Pavlov S.E., Pavlova T.N., Davydov A.P., Pavlov A.S., Petrov A.A.
“Russian State University of Physical Education, Sport, Youth and Tourism”(SCOLIPE)

Keywords: Effectiveness of athletes’ training, the laws of adaptation, theory and methodology of sport, specificity of the training loads, the laws of the training level transfer, the methods of sports training construction, a complex method of sports training construction.

Annotation. The results of athletes’ training activity are defined, first of all, by the laws of physiology and in particular – by the laws of development and adaptation of a man’s organism. The analysis of widely spread ideas of adaptive process mechanisms helped to reveal the inconsistency and absurdity of these ideas. The system of laws of adaption of a man’s organism determines the principles of training level transfer from training exercises to competitive ones, and defines the choice of which way the training process should be organization.

Research methods: scientific literature analysis, sports – pedagogical tests.

Materials. The effectiveness of a swimmers’ training process, if they train according to the generally accepted programs in sport schools and according to the program created in accordance with the laws of adaptation, is evaluated according to the dynamics of standard swimming tests results and according to the dynamics of individual results in swimming on competitive distances by means of chosen ways of swimming.

Results. A low effectiveness of the used in sport schools programs of young swimmers training was revealed. The data gathered proves the high effectiveness of a physiologically reasonable complex training process in training young swimmers. In an individual experiment the high effectiveness of using a physiologically reasonable complex training process is proved in a qualified swimmers training.

Conclusion. Physiologically reasonable complex training processes are the most effective ways of training athletes. During the construction of the training process problems such as specificity and optimization of the training loads come out. Selecting a method of constructing a training process should be realized according to the criterion of its highest effectiveness for each individual sport.

Maximum efficiency in training of highly skilled athletes can only be achieved with the use of evidence-based modern technology for complex training of athletes. It is necessary to note that the “material” basis of improving fitness and a sports performance increase of any athlete is a training process which is based on a general theory of sport and the theory and methodology of a chosen kind of sport. But the only thing, that modern theory and methodology of sport can be based on, are working laws of physiology: the laws of development and adaptation of a man’s organism. L. P. Matveev (1965) declared that a biological process can’t be opposed to a pedagogical one (and vice-versa) – they are common in form and content [9]. The first shows a complex of adaptive reorganizations in an organism of an athlete as a reaction to a training load, the second reveals the essence of the training system itself [3]. Later N. N. Yakovlev 1976) wrote that training was an adaptive process and he said the following about the training process management: “In order to manage successfully you should know the mechanisms” [19]. The mechanisms of a training processes management can be based only on the knowledge of laws of development and adaption of a man’s organism [11, 16, 17].

Judging by the numerous publications, the vast majority of sports teachers are absolutely sure that the adaptation process goes according to the «scheme» — «stress — adaptation — disadaption — readaptation.»

But it is known that stress is not the only nonspecific adaptive reaction of an organism [7]. Having made “stress” the only nonspecific reaction of an organism, the authors of the mentioned above “scheme” made the adaptation process discrete, broken, depending only on the presence of a stressor and this contradicts all laws of Nature. Life is “a continuous adaptation… to life conditions” – I. M. Sechenov (1863). “From a wide biological point of view an organism is always in the conditions of a sequential action developing external and internal factors of its existence” [1].

Nonspecific characteristics of factors influencing an organism (their size) can’t be judged without their specific qualities. Moreover nonspecific characteristics of active factors define their specificity [16, 17]. An organism can’t react separately to nonspecific and specific characteristics of active factors. But there is no specificity in the mentioned above “scheme” and that is why it is not clear how the process of adaptation goes.

“Disadaptation” according to the ideas of the “scheme” creators is the process opposite to the process of “adaptation”, its “destruction” which is possible only in case of death. The use of the term “disadaptation” also proves the existing idea of adaptation as a process which happens occasionally. It should be noted that the appearance of the term “disadaptation” is closely connected with the idea that adaptation — is always the achievement of an organism to create some great opportunities, which is not correct.

The process of “readaptation”, according to a majority, means the “return” of an organism to an earlier achieved level of adaptation. But an organism is changeable and that is why all the following adaptation cycles will not be a return to “an earlier achieved level of adaptation” but an ability of a changed organism to achieve new “levels of adaptation” (which will not always “exceed” according to their parameters achieved earlier results).

Thus the “scheme” — “stress – adaptation – disadaptation – readaptation”, orienting coaches and athletes creating training processes according to the principle “the more the better” is absolutely absurd from beginning to end and in no way reflects the actual processes taking place in the organism during its continuous adaptation to the always complex working environmental factors. For the followers of this “scheme” we will say the words of H. Sele (1960): “There is nothing more harmful for progress than stubborn upholding of one’s preconceived ideas” [15].

Adaptation is the process of an organism’s specific adjustments to the always fully influencing environmental factors and the process of structural and functional stability support of fully formed functional systems of an organism. The laws of adaptation: 1. The laws of adaptation are the same for all living organisms created according to one image. 2. The laws of adaptation are part of the laws of a person’s development, maturity and ageing. 3. Adaptation is a continuous process which stops only if the organism dies. 4. Any living organism exists in four-dimensional space and that is why the processes of its adaptation can’t be described linearly. 5. The basis of the adaptation process of a highly organized organism is always the formation of specific functional systems, the adaptive changes in its components are one of the essential “instruments” of their formation. 6. Constitutive factors of any functional system are the final and interim results of its “activity” that defines its absolute structural and functional specificity. 7. Systematic reactions of an organism to a complex of simultaneous or (and) consistent environment effects are always specific and the nonspecific part of adaptation is an important component of any functional system and defines the specificity of its reaction. 8. It is necessary to talk simultaneously about existing dominant and conditional afferent effects but it should be understood that an organism always reacts to the whole complex of environmental effects, forming a unique to the given complex functional system. 9. Each functional system is extremely specific and within this specificity it is relatively labile only at the stage of its formation (the process of an organism’s adaptation). A formed functional system (that corresponds to the state of adaptivity of the organism to specific conditions) loses its liability and is stable in case of its afferent part invariability. 10. Any functional system can be formed only on the basis of “preexisting” physiological (structural — functional) mechanisms which depending on “demands” of a definite integral system can be involved or not into it as its components. 11. Functional system components define its “behavior” in general, influencing each other, but a system in general always influences its components. 12. The complexity and extension of “a working cycle” of functional systems has no boundaries in time and space. 13. An obligatory condition for a full formation of any functional system is constancy or periodicity of an influence on an organism of a standard, invariable complex of environment factors which “provides” a standard afferent part of a system. 14. One more obligatory condition is the participation of memory mechanisms. 15. The process of adaptation, in spite of the fact that it goes according to general laws, is always individual as it is in direct relation to the genotype of this or that individual and is realized in the context of this genotype and in accordance to the conditions of a former life of a given organism’s phenotype [13].

In accordance to the presented laws of adaptation: 1. An organism always works as an integral mechanism and “forms” behavioural (motional) acts according to the conditions which it is placed in; 2. The systems of concrete motional acts are formed as a result of their frequent correct repetition; 3. Any activity of an organism is very specific concerning its external parameters and according to structural-functional characteristics of this activity; 4. Adaptive changes which form the base of an athlete’s training level increase are determined by the specificity of his training activity. Taking into account these regularities and observing the principles of purposefulness and optimality of training loads should a training process for qualified athletes be built, in this case it will be effective [18]. It should be noted that the fulfillment of a concrete work of an organism is provided by a concrete structural – functional complex of an organism and this structural – functional complex is “trained” in the process of a concrete work fulfillment. To train each complex an organism spends its “adaptive reserves” which is not unlimited. “In order to be fertile in one sphere nature has to be stingy in another” (Johann Wolfgang Goethe). “If nutritious saps come in plenty to one organ they seldom come to the other, at least plentifully” (Charles Robert Darwin). There is a firm law of nature: “If something comes to one place, in another place it will diminish”. In science this law is known as the law of conservation of energy. According to this law the more “nonspecific” training an athlete fulfills, the more damage is inflicted on the sport of choice. This statement doesn’t exclude the use of additional exercises for training in a nonspecific direction, but it should be noted that, transfer of training can be not only “positive” but also “negative”. So the group of additional training exercises should be chosen and used in the training complex in a way that each component of this training influences an athlete’s organism only in a positive «transfer of training» level for competitive exercises [14]. The key to understanding the laws of transfer of training is in the laws of systematical physiology and, in particular, in the laws of an organism’s adaptation [11, 13, 16, 17]. Picture 1 shows schematically the principles of “a training level transfer”.

“Automatic” positive «transfer of training» levels from training exercises to main competitive exercises is made in ±10-15% “corridor of specificity” of a fulfilled exercise (A.P. Bondarchuk) – subject to an observance of an optimal volume training loads. The use of relatively specific (beyond the bounds of 10-15% “corridor of specificity”) training exercises provide greater positive «transfer of training» the more specific (concerning the main competitive exercises) they are. In this case the main rule which is necessary to for planning and creating a training process is the following: the effects of a specific training workout should dominate the training process.

Different authors offer different ways of organizing a training process. The most popular are the theoretical projects of L. P. Matveev (theory of periodization and methodology of sports training) and Y. V. Verkhoshanski (block theory of sports training). An individual and a not so flattering mention should also receive, V. B. Issurin who “invented” his own “block periodization of sports training”. This former Leningrad, and now Israeli “scientist” just mixed the theories created by L. P. Matveev and Y. V. Verkhoshanski and, as a result, almost every reader can find in the book confirmation of their own ideas.

Picture 1. The principles of a training level transfer (СУ – competitive exercise; ТУ – additional training exercise) (S. E. Pavlov, A. S. Pavlov, 2013)

A greater importance for sports are the theoretical and practical projects of an Olympic champion, doctor of pedagogical science, professor A. P. Bondarchuk (1986, 2005, 2007, 2010 and others) who for almost 40 years “creates” winners and awardees of world competitions of the highest level [2, 34, 20, 21]. He also [3] proposed a classification of methods for constructing sports training programs: a stage – complex way; a stage complex — variative way; a stage – variative way; a stage variative — complex way; a stage complex — combined way; a stage variative — combined way; a block – complex way; a block – variative way; a block complex — variative way; a block variative — complex way; a block complex — combined way; a block variative – combined way; a variative way; a complex way; a combined way; a complex — variative way. Every coach independent of the choice of methods they chose for creating a training process should understand that the final result of an athletes training is always determined by the laws of physiology and that “…correct organized training should prepare an athlete for the muscular activity which is necessary in competitions” [6].

An absolute priority in choosing a method of constructing a training process in local athletes is given to the periodization of theory and methodology of sports training by L. P. Matveev. Using “periodization positions” the program for swimmers training in sport schools for children and youth and sport schools for children and youth of the Olympic reserve is written [8], which was originally aimed at training «universal» swimmers. But even L. P. Matveev himself (1997) wrote: “… As an absolute level of sports results grow a popular practice of “sports universality became an anachronism”…”.

During a two-month experiment we evaluated the effectiveness of a periodical-variative methodology for training young swimmers. The group’s average time spent to swim the distance of 50 meters was compared in a swimming test of 4х50 meters that was taken as an initial test and tests that were held held biweekly during 6 weeks of training microcycles (table 1).

Table 1
The dynamics of the group’s average performance of the average time spent to swim 50 meter intervals (taverage) of young swimmers in the 4х50 meters tests “1”, “2”, “3”, “4” during 6 weeks of training microcycles

The absence of any significant differences (р≤0,1) of the group’s average performance of the average time spent to swim 50 meter intervals of young swimmers in the test 4х50 meters in the tests “1 initial”, “2”, “3”, “4” reveals a real absence of these indicators during two months of training in the studied groups of swimmers and, as a result, proves the inefficiency of the methodologies used in young swimmers training. So “universal” training prevents the development of a swimmer’s functional qualities demanded in each separate case.

Picture. 2. The dynamics of the swimmers’ individual performance results in special preparatory mesocycles while fulfilling of specific training work

In a separate experiment the training tasks young swimmers were offered a purposeful specific training program: swimming with different speeds (50% from max, 75% from max, 100% from max) using a chosen style of 25-, 50- and 100-meter distances with a specific speed–power work in the water. The volume of an active swimming load, during each training, didn’t exceed 1000 meters. All athletes trained 4-5 times a week. The dynamics of the results of some athletes are presented graphically (picture 2).

Picture 3. The dynamics of individual results in swimming 50 meters distance using butterfly style during the period of adaptation and adaptation stage to a standard specific training load (a complex way of building training programs)

Based on the results of the experiment we made the following conclusions: a) the opinion of the need for significant amounts of training loads to achieve high results in swimming doesn’t have real grounds; b) the use of specific, purposeful loads in training swimmers with an adequate level of readiness to complete the offered training load leads to an increase of sports results.

The base of a maximum training level achievement (for the present moment of his organism’s development) by an athlete is the “peak fitness level” achievement, which should be a specific functional system of concrete motional acts. Picture 3 shows the dynamics of an athlete’s individual results in swimming 50 meters distance using butterfly style during the period of adaptation to a standard training load using a complex way of building the training program [2, 3, 20, 21]. We see a vivid improvement of results in swimming 50 meter distances using butterfly style. Furthermore, this experiment proves the opportunity and specifies the path and the conditions needed for achieving an athletes’ «peak fitness level.»
Thus physiologically building reasonable training programs is the most effective way for training highly qualified athletes. During the construction of training programs, the main problems that need to be addressed are specificity and optimization of the training loads. The choice of the method of constructing the training program should be carried out according to the criterion of its highest effectiveness for each individual sport.

Bibliography »

Pavlov S. E., Pavlova T. N., Davydov A. P., Pavlov A. S., Petrov A. A. Physiological basis and pedagogical principles of qualified athletes’ training / Electronic journal of Povolzhskaya State Academy of Physical Culture, Sport and Tourism «Pedagogical-Psychological and Medico-Biological Problems of Physical Culture and Sports», № 1 (2014) (release 30) – P. 86-92