I’m a bit confused about the Sally Edward’s article Periodization for CV Training. I’m happy with everything up until the percentages are given for preparation 1 and preparation 2 mesocycles. Sally states that 25 percent of 40 is 10, then divides again which is five to find the length of each individual mesocycle (so five weeks each preparation mesocycle). But in the diagram underneath, the numbers for both of the preparation mesocycles are 10 weeks. Is this the juggling to suit the individual, or am I overlooking something?
Thanks for asking about the matching of the distribution and sequencing of training load, what we are now calling “progressive training” rather than periodization. (The term is getting a black mark because there is no validation research behind it. You can read more about this in the article below, taken from one of my recent blogs.)
The diagram was but an example of training periods. It does not match the specific example. It was used to be representative and not precise. The fact that you discovered this demonstrates to me your depth of understanding and attention to detail, not to mention your willingness to take a stab at the right answer with the statement "Is this the juggling to suit the individual?" This last statement is dead on, as modification is a key skill in designing training plans to fit individual programming.
Thanks for asking and please continue reading this excerpt of my recent blog below.
Periodization Lacks Scientific Evidence
There is no research that shows that periodizing your training is of any benefit. Periodization, according to Carl Foster, Ph. D., is “how to mix various types of training to get optimal competitive result at the desired time.” According to Foster, the past president of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), there is virtually no controlled data addressing the value of periodization. Additionally, Foster suggests that some of the originators of the periodization training system developed the program to match the cycle of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to both conceal their use and to give their athletes the stress-strain cycle they needed to maximize their illegal use.
Recently, Foster announced that there is no validation to the concept of periodization. Supporting his statements, author and coach Dr. Phil Skiba stated that periodization, as traditionally understood in the United States, actually makes little to no sense. Both Skiba and Foster advocate the “Progressive Training Load,” a training principle that states that increasing training load over discrete periods of time in a continuous fashion to peak on race date maximizes the effects of positive training.