VOODOO CHILE: Training 'Science'?

From Coach Keen:

As we have stated previously, GMAAC is all about proven sports-specific work, while using science to direct our curiosity in finding new and effective methods.

The focus is on the proven and time-tested methods, however, and we will never let the armchair theorists tell us to do what science says *should* work, as opposed to what we know *does* work.

Once example of a practice some of our coaches employ that doesn’t seem to sit well with the gurus who have never laced up a pair of gloves themselves is the use of Fibonacci sequences in planning out training cycles.

That’s right, the ‘Golden Mean’… The sequence of “Fibonacci Numbers,” for the uninitiated, is 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, etc., with the list being made up of each number being the sum of the two numbers before it. The Golden Ratio/Proportion/Mean is .618, which happens to be what you come up with, after the first few numbers, when you divide any number in the Fibonacci sequence by the one that follows it.

There are many arguments, both for and against, as regards using this mathematical construct in planning out training cycles:
-the proponents say that Fibonacci numbers show up so often in ‘perfection’ and ‘nature’ that they simply cannot be ignored; that is, if these mathematical ratios show up in flower petals, ridges on shells, spiral patterns in water and weather and the proportions of ‘classic’ art and architecture, why wouldn’t it be the case that the natural training and recovery rhythms of the human body are also attuned to this ratio?
-the detractors would tell us that, despite the overwhelming occurrence of this ratio in nature, there is no reason to assume that the “number of days on which you have a training session” is a metric that can or should be controlled by this numerical sequence. They likely believe that, *even if* this Golden Ratio applies somehow to training and recovery, it might just as well be the number of minutes per day you should exercise, or the number of reps to do in a workout, or the number of seconds a muscle should be under tension that this ratio is applied to…there just isn’t any scientific evidence to back up *how* to use Fibonacci numbers in training programming, and in light of that, you should rely on the sports science data that *is* out there regarding training and recovery. [Ed. Note: it is likely that the proponents of this concept, particularly the ‘way out there’ Kool-Aid Drinking Fib-ers, would say all of the above should have the mean applied to them.]

We here at GMAAC agree in part with both camps, and believe that our coaches who use Fibonacci training cycles do so in a way that falls within the common-sense realities that both camps seem to aim at one another.

Here’s why:
1. When you look at the most commonly-used Fibonacci-inspired training cycle, the three-week cycle, what you come up with is five days of ‘rest’ (with the middle day containing an ‘active rest’ workout), 15 straight days of training, and then a 6 day ‘peaking cycle’ actually composed of 2 three-day cycles: three days of rest, then a day of easy training, a day of moderate training, and then your event/peak. This kind of workout schedule ends up, as a practical matter, working out GREAT for us with respect to boxing when someone takes a fight about a month out, and, in fact, looks a lot like the tail-end of a training camp anyway. You come in fresh, you have a rest near the end, and then an easy-to-moderate ramp-up and you compete. These easy and moderate sessions at the end are great when an athlete needs to engage in a little activity for ‘weight management’ purposes, and help your athletes to feel energetic and springy going into a fight, as opposed to sluggish from sitting around for 4 days.

2. As the proponents point out, you can’t ignore the anecdotal data. A number of high-level performers in the sports world have noticed that they do indeed register a peak performance if their training calendar incorporates these numbers and sequences. We have noticed the same, and thus, “it works” so we “keep it.”

3. We like the long stretches of consecutive training days, as this is great when you are working with amateurs and have to consider ‘real-world compliance’… If you sketch out a program for a 14 year-old boxer that includes 4 training days a week for 6 weeks, invariably, between cold season, the Sadie Hawkins dance, being grounded, etc., one of those training sessions a week, on at least two or three of those weeks, is going to slide. That means that all of a sudden you have an athlete who, while supposedly preparing for an event, is ‘not training’ as often as he 'is training', calendar-wise, and that just doesn’t mesh with GMAAC’s long-standing belief that “the best athletes are always the gym rats”…

4. The consecutive training days also allow us to sit well with the sports science theorists and employ block periodization. In today’s world, regardless of the athletic factor examined, we simply do not have the time to employ linear/volume-based periodization schemes, and in the sport of boxing, there are TOO MANY physical attributes that we can (and need to try) to improve to do anything other than always be training *something* on that list “hard,” while at least “maintaining” the other attributes. Using the longer, three-month Fibonacci training block, the ‘guts’ of which has you train for 21 days, rest 3 days, train 34 days, rest 3 days, and then finish with a 21 day block that includes the 3 days of rest and 3 day taper/ramp, is perfect for this. Assuming that the athlete comes into that block with a sufficient base, both skill- and physical attributes-wise (which they do if they train with us…), this is a great set-up to do a three-part block set-up of either 1) General Endurance, 2) Power/Power-Endurance, 3) Fight Prep; or, 1) Aerobic, 2) Anaerobic Lactic, 3) Fight Prep/Anaerobic Alactic. All of these training blocks would have received much more comprehensive, 8-week blocks earlier in the training year, but when a fight is three months out this is a nice way to use shorter blocks and, building upon the base you already established earlier in the year: a) ‘touch’ each of these energy systems and make sure they are primed and ready to go, b) provide some exciting, fresh training that changes every few weeks, and c) use LOTS of sports-specific skills and drills to make sure your fighter is where they need to be physically, and then spend a few weeks on tactical preparation and HARD WORK based on what you know about the opponent.

5. Finally, that last double-three-day-ramp-up at the end would seem to satisfy what the experts currently hold to be a good ‘taper’ or ‘peaking’ strategy. While it used to be held (and still is, by many) that you needed to rest, and rest only, a lot prior to an event, science has backed-up the practice of resting, albeit sparingly, and then leading into an event with some limited volume and intensity work that seems to provide a tonic effect and allow for a peak/supercompensation on event day.


All of this, to reiterate our going-in statement, however, truly boils down to the fact that these training cycles seem to work for us and our athletes. That really is all that matters, and that there seems to be some evidence out there in the world that this *should* work is just gravy. If this is at all interesting, the best, and by far most comprehensive, training resource out there on using the Golden Mean to construct training cycles is “Consistent Winning” by Ron Sandler and Dennis Lobstein, which not only discusses the cycles mentioned about but has sections on holding a peak, training to peak on successive weekends, how to warm-up, etc. Remember, don't rely on luck, so "good planning!"