The Fallacy of Periodization?

[Kimmo]

That said most strength coaches agree a large part of eastern bloc success in the 70s and 80s wasnt primarily due to their programming approach but instead their understanding of successful biochemistry.

 

I couldn't agree more. The bulgarian teams from the '80s/'90s -- and I actually know one of them from my life overseas -- couldn't pass a modern piss test to save their lives.

 

hehe, nice change of the original quote, but it doesn't change shizzle cuz the soviets were just as heavily into drugs as anyone else, maybe more so (witness the bulk of soviet lifters vs bulgarians? maybe a clue?), and the bulgarians still kicked their arses.

 

and john still hasn't explained his original quote about "understanding of rest days".

[Kimmo]

interesting info:

 

from what i've read, roger bannister, first sub 4 minute miler, only ran 27 miles a week in prep for his record. most of it was high speed intervals, 400 repeats at around 50 secs a lap. he didn't have time for much more since he was a full-time med student!

 

again, high intensity, lower volume.

[jon]

A person who can't run a sub 60 400 won't be able to run a sub 4 mile.

[RuMR]

i think that's kimmo's general point that if you can't yank on a two finger 1/4" ledge its kinda pointless to train endurance to send a route with a two finger 1/4" ledge...

[jon]

A person who can't run a mile won't be able to run a sub 4 mile.

[Kimmo]

A person who can't run a mile won't be able to run a sub 4 mile.

 

now that's a truism there, right?

 

but i betcha a person who can run six or eight 50 second 400s with a minute rest in between can run a pretty damn fast mile without ever having run one, dontcha think? especially if they do this interval program for a few months, yes?

[Kimmo]

in fact, i would guarantee that the above interval workout would produce a faster miler than doing a buncha multi-mile runs a week below race-pace.

[John Frieh]

and john still hasn't explained his original quote about "understanding of rest days".

 

Why bother? You've obviously already made your mind up that anyone is wrong that doesnt agree with you.

 

Classic cc.com: pose a question and then shit all over anyone who attempts to contribute to an actual climbing related topic. That's some weak sock puppetry there Kimmo

[Kimmo]

and john still hasn't explained his original quote about "understanding of rest days".

 

Why bother? You've obviously already made your mind up that anyone is wrong that doesnt agree with you.

 

Classic cc.com: pose a question and then shit all over anyone who attempts to contribute to an actual climbing related topic. That's some weak sock puppetry there Kimmo

 

wrongo dude. you think i should simply agree with anything said? there are plenty of posts i've agreed with, and plenty i haven't agreed with.

 

if you were to actually EXPLAIN some of your assertions, then we have a discussion. my feeling is though that you CAN'T explain the above contradiction, so you pull out the sock puppet argument. nice dodge.

 

but honestly, i would like to hear an explanation of "rest" being the actual mitigating factor in bulgaria's dominance.

[hafilax]

i think that's kimmo's general point that if you can't yank on a two finger 1/4" ledge its kinda pointless to train endurance to send a route with a two finger 1/4" ledge...

Didn't Guellich say something like that? If you can't pull the hardest move you have nothing to endure.

[Kimmo]

this is the frequency of lifting with the "bulgarian method":

 

 

Session 1

(Mon, Wed, Fri) Time Exercise

9:00-9:30 Front Squat

9:30-10:00 Break

10:00-11:00 Snatch

11:00-11:30 Break

11:30-12:30 Clean and Jerk

12:30-13:00 Front Squat

Session 2

(Mon, Wed, Fri) 16:30-17:30 Clean and Jerk

17:30-18:00 Break

18:00-19:00 Snatch

19:00-19:30 Front Squat

19:30-20:00 Pulls

Session 2

(Tue, Thu, Sat) 9:00-9:30 Squat

9:30-10:00 Break

10:00-10:45 Power Snatch

10:45-11:15 Break

11:15-12:00 Power Clean

12:00-12:30 Front Squat

12:30-13:00 Pulls

 

 

 

so they are doing front squats 6 days a week, up to three times a day. and the other lifts multiple days in a row. and these are not light weights: you can see them lifting on youtube; intense. usually close to 100% of their max.

[Kimmo]

[video:youtube]

[jon]

13:30-14:00 3000 U Testosterone, 100 U rGH, 1500 U Deca-Durabolin

[Kimmo]

basically. if not more often.

[tomtom]

Bulgaria's Weightlifting Federation has withdrawn its team from this summer's Beijing Olympics after 11 lifters failed drugs tests.

[G-spotter]

In Progression you watch Patxi try this high intensity strength training to be #1 competition climber then BOOM his foot slips and he's in third. Should have trained technique more

[G-spotter]

or switched shoe sponsors I guess...

[jon]

So let me get this straight Kimmo. You are saying that people should use the Bulgarian method for training instead of "Periodization" (I put this in quotes because most people don't understand periodizations principles, and often under or overemphasize them) based on the assertion that doped to the gills Olympic athletes (being more genetically gifted in lifting then you or I) were the "best" in the world using that method?

[Kimmo]

So let me get this straight Kimmo. You are saying that people should use the Bulgarian method for training instead of "Periodization" (I put this in quotes because most people don't understand periodizations principles, and often under or overemphasize them) based on the assertion that doped to the gills Olympic athletes (being more genetically gifted in lifting then you or I) were the "best" in the world using that method?

 

jon, you do not seem to understand that the soviets were also "doped to the gills", yet the bulgarians consistently beat them, at least during the period that abadziev coached them.

 

do you see the relevance of this? both the soviet periodization approach and the bulgarian max intensity approach used drugs (which leveled the playing field), yet the bulgarians won. what does this seem to indicate? it seems to indicate the superiority of one approach over the other, yes? tell me how this doesn't make sense.

 

 

[Kimmo]

maybe i'm missing something here, and if i am, please tell me what it is!

[Kimmo]

In Progression you watch Patxi try this high intensity strength training to be #1 competition climber then BOOM his foot slips and he's in third. Should have trained technique more

 

i think he's a bit of a "periodizer", whereas ondra's approach seems closer to a bulgarian powerlifter.

[RuMR]

i think that's kimmo's general point that if you can't yank on a two finger 1/4" ledge its kinda pointless to train endurance to send a route with a two finger 1/4" ledge...

Didn't Guellich say something like that? If you can't pull the hardest move you have nothing to endure.

Jerry Moffat

[RuMR]

maybe i'm missing something here, and if i am, please tell me what it is!

Jon's point about the drugs was that they enabled the bulgarians to train that way...ie. if you were NOT taking drugs that training would break you...

 

is that what you were saying Jon?

[Kimmo]

that could be a valid point.

 

i don't know if i agree or not, but i read that the soviet's approach actually required more anabolics and hormones because of the immense volume of their training. and that furthermore, the bulgarians were pretty lean lifters, dominating in the middle weights, whereas the soviet middle-weight lifters bulked up and passed into the heavy-weights because of both the sheer volume of lifting and the amount of drugs.....

 

who knows, not i.

[tomtom]

do you see the relevance of this? both the soviet periodization approach and the bulgarian max intensity approach used drugs (which leveled the playing field), yet the bulgarians won. what does this seem to indicate? it seems to indicate the superiority of one approach over the other, yes? tell me how this doesn't make sense.

 

What is shows is that the Bulgarian approach was superior for lifters *doped to the gills*.

 

Nothing more.