Article by Jason Lau

This is Part 2 of the three-part Agile Periodization Approach series.

Click here to read “Agile Periodization Approach: Part 1 - Understanding the Concept”

Sports Periodization (noun)

Periodization is the systematic planning of athletic or physical training. The aim is to reach the best possible performance in the most important competition of the year. It involves progressive cycling of various aspects of a training program during a specific period.

- Wikipedia

After discussing the concepts listed in Part 1 - Understanding the Concept, we must determine the general guideline of which the athlete should follow that eventually leads to the vision we have. This is a Top-down focused approach as discussed previously. However, we are not planning with optimality in mind. We are utilizing this approach to identify the idea of what SHOULD be done. This provides a funnel where we can better plan around complexities while adhering to the overall plan and process. The questions to asks here are “What is our ultimate end goal?” “To achieve this goal, what steps should be taken leading up to it?” and “What outcomes are we aiming for at the end of this specific phase?”

Understanding Your Constraints

In this section, we are not discussing individual athlete constraints but of the sport itself. These constraints are less so things that we should not do, but more so to allow us to keep our practice within the scope of the specific sport. Identifying these constraints allows us to avoid the “guess and test” game and avoid fluff work in the weight-room.

This can be done through film study, researching the sport, playing the sport (is not required but can help with insight of the game) and simply talking to a sport coach (which should be done regardless for the athlete’s benefit in my opinion). Some of the constraints that should be answered are:

• Direction of force

• Muscle contraction type (mainly slow or fast?)

• Energy system(s) used

• Movement patterns seen

• Muscle groups used

…so on and so forth. This identifies the VISON of our approach. More specifically, this is what the athlete requires to be successful within this specific sport. From here we work backwards from the vision. Let me ask you this:

1. “What does the athlete require prior to attaining this attribute within the vision?”

2. “Now that we have identified ‘X’ attribute, what must be attained prior to this?”

3. “To achieve ‘X,’ we must achieve ‘Y’ but how?"

4. Continue asking these until we work all the way down to the starting point.

Would you look at that? We have now identified the focus of each phase or block or training for the athlete. Keep in mind we are still keeping this plan loose and relatively free form. As I said before and I will say again, optimality is flawed.

“Pulling the Floor” vs. “Pulling the Ceiling”

As you recall in the first part of this Agile Periodization series, we discussed the Barbell Strategy and creating overall robustness. Taking the conservative approach where the majority of our investments (time and effort) are held can be considered as Pulling the Floor. This is where we attempt to improve our base-level athleticism or “raising the floor.” This can be done a number of ways such as sub-maximal strength training or the implication of Every Day Max (EDM). This conservative approach can be implemented through percentage of one rep maxes or simply just walking into the weight-room and giving the best you can that day. Going by “feel” is subjective and can be difficult to gauge especially for athletes with low training experience. However, as the athlete becomes familiar with the utilization of an exertion scale (RPE or RIR), the easier the communication becomes with coach and athlete. Raising the Floor allows for small incremental improvements in physicality without it being too stressful on the body or CNS.

Pulling the Ceiling can be considered as the “aggressive investments” (refer back to the Barbell Strategy in Part 1) where we focus on pushing and forcing adaptations within the athlete. This is considerably more stressful on the body and requires longer duration of recovery. Often times, this is best implementing during the off-season where the application will not affect the athlete’s play time in their sport. After all, our focus here is to aid the athlete in their sport and if experimental decisions carrying negative consequences can be avoided, it should.

Knowing which phase/block of training to pull the ceiling or floor is important. This implies when to push and when athlete(s) need to achieve “the bare minimum.” This does not only set and communicates a clear goal and objective, but an attitude going into each phase/block of training. For better reference, I have provided a 12-week Golf S&C program schedule I used for the golfers I have recently coached based around the concept of “Pulling the Floor” and “Pulling the Ceiling.”

ex. 12 Week Golf Strength & Conditioning Program

Week 1 to 3 - “Pull the Floor”

This mini phase is to get athletes accustomed to grooving the movement patterns with resistance. Majority of athletes in the program have either A.) been on a training hiatus, or B.) new to weight-room training. The instructions given to these Golfers were to find a weight that was relatively challenging but sub-maximal in nature. There will no prescribed intensities/loads. The first three weeks are strictly going by “feel.”

Week 4 to 8 “Pull the Ceiling”

During these next few weeks, a range of prescribed repetitions, sets and intensities will be given to each individual athlete. The aim here is to push for adaptations. Fatigue will be slightly higher than the last three weeks but should be managed well to not interfere with sport practice.

Week 9 to 12 “Pull the Floor”

This is the most intensive weeks out of the 12. However, we are minimizing the gap between the floor and the ceiling. Our goal here is to maintain the ceiling/peak of what the athletes can achieve while pulling the base level athleticism. This results in consistent and higher average swing speeds.

Lasting Training Effects

Vladimir Issurin documented the lasting residual effects of specific physical qualities attained through training in his book on Block Periodization. In his book, he specifies the time frames that we keep these training effects and the importance of how fast or how slow we can attain and lose these qualities. In the table below, details all physical qualities listed by Issurin and the timeframe in which these qualities last.

Within a specific sport, or sport in general, requires an athlete to possession several physical qualities. These physical qualities can be built upon each other to achieve greater adaptations. For those who have been coached by me, you have most likely heard me say “You must earn the right to train.” This is similar to the concept of Pulling the Floor before Pulling the Ceiling or “building an athletic foundation.” To have a higher peak we must have a stable base.

This applies heavily to the block periodization style, mainly used for advanced athletes. For beginner to intermediate athletes, concurrent training alongside a Daily or Weekly Undulating Periodization would be more suitable. If you remember, I have also mentioned that to avoid missing dosing athletic qualities interrupted by unforeseen instances, we dose multiple physical qualities to the athlete each session. All these periodization models can be merged to an extent or scaled between phases. Having an understanding of these residual training effects will help the athlete with when the best time to emphasis on certain qualities within the plan.

Review of Periodization Models

Periodization models provides a form of programs and can serve as a starting point in any program/phase planning for athletes. As stated previously, certain models CAN work better depending on the athlete. This all refers back to Part 1 of this article series and if you recall the Bottom-Up Approach of identifying what is required and taking the experience of training for the athlete. Here are the common periodization models and examples in how they are structured:

Traditional Periodization

This was popularized by Matveyev and Tudor Bompa where the initial phase is a high-volume and low-intensity approach then progressing towards low-volume and high-intensity phase. This model is not exactly “linear” as there is a form of undulation as we do not keep the same rep/set schemes while increasing in intensity. An example progression scheme is as follows:

Week 1-4: 65-74% of 1RM, 5 sets x 4-6 reps

Week 5-8: 75-84% of 1RM, 4 sets x 3-4 reps

Week 9-12: 85-90% of 1RM, 3 sets x 1-3 reps

Daily/Weekly Undulating Periodization (Non-Traditional)

This periodization model contains varying intensities and volume in daily/weekly basis. The frequency of training stimulus can provide intermediate athletes the optimal training experience. Through the DUP/WUP schedule, coaches can better manage fatigue for athletes, varying high, medium and low stress training in accordance to game day schedule.

An example of a Daily Undulating Periodization model would be as follows:

Session 1: 90% of 1RM, 3 sets x 1 rep

Session 2: 80% of 1RM, 4 sets x 3-4 reps

Session 3: 70% of 1RM, 4-5 sets x 4-6 reps

An example of a Weekly Undulating Periodization model would be as follows:

Week 1: 70% of 1RM, 4-5 sets x 4-6 reps

Week 2: 80% of 1RM, 4 sets x 3-4 reps

Week 3: 90% of 1RM, 3 sets x 1 rep

Week 4: Deload/Unload week

Block Periodization (Non-Traditional)

Block Periodization models are mainly reserved and utilized for advanced athletes. This model dedicates a full phase/block of training to create a specific adaptation. While adhering to the law of Residual Training Effects, this periodization model builds off and takes advantage of physical attributes that are still in effect from the previous blocks of training. Similar to Cal Dietz’s “Triphasic” method that builds off the eccentric, isometric and concentric focused periods of training. (For those interested, I highly recommend you read Cal Dietz’s Triphasic Training.)

Block Periodization is encompassed of three phases and is as follows:

• Accumulation Phase: This phase has the longest duration, so dedication to building long lasting physical qualities such as aerobic function and hypertrophy should be the main focus.

• Transmutation Phase: During this phase, the primary focus is high-intensity, sport-specific abilities. Which in turn, is shorter as it creates physical adaptations that does not take long to create but is lost much faster than qualities within the Accumulation Phase.

• Realization Phase: This phase contains the highest-intensity lowest-volume training from all three phases. The nature of this phase focuses on tapering into the competition event. The length of the competition event will dictate how long this phase becomes.

There is no inherently “best” model and I encourage everyone to step away from that thought. These models provide a form not structure to follow. I would encourage you to look deeper instead. Does the plan follows the principle of progression and overload, achieve the goal of dosing the correct physical qualities even when complexities interfere? At what level is the athlete’s training experience in? Does the athlete require the prescribed training frequency? Staying agile is similar to having a Plan B, C and D in place to handle such complexities while adhering to the principles of Strength & Conditioning.

General to Specific

Specificity is king in sport and Strength & Conditioning, but becoming too specific can lead you into no man’s land of the Barbell Strategy as well (see Part 1 - Understanding the Concept). A balance must be kept between generalist and specific, and this can be determined by the training experience of the athlete or how close the athlete is to the competition event. To get a better understanding of general to specific categorization, I have covered Dr. Bondarchuk’s classification in detail in my article “Approaching Golf Strength & Conditioning” here. The time spent in each category can vary athlete to athlete, so how do we strike that balance? If you recall the Barbell Strategy mentioned in Part 1 - Understanding the Concept, we identified where 90% and 10% of our investments should be placed. The same can be applied in Dr. Bondarchuk’s classification. Our conservative investments for robustness can rests in the lower portion of the classifications while the rest of the investments can be spent in the most specific portions.

The goal through general to specifics is a simple one, we are aiming to transform substance or physical qualities to a transfer of manifestation of skill. This is called bridging the gap. In other words, we want to take the ability and transform it to a skill. This is definitely a difficult task and arguably a crucial one for all coaches. However, with the help of recent sport science journals, identification of KPI’s (Key Performance Indicators) can now better aid bridging the gap between weight-room gains and the transfer to skill.

Know Thy Plan

Rigidity, or structure, does not allow for error, but form provides the basic infrastructure while adhering to the desired outcome. Yes, we are aiming for a specific outcome, but there are many roads that lead to Rome. Remember, this does not mean that risks and experimental methods should not be taken. However, we must know when to take calculated risks. Similar to looking at Google Maps prior to a road trip to a new destination.

To summarize everything we have discussed in this article regarding Phase Planning:

• What are the demands and adaptations we need? This will be your desired outcome.

• When should we push the ceiling or the floor? Planning where and when to apply this concept can clearly identify the intermitted outcome wanted.

• Know where your general and specific investments lies. Distribute sparingly.
  

Stay tuned as we venture over to the Part Three of the Agile Periodization Approach series

Thanks for reading! If this article provided insight into Strength & Conditioning, make sure to subscribe below for more informational content and follow my INSTAGRAM.