Periodization – Changing From Calendar Focused to Athlete Focused

Published by Wayne Goldsmith on September 23, 2020September 23, 2020

What if I told you everything you thought you knew about Periodization was wrong?

What if your unbreakable beliefs in one-week Microcycles, four-week Macrocycles and three month long training Phases as the cornerstones of planning training programs was probably holding you – and your athletes – back from realizing your potential?

Well – that’s what I’m telling you.

Bompa and “The” Book

There’s no doubt that Tudor Bompa’s original text – Periodization : Theory and Methodology of Training – now in it’s 5th edition – has been one of the most remarkable and influential texts in sports coaching history.

The fundamental principle of Periodization, i.e. breaking down the planning of training, competition and recovery into “chunks” called “cycles” has been one of the most important coaching concepts to have ever been developed.

However, as great as the original thinking behind the concept of Periodization was, it has become a “victim” of it’s own popularity.

So popular has the terminology and philosophies outlined in the Bompa text become that coaches around the world believe that there is only one way to plan the training, competition and recovery programs of athletes and teams.

Periodization – What’s Wrong with the Most Common Periodization Models

1. It is impossible to believe that every athlete in the world adapts to training on Monday morning at 6 am. It is highly unlikely that given the differences in age, diet, sleep habits, hydration, genetics, stress levels, training background, recovery ability and involvement in other (non-sport) activities that every athlete will adapt to training precisely after the seven days of a typical microcycle.
2. The original work was based around the working week and the calendar.  This might be convenient for people who work or study full time but effective and efficient training needs to be focused on the specific needs of each individual athlete, i.e. that training is based on the adaptation of the athlete – not on making the athlete’s adaptation “fit” into the calendar.
3. There is no reason why training cycles need to be one week, four weeks (one month) or three months (one quarter) other than the convenience of neatly fitting into a diary or calendar. I’ve worked personally and directly with coaches who produced world record holders, Olympic Gold Medalists and highly successful athletes using a wide range of periodization models including:
   • Two microcycles in a seven day period;
   • Microcycles based on the number of sessions, e.g. 23 session microcycle, 11 session microcycle;
   • NO PERIODIZATION – a highly flexible model where the diary and the calendar are of minor relevance and the aim is to provide the optimal training stimulus for each individual athlete at each session based on some “pre-training” assessment of how recovered the athlete is – i.e. how ready they are to train.

The bottom line is this.

The Bompa book and the Periodization concept are excellent.

HOWEVER – coaches need to read and study the book and the concept then use their creativity and innovation – AND THEIR CONNECTION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR ATHLETES to develop training models which meet the specific needs of each individual.

In other words, do not try to fit your athlete’s training needs and adaptation into your calendar: make the calendar fit around your athlete’s  training needs and adaptation!

Wayne Goldsmith