcept of the USSR canoe-kayak national team in the

XXIV Seoul OlympicGames. Sport-ScienceGerald 1989; 1-2:45-7

6. Pyne DB, Touretski G. An analysis of the training ofOlympic Sprint Champion Alexandre Popov. AustralianSwim Coach 1993; 10 (5): 5-14

7. Touretski G. Preparation of sprint events. 1998 ASCTAConvention. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Sport,1998

8. Garcia-Pallares J, Garcia-Fernandes M, Sanches-Medina L,et al. Performance changes in world-class kayakers fol-lowing two different training periodization models. Eur JAppl Physiol. Epub 2010 Apr 23

9. Shantarovich VV, Narskin AG, Shantarovich AV. Blocktraining system within Olympic preparation cycle of top-level canoe-kayak paddlers. In: Bondar AI, editor. Actualproblems of high-performance sport towards the XXIXBeijing Olympic Games. Minsk: Research Sport Instituteof Belarus, 2006: 113-7

10. Breil FA, Weber SN, Koller S, et al. Block training period-ization in alpine skiing: effects of 11-day HIT on VO2maxand performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. Epub 2010 Apr 3

11. Klementiev II. Training program of long standing technicalimprovement for achievement and maintenance of out-standing sportsmanship [dissertation]. Riga: Latvian SportPedagogical Academy, 1993

12. Kaufman LY. Individual simulation of specialized trainingand strength improvement in high-level swimmers coaching[dissertation]. Riga: Latvian Pedagogical University, 2001

13. Shkliar VI. Structure, organization and steering in high-performance sport on the regional level (on the example ofJerusalem) [dissertation in Russian]. Moscow: All-RussianResearch Institute for Physical Culture and Sport, 2002

14. Issurin V. Block Periodization: breakthrough in sport training.Muskegon (MI):Ultimate TrainingConcepts Publishing, 2008

15. Issurin V. Principles and basics of advanced training of athletes.Muskegon (MI): UltimateAthletes Concepts Publishing, 2008

16. Matveyev LP. The bases of sport training [in Russian].Moscow: FiS Publishing, 1977

17. Counsilman BE, Counsilman J. The residual effects oftraining. J Swim Res 1991; 7: 5-12

18. IssurinV. Block Periodization versus traditional training theory:a review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2008; 48 (1): 65-75

19. Bouchard C, Rankinen T, Chagnon YC, et al. Genomicscan formaximal oxygen uptake and its response to training inthe HERITAGE Family Study. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (2):551-9

20. Skinner JS, Jaskolski A, Jaskolska A, et al. Age, sex, race,initial fitness, and response to training: the HERITAGEFamily Study. J Appl Physiol 2001 May; 90 (5): 1770-6

Letter to the Editor 807

2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2010; 40 (9)

Outline placeholderAcknowledgementsReferencesAcknowledgementsReferences