Revisiting Tradition: Why the Traditional Periodization Still Shapes Modern Sport

Despite decades of innovation in training theory, the traditional periodization (TP) model continues to dominate high-performance endurance sport. This persistence raises a compelling question: Why does TP remain the go-to framework for coaches and athletes, even as alternatives like block and flexible periodization gain traction?

Historically, TP has been deeply embedded in coaching education and sport science literature shaping generations of practitioners. It is often the first model introduced in formal training, creating a cognitive anchor that influences future decision making. Coaches frequently report favoring TP for its predictability, structured progression, and compatibility with the physiological demands of endurance training. While newer models (eg, block or flexible periodization) offer promising short-term adaptations in specific contexts, TP's broad applicability and intuitive structure continue to appeal to those managing long-term athlete development. TP's ongoing value lies not in rigidity but in adaptability when implemented with high-quality execution and individualized context. Its simplicity and predictability make it a reliable tool in environments where long-term planning and clear communication are critical. Rather than dismiss TP as outdated, this commentary offers a nuanced perspective on its role. The dominance of TP may not reflect resistance to innovation (nor ignorance of principles from alternative models), but rather a strategic choice grounded in experience, sport-specific context, and the practical realities of coaching. Future discourse should focus less on replacing TP and more on integrating its strengths with emerging paradigms to support adaptable, athlete-centered training systems.