Neutral overview of training organization models.

Training organization considers logistical, contextual and internal (or physiological) factors in the training process of a given athlete or groups of athletes, with the purpose of maximizing adaptation, long-term sustainability and performance. Over the past decades a range of training organization or ‘periodization’ models have been proposed including the Block Training System (BTS), complex-parallel temporal training organization, vertical integration system, tactical periodization, agile periodization, daily undulating periodization amongst others. Although organization of training models can commonly be a topic of heated debate in the athletic preparation field, these models provide an array of tried-and-tested structural frameworks for coaches to choose from to best fit their environment. The appropriate choice of training organization model in a particular setting can serve to guide and ease the flow of the training process as well as to optimize adaptation with minimal interference of other facets of athletic preparation such as technical training. With this article, I aim to summarize three popular training organization models: the BTS, the Daily Undulating training model (DUT) and the vertical integration training system.

A bit of history…

The concept of training organization gained much popularity in the 1970’s prior to the Moscow Olympics. Upon reading the Verskoshanky’s Special Strength Training Manual for Coaches (2011) it is mentioned that during this period, Eastern European sports training experts tended to associate improvements in sports results with higher volumes of training. However, if we go back and look at what elite athletes were doing during this period in Russia, I would comfortably say that they were reaching close to the limits of the human body’s capacity. In this regard, an interdisciplinary research team in Moscow Central Institute of Physical Culture, was given the task of investigating which training sequence or temporal organization could yield equal or greater sports results in strength-speed athletic events, without an additional accumulation of training volume. At first instance the research team in Moscow found that in these athletes higher and higher training volumes wouldn’t ensure the best results because they were engaging in training loads of too many different emphasis; meaning that the mixed content of training over a given time in these athletes resulted in a negative interference between adaptations (e.g. maximal strength vs. explosive strength vs. hypertrophy, etc.). From this arose the BTS, which focused on accumulating specialised work targeting a particular physical adaptation over extended ‘blocks’ of time and progressed linearly. Over time, practitioners around the world working with diverse athletes, not only track and field, began to apply such temporal organization of training and realized that as the Russians did warn them, BTS may not always be fit for sports with a more complex kinematic profile and a non-uniform/volatile schedule of competition, such as team or combat sports. A series of organizational models have been developed, and to be honest contextual factors should probably be the biggest driver of a coach’s choice, but let’s explore these three big ones we hear about all the time and see what they have to offer…


Brief description

The BTS organises training into sequences or ‘blocks’ of training which differ the training loads imposed on the athlete to target specific physical adaptations over a given period of time, typically 6 to 12 weeks. In these ‘blocks’ of training, there is a concentrated emphasis on that one outcome adaptation, which biologically and chronologically sets up the athlete for the following block in a yearly training plan. For instance, a training block aimed at creating a metabolic energy base with athlete-specific aerobic work precedes a block aimed at increasing maximal anaerobic power. As a general ‘rule of thumb’ the former training blocks are more general and the latter ones are more specific to the athletic event or sport, and intensity progresses in a linear fashion.


The basic idea behind BTS consists in ‘increasing the functional level of the physiological systems involved in competition (i.e. increasing the athlete’s motor potential)’, prior to performing the more specific work. Essentially, the aim is to ensure that structural-anatomical and bioenergetic qualities are at a solid level before moving into to more complex-technical and explosive training. Once this is achieved, the focus shifts towards ‘improving specific motor control function (i.e. improving the athlete’s capacity to realize his motor potential in the motor structure of competition)’. Having covered that initial base, the athlete is now in a position to execute the totality of the competitive movements at a high-level, theoretically ensuring optimal progression.


* The body can adapt better to one specific stressor at a time than to a complex composition of training stimuli (i.e. biologically, it makes sense).

* Strong ecological evidence suggesting that by the end of a complete (uninterrupted) training cycle, the athlete will be at an optimal (if not close to it) condition to perform gross-motor skills / exercises (some of it described in Bondarchuk, 2007 and in Verkhoshansky & Verkhoshansky, 2011).

* Provides a highly structured temporal organization of training to follow.


* Unrealistic in sports with a volatile schedule.

* Although long-term adaptation may be theoretically favoured, a concentrated emphasis on a specific physical quality may interrupt acute performance in another.

* Provides a highly structured temporal organization of training to follow (yes, also a limitation).

Athletes & settings it could work best for

* Strength-speed T&F events

* Weight/Power lifters

* Endurance athletes (?)

(Images from Verskoshansky & Verskoshansky (2017) p.130-136)


Brief description

Contrary to BTS, DUP favours a training process with greater variation. In the DUP model repetition schemes are altered each training session, hence the term ‘daily’, which subjects the athlete to a wider (and continuous) range of training stimuli. Typically, training cycles still follow the ‘block’ format in that their duration be 6 to 12 weeks, however the cycle progressions do not necessarily follow a strict chronological progression of physical-physiological qualities, hence the term ‘undulating’.


The basic premise behind DUP is that by creating greater variation in training stimulus, we are able to produce superior physiological and performance adaptations in the athlete(s); particularly of strength, power and associated qualities. One of the key rationales behind the daily undulating format is that it allows longer times for specific physical qualities to recover, whilst allowing for the development of others. The DUP model be attractive for athletes competing in sports requiring a range of physical capacities, such as team, court, combat or even strength speed sports, however a key assumption of this training organization model is that of a high pre-existing level of strength and tolerance to varied loading schemes.


* Reduced likelihood of acute detriment to individual physical qualities, due to continuous exposure to varied stimuli

* Variation may foster greater enjoyment of the training process

* A more malleable chronological organization compared to block periodization


* Sub-optimal performance gains at end of training cycle compared to block periodization

* Increased likelihood of a negative interference effect across physical qualities (i.e. variation may interrupt adaptation processes)

* Some evidence of greater susceptibility to accumulated fatigue (some of it is described in Painter et al., 2012)

Athletes & settings it could work best for

* High-level weight/power lifters

* High-level strength-speed T&F athletes

* High-level strength and power dominant contact sport athletes (e.g. Am. Football, Rugby Union) (?)

(Image is own hypothetical example)


Brief description

Vertical integration is, nicely put, a combination of block (or conjugate), linear (or sequential), and undulating periodization which ensures that every physical quality of the total training process is present at all times, but in different quantities at different periods. Training cycles follow a general to specific format, as common in training organization models, which targets a chronological progression in intensity and specificity of training. Vertical integration is a concept that originates from the business management space. Essentially it is a strategy whereby a company owns or controls its suppliers, distributors, or retail locations to control its value or supply chain. Vertical integration benefits companies by allowing them to control the process, reduce costs, and improve efficiencies by concentrating more or less of their focus on the operations of a given area over a given time, without limiting other areas. The operational effectiveness / potential in the athletic preparation realm was first made famous by renown sprint coach Charlie Francis.


Vertical integration exploits the benefits of traditional linear / block periodization, whilst addressing some of its weaknesses. As previously mentioned, linear and block periodization systems make sense from a biological standpoint; the body can best adapt to a focused stressor as opposed to a complex combination of training stressors. However, a focused approach to training inherently results in detraining of other physical qualities, which in the context of sports or athletic disciplines that require an array of physical qualities may negatively affect acute performance. By organizing training in a way that every physical quality is present at all times, an integrated approach to athlete preparation is ensured, and by concentrating more focus on specific areas in specific periods (without eradicating the ‘second priority’ areas) a more ‘efficacious’ adaptation process is targeted. This has been promoted as ‘the best of both worlds’ approach to training organization in our field.


* Limits the likelihood of detraining to a specific area of athletic preparation (as much as possible)

* Exposes the athlete to an integrated framework of physical qualities (better term: training demands) which better mimics that of competition

* Still exploits the benefits of a concentrated focus on a given training stressor (as much as possible) for the adaptation process, whilst following chronological the most appropriate progressions (e.g. volume -> intensity, general -> specific, Long -> short, isolated -> integrated)


* Still not ‘optimal’ for the adaptation process (biologically speaking)

* Quantities of concentrated and ‘second priority’ training stressors require high technical knowledge from the coach and knowledge of individual variability in responses to these (in the context of team sports)

* ‘Peak’ performances may be limited, and work capacity may also be inevitably limited during specific periods of the whole training cycle

Athletes & settings it could work best for

* High-level T&F sprinters (we know from Charlie Francis)

* Team sport athletes

* Combat sport athletes

(Image from (2002))

References and further readings

1. Bondarchuk, A. (2007). Transfer of Training in Sports (M. Yessis, превео). Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts.

2. Jovanovic, M. (2020). Biological Planning, Organizing, and Programming for Physical Preparation - Part2 - Complementary Training. Retrieved 19 July 2020, from

3. Jovanović, M. (2020). Strength Training Manual: The Agile Periodization Approach. Volume One and Two.

4. Painter, K. B., Haff, G. G., Ramsey, M. W., McBride, J., Triplett, T., Sands, W. A., ... & Stone, M. H. (2012). Strength gains: block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 7(2), 161-169. Chicago

5. Periodization: What the Data Say • Stronger by Science. (2020). Retrieved 19 July 2020, from

6. The Structure of Training for Speed (Charlie Francis Training Key Concepts Book 1):

7. Verkhoshansky, Y., & Verkhoshansky, N. (2011). Special strength training: manual for coaches (p. 274). Roma: Verkhoshansky Sstm.

8. Vertical Integration. (2020). Retrieved 19 July 2020, from

9. What Everyone Really Needs to Know About Periodization - Just Fly Sports Performance. (2020). Retrieved 19 July 2020, from

Find the author

Instagram: @___Adriano