Internationai Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2012, 7, 242-250© 2012 iHuman Kinetics, inc.

Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century:Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven?

John Kiely

The planning and organization of athletic training have historically been much discussed and debated in thecoaching and sports science literature. Various influential periodization theorists have devised, promoted, andsubstantiated particular training-planning models based on interpretation ofthe scientific evidence and individualbeliefs and experiences. Superficially, these proposed planning models appear to differ substantially. However,at a deeper level, it can be suggested that such models share a deep-rooted cultural heritage underpinned bya common set of historically pervasive planning beliefs and assumptions. A concern with certain of theseformative assumptions is that, although no longer scientifically justifiable, their shaping influence remainsdeeply embedded. In recent years substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that training responsesvary extensively, depending upon multiple underlying factors. Such findings challenge the appropriatenessof applying generic methodologies, founded in overly simplistic rule-based decision making, to the planningproblems posed by inherently complex biological systems. The purpose of this review is not to suggest awhole-scale rejection of periodization theories but to promote a refined awareness of their various strengthsand weaknesses. Eminent periodization theorists—and their variously proposed periodization models—havecontributed substantially to the evolution of training-planning practice. However, there is a logical line ofreasoning suggesting an urgent need for periodization theories to be realigned with contemporary elite prac-tice and modern scientific conceptual models. In concluding, it is recommended that increased emphasis beplaced on the design and implementation of sensitive and responsive training systems that facilitate the guidedemergence of customized context-specific training-planning solutions.

Keywords: emergent, biological complexity, athletic training, planning solutions

Periodization Theory:Origins and Legacy

Frederick Winslow Taylor is not a name often associatedwith athletic training planning. To recap some history:Taylor was the academically inclined factory supervisorwho became the founding father of "scientific manage-ment," the first application of scientific principles to theproduction industry. Taylor's landmark 1911 publicationThe Principles of Scientific Management^ combined thescientific knowledge ofthe day, his pioneering time-and-motion studies, and management's historical prejudicetoward workers ("All we want of them is to obey theorders we give them") to construct the first great planningparadigm of the modern era.

Taylor's approach was typified by the belief thatthere was "one best way" to organize, manage, and planproduction and that this "best" template could be uncov-

The author is with the Institute of Coaching and Performance,University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.

ered through observation and analysis. Industrialists ofthe day readily embraced the intuitively appealing logicof Taylor's regimented paradigm. Henry Ford famouslyadapted Taylor's methodology to the automobile industry.In sociopolitical contexts, Taylor's influence was simi-larly widespread. Most notably his writings are cited asshaping the planning philosophies of Lenin, with manyparallels between scientific management doctrine andlater Soviet 5-year templates.-

This historical appeal can be attributed to a numberof factors. First, when Taylor's methodology was appliedto machine-shop environments, productivity improved.Second, the rigorous dissection and empiricization oftheproduction problem resonated with a society awaken-ing to the explanatory power of the scientific method.Third, the reduction of the planning problem to a set offormulaic "rules" and automatized solutions satisfied thedeep-seated human attraction to simplicity and explana-tory closure, tempering our innate aversion to uncertaintyand ambiguity.̂ "*

The purpose of this diversion is solely to highlightthat this historically pervasive ideology exerted a pro-found shaping influence on planning practice across

Periodization Paradigms 243

domains. In relation to sports preparation this legacyis evident when comparing commonalities betweenindustrial planning models and formative periodizationconcepts, both approaches seeking to control future out-comes through the decomposition of the overall processto a series of distinctly focused sequential units andsubsequent arrangement of these units in a mathemati-cally predetermined order. Thus, for example, when thehistorically influential Matveyev collated training recordsfrom the 1940s and 1950s it was perfectly logical thathe interpreted these averaged data through the lens ofpervading scientific conceptual models and applied hisconclusions as per the generalized format of the culturallydominant planning paradigm.

Taylor's methodology enhanced productivity withinsimplistic engineering contexts; however, within bi oaderindustrial and sociopolitical domains the inefficienciesinherent when such logic was extrapolated to more com-plicated problems gradually became apparent. Today,governmental, military, and social planners are aware ofthe dangers presented by wide-sweeping assumptionsand a failure to recognize the confounding far-reachingeffects that minor, difficult to quantify, events may presentto long-term project planning.

The question explored in this review is whether peri-odization philosophies have sufficiently evolved beyondthis culturally pervasive planning heritage to adequatelyassimilate advances in scientific insight and conceptualunderstanding. Are periodization philosophies best under-stood as "the tnethodical, scientific procedures to helpathletes achieve high levels of training and performance"previously asserted'*'P'-''°> or as the legacy of an outdatedand scientifically naive world view?

What Is Periodization?Contemporary discussion is hampered by the absence ofa universally accepted fotmal definition of periodization.The term was originally employed to describe programstaking the form of predetermined sequential chains ofspecifically focused training periods. However, today theterm is frequently indiscriminately employed to describeany form of training plan, regardless of structure. Thearchetypal periodized model, exemplified by the writingsof Matveyev,"» was typified by a progressive segmentedtransition from high to low volume, and low to highintensity, accompanied by a simultaneous reduction intraining variation as competitive peak approached. Sincethe first English translation of Matveyev's influential1981 Ftindamentals of Sports Training,'^ various authorshave proposed novel periodized designs—for example,nonlinear,' block,* fractal,^ and conjugate sequence.'°Although these models differ In terms of structure andsupporting rationale, there is an evident coinmon set ofshared assumptions underpinning such approaches:

• Established time frames exist for the developmentand retention of specific fitness adaptations.'"'-

• Various fitness attributes are best developed in asequential hierarchy (eg, strength before power,endurance before speed).''*'^

• Idealized training structures, time frames, and pro-gression schemes can be generalized across athleticsubgroups.'*'"-'''

Inevitably arising from these premises are 2 implicitassumptions:

• Biological adaptation to a given training interventionfollows a predictable course.

• Appropriate future training can be adequately fore-cast.

Scientific Supportfor Periodization Principles

The science of periodization is a frequently encounteredphrase in exercise-science and coaching domains, withmany studies commonly cited as evidencing periodiza-tion's superiority as a training organizational means. Forexample, in review of 15 studies of meso-cycle length(7-24 wk), 13 studies concluded that periodized trainingprovided statistically superior performance improvementswhen compared with constant-repetition programs.'-'' Asimilar review concluded that periodized strength trainingled to enhanced outcomes, in a variety of performancemeasures, in comparison with nonperiodized models.'^ Ameta-analysis comparing periodized and nonperiodizedstrength-training programs concluded that periodizedstructures were more effective for males and females,individuals of varying training backgrounds, and a rangeof age groups." A rare study failing to support superior-ity of periodized regimes found no difference in efficacybetween undulating-periodized and nonperiodized groupswhen volume and intensity were equalized over a short-term period.'* Similarly, a study employing elderlyuntrained participants concluded that fixed-repetitionstrength training was as effective in developing strengthas a periodized program."

Thus, the preponderance of published literature sug-gests that periodized structures provide enhanced benefitswhen compared with nonperiodized counterparts. Occa-sional studies have failed to demonstrate such superiority.However, such investigations have been typified by

• Subjects of low initial fitness

• Short time frames of investigation

When we reflect on these conclusions, thereappears a subtle point of interpretation that is frequentlyoverlooked. In essence, due to complicating logisti-cal constraints, experimental designs have comparedinterventions regularly varying training parameters withinterventions with minimal, or no, variation. Accordingly,what such studies have demonstrated is that variation isa critical aspect of effective training, not that periodiza-tion methodologies are an optimal means of providing

244 Kiely

variation. This may seem a semantic distinction. How-ever, as already noted, periodized approaches are char-acterized by a set of shared assumptions, and althoughthe evidence does support the need for regular trainingvariation, other core tenets of periodization philosophyare neither supported nor refuted. Accordingly, a legiti-mate concern is that habitual mention of the science ofperiodization, and habitual uncritical acceptance of suchstudies as proof of the superiority of periodized structures,creates the illusion that periodized methodologies havebeen empirically validated. This is not the case.

l\/lanaging Training VariationThe presented evidence suggests that variation is a neces-sary component of effective training planning. Supportingthis perspective, other research suggests that elevatedtraining monotony—which may be broadly perceivedas a lack of variation^"—leads to increased incidence ofovertraining syndromes,^' poor performance, and fre-quency of banal infections.-̂ ^ Conversely, reductions inmonotony have been associated with increased incidenceof personal-best performances,^^ and monotony indexeshave been advocated as beneficial training-regulationtools in elite rowing^^ and sprinting.^"

A cursory glance at this literature suggests that varia-tion is always "good," and the repetitive application of aunidirectional training Stressor is always "bad." However,there are obvious logical qualifiers to be overlaid on suchconclusions. First, if stimuli are excessively varied—ifthe performer's adaptive energy is too thinly dispersedamong multiple training targets—then it seems sensibleto assume that progress will be very slow, or nonexistent.Second, periodic reduction in variation, facilitating aconcentrated focus on a narrow band of training targets,may serve to induce rapid development of these priori-tized attributes.

Two related inferences emerge:

• Training variation is a critical component of long-term planning, but if adaptive energy is too widelydistributed, gains may be excessively diluted.

• Repetitive application of a unidimensional trainingstress may induce rapid improvements in a limitedrange of targets, but if such concentrated focus isunduly prolonged the athlete will be exposed to thenegative effects of unremitting monotony.

In SummaryOver a given time course, there is an apparent dynamicbalance to be negotiated between (a) the variation andnovelty required to offset diminishing training returnsarising from excess training habituation and (b) theconcentrated focus required to progress already well-developed fitness attributes. Although all periodizedmethodologies provide formats for modulating focus

and variation, there is no direct evidence enabling us todiscern between the worths of these various schemes.

Each eminent periodization theorist has proposed,based on personal perspective and interpretation of theavailable evidence, a "best" design scheme for providingvariation over a given time frame. Although each theoristhas robustly outlined a rational argument supporting hisindividual stance (while occasionally criticizing thoseof his peers),̂ -̂ '̂̂ ^ it should be recognized that the evi-dence offered in support of such templates is sparse andcircumstantial. The scarcity of evidence, coupled withan eagerness to formulize a coherent planning approach,may have facilitated the overinterpretation of a verylimited evidence base.

A RealignmentWith Biological Reality

Given the logistical difficulties inherent when investigat-ing such a multidimensional phenomenon, it would beunfair to criticize periodization theories based solely on alack of specific evidence. However, there is another, lesscommonly considered, line of reasoning questioning theconceptual logic underpinning periodization philosophy.

A unifying thread resonating throughout the peri-odization literature is the quintessentially mechanisticlogic employed to derive formulaic solutions to training-planning problems. Periodization philosophy hingeson the presumption that biological adaptation to futuretraining is largely predictable and follows a determinablepattern. A logical extension of such a rationalization isthat appropriate interventions can be adequately plannedin advance through a straightforward process of deductionand prediction. Although this perspective is understand-able in the light of historical conceptual frameworks,contemporary insights do not support such simplisticmodeling of biological function.

Consider the findings of the Heritage Family Study,a large-population multicenter trial resulting in over 120separate publications, investigating the role of genotypein mediating exercise response. As an example, training-induced changes to maximal oxygen uptake (V02,nax)were established to vary extensively in response toidentical exercise prescriptions. The average increase inVO2max was 19%. However, 5% of participants had littleor no change in VO2max. and 5% had an increase of 40%to >50%, despite all being subjected to a similar trainingstimulus.^^

Similar diversity of interindividual responses hasbeen reported after strength-focused interventions. Forexample, when 585 young men and women strength-trained for 12 weeks the average strength gain was 54%.However, the magnitudes of individual gains were distrib-uted between 0 and 250%, with changes to cross-sectionalarea of targeted muscles ranging from -2% to 59%.^*Furthermore, evidence suggests that initial status, acuteresponse, and chronic development of trained attributes

Periodization Paradigms 245

20-1

l/min

j <

"Ë

ÏE

dO

1 6 -

1 2 -

8 -

4 -

0 -

r = 0.08

10 20 30 40 50Baseline VO2max (ml/kg/min)

60

Figure 1 —Relationship between baseline maximal OT uptake(VOimax) and change (Delta) in VOimax in 633 subjects in theHeritage Family Study. ©American Physiological Society.Reproduced with permission from Skinner JS et al. J ApplPhysiol. 2001;90:l770-1776.

are regulated by differing molecular pathways and genenetworks, implying that preexisting levels of strengthand/or endurance are not reliably indicative of how eitherattribute will respond to future training.̂ -̂̂ ^

Other evidence supports extensive interindividualvariation among elite athletes. For example, an investi-gation employing professional rugby players establishedthat a standard weight-training session resulted in a rangeof differing hormonal responses among a homogeneousgroup of players.30 In a related study, individual testos-terone responses to 4 different weight-training protocolswere determined. Players then trained for 3 weeks usingthe protocol that elicited either their maximum or theirminimum response before crossing over to the opposingprotocol for a subsequent 3 weeks. All players demon-strated significant gains in strength measures subsequentto the protocol that elicited their maximum testosteroneresponse. In contrast, when they trained using the protocolthat induced their minimal response, either no change or asignificant decline in strength measures resulted,-" hencesuggesting that had all players performed any arbitrarilyselected session some would have benefited substantiallywhereas others executing the same protocol would havemade little or no gains.

As further complication, consider the variety offactors demonstrated to affect release characteristics ofa single member of the family of interacting androgenichormones. Testosterone release has been noted to modu-late in response to time of day, week, and month; cyclesof light and dark^ '̂̂ ;̂ ratings of work satisfaction; motiva-tional and assertiveness levels^''; and training stress.̂ ^ Inaddition, consider the influence exerted by environmentaland lifestyle factors on biological responses. For example,a wide range of imposed Stressors—emotional, dietary,social, sleep, academic—have been demonstrated to vari-ously down-regulate the immune system, dampen adap-

tive response, and negatively aff'ect motor coordination,cognitive performance, mood, metabolism, and hormonalhealth,-̂ -̂*° consequently reducing performance"" andelevating injury risk.**̂

Integration of these various evidence-led strands sug-gests that the adaptive response to imposed interventionsemerges consequent to the complex interactions betweena broad spectrum of inherited predispositions and chroni-cally and acutely varying biopsychosocial factors. Thisincludes, as suggested by the presented evidence,

• Training-loading parameters• Epigenetic predispositions

• Legacy of previous stress exposures (including train-ing history)

• Transient biological, psychological, and emotionalstates

• Transient social and environmental variables

By extension, we may conclude that

• Individual athletes will respond differently, to oneanother, to identical training sessions.

• Identical sessions performed by an individual willalways elicit a unique training response, for thatathlete, depending on transient functional states ofcomponent subsystems.

• Group-based patterns and observations may behighly misleading when generalized to individuals.

• It is highly improbable that there are "best" patterns,time frames, or progression and/or loading schemesvalidly applicable across training contexts.

Mechanistic Modelingof a Complex Reality

Critically, it should be acknowledged that many of ourhistorical training conceptions are founded on the prem-ise that responses are substantially predictable, in otherwords, that a known training input leads to an expectedadaptive output. This may be the case when consideringthe "averaged" responses of a specific population to agiven intervention. However, as illustrated, individualvariation typically oscillates widely about such group-based means, thereby suggesting a growing disconnectbetween periodization ideologies that assume predictabil-ity and stability of time frames and progression schemesand the evidenced reality of biological complexity.'* '̂'''

The functioning of complex biological systems ischaracterized by deeply entangled interdependenciesbetween component subsystems, by sensitive depen-dence to initial conditions and subsequently introduced"noise," and by the inherently unpredictable chain ofconsequences that may be initiated by any imposedaction. Applied perturbations may be absorbed, distrib-uted, and dissipated, for little or no discernible change in

246 Kíely

system functioning. Alternatively, when system states aredelicately poised, finely balanced between stability anddysfunction, then a single minor event, or the ripples ofseemingly innocuous interacting events, may reverberatethrough system components, being progressively ampli-fied until eventually manifesting as major behavioralbifurcation.

As we cannot adequately assess the transientfunctional states of component subsystems or unravelthe dynamically changing relationships between thesesubsystems, a defining characteristic of biological sys-tems is that future behavior is impossible to accuratelypredict,̂ -'̂ -̂̂ and the consequences of future traininginterventions, impossible to reliably project.

In the face of such complexity, the available training-organizational studies must be recognized as inevitablysimplistic and capable of providing only the most rudi-mentary of insights. Although empirical studies investi-gating the effects of various training interventions are aninvaluable necessity—in terms of unraveling generalizedresponses to specific interventions—the limitations inher-ent when such isolated context-specific findings are usedto substantiate elite planning philosophies should beacknowledged. Eminent periodization theorists have con-structed rational, logical arguments supporting personalperspectives. However, when the task is multifaceted andinherently complex, when discerning evidence is sparse,when sensitive comparison between training structuresis not logistically feasible, then multiple coherent narra-tives rationalizing any given set of observations can bereadily constructed.

As illustration, peer-reviewed publications havebeen cited as demonstrating the superiority of blockperiodization over more traditional designs.̂ "̂ Consider:Eleven days of high-intensity intervals are interjected intoregular training patterns. Result; The experimental groupimproves tested parameters more than the control groupcontinuing habituated training.^^ Conclusion: Principlesof block periodization are supported. But is such inter-pretation a logical inference or a conclusion violating theprinciple of parsimony, the fundamental scientific dictateurging the acceptance of only the most frugal explanationbest fitting factual observations? Is the most economicalrationalization of these results that (a) block periodiza-tion represents a superior planning methodology or (b)interjecting training novelty into habituated patterns maylead to sudden performance improvements? Certainly,(b) appears a more prudent conclusion. Furthermore, (b)being true does not entail that (a) is true. Regular variationand/or periods of high-intensity training are not uniqueto any particular periodization philosophy and appear tobe a hallmark of elite programs regardless of the statedmethodology employed.

The presented evidence illustrates the extremecontext specificity arising when individual biologicalsystems, each with unique genetic predispositions and"stress" histories, interact with unique training, psy-chosocial, and environmental variables. Such extreme

context specificity highlights 2 logical fallacies evidentin the periodization literature;

• The assumption that averaged group-based trendsaccurately reflect likely individual responses

• The assumption that planning methodologies ofcelebrated high achievers—by definition extremeoutliers—can be generalized and extrapolated toother elite individuals

Emergent Solutionsto Complex Problems

Although the assumption of training generalizability isalluring, in the light of biological complexity this allure isrevealed as illusory. More appropriately, the preparationprocess may be conceptualized as a guided explorationthrough an unknown and constantly shifting terrain.Each "preparation terrain" presents a unique navigationalchallenge, thus requiring a unique route map to optimallyguide toward program objectives. When moving throughunknown territory, having a map may provide tbe illusionof certainty and control. However, while having a mapmay be reassuring, previously used maps, inevitably ofditïering terrains, are inherently inaccurate. A more reli-able and direct means of arriving at your destination isconsistent triangulation between expectations, outcomes,and objectives.

Such reasoning suggests a shift from the historicalideal of preordained "best" training structures towarda philosophy characterized by an adaptive readiness torespond to emerging "information." From this perspec-tive, effective planning may be perceived as the imple-mentation of sensitive and responsive learning systemsdesigned to enable the early detection of emerging threatsand opportunities.

How such systems are designed and implementedsensibly depends on context-specific parameters such ascoaching preferences, experience of the athlete, logisticallimitations, and applicability of available technologiesand metrics. There are certain impositions constrainingthe boundaries of the preparation plan; the competitiveschedule, performance needs analysis, and long- andshort-term goal setting. Sensibly, a broad frameworkshould be outlined and starting points, checkpoints, andendpoints agreed on. However, within this sparse plan-ning skeleton, training evolution may be most produc-tively driven by emerging information continually con-textualized against program constraints and objectives.

Many assessment and monitoring tools—both objec-tive and subjective—are available and represented inthe literature, with many sure to follow as technologicalinnovation continues to drive improvements in capabili-ties and accessibility.

The hallmarks of such information-driven learningprocesses may sensibly include

Periodization Paradigms 247

Coachingopinion &

perspectives

Regular trendanalysis of

collated data Habituaiobjective &subjectivemonitoring

Training direction &decision-making

Figure 2 — Sources of training decision-making "information.'

• Development, and ongoing refinement, of long-termsensitive monitoring and tracking systems

• Cultivation of performer-generated feedback andfeed-forward contribution

• Trend analysis of collated data

• Critical evaluation of projections against outcomes

• Regular review, refinement, and redirection

Critically, the quality of planning decision makingis founded on 2 cornerstones:

• A conceptual model—against which experiences,observations, data, and decisions are contextual-ized—that is optimally reflective of the complexnature of the preparation task

• The effective management of emerging information

This line of rea.soning is not intended as an as.saulton the historical value of periodization philosophy orthe substantial contributions made by eminent theorists.However, in light ofthe converging evidence, I .suggestthat periodization dictates are understood as hypotheticaltradition-driven assumptions rather than, as commonlypresented, evidence-led constructs. This does not implythat plans are unimportant but that our perception ofwhat constitutes effective planning should be reevalu-ated. Similarly, the pre.sented rationale should not beinterpreted as suggesting a false dichotomy, an either/or choice between preformed periodized structures andmore emergent information-driven training systems.Ultimately, there is a dynamic tension to be negotiated

between structural rigidity and responsive adaptability.The need for "flexibility," necessary deviation from thechosen path, is often noted in the periodization literaturebut is not discus.sed in any depth. This lack of attention,in the midst of a heavy focus on predetermined trainingstructures, imparts the impression that deviation is some-times necessary but generally unwelcome. Conversely,the perspective materializing from this reframing sug-gests that

• Deviation from the preplanned path is desirable,should be actively sought, and the training manage-ment system designed to facilitate, rather than sup-press, consistent modulation.

• A crucial component of effective training processesis the systematic capture and review of pertinent datathat are then employed to drive future direction.

Many, perhaps most, elite coaches already integrateaspects of this approach in their practical work. However,there remains an evident dissonance between the realityof elite practice, the reality of contemporary biologicalmodels, and the theoretical positions habitually forwardedin the periodization literature.

Moving ForwardEinstein once remarked that everything should be madeas simple as possible, but not simpler. Periodizationphilosophies have reduced the complexity of the plan-ning task through the assembly of superticially logical

248 Kiely

Table 1 Sample Information Capture andTracking Options

Quantifying trainingstress Sample metrics

Pretraining readiness

In-training variables

Perceived readiness ratingObjective readiness measure(using habituated exercise track-ing)Psychomotor speed

Heart-rate variabilityEmpirical descriptors (load,sets, reps, recoveries, etc)Intensity rating (rating of per-ceived exertion per effort, set, orsession)Technical execution (qualityrating)

Assessing accumulative Recovery-Stress Questionnairestress for Athletes

Profile of Mood State

Recovery-cue

Daily Analysis of Life Demandsfor Athletes"»Heart-rate variability

Monotony (weekly averageload/SD)Strain (mean weekly load/monotony)Residual muscle-fatigue rating

Training load (rating of per-ceived exertion x training time)Total Quality RecoveryCategory Ratio Pain Scale

sets of assumptions, rules, and guidelines to constructformulaic solutions to training-organizational tasks.From this perspective, periodization templates offer auseful service. However, this usefulness comes at a cost.The downside emerges when such oversimplificationsbecome enshrined in practice, elevated to the status ofunquestioned dogma, and are perceived as validated truthsrather than grossly generalized, frequently misleadingapproximations. The result is a belief-based planningparadigm gradually becoming ever more disconnectedfrom contemporary science and elite practice.

Arguments against such areframing are immediatelyobvious. Why depart from planning paradigms that haveclearly worked in the past? Such criticism is understand-able but flawed. Within performance environments acommonly forwarded argument, opposing innovation, isan appeal to the weight of history, to point to celebratedchampions who scaled great heights using conventionallypervasive methodologies. However, despite its persuasivepower, such a rationale presents a damaging logical

inconsistency. An unbiased evaluation of the worth ofany training scheme requires that both successes and"failures" be factored into analysis. As such, the high-lighting of isolated high-achieving exemplars to confirmthe superiority of any planning scheme while neglectingto consider those who conformed to a similar frameworkyet "failed" is a fundamentally lopsided, albeit attractive,argument. Furthermore, the training plan is but one facetof the multidimensional "performance" phenomenon.Did the planning methodology contribute to, or detractfrom, the exceptional performances of an exceptionalperformer? Would a different plan have led to greaterachievement, a longer career, less injury or illness? Ourinability to run counterfactual alternative-reality itera-tions originating from common initial conditions renderssuch arguments irresolvable. Instead, we must rely oncritical reflection, informed by evidence, contextual-ized against conceptual understanding, and cleared ofpresumption. Ultimately, historical prevalence is notsupporting evidence.

Appeals to coaching experience are similarlyinstinctively persuasive. However, in complex environ-ments, an appreciation of the uniquely tangled web ofcircumstances underpinning observable behaviors shouldcaution against the presumption that previously success-ful strategies will prove similarly successful in the future.The history of every complex planning domain—medical,political, military, financial—is replete with examples ofexperts who assumed that previous success bestowed anability to forecast the future consequences of imposedactions—a confidence directly contravening a substantialevidence base.̂ '*" '̂''̂

A more legitimate concern relates to the lack ofperceptive, validated monitoring tools. It should beacknowledged that no single assessment, or battery ofassessments, is likely to be universally applicable acrossdomains or groups of individuals (as previously noted^").In the absence of ready-made solutions, the design of anefficient training process may be considered an explor-atory, slowly evolving, meticulously documented, single-subject trial-and-error experiment.

An appreciation of both the philosophical originsunderpinning cultural planning convention and the natureof biological complexity may caution against reliance ongeneralized rule-based planning and automatized trainingdecision making—a reliance that ultimately constrainsour vision of available training strategies, impedes criticalthinking, and suppresses coaching creativity.

References

1. Taylor FW. The Principles ofSeientifie Management. NewYork, NY: Harper atid Brothers; 1911.

2. Hindle T. Guide to Matwgement Ideas and Gurus. London,UK: Profile Books; 2008.

3. Tetlock P. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It?How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress; 2005.

Periodization Paradigms 249

4. Gilovich T, Griffin D. Introduction—heuristics and biases:then and now. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds.Heuristies and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judge-ment. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002; I-18.

5. Bompa TO. Periodization Training: Theory and Methodol-ogy. 4th ed. Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics; 1999.

6. Matveyev LP. Fundamentals of Sport Training. Moscow;Progress Publishers; 1981.

7. Brown LE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models.Nat Strength CondAssoc. 2001;23(l);42-44.

8. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology andphysiology of training periodization. Sports Med.2010;40(3); 189-206. PubMed doi;10.2165/l 1319770-000000000-00000

9. Brown LE, Greenwood M. Periodization essentials andinnovations in resistance training protocols. Strength CondJ. 20O5;27(4);8O-85.

10. Siff MC, Verkhoshansky YV. Supertraining. 4th ed.Denver, CO; Supertraining International. 1999.

11. Vim A. Adaptation in Sports Training. Boca Raton, FL;CRC Press; 1995.

12. Zatsiorsky VM. Science and Praetiee of Strength Training.Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics; 1995.

13. Verchoshansky V. Organisation of the training process.New SttidAthl. 1998;13(3)21-31.

14. Tschiene P. The Priority of the Biological Aspect in the"Theory of Training." Adelaide, Australia: South Austra-lian Sports Institute; 1992.

15. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, Schilling BK, et al. Periodiza-tion part 2; effects of manipulating volume and intensity.Strength Cond J. 1999;21(3);54-60.

16. Graham J. Periodization: research and an example applica-tion. Strength Cond J. 2002;24(6):62-70.

17. Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodizedversus nonperiodized strength and power training pro-grams. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2004;75(4);4l3-422. PubMed

18. Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R. Periodization: the effect onstrength of manipulating volume and intensity. J StrengthCond Res. 1994;8(4):235-242.

19. DeBeliso M, Harris C, Spitzer-Gibson T, Adams KJ. Acomparison of periodised and fixed repetition trainingprotocol on strength in older adults. J Sei Med Sport.2005;8(2);190-199. PubMed doi;10.10l6/S1440-2440(05)80010-6

20. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with refer-ence to overtraining syndrome. Med Sei Sports Exere.1998;30;l 164-1168. PubMed doi: 10.1097/00005768-199807000-00023

21. Smith DJ. A framework for understanding the train-ing process leading to elite performance. Sports Med.2OO3;33;l 103-1126. PubMed doi;10.2165/00007256-200333150-00003

22. Kellmann M, ed. Enhancing Recovery: Preventing Under-peifomianee in Athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics;2002.

23. Suzuki S, Sato T, Takahasi Y. Diagnosis of training pro-gram for a Japanese rower by using the index of monotony.Can JAppl Physiol. 20O3;28(Suppl); 105-106.

24. Suzuki S, Sato T, Maeda A. Takahasi Y. Program designbased on a mathematical model using rating of perceivedexertion for an elite Japanese sprinter; a case study. JStrength Cond Res. 2006;20(l):36-^2. PubMed

25. Verhoshansky Y. The end of 'periodization' in thetraining of high-performance sport. Mod Athl Coach.1999;37(2);14-18.

26. Tschiene P. A necessary direction in training; the inte-gration of biological adaptation in the training program.Coaeh Sport Sei J. 1995; 1:2-14.

27. Skinner JS, Jaskólski A, Krasnoff J, et al. Age, sex, race,initial fitness, and response to training: the HERITAGEFamily Study. J Appl Physiol. 2001 ;90(5); 1770-1776.PubMed

28. Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, et al.Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateralresistance training. Med Sei Sports Exerc. 2005;37;964-972. PubMed doi; 10.1097/00005768-200505001-00881

29. Timmons JA. Variability in training-induced skeletalmuscle adaptation. JAppl Physiol. 2011 ; 110(3);846-853.

30. Beavan CM, Gill ND, Cook CJ. Salivary testosteroneand Cortisol responses in professional rugby players afterfour resistance exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res.2008;22(2);426-431.

31. Beavan CM. Cook CJ, Gill ND. Significant strength gainsobserved in rugby players after specific resistance exer-cise protocols based on individual salivary testosteroneresponses, y 5ire«g//) Cotid Res. 2008;22(2):419^25.

32. Bird SP, Tarpenning KM. Influence of circadian timestructure on acute hormonal responses to a single bout ofheavy-resistance exercise in weight-trained men. Chrono-biollnt. 2004;21(l);131-146.

33. Hirschenhauser K, Frigerio D, Grammer K, MagnussonMS. Monthly patterns of testosterone and behaviour inprospective fathers. Horm Behav. 2002;42(2):172-I81.

34. Schultheiss OC, Rohde W. Implicit power motivationpredicts men's testosterone changes and implicit learningin a contest situation. Horm Behav. 2002;41 (2); 195-202.

35. Filaire E. Lac G, Pequignot J. Biological, hormonal, andpsychological parameters in professional soccer playersthroughout a competitive season. Percept Mot Skills.2OO3;97;IO61-1O72.

36. Rogers NL, Szuba MP, Staab JP. et al. Neuroimmunologicaspects of sleep and sleep loss. Semin Clin Neuropsyehia-iry. 2001;6(4):295-.307.

37. Aubert A. Psychosocial stress, emotions and cyto-kine-related disorders. Recent Pat Inflamm AllergyDrug Diseov. 2008;2(2) ; I 3 9 - 1 4 8 . PubMeddoi: 10.2174/187221308784543647

38. Stranahan AM, Khalil D, Gould E. Social isolation delaysthe positive effects of running on adult neurogenesis. NatNeurosei. 20O6;9:526-533. PubMed doi: 10.1038/nn 1668

39. Savtchouk I, Liu SJ. Remodeling of synaptic AMPA recep-tor subtype alters the probability and pattem of actionpotential ñúng.JNeurosei. 2011;31(2):501-511. PubMeddoi; 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2608-10.2011

40. Carl DL, Tyree B, Strasser S. Effect of environment andtraining on mood states of competitive swimmers. MedSei Sports Exere. 2OOI;33(5);Suppl abst 1252.

250 Kiely

41. Paulus MP, Potterat EG, Taylor MK, et al. A neurosci-ence approach to optimizing brain resources for humanperformance in extreme environments. Neurosci BiobehavRev. 2009;33(7):1080-1088. PubMed doi: 10.1016/j.neu-biorev.2009.05.003

42. Kelman BB. Occupational hazards in female balletdancers: advocate for a forgotten population. AAOHN J.2000;48(9):430-434.

43. Glass L. Review article: synchronization and rhythmicprocesses in physiology. Nature. 2001:410:277-284.PubMed doi: 10.1038/35065745

44. Van Regenmortel MHV. The rational design of bio-logical complexity: a deceptive metaphor. Proteomics.2007:7:965-975. PubMed doi:10.1002/pmic.200600407

45. Gell-Mann M. The simple and the complex. In: AlbertsDS, Czerwinski TJ, eds. Complexity, Global Politics, andNational Security. Washington, DC: National DefenseUniversity; 1997:2-18.

46. Issurin V. New horizons for the methodology and physi-ology of training periodization: block periodization: new

horizon or a false dawn? Sports Med. 2010;40(9):805-807.doi: 10.2165/11535120-000000000-00000

47. Breil FA, Weher SN, Koller S. et al. Block trainingperiodization in alpine skiing: effects of II-day HITon VO2max and performance. Eur J Appl Physiol.2010;109(6): 1077-1086. PubMed doi : 10.1007/.s00421-010-1455-1

48. Kiely J. Planning for physical performance: the individualperspective, planning, periodization, prediction; and whythe future ain't what it used to be! In: Collins D. ButtonA, Richards H, eds. Performance Psychology for Physi-cal Environments: A Practitioner's Guide. Oxford, UK:Elsevier; 2011:1.39-160.

49. Patel VL, Kauftnan DR. Conceptual and procedural errorsin medical decision-making. In: Proceedings of the Cogni-tive Society Conference. Erlbaum:2000.

50. Borresen J, Lambert Ml. The quantification of train-ing load, the training response and the effect on per-formance. Sports Med. 2009;39(9):779-795. PubMeddoi: 10.2165/11317780-000000000-00000

Copyright of International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance is the property of Human Kinetics

Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.