THE PATH TO A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
OF SPORTS TRAINING

PART 2

YV Verkhoshansky

Why has the concept of "periodisation" in sports training stopped the clock?
Today there is no sense in furthering its weaknesses and promoting its
explicitly absurd ideas. We shall leave it for history and student projects
and we shall now confine our attention mainly to methodological and
scientific inadequacies in this concept so as to avoid similar errors in the
future.

1. The most serious defect in periodisation is its lack of theoretical
validity, and its neglect of biological and scientific advances in sport.

Today already there is no need to convince anyone of the necessity to
establish biologically sound theories of sports training, since this has
repeatedly been pointed out by experts already. However, Matveev, the author
of periodisation does not disguise his uncooperative altitude to accepting
biological knowledge, but states that biological laws do not determine the
macrostructure of training, or define the laws for management of sporting
form.

To be honest, Matveev sometimes does flirt with theories of adaptation. He
even shows familiarity with the molecular mechanisms of adaptation (in
Meersona's work) and does not object to "the further development of
principles of sports training more and more strongly and consistently should
be based on the theory of adaptation of the body to the physical loads,
generated in present physiology and molecular biology�. . He admits that "the
laws of adaptive processes play a part in organising the adaptative restructur
ing caused by sports activity". But, in the same breath, he declares, that
"adaptation is only one of several aspects of raising the sportsman to new
achievements ".and that a less important aspect of this process comprises
"restructuring the state of adaptation developing at certain stages�.

The theory of adaptation should, in Matveev’s opinion, only complement the
theory of training and confirm its principles. Similar reasoning punctuates
his work, as becomes evident when he states that "the priority issue in
interpreting the process of sports perfection and the phenomena connected
with it should belong not to the theory of adaptation, but the theory of
practical progress� .

To appreciate a degree of methodological and scientific depth to
periodisation, it is necessary to pay attention to one issue. The author of
the concept makes a rather strange deduction. Investigations in sports
physiology, in his opinion, logically contain the deep description of the
physiological foundations of training, but apparently "do not contain the
direct answer to the question of how both cellular and molecular mechanisms
and processes provide the foundation for increased efficiency of bodily
functioning " .

He declares that he “has ratified at the present time the system of
constructing training in the form of increasing intensity empirically found
to provide optimum involvement of cellular structures in the body crucial
for adaptation to physical loads.� Furthermore, he affirms that cyclically
constructed training appear effective not only for adaptation to large
physical loads, but also regarding "complex coordination (for example, in
shooting for accuracy)". This implies a far-reaching conclusion about the
interrelation of function and genetic processes, through which a load
implicates different structures representing the universal mechanism both at
a level of the nervous centres and at a level the executor bodies.

There is no sense in offering further examples of similar pseudoscientific
reasoning. The above examples are quite enough to illustrate, first, the
gravity of their errors; secondly, that they do not further the cause of
periodisation, and; thirdly, that leading Soviet sports scientists bypassed
the periodisation movement and did not burn with the desire to join it.

Let's pay attention only to one issue. If we examine the bibliographies of
Matveev’s publication, the work of physiologists who are quoted by the
author, such as Zimkin, Krestovnikov, Farfel and Jakovlev, refers to the
1950s. This implies that the scientific knowledge of the author is limited
to 40 years ago. If he was more familiar with the work even of domestic
scientific schools (Farfel, Jakovlev, Viru, Kassil, Letunov), as well as with
discoveries of physiology and molecular biology in sports and their
application in the theory of sports training, his judgements about "the
synthesis of nucleic acids and fibers� and "a system structural trace" would
have been more cautious. Moreover, his conclusions based only on
pedagogical principles of training rather than on work, for example, by
Meersona, on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of adaptation to physical
loads would have been less categorical.

-------------------------------

2. There are methodological and scientific inadequacies in periodisation,
such as the obvious confusion of the concepts of "law", "principles",
"fundamental positions " and so forth, the confusion being caused by strange
and futile attempts to devise novel terms in the structuring of sports
training.

The principles of sports training, as stated in Matveev’s writings, are "the
generalization of major empiricisms from a group of sports " and "reflect
biological laws of adaptation and sports training". This is a strange
deduction, because knowledge of the training process is under construction
and such observations constitute largely subjective views of the content,
structure and a sequence of progress in sports training. Certainly, with
respect to advanced physical training, there are no "laws" in the rigorous
sense of this word.

The vague terminology which declares periodisation as one of "the
fundamental laws� of sports training, includes examples such as: "The
interrelation of the general and specialized preparation of the sportsman�,
as well as "Continuity and cyclicity of training process, "unity of
gradualness and the tendency to maximum loads ","waviness of dynamics of a
load" and so forth. Yet, it is well-known that progress in the major
sports is connected with deeper processes than it is represented by
periodisation, the principles of transformation of physical potential, the
pedagogical stimulation of the unity of general and specialized physical
preparation and maximization of specialized physical loads and
functionalities of the body.

It is quite natural that the unscrupulous confusion of theories and concepts
with "laws" has led to obvious confusion with "principles" of sports
training. In this regard, the analysis of 17 textbooks on sports for
students reveals that their authors do not distinguish between the principles
of the Soviet system of physical training, and the specialized principles of
sports training, often reducing them to one group of principles of sports
training. Finally, 39 names for similar principles may be found.

Thus, in connection with the absence of a strong scientific basis for
periodisation, its conceptual framework is intrinsically controversial,
largely being far-fetched and unsubstantiated. It not only cannot serve as an
effective working tool for organising the training process, but in fact
serves as a factor which retards progress of training and the proper
preparation of the trainer's staff.

------------------------------------------

3. The basis of periodisation started with so-called phases of sports
development as decreed within the ideological concept of dynamics of sports
by the Council of Federation. This idea was borrowed from work by
Letunova and Prokop, one of the first studies which concluded that the basis
of perfecting sports training was determined by biological laws governing the
progress of adaptation to conditions of sports activity. They identified
three phases of this process: (a) increased trainability in sporting form,
(b) reduction in trainability (c) optimal adaptation.

However we are given the impression that, having failed to understand and
professionally develop a deep biological appreciation of the ideas of
Letunova and Prokop, the author of periodisation, Matveev, could not rise
above his primitive "pedagogical" interpretation of the nature of training.
He limited himself by not seriously examining the rigid laws of development
and management laid down by the Council of Federation, but simply changed the
name of its phases. To move forward, it is necessary to discard the old form
and produce the new.

It is easy to see, that sort of representation about the nature of training
on a position statement of dynamics by the Council of Federation offers a
limited picture of a multivariate phenomenon. Similar reasoning which was
acceptable as scientific revelation in the 1960s today look very odd.

Nevertheless, the concept of the Council of Federation was transformed into a
doctrine, some sort of "transcendental object". Despite never-ending
discussions of its dynamics, phases of development, laws of progress, and so
forth, nowhere was there any intelligible explanation of biological essence
of all these enigmatic attributes. As a result of such theorising, Matveev,
the author of periodisation has remained stuck at the level of the 1950s and
has removed any scientific basis and prospect of progress from periodisation.

The impression exists, however, that author of periodisation all the same
does appreciate the inadequacies of the laws of progression laid down by the
Council of Federation as the foundation of periodisation training, but
obstinately ignores already prolific research on adaptation of the body to
intense muscular activity under sporting conditions, the process of
development of sporting skill, the specializations of the body during
long-term training, and the dynamics of the athlete’s condition in response to
set training loads.