[absolution]

I have just had to write a presentation for Uni on Periodisation in sport.
The more I research the further away I get from deciding which method is best.
My understanding is that they are sport/athlete and situation specific.
I also think it is wrong to pick a ready made template and follow it blindly. Choose methods that suit each situation at that time.
Any views?

[Franz29]

Can't fault your logic at all; I feel some periodisation is good in all aspects of exercise - even if it's just a back off week every now and then in a GPP type program. Constantly battering the same metabolic pathways, as seems popular in some systems, is a hiding to nothing and does not consistent champions build.

For a competing athlete I would argue it's imperative; work on the principle that during a season or event the athlete should be in the best condition possible at the start and should try to maintain that as the season goes on.

As for the template idea, it's good in principle and can form a baseline but the coach needs to be able to modify it per the needs of the athlete. No one athlete is the same as another so a cookie cutter approach just won't work.

[Mark]

Yes 100% for periodisation for a specifc time bound goal etc

The plan has to be built around the athlete. But teams make that difficult, hence why once the Gpp stuff in rugby union is done they break into forwards and backs for the Gpp specifics for them and then the individualised periodisation plans for each athlete: that's why working for a team is a huge job.

Periodisation is how you assess the required needs for the individual and how you break that up into the required cycles etc baselines have been set: Bompa etc but that doesn't mean it's right! The first part of any periodisation plan should start with the athletes strengths and weakness's and needs pertinent to the game/event etc and then work from there. Whether it is for a team or an individual athlete.

GPP as most people understand it, is crossfit and it is just that Gpp if you follow as prescribed. However if you look at the fast Fran for example they would have specifically trained for that, so then it becomes a PLAN with rest etc built in and a time for when they go for it etc so then that becomes a form of periodisation. Just like the crossfit games there is an absolute date to train for and lots of event guessing so that they can periodise their training. Nobody is true Gpp they will ways be a goal, bigger DL faster 5k etc and once that happens plans come into it, hence most peoples training if serious will have an element of periodisation, even taking a few extra rest days prior to going for your biggest DL is a mini periodisation plan.

So yes, hugely important to have a plan for a competitive athlete.

My thoughts on why in the general populace why periodisation fell out of favour is that it requires alot of dedication and people don't want to be seen as saying I do it, so what.

Well I do it, if I have a goal and as a bodybuilder you do it/have done it. So you have your answer, could you have achieved your bb goals without Periodisation? I think I can safely say no.

[Gubernatrix]

The other side of the argument - which Mark Rippetoe among others puts quite well - is that people move to a periodised programme too soon, before they have fully exploited the potential for linear progression.

I agree that it is athlete-specific. The Bulgarians (why does someone always bring up the Bulgarians? ) under Abadjiev seemed to choose athletes who thrived under constant near max work with relatively little periodisation. They were just constantly pushing boundaries.

[absolution]

Thanks guys.
I think Seyles GAS theory explains it best. Too little training, no adaptation. Too much, breakdown. Just enough, perfect. There are lots of ways to achieve it. Sports and athletes are different. Yes, as a bodybuilder I seem to instinctively periodise. Moving from 5,3,1 to push, pull, legs to Cressey maximum strength.

[Ed Flood]

Been thinking about this a lot lately and plan on implementing some crude version of periodisation in the new year with the goal to become stronger->more powerful->fitter in that order. I don't seem to be one of those people who can do it all at once so plan to roll with periods of specialisation.

-Jan-Feb will be strength focused and the plan is to get a big low bar squat while keeping in touch with the olympic lifts. Gonna reinforce that by competing in the national single lifts in February.

-Feb-April will involve hammering the olympic lifts with an eye on the nationals at the end of April and the Leinster open in June.

-Following this I'll hammer the conditioning in preparation for the september crossfit invitational and lose some lard (anybody want some? I've loads!)

-Towards the winter I'll chain myself to the squat rack again and will try to run a Smolov base+intense cycle. If I can't squat by then I might as well crawl into a hole.

Any ideas?

[Gubernatrix]

My personal experience is that for competitive cycles, you need to focus on that sport, so doing one week of one and one week of another is not effective (not for me anyway).

For non-competitve cycles, it might be different. I note, for example, that the best Crossfit athletes seem to maintain decent strength across the various lifts quite well without obvious periodisation. However they are not trying to peak for competitions.

I know someone who does what Ed is suggesting and it works for him. It's somewhat of a compromise but if you want to compete in different events throughout the year, it makes sense.

Also, if you are a reasonably experienced athlete (as Ed is), you can profitably do strength cycles that last 2-3 months. In fact, it's difficult to train 'strength' all year round - you need to give your body a break.

I've just done a 12-week weightlifting programme (unfortunately I had to compress it somewhat as I didn't have 12 weeks but it still worked), which was 7 weeks of predominantly strength work followed by 5 weeks of competition prep work. Both cycles had strength and technical work in them, but the proportions and volume were different. If you are interested in taking a look, the programme is here. I did the 4-day programme and a friend did the 3 day programme. We both made progress and got stronger on these.

[Ed Flood]

Greg, I think a problem with that system is that I'd only get to snatch one week out of three and I tend to feel technically rusty if I go even a week without snatching. Also the best strength gains I've ever obtained were from squatting four days a week, it seems that keeping in touch with heavy weights and really pushing for a period of 4-8 weeks works fairly well for me. I think that may be a mental thing though. Any time I decided to squat once a week or fortnight I felt like I was just "going through the motions" and made little progress while doing so. It's difficult to even know how to give something my full attention if I haven't done it for three weeks!

I'll take a look at that programme during the week Gubes, I'm program shopping at the moment and need something that won't kill me and this looks reasonable! Cheers for posting it.

[Cho]

I'm looking at running madcow 5*5 once my back is better and I can get my squat numbers up - I've only heard good things. I'd also like to try wendler's 5/3/1 too as that comes quite reccomended. However, I do quite enjoy the options you have when running a conjugate program.

[Gubernatrix]

Ed, the four-day programme involves squatting every session (alternating front squat and back squat). I really liked this althought it was hard on my hip flexors!

[Ed Flood]

I'll get moving on that program as soon as I can get training (hopefully tomorrow). I like the sneaky bench work too