JV Verhoshansky on Periodisation

THE PATH TO A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
OF SPORTS TRAINING (PART 1)

JV Verhoshansky

THE PROBLEM

Already there is no official program in physical education for teaching the
theory of sports training as based upon the concept of so-called
'periodisation' born in the 1960s. Until now, it strongly guided sports
practice, but already for a long time it has lost the theoretical and
practical importance. Today, quantitative facts from adjacent sciences (first
of all the issue of biological cycles), have elevated sports training to a
new qualitative level, but similar publications to those of the past have reta
rded progress of scientific knowledge in sports, causing irreparable harm to
the professional training of domestic experts and sportsmen of all levels of
skill. Finally, periodisation is one factor that has belittled the former
stature of our sports science.

Worldwide recognition of this theory, putting it mildly, do not represent the
real facts. On the contrary, the opinion of the broad foreign authorities in
the field of sports training and trainers reveals just the opposite. Here
the out-of-date concept of 'periodisation' is promoted as the appropriate
scientific theory and methodology of sports training. Such theory is
represented by knowledge drawn completely from pedagogical sources and not
the biological sciences.

And because biological sciences undoubtledly should lay the foundations for
sports science and training, the recognized authorities from allied sciences
(physiology, biomechanics, biochemistry, medicine, psychology) should be
involved to balance out the opinions of philosophers and methodologists.

This article analyzes the state of the art of the 'official' theory of
sports training and the causes of its crisis.

STATUS OF THE PROBLEM

The fundamental methodology of the present system of sports training was
developed by Russian trainers in the early 1950s, in connection with the
preparation of the Soviet sportsmen for the XV Olympic Games in Helsinki
(1952) and other international competitions. The practical experience up till
that time was generalized and submitted as the concept of "periodisation"
training (abbreviated as periodisation). Because at that time questions about
the theory of training did not become subject matter for the attention of
more serious experts, and because Soviet athletes successfully performed on
the world stage, periodisation, as the first generalised aspect of the
theory of sports training to emerge from behind the "Iron Curtain", naturally
attracted the attention of foreign experts.

The concept of "periodisation" has gradually become a synonym for "the
scheduling of training", so that many experts and trainers from the Soviet
Union, and overseas, till now have used this far-fetched, conceptual device
called periodisation, referring to it as one of the more progressive ways of
organising the training process. However, periodisation not only has not
necessarily found broad support in practice, but also has been criticized in
our country, and abroad.

Experts consider, that the out-of-date periodisation notion of training does
not answer the demands of present sports, does not assist growth of the
functional reserves of sportsmen and it hinders the progress of achievements
in sport. Finally, it has caused recent wasteful results.

Periodisation is not a model of system of training for elite sportsmen and
should be rejected or modified according to features of a present calendar of
competitions and tendencies in progress of world sports. At best, separate
forms of periodisation can be used by novice and young athletes.

The typical mechanical division of annual training into periods and
'mesocycles' in periodisation has been based on the short-term experience of
preparation of athletes during the early stage of formulating the Soviet
system of training (of the 1950s) and mainly on the example of three sports
(swimming, weightlifting, track and field athletics), therefore cannot be
plausible or universal. It is emphasized, that any system of training should
be based not so much on logic and empirical experience, but much more on
physiology.

Many publications indicate that the principles and methodical recommendations
of periodisation do not conform to the demands and progress of the major
sports. They do not conform, in particular, to actual conditions of
preparation of athletes in sports requiring endurance, in gymnastics, track
and field and other sports. Periodisation does not provide or propose
methodical decisions for the effective physical preparation of athletes in
different sports. Periodisation also incorrectly stresses certain
objectives, tasks, principles, ideas and tendencies of the training process.

Russian experts in cyclic sports, guided by periodisation, have applied
outdated training methods which for many years have retarded progress of
sports results. Such procedure is insufficiently scientifically proven and is
not capable of providing preparation of athletes. Plans to produce high
results should not be based on training to achieve notorious "peaks of sports
form", but to meet the ongoing demands over all the competitive season as
required by the present sports calendar.

The causes of the crisis in cyclic sports in Soviet Union are considered in
detail in Mellenberga's work. This author emphasizes that extensive
experimentation has not confirmed the efficiency of the stage-by-stage
technique of constructing training as proposed by Matveev, and states that
"it is not known how much our athletes will continue to be disadvantaged by
methodical miscalculations using similar concepts".

Experts point out that the successful African (in particular, Kenyan)
athletes train in the mountains and have certain genetic predispositions as
confirmed by Soviet experts, and that they have not implemented periodisation
in their training. They have added that African athletes should not imitate
Europeans.

In an article entitled "Periodisation - Plausible or Piffle?", Horwill
examines why the concept of periodisation, based on the theory of Matveev, is
inapplicable in the present preparation of runners. In another publication
the same author condemns "the slavish worship of the theory of periodisation
as used by some runners in different countries". He stresses that "Soviet
runners did not improve world records in running middle distances and the
British runners who used the Russian concept of periodisation did not gain
gold medals on Olympic games over the last 30 years, but produced great
achievements before they used such concepts. British runners started to use
Matveev's block scheme of periodisation widely after 1980 and from then on
their results showed a disturbing tendency to decline".

It is interesting to note that, even if periodisation has been accepted
without reservation in many countries of the world, it has not found
universal use.

One of sports magazines has published an interview with the expert S Zanon
regarding the knowledge which the USSR and countries falling under its
influence developed in the field of sports training during the period from
1960 to 1980, He emphasized the importance of rejecting this theory and
replacing it with a doctrine that is more scientifically adequate. He states
that "if the concept of training is defined not on the basis of biological
research. As it is offered by this Soviet theory based on concepts which
bear no relation to the actual conditions of sports progress, it follows that
programs of training show a high probability of loss of sporting talent."

The well-known German theorist,Tschiene, who has analysed a number of present
training concepts, has noted that periodisation has not changed from the
moment of its first publication (1965). Although the big sports and
scientific achievements have moved far ahead, many trainer's doctrines have
not progressed or given way to other more progressive approaches. In this
connection it is difficult for me to understand why Professor Matveev has not
noticed the signs or has not wanted to notice them, even though difficulties
concerning the use of his block diagram in sports for a long time became
noticeable. Therefore the theory that he proposed for periodizing the yearly
cycle should be transformed or replaced with more current doctrines,
involving more specific principles stressing the role of competitive
exercises and the individualization of training according to changes in
international practice.

In Italy the fundamental work on periodisation training not only was not
translated into any other languages, but also has undergone critical analysis
in a specially issued booklet. It questions the certainty and practical
efficiency of a concept based only on the training of swimmers,
weightlifters and athletes in the period approximately from 1950 to 1960.

From many other remarks one should stress the artificiality and clumsiness of
classifying the various "micro-" and "meso-" cycles, as well as how
misunderstanding of those terms can distort the design of a training program.
For instance, the use of an unloading microcycle in a given "mesocycle"
while the body of the sportsman is in a state of supercompensation does not
take into account the sometimes random effects of average and small waves of
loads on the body. As a result, the authors conclude that "organizing
training according to the model of Matveev can be used only by athletes of
low qualification".

So, we see that periodisation relies on old data, but its creator does not
cease to state that it is still appropriate. He persistently does not
acknowledge the critic, declaring that his concepts are still significantly
productive, theoretically valid and methodologically attract broad
international recognition. He is offended by complaints which he ignores, so
that the distorted interpretation of his doctrine have virtually become the
most fashionable phenomenon in some training publications of recent years.

Despite numerous invitations to "creative and efficient critical discussion"
of his ideas, Matveev nevertheless considers periodisation as a one-way
street with traffic that is legally adjusted to only one viewpoint, that as
German expert, Tschiene, has noted, excludes any possibility of creative
discussion for the advancement of the theory of sports training. This is one
of the main causes of the crisis in our domestic theories of sports training.

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

PART 2 TO FOLLOW

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.

THE PATH TO A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
OF SPORTS TRAINING

PART 3

JV Verhoshansky


4. Scientific and practical inadequacies in periodisation and the basis of
the theory of sports training obviously neglect biological knowledge and
reduce them to general pedagogics. Undoubtedly, general pedagogics bears a
certain relation to the theory of sports training, but does not provide
either a serious basis, nor an objective quantification of the subject matter
according to the strict scientific method. Consequently, it cannot serve as
a theoretical or methodological base for the theory of sports training.
However, pedagogical theories of sports training still managed to furnish
ample opportunity for creating unsubstantiated, eloquent mental models.

Their "scientific character" was founded on the criteria of Soviet system of
that time which relied on reasoning based on the "education of communist
morals" and on "the socio-pedagogical organization of sports activity�.
However, as is known, a house built on sand will not last forever.

It should be noted that the pedagogical (i.e. educational) model of sports
training was always accepted by the experts, as it always involved issues of
"education" of force or endurance, "education" of speed of movements, or
flexibility and so forth. However, it was explicit nonsense. It is profane
to apply such analogies. For example, if we applied that sort of analogy to
Soviet biology then, we would have party ideologists of that time fooling
science with similar concepts about the "education" of plants.

Concepts about professional skill of the trainer and scientific criteria for
training were all that simplistic. Skill was reduced according to
recommendations with even a minimum scientific foundation, often just "to
educate consciously for the ideals of communism�. The focus on overriding
pedagogical objectives of knowledge in biology, biomechanics, biophysics,
physiology and other natural sciences was not so obligatory, because they did
not cover the public scope of sports.

More specifically, the ideas of "fundamentals of sports training" and
periodisation are also equally primitive. Actually, complete and systematic
validation of these methods in academic publications is not present. However,
all of this emerged by assembling separate fragments and declarations,
including so-called pedagogical supervision, recording of sports results in
separate sports, the out-of-date analytic-synthetic principle, and the
generalization of experience of sports practice “in part supported by
research material and supplemented by theoretical reasons�.

With the purpose of giving scientific validity to these methods, it was
stated, for example, by the Council of Federation that carefully computed
analysis was essential for overcoming subjective reasoning. Such computing
analysis consisted of calculating "reasonably rigid bottom critical zones�
concerning sports achievements, with limits not being below 1.5-2.0 %
increase from personal record achievement in cyclic sports and 3-5% in power
sports. If the athlete showed results below these "critical zones", the
methods of training and levels of progress were not acceptable to the Council
of Federation.

As to the dynamics of the Council of Federation, here "the computing analysis
" consists of fitting a curve through the best results expressed in
percentage of the maximum achievement. This method is illustrated by curves
carefully drawn by hand, as it was required that the graphs reflected the
"laws of waviness of dynamics of the Council of Federation�. Today it is
unnecessary to accept orientation to sports results and the wavy dynamics
hidden in the wavy dynamics of the Council of Federation as a serious
technique for investigating the "laws" of sports training.

It is especially naive to look for verification based upon the notorious
peaks of the Council of Federation and only on the examples of two oustanding
runners, R.Klarka and H.Rono, whose organization of training is very poorly
known, besides the fact that (probably, fortunately for them) they knew
nothing about ‘periodisation’ training and the "laws of management of
dynamics of the Council of Federation�.

The weakness of periodisation emerges in its little scientific merit, its low
informative value and the uncertainty of material from which the basic
generalizations, principles and "laws" were extracted. It was derived mainly
by analysing unknown intricacies of the available data on the volume and
dynamics of the training loads performed by some athletes.

Thus, unfortunately, despite the various arguments and a technical
definitions based on the methodology and rules ostensibly contained in the
periodisation model, it may be seen that periodisation has no serious
experimental foundation and it is not "the lantern illuminating the road to
the traveller " about which Francis Bacon spoke. Consequently, the concept
of "periodisation", once conceived as the training manual for top level
sport, finally has been questioned as suitable scholastic subject matter and
has forever separated its author from advanced sciences and the practice of
sport. Therefore subsequent articles, designed on the basis of suggestions
made to unsophisticated readers about the exclusiveness and versatility of
periodisation are no longer valid.

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

5. There are serious doubts concerning the nature of periodisation and its
formalised, mechanical reductionism of the training process on the basis of
subjectively selected components of all kinds, including cycles, stages, and
periods which comprise ‘periodisation’.

The argument here was very simple: the training process and sports
perfection cannot occur outside the analogous phases of acquisition,
conservation and temporal loss as laid down by the Council of Federation.
Here, one notes that appropriate training periods stand out: preparatory, and
transitional, and the organization of "macrocyclic" training as determined
by the management of general progress by the Council of Federation. This
Council categorically asserts that "all other forms of construction of trainin
g, even though they may seem good, inevitably will die off if they contradict
the objective laws of the given process�.

Formal following of the laws of development of the Council of Federation has
resulted in distortion of representations about tasks and a content for a
long time the preparatory in sports preparatory and competitive periods. The
rectilinear logic of an explanation of their problems (preparation, then
competitions) not only conformed little to objective reality, but it also
disoriented trainers and sports scientists.

So, the preparatory period was reduced to an analogy of intense "actual
spadework" in the realm of normal society. The competitive period intended
for competitions and the "stabilization" phase were identified at the behest
of the Council of Federation and consisted of competitive and so-called
intermediate and restorative preparatory mesocycles.

Thus, in the competitive period, the traditional model of periodisation
declares that the training of athletes is only realized, restored and
supported, but such a primitive understanding of "periodisation" is far from
representing the facts. Actually, in many cyclic and team sports during the
competitive period, the level achieved earlier is trained not only for
reasons of maintenance, but also for development. If we appreciate the
theory of adaptation, the prime objective of the competitive period consists
of completing the current cycle of long-term adaptation of the body to a
specific regime, as well as raising it to a new steady level of special
functionalities.

Here also it is necessary to keep in mind the increase in the length of the
competitive period, the number of the important competitions in one year and
the intense demands of the schedule of competitions for each sport. In
particular, in international cycling, the duration of the competitive period
reaches 8-8.5 months in one year. Thus, clearly, a discrete preparatory
period cannot be long enough to allow "fundamental preparation". Therefore,
the fundamental progress of the training process actually occurs during the
long-term competitive period.

Mechanistic distinction of the preparatory and competitive periods, plus
their various tasks, has seriously disoriented sports practice and led to
extremely harmful representations of what the athlete apparently accumulates
in the preparatory period and realizes in competition.

Official plans and complex programs of preparation for the combined teams of
the country not only abounded with similar terminology, but also followed
the content and principles of the organization of training that did not
provide optimum conditions. This adversely affected decisions regarding
problems of preparation over the annual cycle, distorted all strategy for
organising training and violated the natural course of the adaptable process
which provides the foundation for progress of sporting skill. To continue to
follow principles such as "periodisation" is all the same as if an orchestra
were to liberally transpose musical scores and rules across different
muscical situations. It is equally absurd to allow periodisation to distort
modern sports in this manner.

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

Translated and adapted from Teoriya i Praktika Fizischekoi, 1997