Institute of Coaching and Performance, School of Sport and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Sports Med. 2018 Apr;48(4):753-764. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0823-y.
Periodization theory has, over the past seven decades, emerged as the preeminent training planning paradigm. The philosophical underpinnings of periodization theory can be traced back to the integration of diverse shaping influences, whereby coaching beliefs and traditions were blended with historically available scientific insights and contextualized against pervading social planning models. Since then, many dimensions of elite preparation have evolved significantly, as driven by a combination of coaching innovations and science-led advances in training theory, techniques, and technologies. These advances have been incorporated into the fabric of the pre-existing periodization planning framework, yet the philosophical assumptions underpinning periodization remain largely unchallenged and unchanged. One particularly influential academic sphere of study, the science of stress, particularly the work of Hans Selye, is repeatedly cited by theorists as a central pillar upon which periodization theory is founded. A fundamental assumption emanating from the early stress research is that physical stress is primarily a biologically mediated phenomenon: a presumption translated to athletic performance contexts as evidence that mechanical training stress directly regulates the magnitude of subsequent 'fitness' adaptations. Interestingly, however, since periodization theory first emerged, the science of stress has evolved extensively from its historical roots. This raises a fundamental question: if the original scientific platform upon which periodization theory was founded has disintegrated, should we critically re-evaluate conventional perspectives through an updated conceptual lens? Realigning periodization philosophy with contemporary stress theory thus presents us with an opportunity to recalibrate training planning models with both contemporary scientific insight and progressive coaching practice.
周期化理论在过去的七十年中已经成为卓越的训练计划范式。周期化理论的哲学基础可以追溯到各种塑造影响的整合，教练的信念和传统与历史上可用的科学见解融合在一起，并与普遍存在的社会规划模型相适应。从那时起，许多精英准备的维度都发生了重大变化，这是由教练创新和以科学为导向的训练理论、技术和技术的进步所驱动的。这些进步已经融入到现有的周期化计划框架中，但周期化背后的哲学假设在很大程度上仍然没有受到挑战和改变。一个特别有影响力的学术研究领域，即压力科学，特别是汉斯·塞利 (Hans Selye) 的工作，被理论家和实践家反复引用为周期化理论的基石之一。早期压力研究的一个基本假设是，身体压力主要是一种生物介导的现象：这一假设被翻译成运动表现的背景，即机械训练压力直接调节随后的“适应”适应的程度。然而，有趣的是，自从周期化理论首次出现以来，压力科学已经从其历史根源中得到了广泛的发展。这就提出了一个基本问题：如果周期化理论所依据的原始科学平台已经瓦解，我们是否应该通过更新的概念视角来批判性地重新评估传统观点？将周期化哲学与当代压力理论重新调整一致，为我们提供了一个机会，用当代科学洞察力和进步的教练实践来重新校准训练计划模式。
