Sports periodization

The roots of periodization come from Hans Selye's model, known as the General adaptation syndrome (GAS). The GAS describes three basic stages of response to stress: (a) the Alarm stage, involving the initial shock of the stimulus on the system, (b) the Resistance stage, involving the adaptation to the stimulus by the system, and (c) the Exhaustion stage, in that repairs are inadequate, and a decrease in system function results. The foundation of periodic training is keeping one's body in the resistance stage without ever going into the exhaustion stage. By adhering to cyclic training the body is given adequate time to recover from significant stress before additional training is undertaken. The response to a new stress is to first respond poorly and the response drops off. For example, when the body is first exposed to sun a sunburn might develop. During the resistance stage adaptation improves the response to a higher level, called super compensation, than the previous equilibrium. The example would be that a suntan develops. The exhaustion stage is a continuation of the stimulus at too high a level and the increase gained from adaptation is now offset and all gains are lost. The example would be that wrinkles, spots, or even skin cancer develop. The goal in sports periodization is to reduce the stress at the point where the resistance stage ends so the body has time to recover. In this way the exhaustion stage does not reduce the gains achieved, the body can recover and remain above the original equilibrium point. The next cycle of increased stimulus now improves the response further and the equilibrium point continues to rise after each cycle.

Selye (1957) labeled beneficial stresses as "eustress" and detrimental stresses as "distress". In athletics, when physical stress is at a healthy level (eustress), an athlete experiences muscular strength and growth, while excessive physical stress (distress) can lead to tissue damage, disease, and death. Periodization is most widely used in resistance program design to avoid over-training and to systematically alternate high loads of training with decreased loading phases to improve components of muscular fitness (e.g. strength, strength-speed, and strength-endurance). The Selye-cycles are similar to the "micro cycles" used at later times.

Russian physiologist Leo Matveyev and Romanian sport scientist Tudor Bompa expanded and further organized the periodization model. Matveyev has been regarded as the father of modern periodization. He analysed the results of the Soviet athletes of the 1952 and 1956 summer Olympics and compared successful and not so successful athletes and their training schedules. From these training plans periodized schedules were developed for the 1960 Olympics. With the success of the Soviet athletes, Matveyev's plans were spread all over the Eastern Bloc in their annual coordination meetings. From there it also spread to Romania, where Tudor Bompa developed the system further. In the 1968 it was used for the first time in the GDR and in 1972 in West Germany.[3] After the fall of the Soviet Union, periodization started to become modified. While Matveyev followed Pavlov and assumed that everybody should use the same periodization, individualised systems, using more and more biological data, were introduced.[4]

Periodic training systems typically divide time up into three types of cycles: microcycle, mesocycle, and macrocycle. The microcycle is generally up to 7 days. The mesocycle may be anywhere from 2 weeks to a few months, but is typically a month. A macrocycle refers to the overall training period, usually representing a year or two. There are longer cycles as well for the Olympian, being 4 or 8 years, and the career plan which is usually only considered for Olympians and professional athletes.

Training should be organized and planned in advance of a competition or performance. It should consider the athlete's potential, their performance in tests or competition, and calendar of competition. It has to be simple, suggestive, and above all flexible as its content can be modified to meet the athletes rate of progress.

The annual plan is important in that it directs and guides performance training over a year. It is based on the concept of periodization and the principles of training. The objective of training is to reach a high level of performance (peak performance) and an athlete has to develop skills, biomotor abilities and psychological traits in a methodical manner.

For many years, football training and its planning has been (and still is) characterised by fragmented thinking of which has perhaps been attributed to the success of such an approach in individual sports. The emphasis of planning and improvement was mainly in regards to the physical attributes of strength, speed and endurance.[7] Furtheremore, whether it be the undulating model, the reverse linear model or the traditional periodization framework, one of the underpinning assumptions is that it would be best to segregate the programme into distinct training blocks in a sequential hierarchy i.e. a training block to build endurance before speed and strength before power. This is claimed to be based on the ‘science of periodization’. However, Kiely,[8] argues that the proof on which this is all based on is flawed because the studies used to build this proof have only ‘compared training interventions with no training variation to those with degrees of variation’ but did not offer any insight ‘into how that variation is best scheduled and organised’ (Kiely, 2010, p. 4). So although it is commonly agreed that training variation is an important design feature which needs to be integrated into the training plan, there is ‘little or no supporting evidence’ which proves that the segregation of the program into distinct training blocks or that there should be sequential hierarchy of how this should be done is in fact advantageous.

Many authors such as Garganta, Maia, & Marque,[9] Oliveira,[10] Castelo,[11] and Gaiteiro [12] have argued in regards to the indivisibility of the 4 components which make up a football performance...technical, tactical, physical and mental. This complexity makes football a multidimensional phenomenon which cannot be simply reduced to the sum of its parts. Is defending more important than attacking or vice versa? This question cannot be answered as football needs to be understood as a whole. As highlighted by Tamarit,[13] football is a tactical game where players are constantly required to make decisions in response to specific situations. So football needs to be viewed as a tactical game which encompasses with it the physical, technical and mental aspects required for positive performances. This is the foundation upon which Victor Frade developed a training methodology known as tactical periodisation which emphasises the development of the tactical dimension. Therefore, any physical, technical or mental development must always have a tactical intention. In other words, although the ability to run for 90 minutes may seem vital to play the game, knowing when, where and how to run is much more important.