Why is classic periodization sometimes criticized?

Classic periodization is often criticized for being too rigid in its structure. This approach typically divides training into distinct phases—such as hypertrophy, strength, and peaking—each with specific focuses and relatively fixed durations. While this method has its benefits, like providing clear goals and a linear progression, it may not adapt well to the complexities of an athlete's individual needs or variations in their responses to training.

In a competitive environment, athletes may face unique challenges, such as injury, fatigue, or specific performance needs, which can require adjustments that classic periodization might not account for. This model's stringent adherence to predetermined phases can limit an athlete's ability to respond dynamically to these variables, potentially leading to suboptimal performance outcomes.

What makes option B the right choice is that it highlights this limitation of classic periodization, emphasizing that it may not adequately address the need for simultaneous attention to multiple training variables, such as endurance, speed, and strength enhancements, which are often necessary for optimal performance.