Traditional periodization is a well known and studied concept in training theory. This type of planning was established in 1960 by Soviet scientists for high-performance athletes from the former Soviet Union. Later, it was taken as a planning model for training scheduling also in the western world (Issurin 2010). In the last 50 years, sports science has accumulated new knowledge about training and this has caused international sport to undergo a drastic change, however, the traditional model of training periodization has not changed much since the first publications.
Today, athletes compete much more compared to previous decades and athletes have other demands of professional sport. To further advance performance, coaches and athletes have encountered limitations and drawbacks using the traditional periodization model. The inability to obtain maximum performances at different dates during the competition season, inconveniences using long-term training programs, obtaining training responses not entirely expected and insufficient training stimuli (Issurin 2008; 2010). In response to these limitations, some experiments carried out by coaches and researchers have led to the creation of alternatives to classical training programs, the block model is one of the options, which we could say, has been incorporated into modern sport.
The block planning model uses specialized mesocycles, which focus on developing a few selected skills in a short period of time. In contrast to the traditional model that focuses on the development of many capacities simultaneously. The use of the block model allows for a larger training stimulus than the traditional model, which could lead to better adaptations (Issurin 2008).
What about cross-country skiers and the different models used?
Cross-country skiers often use a resistance training model based on high-volume work at low intensity and low volume work at medium and high intensity (Gaskill et al 1999; Vergès et al 2006; Seiler and Kjerland 2006; Sandbakk et al. to 2011).
However, Sandbakk et al. (2010) found that speed skiers perform too much low and medium intensity training than is recommended for their specialty. This may suggest that these intensities are important factors in the base formation at one time of the season, but it remains to be determined how to distribute it throughout the season. However, a pattern that is increasingly on the rise is that of the use of increasingly intense training prior to the competition season, with less low and medium intensity and a considerable increase in high intensity work.
For professional skiers, the limitations of traditional periodization are obstacles to further progression of their performance (Issurin 2010). The traditional training model is characterized by the use of long periods of time for the development of training objectives (García-Pallares et al. 2010). Another drawback that has been found with this type of traditional periodization is excessive fatigue and the increased risk of overtraining that can be caused by prolonged periods of mixed training (Lehman et al., 1997), insufficient training stimulation generated by mixed work and an inability to reach several peak of form during a season. All this leads to a performance that is not entirely optimal for current needs (Issurin 2008; 2010).
Trying to overcome these limitations in the training program, alternative periodization concepts were developed. The block planning model offers an alternative approach to planning for high performance athletes. The general idea among coaches is to use specific training blocks. These blocks contain a high concentration of workloads targeting a small number of specific skills, allowing for a more concentrated training stimulus (Issurin, 2008).
High intensity vs low intensity for the development of VO2max.
There are many different factors that determine success in an endurance sport; Three factors (not the only ones) have been determined to be important in assessing cross-country skier performance. Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max), lactate threshold, and economy of effort (Pate & Kriska 1984). The most recent studies support this model (Bunc and Heller 1989; di Prampero et al 1986; Helgerud 1994; Hoff et al 2002a.). The most important factor is probably VO2max, considered the best indicator of an individual’s cardiorespiratory capacity (Åstrand et al. 1964; Saltin and Åstrand 1967; di Prampero 2003). Cross-country skiers have recorded some of the highest VO2max values. never seen (Ingjer 1991). To obtain adequate performance in modern cross-country skiing, the importance of VO2max in high performance is unquestionable and a very high level of VO2max is needed (Saltin and Åstrand 1967; Losnegård 2012) in order to achieve results. Skiers and higher level skiers have a higher VO2max. than lower-level skiers (Ingjer 1991; Sandbakk et al. 2011).
Conclution
Organizing endurance training in cross-country skiers using a block planning model can give better physiological adaptations compared to performing traditional planning over a 5-week training period using similar volumes of high intensity as well as low intensity Of course, this is an idea and that its application will always be subject to the circumstances of each case.
References
- Issurin V. (2010). New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med. 40 (3): 189-206.
- Issurin V. (2008) Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 48 (1): 65-75.
- Gaskill, SE Serfass, RC Bacharach, DW & Kelly, JM (1999). Responses to training in cross-country skiers. Med Sci Sports Exerc . 31 (8): 1211-1217.
- Seiler, KS & Kjerland, G. Ø. (2006). Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution? Scand J Med Sci Sports . 16 (1): 49-56.
- Sandbakk, O. Holmberg, HC Leirdal, S. & Ettema, G. (2011). The physiology of world-class sprint skiers. Scand J Med Sci Sports . 21 (6): 9-16.
- Garcia-Pallares J, Garcia-Fernandez M, Sanchez-Medina L, Izquierdo M. (2010). Performance changes in world-class kayakers following two different training periodization models. Eur J Appl Physiol 110: 99-107.
- Lehman, M., Lormes, W., Opitz-Gress, A., Steiacker, JM, Netzer, N., Poster C. (1997). Training and overtraining: an overview and experimental results in endurance sports . J Sports Med Phys Fitness 37: 717.
- Pate, RR, & Kriska, A. (1984). Physiological basis of the sex difference in cardiorespiratory endurance. Sports Medicine , 1, 87-98.
- Bunc V. & Heller J. (1989). Energy cost of running in similarly trained men and women . Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 59: 178-183.
- Helgerud J. (1994). Maximal oxygen uptake, anaerobic threshold and running economy in women and men with similar performances level in marathoners. Eur J Appl Physiol 68 (2): 155-161.
- Hoff J, Wisloff U, Engen LC, Kemi OJ, Helgerud J. (2002b). Soccer specific aerobic endurance training. Br J Sports Med . 36 (3): 218-221.
- Saltin, B. & Åstrand, PO (1967). Maximal oxygen uptake in athletes. J Appl Physiol . 23 (3): 353-358.
- Losnegard T, Myklebust H, Hallen J. (2012). No differences in O2-cost between V1 and V2 skating techniques during treadmill roller skiing at moderate to steep inclines. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26 (5): 1340-1347.
- Ingjer, F. (1991). Maximal oxygen uptake as a predictor of performance ability in women and men elite cross-country skiers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1 (1): 25-30.
- Sandbakk, O. Holmberg, HC Leirdal, S. & Ettema, G. (2011). The physiology of world-class sprint skiers. Scand J Med Sci Sports . 21 (6): 9-16.
