Authors’ Reply to Buckner et al.: ‘Comment on: “The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization”

Coaches' Perceptions of Factors Driving Training Adaptation: An International Survey

OBJECTIVE

We surveyed coaches' views on topics related to the training process to elucidate whether their opinions are aligned with the current literature. Here the results for a sub-set of questions regarding factors affecting the training adaptation process are presented and discussed.

METHODS

106 coaches [age range 18-65 + years, 31% 15 + years coaching, 58% individual-events/sports and 32% international level] from a number of countries completed a novel cross-sectional online survey about the planning of training and the training process.

RESULTS

Only 28% of participants indicated that physical training was the most important factor in determining sport performance; whereas 99% indicated non-physical factors influence physical training response. The top five factors in modifying an athlete's ability to physically adapt to a training plan, as rated 'absolutely essential', were 'coach-athlete relationship' (56%), 'life stress' (41%), 'athletes' belief in the plan' (37%), 'psychological and emotional stress' (35%) and 'physical training' (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

Amongst coaches surveyed less than a third rated physical training as the most important factor in determining sports performance. Non-physical factors were acknowledged by the majority to exert an influence on physical training response and adaptation, despite the lack of discussion in training research, though there was no consensus on the relative importance of each individual factor. We echo previous sentiments that coaches need to be engaged in the research process. If training research continues as present the field runs the risk of not only becoming detached but increasingly irrelevant to those it is trying to help.

Coaches' Perceptions of Common Planning Concepts Within Training Theory: An International Survey

BACKGROUND

The planning of training is a popular yet controversial topic among coaches and sports scientists. Periodisation is often presented in the literature as the most efficacious approach to planning training. While historically surveys of coaches appeared to support this a key failing was that no unified definition of periodisation exists. Recent surveys offering a periodisation definition and an alternative planning methodology found many choosing the alternative therefore questioning periodisation's wide acceptance. The current survey looked to explore how coaches perceived specific concepts, drawn from the literature, that relate to the planning of training.

METHODS

106 coaches [age range: 18-65+ years, 31% 15+ years coaching, 58% individual-events/sports and 32% international level] from across the world completed a novel cross-sectional online survey on the planning of training and the training process. Topics included use of periodisation, division of time into discrete periods, assignment of goals and training to pre-determined periods and the adaptability of pre-established plans.

RESULTS

The majority described their planning approach as training periodisation (71%). Similarly, there was strong agreement with the necessity to determining a goal for the season (85%) and divide the season into distinct manageable periods of time (73%). When examining whether physical adaptations are achievable within specific and fixed timeframes only a minority (33%) agreed, a similar result was found for training physical capacities in a sequential order (37%). Finally, there was limited support for training targets remaining fixed over a training period (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

As a tool for the planning of athlete's training, periodisation is often presented as the best and most popular approach. Recent research however has highlighted possible discrepancies in its usage among practitioners. The results of this survey echo this and question the acceptance of periodisation concepts even among periodisation users. In part this may be due to key tenets of periodisation no longer being supported by research or practice. A lingering question then is whether the beliefs of coaches, developed through experience and supported by research, will continue to be marginalized. If sports scientists wish to aid coaches then they need to be engaged in future research initiatives as co-collaborators.

Periodization: Variation in the Definition and Discrepancies in Study Design

Over the past several decades, periodization has been widely accepted as the gold standard of training theory. Within the literature, there are numerous definitions for periodization, which makes it difficult to study. When examining the proposed definitions and related studies on periodization, problems arise in the following domains: (1) periodization has been proposed to serve as the macro-management of the training process concerning the annual plan, yet research on long-term effects is scarce; (2) periodization and programming are being used interchangeably in research; and (3) training is not periodized alongside other stressors such as sport (i.e., only resistance training is being performed without the inclusion of sport). Overall, the state of the literature suggests that the inability to define periodization makes the statement of its superiority difficult to experimentally test. This paper discusses the proposed definitions of periodization and the study designs which have been employed to examine the concept.

The Basics of Training for Muscle Size and Strength: A Brief Review on the Theory

The periodization of resistance exercise is often touted as the most effective strategy for optimizing muscle size and strength adaptations. This narrative persists despite a lack of experimental evidence to demonstrate its superiority. In addition, the general adaptation syndrome, which provides the theoretical framework underlying periodization, does not appear to provide a strong physiological rationale that periodization is necessary. Hans Selye conducted a series of rodent studies which used toxic stressors to facilitate the development of the general adaptation syndrome. To our knowledge, normal exercise in humans has never been shown to produce a general adaptation syndrome. We question whether there is any physiological rationale that a periodized training approach would facilitate greater adaptations compared with nonperiodized approaches employing progressive overload. The purpose of this article is to briefly review currently debated topics within strength and conditioning and provide some practical insight regarding the implications these reevaluations of the literature may have for resistance exercise and periodization. In addition, we provide some suggestions for the continued advancement within the field of strength and conditioning.

Towards a de facto Nonlinear Periodization: Extending Nonlinearity from Programming to Periodizing

Planning is paramount in sport. Among different philosophical approaches to planning, periodization is a highly popular concept that refers to structured training periods with ensuing programs encompassing moments of progressively-loaded training, followed by recovery; it is normally deemed paramount to optimize adaptations and performance. While planning provides generic guidelines, periodization refers to the sequencing/ordering of training periods to enforce a given plan, therefore referring to longer temporal scales, and programming refers to more micro-scale aspects. In fact, similar periodization schemes may implement distinct programming strategies. Literature on the topic has used the linear and nonlinear terms to describe the content of periodized programs. However, these concepts have not been clearly defined in the literature, which may lead to inaccurate and misleading interpretations. Moreover, nonlinear periodization is usually using nonlinear programming, but with pre-stipulated sequencing of the training periods. Finally, it can be argued that nonlinearity has been an integral part of periodization since its inception, at least theoretically. In this essay, the literature was critically reviewed to better understand the validity of the linearity and nonlinearity concepts as applied in currently proposed periodization models. In addition, a novel approach for a de facto nonlinear periodization is presented.