The changing face of periodization - a new paradigm?

Periodization has, for decades, been the go to method to develope scientifically "sound" training programs.

Over the years we have made use of numerous, defined phases of training, with specific guidelines and focuses for each "period" of training.

I have made use of periodization in my own programming, and have always felt that it is rather limited in that, although the training prescription does partially address the principle of specificity, it did not always meet the requirements for individualization. 

We all know we cannot create "cookie cut" programs for individuals participating in exercise programs. Some might respond more quickly to the training intervention, while others might take a little longer to adapt to the applied stressor.

Furthermore, we run the risk of applying a load that is to large for certain individuals and perhaps too small for others.

Current research published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven? 2012, 7, 242 – 250, John Kiely), has brought to fore the need for an adjusted approach to training program design and development. 

On the topic of traditional periodization models, the authors feel "that such models (traditional periodization), share a deep-rooted cultural heritage underpinned by a common set of historically pervasive planning beliefs and assumptions."

The publication calls for "an urgent need for periodization theories to be realigned with contemporary elite practice and modern scientific conceptual models"

The bottom line here is that we need to start to approach our programming with the individual at the forefront of our minds. Pre-determined training assignments are no longer an optimal,or acceptable, method of prescribing exercise and training.

A better approach, according to the publication, is allowing, "emphasis be placed on the design and implementation of sensitive and responsive training systems that facilitate the guided emergence of customized context-specific training-planning solutions."

As with so many things in the fields of Sport Science and Exercise Physiology, we need to find a point that takes all the relevant information, from both the past and the present, allowing for the development  of a new paradigm moving into the future.

Drink less, perform better - really!

The overwhelming advice from experts in the fields of coaching, Sport Science and Exercise Physiology, when it comes to hydration, is: drink often and drink lots. 

Add to these messages from "experts" the daily bombardment of messages from manufacturers of sports drinks and various waters, that if we do not consume ridiculous amounts of fluids, at all times during athletic endeavours of any kind, we are not only putting our performance at risk, but our health.

Guidelines developed by a well respected body of researchers and "experts" known as the ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine) has recommended fluid consumption levels of up to 1200ml per hour of activity.

If you are running a 5 hour marathon, that is a lot of fluid.

All this to protect us from ending up like this:

As a species, our physiology allows for a certain degree of dehydration over time, even up to 6% - 7%.

We have been told that even a small decrement of hydration, as low as 1% - 2%, can be disastrous.

I then ask: how is it possible for the winner of an endurance event such as a marathon or Iron distance triathlon), to be the most, or one of the most dehydrated athletes in the field?

This defies all logic. Exceptional performance - dehydrated state.

The protagonists rebuttal is well, if the  they are performing at this exceptional level in a dehydrated state, imagine how they might perform had they been "optimally" hydrated.

Somehow I do not think drinking one or more liters of fluid per hour is going to enable elite marathon runners to shave another minute or 2 off the winning time.

"It might", I hear you say.

Let's consider reports from athletes who have consumed fluids to the prescribed ACSM guidelines. They often complain about GI tract discomfort, including vomiting and diarrhoea.

They feel they have to force themselves to drink to keep up with the recommendations. This too has a detrimental impact on the event.

I ask you: Does vomiting and dealing GI distress sound like a good strategy for running a PB or performing optimally? I do not think so.

The million dollar question then becomes: How do we manage our fluid intake during training and racing. What are the guidelines that do work in favour of us achieving success.

It is so simple, so simple it is actually laughable that this debate even exists:

Drink to thirst! 

We have been using our thirst mechanism to manage levels of body water and hydration status for tens of thousands of years.

Some how I do not think that our physiology has changed that much since the appearance of the first water tables at the New York marathon in the mid 1970's.

Do you?

The middle point is where the real truth lies

Each and every day we are bombarded with messages from “experts”, marketers and advertisers and those that have supposedly found the ultimate solution to a major problem that is facing mankind.

Some of the purported remedies are pretty easy to implement, others take on a more challenging form, but at the end of the day, we tend to want to make a change in an area of our life, so often times, we buy in.

At the moment there are a few examples of this taking place  in the world of health and exercise -
 
1.    The minimalist versus the shod  approach to running.
2.    The high fat – high protein- reduced carbohydrate diet versus the traditional western diet.
3.    Physiological testing or physiological assessments – productive use of time, or a not?

At face value, both sides of the coin have valid points and counter-points, and depending on how much time has spent reading and researching the subject, a conclusion is drawn.

Being an educated athlete / consumer is always a good thing, however, we must always be aware of who is providing us with our information (manufacturer), how that information was obtained (manufacturer funded research), and ultimately, what the provider of the information might attain(profit).

Let’s look at the minimalist approach to running versus the shod approach to running.

I am not going to rehash the numerous the pros and cons related to this particular subject - I know we have all read any number of articles from both sides of the debate.

Running shoes prevent injury says the running shoe injury – so days the minimalist industry. Running shoes negatively impact a runners’ biomechanics – minimalist shoes provide no necessary support for the runner etc.
So whom do we believe? Both parties make valid points - very confusing indeed.

Keep in mind, it is important to assess where the information is coming from: for example the manufacturer of a running shoe or a minimalist running coach?
Does either party have anything to gain by convincing you to purchase their product? Of course they do – their business relies on you buying into their approach to running.

So, by now we should be seeing the need for an impartial party. One that is able to provide us with objective insights and feedback on both sides – a moderator if you like.

Who might this moderator be?

Moderators can take many forms. In our field, we should be looking to our sports medicine professionals, and more specifically – those who are actively involved in the sports field both professionally and personally, on a regular basis.

1.    The debate on running footwear: A Physiotherapsit who is also a runner, is a great resource for insights and sound guidance on how to decide on what the right “fit” is for you according to your bodies functional anatomy.

2.    How about the growing nutritional debate invoked by Dr. Tim Noakes? A dietitian who understands your nutritional needs – for health, daily life and physical activity, and who can understand new and developing areas of nutrition, is ideal.

3.    How about maximizing your athletic performance? A certified Exercise Physiologist can guide you through the pros and cons of testing and the difference between testing and assessing.

The take home message is this: arm yourself with knowledge – looking at the subject from both perspectives. Then make use of those in the field who have the knowledge, experience and impartiality to recommend options that will be best for you.

What you will soon learn is that the “answer” or “solution” is usually a blend – a little bit from the left and a little bit from the right.

And as with so many things in life, we find that the middle point is where the real truth lies.