Here are some of my thoughts about the use of “Block”
methodology (this includes Issurin’s Accumulation,
Transmutation, Realization model, Bondurachuk’s GPE, SPE, SDE and CE Exercise Taxonomy model and Verkhoshansky’s Conjugate Sequencing System or Block
Training System) and why Charlie Francis’s model is much easier to
implement with team sports and non-high/elite level athletes:
Verkhoshansky Presenting his Block model |
First, I must point out that the term “block” is merely
synonymous with mesocycle, phase, etc. and is merely just a period of time in
training; usually 2-5 weeks. Vladimir
Issurin has block defined as (I’m paraphrasing) “a period of time with
concentrated loading focusing on a limited amount of abilities” but again,
using the term “block” in most context is purely semantics as it lacks the key
elements elucidated below (I’m guilty of this).
Issurin's Block Periodization Model |
What’s interesting about comparing all of the individuals
mentioned above models is that they all have a few key and similar elements:
-concentrated loading in the form of very high volume &
intensity for one mean in one session (ergo Verkhoshansky’s 8x10 (2) barbell
jump squats) or multiple sessions (workouts) in one day (ergo Bondurachuk and
Issurin’s model using 10-15 sessions per week)
-emphasis on a limited amount of bio-motor/energetic/dynamic abilities
-logical sequencing/progression of means (exercises)
-high ratio of special exercises (using specific criteria/taxonomy)
-use with high/elite athletes
The elements above each pose a problem for use in the team
sport setting along with those athletes that are not at the highest level of
their sport and cannot sustain the stress that is placed on them by the demands of the
methodology.
-Concentrated loads are not necessary for developing lower level athletes and they get by with normal loading schemes in terms of the interplay
of volume, intensity, frequency and density
-Team sports require a VAST array of bio-motor/energetic/dynamic abilities
-logical sequencing/progression of means (exercises) is the only element that
crosses over from the block methodology to Charlie Francis’s model
-they do not need special exercises in as high amount as a higher level athlete
to improve because they have not mastered basic exercises
![]() |
Example of Anatoli Bondurachuk's Block Model |
Now what’s great about Charlie Francis’s Vertical
Integration Model (which is based on a business model if I’m not mistaken?) is
that you can manipulate all of the training variables from top to bottom using:
1. Bioenergetics/Biodynamics/Biomotor abilities
2. Intensity
3. Volume
4. Density
5. Frequency
6. Method
7. Mean (exercise)
And then finally, manipulate them to suit A) the sport and B) the
individual.
A key note is to look at the interplay of all these variables as they can be manipulated to achieve many different objectives (i.e. Depth Jumps can develop maximal strength (>.7m) and reactive strength (<.3m), Back Squats can be used to improve oxidative properties (<30% 1RM, 2 sec. concentric and eccentric, no hypoxia, 40 sec. work, 60 sec. rest) or for the development of explosive strength (30-70% of 1RM, <5 reps, 3-5 minute rest period)
The way programming should
be done is based on sporting demands first and then all the intricacies that
make an individual athlete (or team) unique.
Charlie Francis’ model fits much better for an overall
methodology as it is quasi-block and you are able to manipulate training
variables more objectively to fit a concentrated sequenced structure (used for high level athletes) or use it in a concurrent structure (appropriate for lower level athletes) without causing any “lost in translation” to your
athletes or other coaches.
Basic example of Vertical Integration |
What Buddy Morris said about vertical integration mimics my
sentiments exactly, it is quasi-block in that you emphasis (notice that word
again) different biodynamic needs, bioenergetics, bio-motor abilities and then
fluctuate volume, intensity, density, frequency, methods and means.
Vertical integration is by far the easiest model
for programming to implement with team sports because of:
1. Varying abilities of athletes
2. Conflicting bioenergetic demands
3. Many biodynamic considerations
4. Many bio-motor abilities needed
5. Limited time for athletes (due to work, school, governing
body guidelines, etc.)
6. Logistics of equipment, facilities, staff, etc.
Using Vertical Integration allows for much more adjustment to the individual(s); manipulating all acute training variables becomes much more simple with this model.
No comments:
Post a Comment