Periodization has no scientific validation??

I get the Heart Zones newsletter and the November issue had a short blurb that really caught my eye. Carl Foster, PhD was quoted as saying:

Periodization of training has no scientific validation. There is no research that shows that periodizing your training is of any benefit. According to Carl Foster, Ph. D,. and past president of the American College of Sports Medicin (ACSM), "Periodization is how to mix various types of training to get optimal competitive result at the desired time. There are virtually no controlled data addressing the value of periodization." Additionally, Foster suggests that some of the originators of the periodization training system developed the program to match the cycle of steroid and other performance enhancing drugs to both conceal their use and to give their athletes the stress-strain cycle they needed to maximize their illegal use.

I don't know about you, but with so many educated and experienced coaches out there who have used periodization for so many years with great results, this blew my mind.

Another Spinning MI, Lisa Mona, was also confused by this and emailed me, wondering what we were missing. We went back and forth on it and she had the great idea to email Joe Friel and see what his response would be. This is what he responded to her:

Hi Lisa,
 
Thanks for your note. There is some truth to the fact that there is very little in the way of research to support periodization. But the few studies that have been done generally support it. This is kind of like saying there is no research proving that breathing helps performance. That would also be true but doesn’t mean you shouldn’t breathe while exercising.
 
Periodization has its roots in the early 1900s before steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs were known of.
 
Best wishes,
Joe 

I for one am very pleased with his answer (and grateful to Lisa for seeking him out). He says it all in just a few short sentences, doesn't he?! To be honest, aside from a few other "controversies" about periodization and base building, I cannot find anything else that backs up what Carl Foster is saying (if any of you find anything, please let me know).

It's not that I'm not open to new ideas about established methods or techniques of training. I mean, look at how long the fitness and training world said that lactic acid was the cause of acidosis and fatigue? Or that 220-Age is your Maximum heart rate? (ugh, we'll be dealing with that one for awhile I'm afraid). There is new science all the time that refutes conventional wisdom and beliefs. 

But there are so many successful trainers and athletes who use periodization with great results, I don't think it will go away any time soon. However, it is safe to say that there is still a large amount that we do not know about how the body responds to training, or why. Scientists still do not know the mechanism for increased capillarization, one of the great benefits of training aerobically that helps increase endurance.

It used to be believed that during the base building period, athletes should do no high intensity training whatsoever. One of the culprits fueling this belief was the "exploding capillary theory", which assumed that high intensity efforts will push too much blood too quickly through the newly forming capillaries, hindering their production. This fueled the idea that you should only work the low end during this base training. 

I knew an athlete here in Vail a few years ago (a professional mountain bike racer) who trained with Rick Crawford, a well-known cycling coach (he trained Lance Armstrong years ago. His current professional cyclist client is Tom Danielson, once on the Discovery team, he now races for Garmin Chipotle). Crawford told this athlete that he should not even run upstairs during his two months of base training (and of course, forbade him from skiing) for fear he might hamper his capillarization! I went to a presentation by Rick at my club about 6 or 7 years ago (Tom Danielson was there too) where he explained this "exploding capillary" theory. 

[Note: As far as I know, Crawford didn't title it that - the coaching and scientific community labeled it "exploding capillary theory" after the fact.]

Now, it is generally accepted that during the base building phase of a periodized program, in order not to let the "ceiling drop" too much, an occasional effort to threshold should be performed. This way, while focusing on the lower end, you don't lose as much of the high end. Different coaches preach differing amounts of this higher intensity, but it makes sense to me. For the most part, it is generally accepted that 80-90% of one's efforts should be in the aerobic range during this first phase of a periodized program.

I stuck to the "No HIT" during base building belief for years, but have recently altered my views about base building, and encourage my clients and students to ride at threshold once every 10 days or so. 

We train like athletes in my Spinning classes, and that includes spending 6-8 weeks each winter in a periodized base building program.  And I consider all my students "athletes", even the out-of-shape, newbies! If an athlete will benefit from base training, then why should someone in the fitness realm not benefit as well?