I come back to this video every now and then, when I need it. You've given so much content and information over the years; I hope you feel as appreciated as we are grateful.
Deep thinking today Brice. Loving this video. John Kiely's work on periodization is simply awesome and thought provoking. I had been wondering for years how is this guy not quoted more... But then again, people today wants straight forwards model and are not necessarily ready to put the work to understand why/how stress work... Here is my "5 pence worth" dissertation for MSc S&C, for what's it worth. Great work Brice. Introduction The design of an effective training plan is of major importance as a foundation for optimal athletic development and readiness to compete. Traditionally in sport, this blueprint has been organised in a ‘periodized’ fashion underpinned by the manipulation of two mains training variables: volume and intensity over designated timeframes (e.g. macro-, meso-, micro-cycle), with the aim to enable performances and realize specific athletic goals, while minimizing excessive fatigue (Kiely, 2011; Morgans et al. 2014). Although, a logical, precise, methodological organisation of training has been well accepted in literature and anecdotal practice, several questions have also been raised; and it seems that the way we plan has probably more to do with cultural influences that actual science. First, the conceptual definition and terminology (e.g. periodization or variation used interchangeably) have confounded studies (Afonso et al. 2017). Hence, we will attempt to avoid contemporary jargon (e.g. linear, no-linear, undulated, fluid, blocked periodization) that has pervaded coaching practice and can only add to the confusion. Furthermore, a closer look at the ‘scientific’ evidence advocating the superiority of a ‘periodized’ training model, reveals inconsistencies regarding methods (e.g. low initial fitness level of participant, short duration of investigation), and has concerned primarily single specific strength-related goals with questionable sensitivity. More importantly, considering the large inter-individual training-response (e.g. outliers), determined by complex interaction of natural (e.g. genetic, epigenetic), cultural (e.g. history, previous experience, social influence) and uncontrolled environmental factors (e.g. nutrition, medication, sleep); assuming a universal average predictive response to a training planification for all athletes may be over-simplistic (Davids and Baker, 2007). Indeed, the danger with dogmatic, mechanistic approach to human behaviour, is that they emanate from ideology (e.g. eastern bloc socialism, or the other side of the same coin capitalism influences) that may be disconnected from reality, and thus, lack understanding for complex dynamic processes; chaotic and unpredictable in essence. To illustrate this point, there are numerous sportive examples of the assumed, ‘optimal’, standardized physical preparation that should yield consistent high level of performance in competition, and somehow end up in below-par results. Ultimately, athletes’ perceptions, beliefs and ‘buy-in’ to the coaching process - something largely determined by coach-athlete interaction - should not be ignored as a determinant to deliberate practice and performance enhancement (Gilbert, 2017). Considering the intricate interaction of several factors in football’s performance, and practical real-life limitations (e.g. season schedule, team training); an alternative, pragmatic approach may be to simply address the key training principles and ‘trade-offs’ (Table 10) that govern adaptations, and aim to apply those in a general, malleable frame that ‘facilitate the emergence of context-specific training solutions’ (Kiely, 2011). Far to advocate a total anarchy in planning, with limited visibility and long term views, we argue that there should be room to ‘hydride’ and ‘navigate’ - work off instead of work on - the training plan, with a sensitive monitoring ‘compass’ indicating general directions to afford athletes with training variations related to individual responses (Gamble, 2006; Halson, 2014). This approach can be seen as ‘common-sense’ led, and seems a lot more challenging that to apply a ‘set-in-stone’, pre-described structure, because it leaves the door open for multiple solutions, ‘informed evolutions’, or ‘educated guesses’ to individual problems (Figure 31), and in the end requires a creative and unassuming mind-set from coaches (Robertson, 2018).
Beautifully spoken letter Bryce. I believe that I speak for many other coaches and lifters in saying that you are truly a philosophical and intellectual role model for many. Your insight is always much appreciated!
I come back to this video every now and then, when I need it. You've given so much content and information over the years; I hope you feel as appreciated as we are grateful.
Deep thinking today Brice.
Loving this video.
John Kiely's work on periodization is simply awesome and thought provoking.
I had been wondering for years how is this guy not quoted more...
But then again, people today wants straight forwards model and are not necessarily ready to put the work to understand why/how stress work...
Here is my "5 pence worth" dissertation for MSc S&C, for what's it worth.
Great work Brice.
Introduction
The design of an effective training plan is of major importance as a foundation for optimal
athletic development and readiness to compete. Traditionally in sport, this blueprint has been
organised in a ‘periodized’ fashion underpinned by the manipulation of two mains training
variables: volume and intensity over designated timeframes (e.g. macro-, meso-, micro-cycle),
with the aim to enable performances and realize specific athletic goals, while minimizing
excessive fatigue (Kiely, 2011; Morgans et al. 2014).
Although, a logical, precise, methodological organisation of training has been well accepted in
literature and anecdotal practice, several questions have also been raised; and it seems that the
way we plan has probably more to do with cultural influences that actual science.
First, the conceptual definition and terminology (e.g. periodization or variation used
interchangeably) have confounded studies (Afonso et al. 2017). Hence, we will attempt to
avoid contemporary jargon (e.g. linear, no-linear, undulated, fluid, blocked periodization) that
has pervaded coaching practice and can only add to the confusion.
Furthermore, a closer look at the ‘scientific’ evidence advocating the superiority of a
‘periodized’ training model, reveals inconsistencies regarding methods (e.g. low initial fitness
level of participant, short duration of investigation), and has concerned primarily single specific
strength-related goals with questionable sensitivity.
More importantly, considering the large inter-individual training-response (e.g. outliers),
determined by complex interaction of natural (e.g. genetic, epigenetic), cultural (e.g. history,
previous experience, social influence) and uncontrolled environmental factors (e.g. nutrition,
medication, sleep); assuming a universal average predictive response to a training planification
for all athletes may be over-simplistic (Davids and Baker, 2007).
Indeed, the danger with dogmatic, mechanistic approach to human behaviour, is that they
emanate from ideology (e.g. eastern bloc socialism, or the other side of the same coin capitalism
influences) that may be disconnected from reality, and thus, lack understanding for complex
dynamic processes; chaotic and unpredictable in essence.
To illustrate this point, there are numerous sportive examples of the assumed, ‘optimal’,
standardized physical preparation that should yield consistent high level of performance in
competition, and somehow end up in below-par results.
Ultimately, athletes’ perceptions, beliefs and ‘buy-in’ to the coaching process - something
largely determined by coach-athlete interaction - should not be ignored as a determinant to
deliberate practice and performance enhancement (Gilbert, 2017).
Considering the intricate interaction of several factors in football’s performance, and practical
real-life limitations (e.g. season schedule, team training); an alternative, pragmatic approach
may be to simply address the key training principles and ‘trade-offs’ (Table 10) that govern
adaptations, and aim to apply those in a general, malleable frame that ‘facilitate the emergence
of context-specific training solutions’ (Kiely, 2011).
Far to advocate a total anarchy in planning, with limited visibility and long term views, we
argue that there should be room to ‘hydride’ and ‘navigate’ - work off instead of work on - the
training plan, with a sensitive monitoring ‘compass’ indicating general directions to afford
athletes with training variations related to individual responses (Gamble, 2006; Halson, 2014).
This approach can be seen as ‘common-sense’ led, and seems a lot more challenging that to
apply a ‘set-in-stone’, pre-described structure, because it leaves the door open for multiple
solutions, ‘informed evolutions’, or ‘educated guesses’ to individual problems (Figure 31), and
in the end requires a creative and unassuming mind-set from coaches (Robertson, 2018).
Beautifully spoken letter Bryce.
I believe that I speak for many other coaches and lifters in saying that you are truly a philosophical and intellectual role model for many.
Your insight is always much appreciated!
Fuck, I don't know why both of ur new videos didn't show up on my subscription page. Thank you for making this fantastic video!
Great stuff bruce👍
Great video. 10/10
Holy shit this was great. Definitely going check these papers out.
What if we are the universe is shrinking at the same rate its moving, so expanding is just an ilusion is relative but we cant compare to anything.