The response to Part 1 and Part 2 of our training talk with coach and academic John Kiely has been overwhelmingly positive. It has also been a wonderful learning experience for me. To start with we discussed the issues with traditional periodization models and their scientific underpinning. Last week we continued the discussion to cover what can be learned from science and how coaches can work on improving their processes. This final part brings things together and present some final thoughts as well as five questions coaches should ask themselves when planning. Read more
Earlier this month Irish strength coach and academic John Kiely provided a biting criticism of periodization as it is known by most people. While we like to think of it as scientific, it is based on a shaky foundation that favors the plan rather than the process. You can read the critique in its entirety here. But as frustrated as Kiely is with the common talk about periodization, he is also optimistic about the way forward. When we continued our discussion, this was his main focus. Read more
Back in 2012 Vern Gambetta forwarded me an article by John Kiely (full text here; comments by me here), a senior lecturer in sports performance for the Institute of Coaching and Performance at the University of Central Lancashire. In it, Kiely wrote about periodization paradigms in the 21st century pointing out features like individualization and flexibility that are the future of periodization. I couldn’t help but agree. Read more
Coaches have been using periodization for more than a century to create training plans. Over the years the concept of periodization has become broader to include a wide variety of training plans all seemingly based on the premise that biological adaptation to a given training follows a predictable course and future training can therefore be adequately forecasted to meet the goals of the athlete. Matveyev was one of the early researchers involved in developing modern concepts, but many other since have built on his work.