What’s Wrong With Periodization: Part Dos

I'm in Calella, Spain, near Barcelona, for my Women's-Only Triathlon Camp over the next week. So I'm working on my Spanish a bit. Hence, the "dos" in the title. I took 4 years of high school Spanish but have never used it other than to say "hola" or "gracias" to Spanish-speaking folks in the Phoenix area. I've run in to quite a few Spaniards in the last couple of days who speak no English, which is rare in many parts of the world today. I've grown a bit lazy with my foreign language usage when traveling outside of the USA as a result. So I'm making a concerted effort in the coming week to use Espanol whenever I can. I'll let you know how I do.

Now onto the business at hand.

Today Jim Vance, one of our TrainingBible coaches, told me of an article he read in which a noted triathlon coach basically said that periodization was useless. I try to keep my blood pressure down but this is one of those hot-button topics for me. It comes up quite frequently, it seems. So Jim and I talked about what periodization is - and isn't.  It's basically a method for organizing training relative to time. Nothing more than that. A couple of years ago I wrote a blog on this same topic, so rather than go through all of that again, here's that blog from November, 2008.

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

Someone sent me a note a couple of days ago mentioning an emailed newsletter she had received. In it the author noted that a recent presenter at a training conference had said there was no research showing that periodization is effective and therefore it shouldn’t be used. She wanted to know what I thought. In a way the presenter is right: There is no research that I have ever found that compares periodization with some other training model to find which is more effective. I just confirmed that by doing a PubMed search on “periodization training.” There were 41 results. Every one of them simply compared various types of periodization to see which worked better or mentioned periodization in the study’s design.

I also did a search on “breathing exercise.” There were 5,248 results. I looked through the first few pages and didn’t find a single one that showed breathing was superior to not breathing. So by the same logic that means you shouldn’t breathe while exercising.

I realize that I am being some what facetious here. I get this sort of thing all of the time. People, usually coaches, create periodization straw men and then attack them. The common straw complaints are that periodization is too regimented, too generalized, not customized, not unique, or does not take into account all aspects of competition. I think what they are actually describing is their lack of understanding of periodization.

I define periodization as the organization of an athlete’s training with respect to time. How one chooses to do that organization is an individual matter. I really only know of one alternative to periodization and that is random training. Since there is no organization it isn’t periodized. (By the way, random training may be quite good for novices.)

Many have come to think of periodization as having rigid guidelines that must be followed: 7-day weeks, volume preceding intensity, specific workouts at specific times, no concern for the individual’s unique needs, and more. Periodization isn’t this at all. It’s actually quite free-flowing and creative. A coach or athlete can do anything with it they wish—so long as it works.

This later point is the key—so long as it works. In my Training Bible books I laid out very specific training protocols that the self-coached athlete can follow to simplify the process because they generally work for everyone. But do you know how often I follow those same, exact protocols with the athletes I coach? Never. Why? Because I’ve been doing this long enough now that I am aware of lots of alternatives and how they might best be combined for a given athlete’s unique situation. I don’t expect the self-coached athlete with no background in sport science to understand or even see all of the alternatives any more than I would understand anything beyond basic accounting practices while my accountant could see multiple issues and solutions.

So, should you decide to scrap periodization and do something undefined but otherwise new and different? My bet is that whatever this unknown alternative may be it is just another version of periodization, but with a new name.

Comments

[Tim]

Thx Joe for taking your time to clarify this topic.

Can't wait for part dos.

/Tim

[greg Hinrichsen]

In my mind, run coach Arthur Lydiard's high percentage of coaching wins, with a small pool of athletes from New Zealand, proved the value of periodization. The usual Kiwi suspects on the Olympic podium were Peter Snell, Murray Halberg, Barry McGee, and John Davies. At least periodization gives you a chance to pick a favorite race and be at your best for it...otherwise your results could be as random as your training. If you go hard all year as some coaches recommend, you run the risk of being sick of it all by the time the big races roll around.

[Paul H]

There is an interesting other point here, which is that anyone can call themselves a coach and espouse their own opinions as fact. It doesn't mean that they know anything at all about physiology, sports science or the diversity of different training methodology. Misunderstanding the term periodization is a classic example of a superficial level of knowledge in the area.

[Luke_majewski]

I'm actually a bit confused here. I understand that the typical understanding of periodization might be too rigid, however I don't see how you can define periodization simply as "an organization of training with respect to time". How does this differ from simply saying "structured" or "unstructured" training? I was under the impression that the definition included the structure above but with an additional concept of building on appropriate physiological systems at the appropriate times.

[Joe Friel]

Luke_majewski--There are many subpoints that we might call the principles of periodization. But in it's most basic definition it's structuring training relative to time.

[Peter]

Buenos dias Joe!

I am a self coached athlete, and I have been worried recently that my slightly different approach to periodization is hurting me in the long term. I have read your books, and most of the periodization that I read about revolves around a couple weeks of building, then a recovery, more build, recover, etc, until a peak and taper. My work schedule is a bit hectic so I often end up having alternating weeks of high volume, low volume. So rather than building for a couple weeks, I end up building for about 10 days, then the next 5-7 days are at a lower volume. Example- the past 4 weeks I have gone 9 hours, 14 hours, 8 hours, 17 hours.

Is this a bad approach? I should also indicate that I'm training for my first IM.

Un saludo cordial,
Peter

[Joe Friel]

Peter--Can't really say as there are lots of things I don't know about you. The best indicator is how you are doing in test sets, standard workouts and races. If these are showing good progress then its working.

[Luke_majewski]

Joe, that makes sense now. I was missing the difference between "Structured training" and "Structured training relative to time". So whether you follow macro and/or micro approach to your schedule is a nuance of periodization. Thanks!

[Jay]

Joe, I'm on a 3 week on, 1 wk recovery training schedule. I have a dilemma coming up in a couple of weeks: the first week of my build period is gonna fall on a week I know I will not have much training time available. What would the adverse effects be of swapping the 4th week (recovery wk) of Base3 with the first week of Build 1 week. In other words, delay my recovery week so that I have 4 wks on to end my base period, a recovery week, then only 2 weeks of Build 1 before another recovery week.

[Joe Friel]

Jay--If not carrying heavy load of fatigue then that is probably ok.

[david julien]

I get frustrated when I hear people talking this way aboout periodization. We all know that doing anything will get us fit. For me the biggest benifit is having a purpose driven program. I have been racing since I was 12years old(now 42) and have been only using periodization for the last 5-6 years Periodization gives me a sense of confidence that I have done everything I can once I get on that starting line! I choose less races and focus more on quality rather than quantity. I used to race in Europe and had many great races, but I can tell you I have a greater sense of purpose and accomplishment these days. Plus I tend to be able to let go of my bike when not training and enjoy life, because I know I am on track. Joe not to be too dramatic, but your books allow me to keep cycling a main part of my life while still being able to have a great family life and successful carreer. Thanks!!

dave