Evolution of Sports Training Paradigms
Historically, the sports training science and our understanding of training principles, was formed through the following paradigms:
1964 – Periodization of Sports Training (Dr. Lev Matveev, the concept introduced and known in the West by Tudor Bompa after 1970)
The periodization concept was built on the observation of cyclicity in sports training and suggested viewing training as nested cycles (Micro and Macro) that should be combined to define training direction and content. To compensate for the lack of a specific formulation and quantitative methods for cycle definition, Matveev suggested a set of “training principles” coaches needed to follow in their training design. In a way, it was a “rule-based”, empirical approach to training design.
1972 – Anaerobic Threshold Training Concept (Dr. Alois Mader, Germany)
The Anaerobic Threshold Training Concept emerged from the need to establish more precise, physiologically grounded training targets that were entirely absent from Matveev’s theory.
To achieve this, Alois Mader, the founder of this method, built the first relatively complete mathematical model of metabolic processes under physical stress and defined the dynamic interactions among metabolic systems and the physiological regulatory mechanisms involved in them.
In essence, the anaerobic threshold concept was an attempt to establish a solid theoretical foundation for “effective” training intensities, using changes in metabolic processes as an important guide for training decisions. Ironically, this method did not challenge the Periodization concept’s integrity and actually used it for planning purposes.
1968-1972. Parametric Training Concept (Dr. Sergei Gordon, USSR)
The search for more comprehensive approaches to the effective management of sports training occurred independently in different countries over approximately the same period. It was clear that the Periodization concept, despite its theoretical importance, lacked the components necessary for intelligent management of sports training. Contrary to the German sports physiology school, the Soviet system conducted research in a parallel field, seeking to identify the impact of “standardized exercises” on longitudinal adaptation responses (both in terms of change of results on standard distances and dynamics of physiological factors of performance). The Parametric Training studies emerged from that research and defined the long-term dependencies in human reactions to exercises in “different directions”.
The results of parametric training studies directly contradicted the Periodization principles, which, by that time, were accepted as a nationwide paradigm and a central basis for coaches to follow, and, for mostly political reasons, were never accepted as a mainstream Soviet training philosophy despite the undeniable results it produced even at early phases of its development. Parametric training principles were applied in preparation of several Olympic Champions, including Alex Popov (swimming) and Ekaterina Hodotovich (rowing).
The parametric training set laid a foundation for a better understanding of training principles, which later became the foundation of Super Sport Systems.
1999 – 2026. Ergometric Training Concept. Dr. Sergei Beliaev
The notion that sports training should be viewed and treated as a process consisting of multiple elements that should be connected with each other has already appeared in the 70’s of the last century, but has never been formalized and defined in specific terms.
Creation of Super Sport Systems in 2003 assumed the fact that training process elements are interconnected and empirically tested the boundaries of these connections for over twenty years.
The development of the second generation of 3S platform required a re-evaluation of the core principles behind 3S and their position relative to existing methods.
This re-evaluation led to the formalization of different training principles and theories that allowed the creation of 3S. The Ergometric Training Concept formulation resulted from this work and, for the first time, defined the principles that formally explained the logical and methodological interconnections among the main training process elements. It establishes a framework for understanding training as a structured process of change in the athlete’s condition.
By itself, the Ergometric Training Concept can be viewed as a next-level training paradigm, standing above previous concepts and frameworks built on a single event or finding. The ability to combine separate elements of the training process and explain how they work using a common, unifying criterion elevated our understanding of training and its horizons.
To conclude: ETC stands above previous generations of training frameworks and represents a one-of-a-kind “unifying” training paradigm that connects all previous elements and explains them through systemic requirements rather than stand-alone features.
