Posting here first then in open forum maybe next week or the week after
Enjoy..
Tudor Bompa – the ‘father’ of periodization (Part 1)
John Shepherd catches up with one of world’s elite performance coaches and sports scientists, Tudor Bompa
John’s comment
It was an honour to interview Tudor, and find out more about him and his training methods. He has devoted his life to the pursuit of improving athletic performance. Tudor has been called the father of periodization (training planning) and I bet there are very few athletes in the world who don’t owe their successes (even if they don’t realise it) to Tudor’s theories, in some way or another. I was particularly interested in his thoughts on strength training. I’ve often found that coaches and athletes don’t really know how to, for example, weight train for their sport, in order to enhance performance. Indeed, this had been a stumbling block for me as an international athlete. I read Bompa’s book, Periodization Training for Sports recently, and this grounded, and clarified, some of my evolving thoughts on how the strength gained in the weights room can really be used to make you faster, or more enduring. If only I had read his books, and maybe even talked to him 20 years ago. Bompa has had his detractors (maybe because he advised ‘drugs cheat sprinter’ Ben Johnson, and his coach, Charlie Francis), but I believe he is the genuine article. He did the research, proved the theory by coaching Olympic and world champions, and should be hailed as one of the greatest practical sports scientists of all time.
JS: How did you get involved in sport?
TB: Like almost every kid in Romania I started to play football. Track and field also captivated me so much so that, during my mid-teens, I was very busy training and competing in both sports. I quickly realised the athleticism I gained from track and field greatly helped my football. I was the fastest and the strongest in our junior football league and, by the time I was 17, I was selected for the Romanian national under-18 side. And I was still training for track. I won a silver, and two bronze medals in the under-18 national championships. These were in the sprints and the pentathlon, so I was busy! However, an unfortunate ankle injury terminated my football career.
Some of my best friends were rowers and, due to my injury, I found myself turning to this sport. Since I was genetically equipped for speed and power, I had to struggle to achieve a decent performance level in a sport where endurance is crucial. But somehow I managed, and kept going, to such an extent that I won a silver medal in the ‘four’ at the 1958 European Championships.
Professionally, I feel that I owe a great deal to my own sports involvement. I think that, without the knowledge I gained from tens of thousand of hours of training and coaching, I would have never reached my best as a professor, a sports training specialist and author.
JS: Why and how did you get involved in sports science?
TB: I realised that I lacked a great deal of scientific training knowledge. Therefore, for several years, I read everything I could put my hands on. And this was in a communist society, where access to information was available to only a selected few. I was coaching rowing and track and field. I was having success with the javelin, in particular. I was also invited to coach the national rowing team level. From that point on I had access to everything I wanted, including the chance to research many of the training elements that have captivated me – for example, strength training, as it applies to different sports, and the development of endurance. This was in the 1960s, and these were the years that really shaped my professional training philosophy.
JS: When do you think there was a sports science revolution?
TB: I would say that, if we really have had a revolution in science and the methodology of training, then it was in the 1960s in East Germany, Russia, Romania and the other Eastern bloc countries.
JS: You are widely acknowledged as one of the fathers (if not the father) of periodization. Do you accept this tag and what made you interested in this field?
TB: Your statement greatly honours me, but it is slightly exaggerated. Let me share with your readers the evolution of periodization. From the early years of the ancient Olympics, athletes have followed a very simple, but logical, method of training. They train to compete – compete in pre-Olympic and Olympic Games – and then rest and relax. This is periodization – the athlete follows training phases (now called –‘preparatory, competitive and transition’ phases). In fact, this was described by the Greek philosopher, Flavius Philostratus (AD 170-245). This man deserves a great deal of respect for his 10 books on athletic training, many of which have been destroyed by the passage of time. Planning therefore, is neither a novelty – nor a Russian – discovery. However, a Russian professor, Leonid Matveyev was the first to use the term periodization, in terms of planning the phases of an athlete’s training. He borrowed the term from history –
where periodization describes the phases of human history, for example, antiquity, middle ages, and so on.
Matveyev was the first author to really analyse statistically what the Soviet athletes used in training for the 1952 Olympic Games. His work validated the concept of periodization, as used from 1896 to the present. This is that the annual training plan should be divided into phases of training, with each phase having a specific training objective. And that the phases themselves should be subdivided into even smaller training phases called ‘macro-cycles’ (of 2-6 weeks duration) and ‘micro-cycles’ (a week of training).
JS: How did you get on with the Russians?
TB: It’s funny looking back on my time then, as the Russians wanted to steal everything that had been successful in any of the Eastern European countries. So much so that, in the West, it’s often thought that the Russians discovered everything in training!
JS: What’s the difference between the periodization methods that evolved in the fifties and those of the present day?
TB: The difference between periodization in the 1950s and nowadays is that 1) we have created several variations of periodization and 2) in our planning and periodized training we apply sports science more effectively. With research, and through the efforts of top coaches, we constantly discover/produce better information that enriches the science of training.
JS: How did you and your colleagues determine if periodization worked?
TB: As I indicated, many elements of periodization have evolved as a result of a better understanding of sports science or through research, for example, at the Romanian Olympic training centre in Bucharest and Timisoara. It started when we tried to work out why our athletes failed to reach peak performances at the most important competitions!
JS: I’m particularly interested in your work on the development of sport-specific strength – where did this interest develop?
TB: In 1963 Mihaela Penes, a junior javelin thrower from Romania, was left without a coach when she moved to another city. I was approached to help her. I applied what is now known as the ‘periodization of strength’ to her training. At that time nobody regarded maximum strength (‘MxS’) as a key determinant of power.
The logic of the time – and one that is still held by many coaches today – was that since power is the dominant ability in javelin, for example, it (power) has to be trained all the time. However, my logic was different. Since power is a function of MxS, you have to develop MxS first and then convert it into power, prior to participating in major competitions. Many coaches ridiculed me for training MxS. They said that MxS will make you slow’!
However, the knowledge we now have in exercise physiology justifies what I believed and believe in. That is the scope of MxS to recruit more fast-twitch (FT) muscle fibres. This contrasts with power training that increases the discharge rate of muscle fibres.
During my first winter with Mihaela, I tested my theory, and realised that levels of power were much higher following the periodization of strength. This was in contrast to other athletes, who followed the standard training methodology of year-round power training. This was further vindicated by practice, as Mihaela achieved outstanding testing results and a national senior record. She was only 18 years old at the time and the record was in her first outdoor competition! Her improvement (over nine meters in the first year) continued steadily for the following one-and-a-half years.
JS: Mihaela won the 1964 Javelin Olympic gold…
TB: Yes… since Mihaela was an unknown athlete outside of Romania, I wanted to surprise all her competitors at the Tokyo Olympics. I added another different ingredient into the training plan. This was that her first attempt had to be the best of the day when throwing and strength/power training! We did this in training for almost two years. In Tokyo, none of the other throwers were looking out for her and, with her first throw, she threw an Olympic record. Shock! All the other throwers had long faces. And they still had by the end of the competition, as she climbed the podium to collect her gold medal.
JS: Why the emphasis on weight training for power – if there are still those that need convincing?
TB: The best way to answer this question is to show the relationship between strength and other motor abilities.
During an athletic action, such as sprinting, the athlete invokes a certain number of fast-twitch muscle fibres – the higher the number, the greater the ability to display both strength and power. Let’s assume that athlete ‘A’ can recruit 60% of all their fast-twitch fibres, and athlete B, only 55%. Who will display the higher level of power?
But it should be remembered that, according to the periodization of strength, maximum levels of power can only be reached after the MxS phase.
JS: So, how do you organise the periodization of strength?
TB: The periodization of strength is organised in this sequence and through these phases:
1. Anatomical Adaptation: 3-6 weeks.
2. MxS: 6 weeks.
3. Conversion to power: 5-6 weeks.
JS: You said there are different periodization models
TB: Yes, double (two peaks) and triple (three peaks) periodization models resulted from detailed studies. In the 1960s, most athletes used a mono-cycle, or one-peak annual plan. This used to be a typical plan in track and field. I also used it in rowing. It soon became apparent that the best performance was achieved in early summer (June) and could not be replicated in the late summer (August) during the World Championships, for example, with these methods. This failure made me critically analyse what I was doing with my athletes. More testing and research followed, and I finally realised that, for sports where a coach has to plan at least two peaks per season, he/she has to use a plan I called, at that time ‘double-peak periodization’.
Between the first peak in June, and the second in August, as examples, I had to put in a mini-preparatory phase (involving mostly MxS and power training). A very short transition period was also included in June at the end of the first peak. This lasted for two weeks. The result was two World Champions in the next year, in rowing.
This variation of periodization evolved into what I now call a ‘bi-cycle or a double peak annual plan’. Since these changes in periodization proved to be very successful, the Romanian national coach for the jumping events asked me to analyse his annual plan. He had also experienced the same situation as me, in regards to poor late season form. I concluded that the reason again revolved around strength training. Normally, during the winter months, strength training is an important training element in jumping events. However, as soon as athletes start competing outdoors, specific technical training becomes dominant at the expense of strength and power training. So I recommended that a mini strength/power training phase for the second peak should be included. This proved successful, and brought Romania many medals in the World and Olympic Games.
JS: You’ve had your detractors…
TB: Yes, despite the success of my methods, I have my detractors, especially in the USA. Several sports scientists have claimed that I didn’t really create all the elements of periodization I have described in my books. They claim that the Russians developed them! And that I ‘just’ brought them to the West! My reaction – show me a Russian book or article written from 1960-1980 that discusses periodization of strength/power! The periodization of endurance! The periodization of speed and agility! And so on. In fact, two books of mine have been translated into... Russian!
At this point Tudor provided a little anecdote on the Russians
TB: After my success in Tokyo, I was invited to Moscow for a conference, where all successful coaches had to share everything they did in training with their athletes. Obviously, I never told them everything. I left out of my presentation the ‘conversion’ to power training phase, for example. I also skipped the psycho-physiological methodology I used to train my athletes for maximum performance on the first attempt. Somehow the Russians didn’t trust me! I began to be followed around by a beautiful young lady everywhere I went. Every time we had a short conversation, she invariably tried to discuss sports training. On the last evening we were in Moscow, the Russians organised a sort of banquet. The girl sat beside me and, after few shots of vodka, she wanted me to invite her to my room. Now, I didn’t want to be rude, so I invited her. Knowing that Russians love drinking, I offered her some Romanian ‘tuica’ (pronounced ‘tzuyka’). It’s a very strong plum brandy, stronger than vodka. I promised her that I would reveal all aspects of training later on. Now, I had some tea in my room and, while she was drinking tuica, I drank tea. Now, for unknown reasons she found me very, very attractive, and tried to tempt me to bed. I said, ‘Let’s have another glass of tuica and then another one... and then I’ll take you to my bed.’ By the time we reached my bed she had passed out, probably dreaming about being held in the arms of Hercules...’
Tudor Bompa: World-renowned Strength Training Coach (Part 2)
In part 2 of our interview with world-renowned coach Tudor Bompa, he continues his explanation of the specific importance of strength training for peak performance
Interview by: John Shepherd
John Shepherd: Your books have sold over 650,000 copies, so your methods are now worldwide…
Tudor Bompa: Well, yes. My methods have been used by many people. In Canada, for example, they have been used by Canadian rowers and some sprinters (Tudor has lived in Canada for 37 years). When working with Ben Johnson and his coach Charlie Francis, I adapted the same periodisation of strength methods I used when I worked with Mihaela Penes (1964 Olympic javelin champion). Francis, agreed with the MxS training (maximum strength training methodology – see part 1) I suggested for Johnson.
Remember that this was in 1983, when strength training for sprinters was believed to slow them down, rather than assist them in applying more force against the ground. I produced the following plan:
I began with what I call ‘anatomical adaptation’ – this lasts from 3 to 6 weeks. I then planned a MxS phase for six weeks. This was followed by a power-training phase. Both MxS and power training is then maintained during the competitive phase. Charlie and I demonstrated, in the 1980s, that a sprinter can never be fast before being strong.
JS: I’ve read your endurance strength ideas using 400 plus reps…
TB: With rowing, I developed another version of periodisation. This was developed between the late 1960s and the 1980s. This involves a 6-week MxS phase, followed by a muscle-endurance phase (‘M-E’). This lasts for 8-10 weeks. While the specifics of MxS is to use heavy loads (over 80% of one repetition maximum, 1RM) during the M-E phase, the athlete is trained with much lighter loads (30-40%) 1RM. Sessions often use more than 400 repetitions (8 exercises x 60 repetitions, per muscle group). These are performed non-stop, but they do alternate muscle groups to allow for a better rest and recovery. This training will stress the heart and lungs in a way that is commensurate with the specifics of the athlete’s (endurance) event.
JS: Has periodisation theory changed significantly? There have been a number of articles recently touting ‘the end of periodisation’. These, to me, just supplant linear periodisation, with undulating periodisation (UP)…
TB: I read such an article, and was very disappointed to realise that the author confused loading patterns with the periodisation of training! Anyway, for those who claim the end of periodisation, I have two questions/comments to make: a) Do they really understand periodisation? I regret to say this, but the more a person questions periodisation, the more I question his or her understanding of sports science and training in general. Let me simply say that, for as long as you want to be an effective coach, you have to be well organised and conduct a well organised and planned periodised training methodology. And b) if periodised training is ineffective, what is left to us? We either have periodisation, or chaos! Choose what you want.
JS: And… undulating periodisation?
TB: So-called ‘undulating periodisation’ is nothing but changes in the patterns and magnitude of training loads during a week of training. Olympic weight-lifting athletes have used variations of loading patterns for generations. Since the 1960s, the variation of loading magnitude per week has also been used in most sports, matching strength training intensities to the intensities planned for specific training days (days with low-, medium- or high-intensity, for instance). This is better expressed as alternating training loads as a percentage of 1RM.
TB: Now, I don’t want to be arrogant, but it seems to me that some authors want to recycle the loading pattern format used since the 1960s and pretend they have created something new! And, in any case, the more variations of loadings during the week (ie 60-70-80-90% 1RM), the more I question the effectiveness of adaptation to a given load. For instance, to increase MxS, one has to use loads greater than 80% 1RM. Any time you lower the load to less than 80%, you don’t develop MxS any more, rather, you create a variation of power training. So, in reality, undulating periodisation is nothing but a stew. A mixture of ingredients, or, in our case, a mixture of training loads that will result in mixed adaptation. A little bit of everything is not conducive to optimum adaptation!
JS: What about new systems and approaches?
TB: We live in a time when novelties in training are scarce. We end up with gimmicks. Look at the books published in the USA about balance training, stability-ball core training, or the exaggerations about the importance of stabilisers (core muscles). Certainly, I don’t want to minimise the importance of the stabilisers, or the need for the development of the abdominal muscles as a support for certain moves, but I resent
circus-like exercises, such as standing on a stability ball and throwing a medicine ball to a partner. I believe that this will never improve the ability of an athlete to throw the ball further as a demonstration of improving power. In reality, if you exert the same action with the legs on the floor, you can develop power more effectively.
One more comment about the development of core strength. The abdominal muscles contract more forcefully during squats than during many core strength exercises. This is validated by EMG testing. Why all these gimmicks? Simple: the sports and fitness industry has to sell, sell and sell!
Profits seem to be more important than honesty! The sports equipment industry, the catalogue companies, and the poorly trained instructors promoting them, don’t really care what works and what doesn’t!
JS: How close are we to reaching the buffers of human potential in quantifiable sports?
TB: These types of questions have come up, from time to time, for many decades. And yet, every time somebody says that we are close to reaching the maximum of human potential, superior performances are constantly reported. Personally, I don’t want to venture into any types of predictions, since:
Athletes with superior genetics are constantly found and, in many cases, athletes are selected scientifically;
Training methodology improves constantly;
Training effectiveness increases, proportional to the coach’s improvement in training knowledge, in the area of planning periodisation;
For speed-power sports, many coaches have learned about the benefits of MxS for the development of power, agility and speed – thus performance will improve; and,
In endurance-dominant sports, coaches have learned that specific endurance is better trained via shorter, but more intensive, training.
