Friel and Tudor Bompa: Outdated periodization style?

It is not as much outdated but more of incorrect application of periodization and the lack of thorough understanding of how this concept came about or how it can be better applied to endurance training. Bompa while known by some as the father of periodization is NOT the 1st to introduce this term, in fact it was Matveyev, a Russian scientist in 1965 based on a very simple and flawed 'study'. Basically what Matveyev did was to provide a questionnaire to some of the former soviet union athletes preparing for the Helsinki Olympics used the responses from this athletes to developed this theoretical concept known as periodization.

As you can imagine this 1st theory was anything but a gross simplification of what a handful of athletes did back then. For that reason scientists/coaches like, Zanon, Horwell, Tschiene and Verhoshansky heavily criticized this concept pointing out its flaws and shortcoming in particular; the poor understanding of specificity of preparation for elite athletes, the primitive way in which the data was obtained and later presented as "research", the ignorance regarding physiology specially related to endurance sports. Still, many of this coaches/scientist expanded on the concept and based on their work, it is what best resembles the training technique of elite coaches/athletes.

In addition, the findings in exercise physiology and how our bodys adapt to endurance training support the work of this scientists/coaches and the reason why periodization is still a popular concept nowadays, though one has to understand it thoroughly, its limitations and its applications. While Matveyev work might have been flawed for different reasons, still the general concept was good to the point it serve as the foundation for others to improve it

Anyway, what Bompa did was to introduce Matveyev theory to the western world based on what he interpret as periodization. I don't know how Friel came about using this but also it seems to me is nothing more than his interpretation of the work of Bompa and applied it to triathlon. Hence IMO there isn't really any much science or thorough critical thought process behind it and that's why I personally criticize Friel's interpretation.

As mentioned above, based on the work and Tschiene and Verhoshansky is what best resembles the theoretical concept of periodization today. That is nothing more than "planning the progression training" and this progression is as simple as moving the training load from general training to specific training. In more detail, that is, athletes should progress from any non-specific for the main competition particular demands and as the annual plan progresses the move to specific training which addresses all the specific aspects for a particular competition (i.e. Ironman)

Similar to that Friel took other concepts he seemingly didn't thoroughly understood (i.e. critical power) and applied it to his coaching approach. To his credit he was one of the 1st coaches to explore this ideas and that's great, however, his failure IMO is that instead of providing the frame work (sources) as to how he developed his approach for others to understand  it better and/or get informed as to what those concepts really meant. Instead, he just provided his opinions and his misinterpretations of those concepts and presented those as facts in his books which unfortunately has nowadays resulted in confusion and misunderstanding between coaches and athletes as many take this information at face value, and some is just inaccurate.

If you want to learn more about periodization read do a google search for Verhonshansky, Matveyev, Tschiene and Zonan.

So, is periodization not the way to go - or is it simply how Friel applied it in his books?  In your opinion, what is the best way to setup a training plan, if not following a periodization model.  (The Training Bible is all I have at the moment, so I'm looking to learn alternate/better ways to structure the next 9 months).

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Jorge.  Here's what I found when I searched for Verkhoshansky and Friel:

http://arcrsa.blogspot.com/2009/02/cycling-your-periodization-plan.html

The idea there--feel free to correct-- is that simply defining your workload as "getting stronger" or "getting faster" isn't enough for specific competitions.  Even in general training, you should apply specific objectives to two-week microcycles.  Even then, an athlete doesn't necessarily grow in a linear fashion, nor does it mean that you're able to keep your progress all at once.  Periodization is more about alternating different workloads for different purposes instead of a general trajectory.

That might explain the cognitive dissonance I was getting when reading TTB; Friel also wrote about specific goals, but didn't really explain how to apply those goals in planning.  However, he does write about his suggested workouts as only suggestions.

Tschiene created what is known as "block training".  Sounds about the same concept.  Interesting tidbit where he decries cardiovascular training as ineffective (!).


Edited by Brick Block 2010-08-11 9:27 AM

It is not that periodization is not a great yet simple concept, it is just how, in this case Friel interpret it. He based his 'model' on Bompa which in turn presents his interpretation of Metveyev theoretical concept (which as I mentioned on my OP, while the concept was good the details weren't). Anyway based in this he advices using micro-macro cycles, setting up the 3 week on 1 week off scheme, 3 week taper, etc.

As I said, periodization as applied by most coaches/physiologists and related to how training adaptations occur is nothing more than setting your training plan progression from general to specific training. That is, if you are training for let's say an Ironman; you can spend the 1st part of your training plan (lets say 3 months) focusing on all the things that while important to make you a better athlete, are not particularly specific to cover 140.6 miles. Among those things could be, improving technique, functional strength, and just laying down the foundation for your body to be able to handle more work on months to come.

Then you could have a 3 month transition period in which you can focus more on increasing your critical power/velocity as much as you can and take a break mid way to avoid getting "burn up". In this period your load will be more through intensity than volume but you will begin to do some longer steady sessions to keep getting your body ready for the specific work to come.

Finally in the last 3 months, is where yuo can really focus on specific work and focus on adapting your body to cover the distance as fast as possible, hence you focus will be less on the things mentioned and more on getting your body used to swimming 2.4 miles straight, riding 112 miles at a steady pace and running 26.2 miles after the previous two. This doesn't mean you can't have a mixed training load through the different phases, what it means is that the bulk of your training should be devoted to either general, mix or specific training based on the time of the year before your main event.

In terms of managing the load this is were I disagree the most of Friel's approach because I think athletes respond different to training based on many variables (age, gender, fitness level, time constraints, etc) that one can't arbitrary set up the management load in one way (i.e. build 3 weeks, unload 1 week). People who train less due to busy schedules might be better by training 4-5 weeks increasing total load with a 0.5-1week unload, while someone who can spend more time training might be better having a 2-2.5 weeks increasing load with 2-4 days unload, yet others might work better with a different set up.

In Training we constantly seek to push our body to adapt while at the same time allow it time in between session/phases to recover so it can handle more. The more consistent training the better. All this has to manage in a way that age groupers can cope with it, in addition with their many other life responsibilities. If an athlete can find the best scheme to match your needs, push within your limits and manage your constraints, most likely you'll find the best way to manage your training.

Excellent info Jorge!And this is exactly why I hired a coach. There is a lot more to creating a GOOD training plan than deciding which days will be your long runs days and when to rest. Reading all of Jorge's response just makes me love my coach even more.

Thanks Jorge - that helps answer the "why", now I need to figure out the "how".

.

That's the tricky part for sure and I wish I could give you some sort of guide to help you map out the best way to periodirize your training load based on your needs/limitations (short hiring our coaching services ).

The reason I get to know how to do this with my athletes is because I spend a lot of time getting to know how much I can push them and it is one of the reasons I promote using stuff like power and GPS/HRM data. It isn't because I am a data-science junky, but because time constraints are the biggest limiters for athletes and I don't have the luxury to train with many of my athletes every day or at all; the greater insight I can get into their training, the more info I can have to help them out.

Still, let me give it a shot to try to guide you in the right direction:

1. Define your main event and how much you have in between until the race (i.e. 6 months)
2. Define the specific training you'll need to do for your main race (i.e. steady state efforts for IM, steady to tempo effort for HIM, tempo to  threshold for Oly, threshold for Sprints)
3. Define how much on avg you have trained for the past 4-6 weeks to get an idea of how much training you are doing.
4. Define what are your weaknesses/limiters
5. Break the time down you have for training until your main event into 3; 1/2 for general and 1/2 for specific training with a week or so as a small break in between. (IMO 5 months is a good block for training, anything longer than that you might need to add a break to avoid burning out)
6. For the 1st half, focus on your limiters spending time improving those aspects (i.e. swim technique, cycling power, run frequency). Total load is not as important as improving those limiters and consistent training, but if you have exercised 8 hrs x week for the past 4-6 weeks, that can be a good start. Though remember, volume is only a part of the load equation, focus on just doing consistent training day in/day out.
7. The 2nd half transition into doing specific training doing a bit more of it every week. At this point you'll go with what you have technique wise and you need to focus on making sure your body is as fit as possible to go the distance. Gradually go longer and/or faster depending on your main event specifics. If you do a good job alternating hard/long with easy training days you might need minimal rest days or unload weeks. Schedule rest/easy training when tired and resume when you feel back to normal.
8. Schedule your peak week(s) and race rehearsals 4-6 weeks off the main race to maximize training gains and test stuff like pacing and nutrition.
9. Plan your taper based on how fast you've learned your body recovers from all 3 sports. i.e. swimming 4-5 day taper, bike 5-10 day taper, run 10-14 day taper.
10. Race!

Keep in mind the above is just a general guideline on how I go about setting up periodirize plans for my athletes; others might have other ways/suggestions.

I took the easy route and just hired Jorge and let him figure it out.

YMMV

Thanks for the insight Jorge.



Dan - believe me, I've been thinking about it for a while.  The funds are just not currently available.