Periodization and planning are always hot topics as the way in which coaches program various qualities – strength, power, capacity, endurance, etc – is something that gets debated often.

Concurrent training is one method that many coaches employ as it consists of training multiple qualities at equal amounts of focus within the same training phase and often within the same workout. The biggest issue that can arise from this sort of programming is that often times the two or three qualities one is looking to enhance end up competing with each other for adaptation.

All types of training, whether it is strength training or long distance running, will produce specific responses from the body which trigger gene expression and molecular changes that in turn cause the body to adapt to the training stimulus in order to make us more prepared to tackle this stressor should we need to face it again (our next workout or competition). One of the arguments against concurrent training is that the adaptations that the body’s internal environment under goes in response to the differing training stimuli brought on by the multiple qualities being trained in the training day or training phase are on different ends of the spectrum thus confusing the body as to how it should respond and leading to less than favorable adaptations. This is referred to as the Interference Phenomenon. You can’t be an elite powerlifter and an elite marathon runner at the same time. In addition to the arguments about performance outcomes another big issue with concurrent training is the reported overreaching or overtraining that tends to occur when an athlete attempts to cram several training qualities into a workout or training phase, detracting from their recovery time and increasing the amount of training miles they are placing on their body.

Interestingly, despite these arguments against concurrent training studies looking at the effects of concurrent training appear to be mixed in regard to the results with some studies showing it to be effective and other studies showing it to be detrimental to strength, power, or endurance adaptations. Of course it is important to take into consideration the subjects in many of these studies, who are often college aged exercise science students with minimal to no training background, thus they may respond in a different manner than someone with a higher training age or more elite in status.

Recently, Wilson and colleagues (2012) conducted a meta-analysis in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,Concurrent Training: A Meta-Analysis Examining Interference of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise.

This analysis looked at 21 studies on concurrent training to better understand its application and potential detrimental effects when looking at parameters such as hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, and VO2max.

Some of the interesting findings that they noted:

1. Hypertrophy and max strength did not differ between the strength only and the concurrent training groups, however, power was significantly decreased in the concurrent training group versus the strength training only group.
2. No decrements were found in VO2max between an endurance only group or a concurrent training group which indicates that aerobic capacity may not really be inhibited by this method of programming. An interesting aside is the same result has also been seen in elite endurance athletes.
3. Concurrently performing strength training and running led to significant decrements in hypertrophy and strength gains however this result was not found to be the case when strength training was performed concurrently with cycling. The authors hypothesized that his may be due to the fact that cycling is more biomechanically similar to many of the strength tests used in the study or since running has a higher eccentric component (while cycling is primarily concentric) there may be potential for greater muscle damage. However, despite the performance decrements, concurrent training with running led to a greater decline in fat mass versus concurrent training with cycling.
4. While the common ground between long duration endurance training and resistance training is low (as I indicated above when discussing the interference phenomenon) there does appear to be a common ground between short duration, high-intensity, sprinting and resistance exercise due to the way the neuromuscular system is recruited for these tasks.

Thoughts on application for team sport athletes

Research is great but at the end of the day we have to figure out how to really apply this stuff in order to drive change in our programs. Team sport athletes are unique when it comes to fitness qualities as each sport has different needs and demands. Team sport athletes don’t often need to be able to display the uppermost limits of their individual strength or power (like a powerlifter or olympic weightlifter, for example), however they do need to be able to display high amounts of power efforts and then posses the capacity to repeat those efforts over and over during the course of a game. The athlete who can display a high amount of power output but then needs a significant period of rest to do it again becomes a detriment to the team when they are on the field (and potentially an injury risk). While concurrent training may appear to be helpful in this instance it can also be a detrimental as the athlete doesn’t have the time to develop specific qualities to a higher potential (qualities that may be important to success in their sport or the position they play on the field) and ends up being a “jack of all trades; master of none” thus holding them-self back from greater success.

That being said, there are times when concurrent training can be very useful and warranted – total beginners or even during some inseason periods when training time is cut short due to more frequent competitions and practice – however, it would be wise to prioritize specific qualities during specific training cycles when you can so that the athlete is able to (a) work on whatever qualities are a weakness to them that need to be better developed to play their sport and (b) to get those most of your training and ensure you are developing your abilities to their highest potential within the construct of the team sport environment.

For example, if the goal of your first phase of training is to develop the aerobic capacity for an individual that is out of shape or lacking in that area, using a powerlifting program while throwing in a few aerobic activities at the end of the workout would not be the most productive way to go about it. It would make more sense to reduce the intensity of your lifting program (<80%) and perhaps even the frequency (2-3d/wk seems to work well) as well as using training methods that would be advantageous to your goal of improving aerobic and general work capacity. The other days of the week would be more focused on aerobic development using a variety of methods and modalities which target that athlete’s individual needs. Rather than concurrently training during this phase and “getting a little better at everything” you can take the time to focus more specifically on a single quality and reap the benefits of it which will then support your training in later phases when you shift focus towards a different quality.

So much can be said about periodization and planning and the topic is very interesting. One thing to keep in mind is that no two athletes will respond or adapt the same way to the same training program. Just because something worked for one individual does not mean it will be optimal for another individual. It is best to keep the individual’s needs in mind with regard to where their current level of fitness and development is and how that level of fitness and development relates to their sport, their position in that sport, and what other athletes who have had success in that sport posses.

Over the past two blog entries I got a little more in depth into the idea of tweaking physiology and the importance of the methods you choose to use with your exercise selection.

Having Sam Leahey here on an internship basis has been interesting because I am typically a one man show when it comes to work. I just show up, do my thing, and don’t really talk much about it to anyone. But, now I have someone standing there all hours of the day asking me a million questions about “why this” and “why that” and “what about this” and “do you think that” that it has forced me to articulate my ideas much more clearly and explain everything that I do – this is a good thing.

Sam and I take our discussions to the white board often and Sam will give me a situation or an example and ask me what I might think with regard to program design and then we hash it out – he grills me on why I would do certain things verses others and we go back and forth with ideas.

This week, Sam’s big “ah-ha” moment came when we were discussing program design. Sam commented that what he liked so much about looking at training in this manner was that you can really train any sort of athlete as long as you know physiologically what you are trying to produce. From there, it is just about selecting certain methods, setting up your phases of training and figuring out what your training week is going to look like.

That last part is clutch!

The key is really looking at the days you have available to train and figuring out how to spend your time. This is where I use the phrase Divide and Conquer.

Oftentimes, we get tend to get swept up thinking about trying to do so many things in a single training day that we end up not achieving what we set out to achieve in the first place (or we get a little bit of what we wanted but not really the full pie – Jack of all trades, master of none).

Instead of trying to cram tons of stuff into one training day – speed, power, plyos, strength training, ESD, etc – it makes more sense to look at your training week, look at the training phase and what you are physiologically trying to enhance, and then dividing the qualities up through the week so that you can specifically focus on one single quality at a time and ensure you get from your training what you want – Divide and Conquer.

This can be a difficult thing for some coaches to do because they want to hold onto the things that they believe to be true and often have a difficult time embracing the cognitive dissonance of looking at things from a different lens. My friend Dave Tenney made a great point about this as we were talking once when he said, “It is always hard for someone to listen to you when you offer them a perspective that is a complete 180 degree difference from what they are already doing. Sometimes they come around and listen and sometimes they don’t.”

My quote to Sam is always, “Sam, let it go! Give up trying to slam things in on training days or during training weeks because you are “scared” that the person is missing something.”

There is always time, later in the program (if you sequence things well), to attack all the qualities that you are worried about trying to fit into one day and when you get to that point in the program attack you will – Divide and Conquer.

Wrapping up, there are times when training in a very concurrent manner is warranted, useful, and logistically makes a lot of sense. But, when possible attempt to concentrate your efforts on something very specific so that you can pull the most from it before moving onto something else. It all comes down to how you look at the training week, sequence various training qualities, and what you choose to focus on in the overall big picture.

One of the hot topics over the past year or so has been energy system development and the idea of developing a sport specific work capacity to further enhance an individual’s athletic potential.

Taking this a step further, a common theme in many of the discussions I have been having with some of my friends/colleagues in the field has been the idea of tweaking physiology to optimally get what we need from the athlete – specific to their needs, their sport, and their position within that sport – whether it is to prepare them for a competitive season or in some of the ideas we have been bouncing around about the athlete’s return to play following an injury.

No two people are alike and the idea of individualized training is one that gets tossed around a lot – How individualized does training need to be? Does each person need their own program? What if we have a large group of athletes, how do we individualize then? What about the general fitness qualities which are consistent between all sports/athletes?

What do I mean by “tweaking physiology”?

Each athlete has some sort of physical quality that makes them great. Some athletes possess an incredible aerobic system. Some athletes may have an amazing alactic system and are able to display great strength, power, and/or speed. Other athletes may have a mix of both and be ahybrid of sorts.

As I stated earlier, when looking at the individual it is important to take into consideration their sport, their position on the field or court, and what physiological qualities are needed to succeed in those two situations. From this understanding we can then begin to develop a training program that is specific to that individual’s needs.

For example, we may have an athlete that has a lower aerobic capacity compared to others on the team but is highly explosive and quick. Depending on their position on the field or the type of system the coach runs, this sort of makeup may be optimal. However, if the athlete played a different position on the field or was asked to play a different role on the team (for example if there was a coaching change and the new coach ran a different style of offense or defense) this type of makeup may not be optimal and may require a change in program design to tweak the athlete’s physiology a different way.

A good example of this might be seen in football where you may have an offensive lineman that plays in an offense that is all about pounding the ball, taking time in the huddle, and slowing down the pace of the game. If all of a sudden a new offensive coordinator came in who wanted to run more of hurry-up style of offense and play more of a “run-and-gun” type of game then the offensive lineman needs to develop more of an aerobic capacity to allow himself to repeat efforts rapidly with minimal rest to keep up with the rest of the team and ensure that the pace is fast enough to keep the defense on the field and not allow them to substitute out players so that they can get rest.

This concept was discussed by a few of the coaches during the Sounders Sports Science Weekend during the soccer periodization round table discussion and then further emphasized by Christ West during his lecture.

Sometimes the flame burns too bright: Looking at physiology a different way

Some athletes possess a very wired nervous system. Their 90% seems to be a much more intense effort than other athletes 90%. They go harder, they push more, and their nervous system is always running hot (I refer to this as their flame burns a little brighter than everyone else).

The problem with these individuals is that they may be able to really turn it on and display amazing power but over the course of several attempts, when rest is incomplete (as it so often is in American team sports), that flame that burns really bright tends to also die out a bit quicker.

The flip side of this is the athlete who’s flame doesn’t burn as bright but it stays lit for a long period of time. They may not be overly explosive or have a lot of power but they can repeat their efforts consistently without much variation (even though those efforts aren’t as intense as you would like them to be).

In both of these instances, training will have to take on a different shape and result in us trying to tweak their physiology. In the first case, we actually may need to dampen this athlete’s flame a little bit. While their 100% effort may be incredibly impressive the flame burns out so quick that in a team sport setting it is pretty much useless (although it might be ideal in a setting suck as track and field or swimming where they need to just blow through one single event as hard as possible and then they get a ton of rest). In fact, with this athlete, we may actually – in the processes of dampening their flame – turn their nervous system down a bit. For this individual we may have to be open to the idea that having them at 95% – but being able to repeat that 95% over the course of the entire game – is more optimal then having them at their 100% – even though it is very impressive – which they can only display once every 2-3 minutes. This can be a difficult thing for the athlete to understand and teaching them to turn down the volume on their nervous system a little bit and pace things out will take time and patience on the part of both the coach and the athlete.

In the second example, we actually have to teach the athlete how to turn the volume up on their nervous system. We want to throw some gas on that flame and try and get it to burn a bit brighter. These athletes will need less emphasis on their aerobic capacity development and more emphasis on intense efforts.

Again, it is important to emphasize that a lot of this will be specific to the sport and position the athlete plays on the field. For example, the special teams return specialist on your football team may not need to have as much aerobic capacity as your wide receiver who plays almost every down and is on the field for longer periods of time and needs to be able to repeat their highly explosive efforts play after play (alactic-aerobic ability).

Sounds Simple….Right?

Obviously this sounds simple and many have talked about similar concepts before; however, it isn’t as easy as it looks. Tweaking someone’s physiology and their unique physiological make up takes time and you will need to sit down and think very specifically about their program design and what you are attempting to get out of it.

It isn’t as easy as just training everything – speed, power, strength, energy systems, etc – on each training day or doing a little bit more strength work or doing a few more tempo runs. It takes some thought and (maybe) some creativity when it comes to developing the program.

These are certainly hard questions to ask and often leave me with even more questions than answers. However, they are important questions to ask because in the long run they will make our program design better and ensure that we are extracting the highest potential out of an athlete without just doing something very general and hoping for the best.

I don’t have all the answers (or even some of the answers). Right now, we are just playing with a lot of concepts and ideas on how to go about developing an individualized training program to specifically tweak someone’s physiology. Sam Leahey has come out to Phoenix to spend the summer with me and we have been sitting down and going over my document of training methods and having long discussions about how some of the methods fit into a program, where they fit, and how we can use these methods to create certain adaptations – physiological adaptations, hormonal adaptations, structural adaptations, etc. Some of these methods and the training programs that we have been using look nothing like the traditional training programs you may see if you walked into a sports training facility and this is mainly because we have established specific goals or themes that we are trying to emphasize on certain days of the week or in certain phases of training.

It is still a learning process and not everything works out as planned but the idea is that we are trying to push the envelope a little bit. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that just because something did not work for one individual does not mean that it won’t work for the next guy or girl that walks through the door. There is no telling how any one person will respond to a certain training stimulus and because we all have some individual qualities we all will have individual responses.

The goal is to hopefully look back five years from now and have a much greater understanding of what it takes to tweak someone’s physiology. Right now we are just trying to keep our minds open to many ideas and concepts.

People have been asking why I haven’t blogged as much recently. I actually average about two blog articles a month which I feel is sufficient as I would rather put more thought into a few blogs instead of just writing filler stuff every day or every week.

To tell you the honest truth, the more I read the more I realize I don’t know – and I have been reading a lot lately. The body is extremely complex, and I often find myself sitting here trying to wrap my head around all the potential ramifications of my training and/or treatments.

These days the profession seems to be striving towards making things as simple as can be. Now, I am all for simplicity and K.I.S.S. when talking to clients and athletes or even when trying to draw up a training program and not getting too bogged down with every little thing. That being said, in the back of my mind (and hopefully yours) I try and consider the fact that things really aren’t that simple. In fact, they are very complicated and sometimes when we distill things down to such simplicity we lose sight of this fact.

There are many systems in the body all working together to create balance or homeostasis. Things like the central nervous system, autonomic nervous system, immune system, metabolic system, digestive system, endocrine system, musculo-skeletal system, cardio-pulmonary system, etc. In previous interviews I have said that, “in a crude way, the nervous system rules the roost”, and I still believe this to be true as when things – muscles, organs, etc – are deinnervated they don’t work. But, we should also keep in mind that all of these systems do have their own time frames to adapt and react to our training or treatment stimuli/stress. Additionally, they all may adapt in a different manner depending on what we are doing. In order to embrace this complexity you need to try and step outside of your box and attempt to oversee the complete person….this can be difficult!

For example, if all you do is focus on the musculo-skeletal aspects of training you may miss out on some key endocrine system or metabolic system changes that you can make in your client (changes that the client may actually need to succeed and progress in their training program). On the flip side, if all you did was focus on the endocrine and hormonal adaptations/ramifications of your training programs you may be destroying your clients musculo-skeletal health or, if you are really doing things foolishly and push to hard and to frequently with loads of metabolic work you may compromise their immune function.

I believe there is a delicate balance with all of these things and being a good coach means trying to sit down and figure out what you are actually attemping to produce with your training stimulus.

As I said, it can get complicated and I don’t have all the answers (or even some of the answers) but I am sitting here trying really hard to figure out how to make all of these pieces work together. Hopefully one day I will have a better grasp of it all and of course, as I dig further down this rabbit hole I will be sure to share some of my ideas along the way in future blog articles (averaging about two a month).

Most everyone that reads this blog knows that I am not a fan of Crossfit. Now, there are some things that I do find intriguing about Crossfit – high levels of fitness/work capacity, the ability to repeat strength challenges with minimal rest, and some of the overall adaptations that these people get when training in this manner – however, when I look at what takes place on some of the youtube videos it makes me cringe:

• Horrible form
• Olympic lifting for high reps
• Extremely intense/stressfull workouts (workout of the day) multiple days a week without any understanding of how to modulate training intensity
• Did I mention horrible form?

Anyway, that being said, if there were a way to train for the Crossfit Games (the sport of fitness) I think that James Fitzgerald of Optimum Performance Training has nailed it down. James won the first ever Crossfit Games and made a lot of the training mistakes that many still make today. The kicker though is that James is also one of the smartest exercise physiology people I know and saw the error of his ways and decided to figure out how to make training, preparing, and planning for a chaotic, ever changing, moving target environment like the Crossfit Games more sensible (without absolutely killing people). Going along with this process James is constantly developing testing methods and protocols as a means of “talent IDing” individuals to determine what qualities give you the potential to excel in the sport of fitness.

Last week James laid out some of his strength and conditioning principles in THIS article in his blog – scroll down below the picture and start reading where it says A Guide To Good Strength and Conditioning Principles.

If you are a frequent reader of this blog you may find a lot of James’ message very congruent with things that I have discussed in the past regarding aerobic work, what he calls the CP Battery (which I have referred to as alactic-aerobic training), and some basic understanding of how to prepare someone for a bigger work capacity and fitness output.

I think you’ll enjoy the article and what it has to offer with regard to the principles and tenets James operates under. I have had the pleasure of sitting and talking shop with James and his assistant strength coach Max El-Hag on several occasions and find their ideas on training to be top notch and very well thought out. If you train Crossfit or you train people for Crossfit I would certainly pay attention to what they are doing or check out some of the certification courses they offer because for that fitness market I don’t really  know if anyone else is doing it better than these guys.