The theory of training was established about five decades ago when knowledge of athletes' preparation was far from complete and the biological background was based on a relatively small amount of objective research findings. At that time, traditional 'training periodization', a division of the entire seasonal programme into smaller periods and training units, was proposed and elucidated. Since then, international sport and sport science have experienced tremendous changes, while the traditional training periodization has remained at more or less the same level as the published studies of the initial publications. As one of the most practically oriented components of theory, training periodization is intended to offer coaches basic guidelines for structuring and planning training. However, during recent decades contradictions between the traditional model of periodization and the demands of high-performance sport practice have inevitably developed. The main limitations of traditional periodization stemmed from: (i) conflicting physiological responses produced by 'mixed' training directed at many athletic abilities; (ii) excessive fatigue elicited by prolonged periods of multi-targeted training; (iii) insufficient training stimulation induced by workloads of medium and low concentration typical of 'mixed' training; and (iv) the inability to provide multi-peak performances over the season. The attempts to overcome these limitations led to development of alternative periodization concepts. The recently developed block periodization model offers an alternative revamped approach for planning the training of high-performance athletes. Its general idea proposes the sequencing of specialized training cycles, i.e. blocks, which contain highly concentrated workloads directed to a minimal number of targeted abilities. Unlike the traditional model, in which the simultaneous development of many athletic abilities predominates, block-periodized training presupposes the consecutive development of reasonably selected target abilities. The content of block-periodized training is set down in its general principles, a taxonomy of mesocycle blocks, and guidelines for compiling an annual plan.

In this study, we investigated a new method of training for maximal strength and flexibility, which included exertion with superimposed vibration (vibratory stimulation, VS) on target muscles. Twenty-eight male athletes were divided into three groups, and trained three times a week for 3 weeks in one of the following conditions: (A) conventional exercises for strength of the arms and VS stretching exercises for the legs; (B) VS strength exercises for the arms and conventional stretching exercises for the legs; (C) irrelevant training (control group). The vibration was applied at 44 Hz while its amplitude was 3 mm. The effect of training was evaluated by means of isotonic maximal force, heel-to-heel length in the two-leg split across, and flex-and-reach test for body flexion. The VS strength training yielded an average increase in isotonic maximal strength of 49.8%, compared with an average gain of 16% with conventional training, while no gain was observed for the control group. The VS flexibility training resulted in an average gain in the legs split of 14.5 cm compared with 4.1 cm for the conventional training and 2 cm for the control groups, respectively. The ANOVA revealed significant pre-post training effects and an interaction between pre-post training and 'treatment' effects (P < 0.001) for the isotonic maximal force and both flexibility tests. It was concluded that superimposed vibrations applied for short periods allow for increased gains in maximal strength and flexibility.

The aim of this study was to develop a discomfort questionnaire to elicit the feelings and thoughts of people engaged in running activities. Ten runners who completed a particularly demanding 9-km run were asked to express their feelings and thoughts during the run they had just completed. These responses were recorded and later used as the first pool of items (k = 36). The questionnaire was then given to 171 runners in different distance races throughout the 1995 competitive season. These responses were analysed using exploratory factor analytic techniques and Rasch probabilistic analysis, as well as traditional reliability and validity procedures. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 32 items divided into eight correlated subscales: proprioceptive symptoms, leg symptoms, respiratory difficulties, disorientation, dryness and heat, task completion thoughts, mental toughness, and head or stomach symptoms. These eight categories can be collapsed into three global categories suggested by researchers of pain: sensory-discriminative, motivational-affective and cognitive-evaluative. Rasch analysis suggested that the motivational-affective and cognitive-evaluative dimensions (i.e. the psychological) are the most experienced (i.e. rated highest). The eight subscales have ecological validity and were found to alter with the demands of different running distances.

The present review introduces innovative concepts of training periodization and summarizes a large body of findings characterizing their potential benefits and possible limitations. Evidence-based analysis of the traditional periodization model led to elaboration of alternative versions of athletic preparation. These alternative versions postulated the superiority of training programs with a high concentration of selected workloads compared with traditionally designed plans directed at the concurrent development of many athletic abilities at low/medium workload concentration. The training cycles of highly concentrated specialized workloads were coined "training blocks" by experts and practitioners; correspondingly, the alternative versions were termed "block periodized (BP) preparation systems" by their presenters. Ultimately, two BP training models were proposed: a concentrated unidirectional training model (CU) and a multi-targeted BP approach to athletes' preparation. The first innovative version postulated administration of highly concentrated training means for enhancement of one leading fitness component, whereas the second version proposed the development of many targeted abilities within sequenced block mesocycles containing a minimal number of compatible training modalities. Both versions differ in their methodological background, duration and content of training blocks, possibilities of providing multi-peak performances, and applicability to various sports. In recent decades, many studies have evaluated the effects of both BP training versions in different sports. Examination of the training effects producing by the CU model in combat and team sports has found significant gains in various fitness estimates but not in sport-specific performances. Similarly, utilization of a CU program by elite swimmers did not lead to substantial enhancement of their peak performances. In contrast, studies of multi-targeted BP training programs have revealed their distinct superiority compared with traditional preparation in endurance, team, and dual sports, and strength/power training and recreational athletes (28 studies). It is suggested that the CU training strategy suits athletic disciplines demanding one fitness component like explosive strength in jumping performances. Unlike this limitation, the multi-targeted BP system prompted a beneficial increase of specific preparedness in sports and disciplines in which peak performances require the application of many targeted athletic abilities.

Extensive findings related to nature and nurture in determining athletic talent (AT) have been reviewed. Available data demonstrate the important contribution of hereditary factors as well as the crucial importance of environmental prerequisites for identifying and developing AT. Recent publications provide examples of contemporary approaches intended to solve the problem of how to discover and nurture AT. A number of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies highlighted possibilities of revealing a predisposition to certain sports among youthful prospects, but were unable to predict attainment of world-class status. Data pertaining to Olympic champions indicate that their superiority compared with other elite athletes is determined by high intrinsic motivation, determination, dedication, persistence, and creativity. These salient manifestations of personality could be successfully recognized even in the initial stages of their preparation, where exceptionally gifted individuals manifested high learnability and a high rate of athletic improvement. Moreover, future champions were characterized by an exceptional attitude to training and a willingness to perform more voluminous and high-quality training routines. Exceptionally talented athletes in endurance, power, and combat sports attained world-class status after 4-7 years of specialized preparation, accumulating 3000-7000 h of purposeful training. This stands in contradiction to Ericsson's theory of deliberate practice and the 10-year rule. In contrast, Olympic artistic gymnastics champions attained world-class status following an average of 9.7 years of specialized preparation, accumulating an average of 8918 h of specialized training. Apparently, the theory of 10,000 h of deliberate practice and the 10-year rule are selectively applicable to highly coordinative esthetic sports but not to general preparation trends in endurance, power, and combat sports.