Strength Training Manual: Agile Periodization and Philosophy of Training

Welcome to Complementary Training Community! Forums Complementary Training Blog Posts and Articles Strength Training Manual: Agile Periodization and Philosophy of Training

This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Mladen Jovanovic 6 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • 05/05/2019 at 12:33 #25296

    Agile Periodization is a planning framework that relies on decision making in uncertainty, rather than ideology, physiological and biomechanical constructs, and industrial age mechanistic approach to planning. Contemporary planning strategies are based on predictive responses and linear reductionist analysis, which is ill-suited for dealing with the uncertain and complex domain, such as human adaptation and performance.

    [See the full post at: Strength Training Manual: Agile Periodization and Philosophy of Training]

    08/05/2019 at 15:33 #25317

    This is the smartest thing I’ve read in a long damn time.

    08/05/2019 at 19:20 #25318

    Thanks Joe. Really appreciate it. Took so much freakin’ energy to write

    18/05/2019 at 20:56 #25407

    Hi Mladen,

    very interesting read indeed (not easy though): Great work transfering models/ideas from other disciplines than “exercise science” that are already more advanced as a field to our world. Looking forward to a hardcopy one day 🙂

    Because I hope this goes to a print version once, let me be a nit-picker (and because I know from my own writing, that sometimes you don’t see stuff anymore…)
    -Paragraph latent vs. observed: “…strength depends and is caused by Boris Sheiko, on the other hand…” There might be a dot missing between “by” and “Boris”: Had to reread the paragraph for good.
    -Paragraph substance vs. form: Here I might be wrong, but anyway: I think in Fig 2.25 plus the paragraph above are not consistent in naming axis and lines: In the paragraph “potential” has (s) as abbrevation, in the description under the Graph its (p); Secondly the line (R) (Intensity) is not explained, what I personally would avoid: Btw, don’t like the original figure by Verkhoshansky much anyway: Maybe because the “performance result” is the independent variable , what doesn’t feel right to me in the first place 🙂

    After all: Thanks for your contribution to improving us all, soo loking forward to part III.

    20/05/2019 at 22:47 #25414

    Thanks Aleksander for spotting these!!!

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.