Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 1245–1250 䉷 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association A COMPARISON OF PERIODIZATION MODELS DURING NINE WEEKS WITH EQUATED VOLUME AND INTENSITY FOR STRENGTH THOMAS W. BUFORD,1 STEPHEN J. ROSSI,2 DOUGLAS B. SMITH,3 AND ARIC J. WARREN3 Exercise and Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798; 2Department of Health and Kinesiology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30460; 3Department of Health and Human Performance, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078. 1 ABSTRACT. Buford, T.W., S.J. Rossi, D.B. Smith, and A.J. Warren. A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(4):1245–1250. 2007.—The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if significant differences exist among 3 different periodization programs in eliciting changes in strength. Twenty-eight recreationally trained college-aged volunteers (mean ⫾ SD; 22.29 ⫾ 3.98) of both genders were tested for bench press, leg press, body fat percentage, chest circumference, and thigh circumference during initial testing. After initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups: (a) linear periodization (n ⫽ 9), (b) daily undulating periodization (n ⫽ 10), or (c) weekly undulating periodization (n ⫽ 9). The training regimen for each group consisted of a 9-week, 3-day-per-week program. Training loads were assigned as heavy (90%, 4 repetition maximum [4RM]), medium (85%, 6RM), or light (80%, 8RM) for bench press and leg press exercises. Subjects were familiarized with the CR-10 rated perceived exertion scale and instructed to achieve an 8 or 9 on the final repetition of each set for all other exercises. Subjects were then retested after 4 weeks of training. Training loads were then adjusted according to the new 1RM. Subjects were then retested after 5 more weeks of exercise. For all subjects, significant (p ⬍ 0.05) increases in bench press and leg press strength were demonstrated at all time points (T1–T3). No significant differences (p ⬎ 0.05) were observed between groups for bench press, leg press, body fat percentage, chest circumference, or thigh circumference at all time points. These results indicate that no separation based on periodization model is seen in early-phase training. KEY WORDS. daily undulating, weekly undulating, linear, bench press, leg press INTRODUCTION etermining the optimal resistance training program is an on-going process for athletes, athletic coaches, strength coaches, and personal trainers alike. It is important for these professionals to find a training advantage over their competitors. Manipulating training variables in the most effective manner to increase strength can be a daunting task. One concept now generally held is that some form of periodization is needed for maximal strength gains to occur (5, 6, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26), although data to the contrary do exist (2, 23). Periodization is the planned manipulation of training variables in order to maximize training adaptations and to prevent the onset of overtraining syndrome. Although other models exist, 2 primary models of periodization have been primarily examined in the literature. The first is the ‘‘classic,’’ or linear, model first created by Russian scientist Leo Matveyev and adapted by Stone and colleagues (24) to add an additional transition period during D the training year. This model is based on changing exercise volume and intensity across several mesocycles. The other primary model is the undulating model first proposed by Charles Poliquin (20). Undulating periodization is based on the idea that volume and intensity are altered more frequently (daily, weekly, or biweekly) in order to give the neuromuscular system more frequent periods of recovery. Most previous research has only studied the differences in periodized and nonperiodized programs. Fewer investigations comparing specific models of periodization exist in the literature. Because varying models of periodization exist, it seems prudent to examine these protocols to determine if any one of these methods is more effective at eliciting strength gains than others. To our knowledge, only 2 studies have directly compared the effectiveness of linear and undulating periodized programs specifically for increasing muscular strength. Baker and colleagues (2) compared linear periodization (LP), undulating periodization, and a nonperiodized model for 12 weeks and found no significant differences between groups for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, 1RM bench press, or vertical jump. The undulating model used by Baker varied the intensity and volume on a biweekly basis. Although no significant differences were found between groups, the undulating model did show greater percentage increases in strength than the other protocols. Rhea and colleagues (22) conducted an investigation directly comparing LP and daily undulating periodization (DUP) in recreationally trained lifters from college weight-training classes. They equated volume and intensity for all subjects in order to attribute differences between groups directly to the program design. They reported the DUP group to experience significantly greater percent gains in strength for both exercises and significantly greater absolute gains for the leg press during 12 weeks. Absolute differences for bench press did not reach significance at any time. To our knowledge, no previous studies had examined an undulating model varying volume and intensity on a weekly basis or directly comparing linear and undulating models. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there is a significant difference in the ability to produce strength gains among 3 periodization models in recreationally trained subjects. METHODS Experimental Approach to the Problem We wished to add to the findings of Rhea and colleagues (22) by adding a weekly undulating periodization (WUP) 1245 1246 BUFORD, ROSSI, SMITH TABLE 1. ET AL. Subject characteristics: group mean ⫾ SD.* Group LP DUP WUP n 9 (5 m, 4 f ) 10 (7 m, 3 f ) 9 (6 m, 3 f ) 22.67 ⫾ 3.61 155.17 ⫾ 24.22 23.90 ⫾ 5.11 167.40 ⫾ 30.06 20.11 ⫾ 1.54 159.89 ⫾ 33.56 Age (y) Weight (kg) * m ⫽ male; f ⫽ female; LP ⫽ linear periodization; DUP ⫽ daily undulating periodization; WUP ⫽ weekly undulating periodization. TABLE 2. A comparison of Borg-15 point and CR-10 rated perceived exertion (RPE) scales. Borg 15-point CR-10 RPE 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 18.5 19 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 — Description Complete rest Very, very easy Easy Moderate Somewhat hard Hard Very hard Extremely hard (almost maximal) Exhaustion group in an investigation using collegiate weight-training classes as a subject pool. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare LP, DUP, and WUP. Total volume and intensity were equated for all groups throughout the training period. Equating these variables allowed us to attribute differences in strength gains or body fat losses to program design only and not to higher levels of volume or intensity. Maximal bench press and leg press measurements allow for a proper measurement of upper- and lower-body strength in a recreational weightlifting population because little skill is required in performing these exercises. Skinfold measurements and anthropometric measures were taken to examine any changes in body composition that may reflect whether strength gains were attributable to hypertrophy or neural factors. Rated perceived exertion (RPE) was examined throughout the training program for 2 purposes: (a) to validate the use of a percentage of 1RM to determine training load because session RPE has been shown to be a valid instrument to quantify the intensity of resistance training (4, 9, 10, 16, 25) and (b) to determine if 1 workout structure would produce significantly lower RPE ratings because it has been theorized that significantly higher RPE values may be an indicator of impending overtraining syndrome (7). Subjects Twenty men and 10 women were recruited from college weight-training classes. Subjects were required to sign an TABLE 3. informed consent form, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board before participation in the study. In addition, all subjects completed a medical history form that included prior history of strength training. All subjects completed 4 weeks of training (3 sessions per week) within the weight-training class before the beginning of the study. Subjects reported prior weight-training experience, but before the 4 weeks of training in class, all subjects had been in a detrained state (no consistent training in the previous 2 months). Subjects agreed to abstain from any additional resistance training during the course of the study. Subjects were informed that they must attend 90% of the training sessions to be included in the study. Three absences disqualified a participant from the study. Two subjects withdrew from the study for unrelated reasons. This resulted in a total of 28 subjects who completed the study. Subject characteristics are listed in Table 1. Testing Subjects were tested pre-, mid-, and posttraining. Midtesting was conducted after week 4 of training. Testing consisted of body composition testing using skinfold calipers, thigh and chest circumference measurements, and 1RM testing on both bench press and leg press exercises. Body composition testing was performed with a 7-site skinfold test using Lange calipers. The 7 sites chosen for the test were pectoral, thigh, subscapular, suprailiac, abdominal, midaxillary, and triceps. Thigh and chest circumferences were taken using standard tape measurers. Thigh circumference was measured on the subject’s dominant leg. Bench and leg press testing was done on standard free-weight stations. For 1RM testing, all subjects were required to warm up and perform light stretching before performing approximately 10RM with a light resistance for each exercise. The load was then increased to an amount estimated to be less than the subject’s 1RM. The resistance was progressively increased until the subject could only perform 1RM. Before the first testing session, subjects were read, and given a copy of, a script to familiarize them with the Borg C-10 scale for determining RPE. A comparison of the C-10 to the traditional 15-point Borg RPE scale can be found in Table 2. Each of the testing sessions was performed at the same time of day to account for diurnal changes in strength and followed the same number of days of rest. In addition, all tests were Schedule of exercises performed by day.* Monday Wednesday Friday Bench press Leg press Seated row Lunges Preacher curls Incline sit-ups Bench press Leg press Lat pulls Leg extension Standing calves Back extension Bench press Leg press Upright rows Leg curls Triceps extension Knee raises * RM ⫽ repetition maximum. 8RM ⫽ 80% 6RM ⫽ 85% 4RM ⫽ 90% COMPARISON OF PERIODIZATION MODELS 1247 TABLE 4. Schedule of exercise volume by group.* LP group Abdomen and low back DUP group Abdomen and low back WUP group Abdomen and low back Weeks 1–3 3⫻8 3 ⫻ 15 Weeks 4–6 3⫻6 3 ⫻ 12 Weeks 7–9 3⫻4 3 ⫻ 10 Monday 3⫻8 3 ⫻ 15 Wednesday 3⫻6 3 ⫻ 12 Friday 3⫻4 3 ⫻ 10 Weeks 1, 4, 7 3⫻8 3 ⫻ 15 Weeks 2, 5, 8 3⫻6 3 ⫻ 12 Weeks 3, 6, 9 3⫻4 3 ⫻ 10 * LP ⫽ linear periodization; DUP ⫽ daily undulating periodization; WUP ⫽ weekly undulating periodization. TABLE 5. Strength measures results: group mean ⫾ SD. Bench press LP* DUP WUP T1 131.11 ⫾ 52.07 154.50 ⫾ 74.18 145.0 ⫾ 40.85 T2 146.67 ⫾ 56.57 170.0 ⫾ 71.99 162.22 ⫾ 45.15 T3 162.78 ⫾ 58.42 181.50 ⫾ 70.52 180.56 ⫾ 43.33 %⌬ T1–T3 24.2 17.5 24.5 T1 370.0 ⫾ 116.30 399.50 ⫾ 139.77 355.56 ⫾ 89.32 T2 500.0 ⫾ 122.68 554.0 ⫾ 151.82 517.78 ⫾ 118.40 T3 685.56 ⫾ 165.16 715.0 ⫾ 160.78 710.0 ⫾ 152.97 85.3 79 99.7 T1 6.43 ⫾ 1.54 6.08 ⫾ 1.27 6.41 ⫾ 1.47 T2 6.48 ⫾ 1.54 6.42 ⫾ 0.86 6.30 ⫾ 1.29 T3 6.08 ⫾ 2.14 6.29 ⫾ 1.03 6.02 ⫾ 1.16 ⫺5.4 3.5 ⫺6.1 Leg press LP DUP WUP RPE LP DUP WUP * LP ⫽ linear periodization; DUP ⫽ daily undulating periodization; WUP ⫽ weekly undulating periodization; RPE ⫽ rated perceived exertion. conducted by the same researcher during each of the 3 test dates to eliminate intertester variability. All subject training was supervised by the same individuals. Training Protocol After testing, men and women were separately randomly assigned to 3 training groups (LP [n ⫽ 9], DUP [n ⫽ 10], and WUP [n ⫽ 9]) and began a 9-week resistance training program. This assignment maintained an equivalent distribution of women in each group. Subjects trained 3 days per week with a minimum of 48 hours in between sessions. Exercises performed are listed in Table 3. The exercises performed each day were identical for each group. Training volume and training intensity were altered contrarily for each group but were equated over the course of the study. The numbers of repetitions performed per set are defined in Table 4. The Borg CR-10 scale was used to monitor subjects’ perceived intensity of each exercise set and exercise session. After each set of exercise and 30 minutes after exercise, subjects were asked to give an RPE for the difficulty of each exercise set and training session. A rating of 0 on the RPE scale represents rest or no effort, and a rating of 10 represents maximal effort or most stressful effort performed. For bench press and leg press, a percentage of 1RM of the most recent testing session was figured to determine the resistance to be used for each training session (Table 3). For all other exercises, subjects were instructed to achieve an RPE of 8 or 9 on the final repetition of each set. Statistical Analyses The statistical evaluation of the data was accomplished by using an analysis of variance (3 groups by 3 time points) with repeated measures. Tukey’s posthoc tests were conducted as appropriate. Prior to analyses, a 1-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for both leg press and bench. An alpha of 0.05 was used to determine significance for all analyses. All values were reported as mean ⫾ SD. RESULTS Test-retest intraclass correlations (R) were calculated for skinfold and circumference measurements. The R range for skinfold measurements was R ⫽ 0.966–0.991. These correlations for each skinfold were R ⫽ 0.966 (pectoral), R ⫽ 0.983 (subscapular), R ⫽ 0.986 (triceps), R ⫽ 0.989 (thigh), R ⫽ 0.991 (midaxillary), R ⫽ 0.988 (suprailium), and R ⫽ 0.980 (abdominal). The R values for the circumference measures were 0.994 (chest) and 0.980 (thigh). The independent variable for the ANCOVAs was the periodization group, which included 3 levels: LP, DUP, and WUP. The dependent variables were the strength values for time point 3 (T3), and the covariates were the strength values from time point 1 (T1). For each exercise, a preliminary analysis evaluating the homogeneity-ofslopes assumption indicated that the relationship between the covariate and the dependent variable did not differ significantly as a function of the independent variable (bench F ⫽ 1.54, p ⫽ 0.24, ␩2 ⫽ 0.11; leg press F ⫽ 0.60, p ⫽ 0.556, ␩2 ⫽ 0.052). Neither ANCOVA was sig- 1248 BUFORD, ROSSI, SMITH ET AL. Body composition results: group means ⫾ SD. TABLE 6. Body fat (%) T1 24.90 ⫾ 9.27 21.09 ⫾ 7.53 21.57 ⫾ 11.24 T2 23.97 ⫾ 9.02 19.90 ⫾ 7.84 20.71 ⫾ 10.47 T3 23.65 ⫾ 8.73 19.69 ⫾ 7.74 20.74 ⫾ 9.81 Chest circumference (cm) T1 LP 91.94 ⫾ 7.28 DUP 96.75 ⫾ 9.91 WUP 94.89 ⫾ 9.49 T2 92.22 ⫾ 8.76 94.70 ⫾ 10.02 94.27 ⫾ 7.56 T3 93.78 ⫾ 7.61 96.95 ⫾ 9.74 95.72 ⫾ 8.19 Thigh circumference (cm) T1 LP 49.44 ⫾ 4.65 DUP 51.90 ⫾ 4.45 WUP 50.22 ⫾ 5.31 T2 52.78 ⫾ 5.44 53.40 ⫾ 4.98 52.61 ⫾ 4.77 T3 52.72 ⫾ 5.40 53.80 ⫾ 5.37 53.89 ⫾ 3.79 LP* DUP WUP FIGURE 1. Bench press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by group. LP ⫽ linear periodization; DUP ⫽ daily undulating periodization; WUP ⫽ weekly undulating periodization. * LP ⫽ linear periodization; DUP ⫽ daily undulating periodization; WUP ⫽ weekly undulating periodization. nificant, indicating no initial covariate differences among adjusted means for either bench press or leg press (bench F ⫽ 1.096, p ⫽ 0.350; leg press F ⫽ 0.755, p ⫽ 0.481). A histogram frequency analysis revealed all data to be normally distributed. No significant (p ⬎ 0.05) differences were observed between groups for any variables. Significant (p ⬍ 0.05) time effects were seen for bench press, leg press, chest circumference, thigh circumference, and body fat percentage. Significant (p ⬍ 0.05) increases in bench press and leg press strength were demonstrated at all time points (T1–T3). Body fat decreased, whereas thigh circumference increased significantly (p ⬍ 0.05) from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3 with no significant change between the second 2 testing sessions. Chest circumference was significantly (p ⬍ 0.05) increased from T2 to T3. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results of the statistical analyses by group. The differences in bench press and leg press 1RM by group can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. When bench press and leg press variables were assessed by gender, significant (p ⬍ 0.05) time effects were observed for all time points for each gender. For bench press, 19 and 32% increases from T1 to T3 were seen for men and women, respectively. In regard to leg press, men demonstrated an 80% increase over the course of the study, whereas women increased 108%. These results are summarized in Table 7. The absolute changes for bench press and leg press by gender are summarized in Figures 3 and 4. In addition, the individual subject response is presented in Figures 5 and 6. FIGURE 2. Leg press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by group. LP ⫽ linear periodization; DUP ⫽ daily undulating periodization; WUP ⫽ weekly undulating periodization. DISCUSSION FIGURE 3. Bench press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by gender. * Significantly different (p ⬍ 0.05) from T1. ⵩ Significantly different (p ⬍ 0.05) from T2. The purposes of this study were to determine the effectiveness of 3 periodization protocols for improving strength and to determine if any one of these is more effective than the others. Each of the 3 models proved effective in increasing bench press and leg press strength over the course of 9 weeks. In addition, these models were applied to both men and women, and strength gains were observed in both genders. Although statistically nonsignificant, the DUP group did produce lower percentage changes in bench press and leg press 1RM, as well as had an increase in RPE over the course of the 9 weeks. In comparison to studies using only men, few resistance training studies have been conducted using women. Studies have demonstrated that women respond to resistance training and can experience strength gains (3, 12, 13, 15), yet few studies have directly examined the effect of periodization on women (12, 15). Muscle fibers in both genders show the same characteristics and respond to training the same way; generally the only difference lies in the amount of resistance to be used (1, 5, 11). As such, we found it prudent to include women in our research. To our knowledge, this is the first investigation to use women as subjects in comparison of multiple periodization models. Female subjects were extremely responsive to all models, showing mean increases of 32 and 108% for bench press and leg press, respectively, when groups were collapsed. Our small numbers of women in each group prevented us from statistically comparing the effects of each protocol on women. Analysis of the individual response COMPARISON OF PERIODIZATION MODELS 1249 FIGURE 4. Leg press 1 repetition maximum (RM) by gender. * Significantly different (p ⬍ 0.05) from T1. ⵩ Significantly different (p ⬍ 0.05) from T2. shows no major conflicting effect of using the 2 genders. Further investigation is warranted to examine the specific effects of the protocols during all training durations on women. The changes in body composition indicate that strength increases during those time points were not solely due to neural factors. Body fat was reduced while increases in chest and thigh circumference were observed. Hypertrophy was seen in greater amounts in the thigh muscles than for the chest region. Caution must be used in interpreting the chest circumference; however, no significant differences were seen from T1 to T3, yet significant differences were indicated from T2 to T3. The mean chest circumference for all subjects decreased from 94.53 to 93.73 cm from T1 to T2 and then increased to 95.48 cm at T3. Although the T2 to T3 was found to be significant, it may not be all that meaningful because a difference of less than 2 cm existed. It is interesting to examine the mean session RPE ratings for each group. There were no significant differences in session RPE between groups. This could indicate no difference between the protocols in terms of reducing cumulative fatigue, but further research is warranted with extended training time or increased workloads. Therefore, in this particular study, the RPE readings are not of use in determining which protocol is more efficient at battling the effects of overtraining syndrome. However, it is interesting to note that the LP and WUP groups reported lower RPEs at the end of the 9 weeks than at the beginning, while the DUP group reported increased RPEs from T1 to T2 and T1 to T3. Although determining the effect of protocols on preventing overtraining syndrome is difficult with these data, RPE can be of significant use when working with a recreationally trained population. Keeping recreationally trained lifters motivated to continue to push through a difficult workout program may be more difficult than it would be for more advanced lifters. A program must be made that does not push recreational TABLE 7. FIGURE 5. response. Bench press 1 repetition maximum (RM) subject FIGURE 6. sponse. Leg press 1 repetition maximum (RM) subject re- lifters too quickly so that they ‘‘burn out’’ and quit. If one model can significantly lower RPE in the early stages of training, it may benefit recreational lifters to a greater degree in the long term if they remain motivated through a difficult program. Some might suggest that 0 weeks may be insufficient time to elicit major differences between the protocols. Ideally, a full macrocycle would be examined as periodization was first implemented in terms of year-long training to peak for 1 competition (17). However, Rhea and colleagues (22) noted significant differences in strength gains in the first 6 weeks of training using bench and leg press exercises. In this study, DUP elicited greater percentage strength gains than LP, and an absolute difference occurred in the leg press. This may be because their subjects had been continuously training for 2 years. Further research is warranted on the optimal training duration of each of the periodized programs. A recent investigation by Peterson and others (19) reports that the effort-to-benefit ratio varies among untrained, recreationally trained, and athletic populations. Strength measures by gender: mean ⫾ SD. Bench press (lb) Men Women T1 176.11 ⫾ 43.20 86.0 ⫾ 18.97 T2 194.17 ⫾ 41.10 98.50 ⫾ 20.15 T3 209.44 ⫾ 38.73 113.50 ⫾ 22.24 %⌬ T1–T3 18.93 31.98 T1 435.0 ⫾ 97.57 269.50 ⫾ 46.57 T2 598.33 ⫾ 95.32 393.0 ⫾ 56.77 T3 783.33 ⫾ 133.68 561.00 ⫾ 48.01 80.08 108.16 Leg press (lb) Men Women 1250 BUFORD, ROSSI, SMITH ET AL. Thus, optimizing the training effect cannot be achieved by using 1 model for all populations. Therefore, it is recommended that these methods be replicated with both untrained and athletic populations. Obtaining athletes as subjects could be somewhat of a challenge, however, because convincing a coach to allow players to train in a way in which some of them may receive inferior training may prove difficult. It could prove useful to acclimate all subjects to 1 protocol (for a period of 6 weeks, for example) and then change the protocol for the other 2 groups to see whether further adaptations occur. In addition, the use of more advanced lifters would allow for the use of a more advanced training program. For recreational lifters, we chose to use the bench and leg press exercises because they require little technical skill and we did not want strength differences to be affected by differences in skill ability at performing exercises. It may be that differences in periodization models are best exhibited in more advanced programs. In conclusion, we found that 9 weeks of periodized weight training produced increases in strength in recreationally trained subjects, yet there was no difference in strength gains among LP, DUP, and WUP. There was also no significance in mean session RPE between groups. All periodization models were effective at improving strength in both genders. In the future, we recommend further studies with extended training duration, as well as research with untrained and athletic populations. Further RPE investigations with recreational lifters may be warranted as well. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The data from the current study indicate that there is no difference in periodization models among LP, DUP, and WUP over the course of 9 weeks in recreationally trained individuals in eliciting strength gains. All of these models proved effective at improving bench press and leg press strength and are therefore warranted as appropriate training protocols for short- to moderate-term training in recreationally trained individuals. In addition, LP, DUP, and WUP were all successful methods in improving strength in subjects of both genders. Professionals concerned with designing optimal training programs for their clients should be aware that the proper periodization model may be different based on the training status of each particular individual. One prior study (21) reported DUP to be more effective than LP; however, the results of the current study reveal that LP, DUP, and WUP were equally successful in promoting strength gains. It must be remembered that these results do not necessarily apply to more advanced lifters or long-term training. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. BAECHLE, T.R., AND R.W. EARLE. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. BAKER, D., G. WILSON, AND R. CAROLYN. Periodization: The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8:235–242. 1994. CHILIBECK, P.D., A.W. CALDER, D.G. SALE, AND C.E. WEBBER. A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 77:170–175. 1998. 25. 26. DAY, M.L., M.R. MCGUIAN, G. BRICE, AND C. FOSTER. Monitoring exercise intensity during resistance training using the session RPE scale. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 18:353–358. 2004. FLECK, S.J. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:82–89. 1999. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics, 1997. FOSTER, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:1164–1168. 1997. GARHAMMER, J. Periodization of strength training for athletes. Track Tech. 73:2398–2399. 1979. GEARHART, R.F. JR, F.L. GOSS, K.M. LAGALLY, J.M. JACKICIC, J. GALLAGHER, K.I. GALLAGHER, AND R.J. ROBERTSON. Ratings of perceived exertion in active muscle during high-intensity and low-intensity resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:87–91. 2002. GEARHART, R.F. JR, F.L. GOSS, K.M. LAGALLY, J.M. JACKICIC, J. GALLAGHER, AND R.J. ROBERTSON. Standardized scaling procedures for rating perceived exertion during resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:320–325. 2001. HERRICK, A.B., AND W.J. STONE. The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:72–76. 1996. KRAEMER, W.J., K. HÄKKINEN, N.T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A.C. FRY, L.P. KOZIRIS, N.A. RAMAMESS, J.E. BAUER, J.S. VOLEK, T. MCCONNELL, R.U. NEWTON, S.E. GORDON, D. CUMMINGS, J. HAUTH, F. PULLO, J.M. LYNCH, S.A. MAZZETTI, AND H.G. KNUTTGEN. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35:157–168. 2003. KRAEMER, W.J., B. NINDL, N. RAMATESS, L. GOTSHALK, J. VOLEK, S. FLECK, R. NEWTON, AND K. HÄKKINEN. Changes in muscle hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36: 697–708. 2004. KRAEMER, W.J., AND N.A. RAMATESS. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36: 674–688. 2004. KRAEMER, W.J., N.A. RAMATESS, A.C. FRY, T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, L.P. KOZIRIS, J.A. BAUER, J.M. LYNCH, AND S.J. FLECK. Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am. J. Sports Med. 28:626–633. 2000. LAGALLY, K.M., S.T. MCCAW, G.T. YOUNG, H.C. MEDEMA, AND D.Q. THOMAS. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity during the bench press exercise in recreational and novice lifters. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:359–364. 2004. MATVEYEV, L. Fundamentals of Sports Training. Moscow: Progress, 1981. PEARSON, D., A. FAIGENBAUM, M. CONLEY, AND W.J. KRAEMER. The National Strength and Conditioning Association’s basic guidelines for the resistance training of athletes. Strength Cond. J. 22:14–27. 2000. PETERSON, M.D., M. RHEA, AND B. ALAVAR. Applications of the doseresponse for muscular strength development: A review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:950–958. 2005. POLIQUIN, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training program. NSCA J. 10:34–39. 1988. RHEA, M.R., AND B.L. ALDERMAN. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 75:413–423. 2004. RHEA, M.R., S.D. BALL, W.T. PHILLIPS, AND L.N. BURKETT. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:250–255. 2002. SCHIOTZ, M.K., J.A. POTTEIGER, P.G. HUNTSINGER, AND D.C. DENMARK. The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12: 173–178. 1998. STONE, M.H., H. O’BRYANT, AND J. GARHAMMER. A hypothetical model for strength training. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 21:342–351. 1981. SWEET, T.W., C. FOSTER, M.R. MCGUIGAN, AND G. BRICE. Quantitation of resistance training using the session rating of perceived exertion method. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:796–806. 2004. WILLOUGHBY, D.S. The effects of mesocycle-length weight training programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7:2–8. 1993. Address correspondence to Thomas W. Buford, thomas㛮 buford@baylor.edu. COMPARISON OF LINEAR AND REVERSE LINEAR PERIODIZATION EFFECTS ON MAXIMAL STRENGTH AND BODY COMPOSITION JONATO PRESTES,1 CRISTIANE DE LIMA,2 ANELENA B. FROLLINI,2 FELIPE F. DONATTO,2 3 AND MARCELO CONTE 1 Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD35y8U/jUqeExdtzOmtBaRmijgj72SCmKUszPxzjKu+Ak= on 12/12/2019 Physiological Sciences Department, Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Federal University of Sa˜o Carlos, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; Health Sciences Department, Physical Education Post-Graduation Program, Methodist University of Piracicaba, Piracicaba, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; and 3Superior School of Physical Education, Jundiaı,́ Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil 2 ABSTRACT Prestes, J, De Lima, C, Frollini, AB, Donatto, FF, and Conte, M. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 23(1): 266–274, 2009—There are few studies that have compared different periodization methods for strength and hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to verify the effect of a 12-week strength training program with different periodization models on body composition and strength levels in women ranging from 20 to 35 years of age. Participants had a minimum of 6 months of experience in strength training, and they were divided into two groups: linear periodization (LP, n = 10) and reverse linear periodization (RLP, n = 10). Intensity was increased weekly; LP began with 12–14 maximal repetitions (RM), reaching loads of 4–6RM, and RLP began with 6–4RM and finished with 12–14RM. In all exercises, three sets were accomplished; number of repetitions and rest between sets and exercises were in accordance with weekly prescribed intensity. Training was performed 3 days per week. The evaluations were baseline evaluation (A1), after 4 weeks of training (A2), after 8 weeks (A3), after 12 weeks (A4), and after 1 week of detraining (A5). Fat mass and fat-free mass, maximum strength (bench press, lat pull-down, arm curl, and leg extension) were evaluated. There was an increase in fat-free mass and a decrease in fat mass in A4 compared with A1 only for the LP group. Both the LP and RLP groups presented significant gains in maximum strength levels in all exercises analyzed. However, for LP, the increases were greater when compared Address correspondence to Jonato Prestes, jonatop@gmail.com. 23(1)/266–274 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association 266 the with RLP. In practical terms, LP is more effective for strength and hypertrophy as compared with RLP, and 1 week may be an adequate period for application of detraining without causing decreases in the performance of the parameters analyzed. KEY WORDS periodization, strength training, strength INTRODUCTION T he scientific literature has highlighted the benefits of strength training with the objective of increasing health, physical fitness, and life span (2,4,11). Among the benefits are increases in strength, power, muscular endurance, and fat-free mass. These improvements in physical fitness can be achieved through variations in prescription patterns, such as weekly frequency, number of series, exercises and repetitions, rest between series and exercises, movement velocity, and joint angle. In this sense, the importance of prescribing exercise systematically and individually has grown, considering all the variables inherent to this process. The aim of periodization includes maximizing the overload principle and allowing a better relation between stress/recovery (26). Strength training periodization is a relevant tool in designing an exercise program for regular strength training practitioners. Among the periodization models, there is the classical linear periodization (LP), which divides a strength training program into different periods or cycles: macrocycles (9– 12 months), mesocycles (3–4 months), and microcycles (1– 4 weeks), gradually increasing the training intensity while decreasing the training volume within and between cycles (26). Reverse linear periodization (RLP) follows the modification in intensity and volume, however, in a reverse order as compared with LP, increasing volume and reducing intensity (27). Another model also used is daily undulating periodization (DUP), which consists of increasing and decreasing intensity and volume, with the alterations occurring within the same week; that is, the variation of training components is more frequent and lasts for shorter periods (9). TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. the TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research In a comparison between periodized and nonperiodized programs, superiority of periodized training for increasing muscle strength was shown when compared with nonperiodized training (20). Indeed, studies that compared LP with nonperiodized models have shown LP to be more efficient in producing positive alterations in body composition and maximal strength (7,19). Only one study, conducted by Rhea et al. (27), has compared the efficiency of LP, DUP, and RLP periodizations with the objective of increasing local muscular endurance in young strength trained men and women. The intensity used by the authors was 15–25 maximal repetitions (RM); the results showed that RLP was more efficient for increasing local muscular endurance in comparison with LP and DUP. However, it raises a question: what would be the result if RLP and LP were compared when using higher intensities, between 4 and 14RM? Because no studies comparing RLP and LP performed with the aim of increasing strength and hypertrophy have been found, the objective of the present research was to compare the efficiency of LP and RLP in training directed towards increasing muscle mass in previously trained women. METHODS Experimental Approach to the Problem The main objective of the present study was to compare the efficiency of LP and RLP in improving maximal strength levels and body composition, using loads between 4 and 14RM. Another aim was to verify the effects of 1 week of detraining, in the absence of any exercise, on maximal strength and body composition. In this research, the volume and intensity of both periodizations were equated as recommended by Rhea et al. (26,27), allowing a better comparison among LP and RLP models. To date, this is the first research that has compared LP and RLP applying loads of 4–14RM and that has additionally analyzed alterations in strength and body composition after 1 week of detraining in these periodization models. | www.nsca-jscr.org TABLE 1. Baseline subject characteristics. Variables LP Age (y) Height (m) Body mass (kg) Body mass index Training experience (y) 27.6 6 1.15 1.62 6 0.01 56.83 6 1.57 21.69 6 0.53 1.4 6 0.68 RLP 26.2 1.62 55.78 21.29 6 0.92 6 0.02 6 1.85 6 0.54 1.6 6 0.45 LP = linear periodization; RLP = reverse linear periodization. The LP column shows data from the first baseline evaluation for the LP group (n = 10); the RLP column shows data from the first baseline evaluation for the RLP group (n = 10). The values were expressed by mean 6 standard error of the mean (p # 0.05). intervention. The following evaluations were conducted: before the beginning of the exercise program (A1), at the 4th week after the beginning of the strength training (A2), at the 8th week (A3), at the 12th week (A4), and at 1 week of detraining (A5). Each participant was informed of all the risks before the investigation and signed an informed consent document, which was approved by the Escola Superior de Educacxão Fı́sica research ethics committee for human use (protocol no. 012/06). The procedures were in accordance with guidelines for the use of human subjects set forth by the American College of Sports Medicine. Body Composition Body composition was assessed using skinfold thickness measurements taken with a Lange skinfold caliper. The equation of Jackson et al. (17) for women (18–55 years old) was used to estimate body fat percentage. In this equation, the sum of triceps, suprailiac, and thigh skinfolds is used. After this procedure, fat mass (kg) and fat-free mass (kg) were estimated. Subjects Strength Assessments Twenty women were recruited and randomly divided into two groups (10 women in each group). The participants were selected in accordance with the following criteria: age between 20 and 35 years old; a minimum 6 months of previous experience with strength training before the beginning of the study; and not being users of any type of ergogenic supplements. According to the American College of Sports Medicine (2), the individuals were considered ‘‘trained.’’ The other subject characteristics are presented in Table 1. It is worth pointing out that the groups were homogeneous, so no statistically significant differences were found between them in the variables analyzed before the strength training intervention (Table 1). All participants trained at least three times per week, with three sets of 10RM in the 6 months before the beginning of the study On the day after the anthropometric evaluations, maximal strength tests were performed using 1RM. In the week before the initial evaluations, the participants were instructed to avoid training. During the 12 weeks of training, the tests were performed in the recovery weeks (70% of 1RM). To obtain reliable baseline strength values, the pretraining 1RM trials were performed on three separate days, with several days between them. A high interclass correlation was found between the second and the third 1RM trials (R = 0.98). The greatest 1RM determined from the last two trials was used for the baseline measurement. After 10 minutes of light treadmill running, the individuals executed a specific warm-up of eight repetitions with 50% of estimated 1RM (according to the previous loads used by the participants in their training routine), followed by three repetitions with 70% of estimated VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 267 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodization Effects 1RM. The subsequent trials were performed for one repetition with progressively heavier weight until the 1RM was determined within three attempts, using 3- to 5-minute rest periods between trials (23). The range of motion and movement standardization of the exercises was conducted according to the descriptions of Brown and Weir (5). The exercises chosen for the analyses of maximal strength evolution were bench press, lat pull-down, arm curl, and leg extension. Local Muscular Endurance Assessments The local muscular endurance test was conducted 48 hours after maximal strength tests. The test was accomplished by execution of repetitions to exhaustion. After a short period of light aerobic warm-up, participants performed as many repetitions as possible without stopping or pausing between repetitions with a fixed cadence. The resistance comprised 50% of the individual’s body mass (27). The exercises selected for the application of this test were the arm curl and leg extension. As in the 1RM test, to ensure the reliability of the baseline measure, this procedure was repeated on a separate day, and the highest number of repetitions was recorded, with high interclass correlation for both trials (R = 0.99). workouts per week. The program was divided into training A and B, so that on Monday and Friday, training A was performed, and, on Wednesday, training B was performed. In the next week, training A was performed on Wednesday, and training B was performed on Monday and Friday. The consecutive weeks followed this same order for the training sessions. For all listed exercises, three series until voluntary concentric failure were performed, and the number of repetitions and rest intervals between series and exercises was followed according to the weekly intensity prescribed, as shown in Figure 1. The average duration for the training sessions was 50 minutes, and, for the repetitions, it was 3–4 seconds, taking into account the concentric and eccentric phases of the movement. All sessions were individually supervised by a strength and conditioning specialist. The strength training was performed for 12 weeks (Figure 1). The load increase occurred for three consecutive weeks. At the 4th, 8th, and 12th weeks the load was decreased to 12RM, and the participants reduced their training frequency from three to only two weekly sessions (Figure 1). These weeks were planned to provide an optimal recovery of the participants. Another important variable considered was that for both training groups, the intensity and the volume were Strength Training The strength training applied in this study presented the characteristics of LP or RLP. In LP, training intensity is increased each microcycle (1–4 weeks), and the volume is decreased. The number of repetitions was decreased (maintaining the minimal quantity of repetitions established for the weekly prescribed intensity) by reason of the increased intensity. The strength training periodizations are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The intensity was increased every week in LP and reduced every week in RLP (Figure 1). The periodizations applied were based on previous studies published in the literature (4,19,26). The training loads were adjusted in each training session and evaluated as the participants’ strength increased; that is, the training was conducted with maximal repetitions (Figure 2). The exercising sequence is presented in Figure 2, and training was conducted in three 268 the Figure 1. Load distributions represented by maximal repetitions (RM) in each weekly microcycle of linear and reverse linear periodization strength trainings. TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. the TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org performed two times per week does not exert negative influence on the muscle strength variables (19,31). Additionally, the participants were instructed to maintain their normal food intake during the research. Statistical Analyses All data are presented as mean 6 SEM. The statistical analysis was initially done by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test and by the homoscedasticity test (Bartlett criterion). All variables presented normal distriFigure 2. Exercises divided into A and B training, number of series, repetitions, and rest intervals performed for bution and homoscedasticity, each microcycle training in linear and reverse linear periodizations. so the repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (two groups at five time points) was used, and when the difference presented was significant, equated, as recommended by Rhea et al. (26,27). All sessions were individually supervised by experienced strength and the Tukey post hoc test for multiple comparisons was conditioning specialists who directly monitored training applied. To determine that there were no differences between sessions. the two groups for the variables analyzed, before the training began, Student’s t-test was used. In all calculations, a critical Complementary Aerobic Training level of p # 0.05 was fixed. Test-retest reliability for maximal In the 12 weeks of training, two weekly 30-minute aerobic strength was determined using an intraclass correlation sessions were conducted. These sessions consisted of coefficient (ICC) (10). The software package used was treadmill running at a speed adjusted according to the target Statistica 6.1. heart rate achieved (THR) of 60%, determined by the equation proposed by Karvonen et al. (18): THR = % RESULTS (HRmax 2 HRrest) + HRrest, where % = selected work Body Composition percentage, HRmax = maximal heart hate, and HRrest = A significant decrease in fat mass (17.76%, p = 0.04) was resting heart hate. Heart rate was monitored in all training observed in the evaluation after 12 weeks for LP (A4L) in sessions by a heart rate monitor. The estimated HRmax was comparison with the baseline evaluation of LP (A1L). Howcalculated from the Tanaka et al. (29) equation: HRmax = ever, in the other evaluations for LP and RLP, no statistically 208 2 (0.7 3 age), specific for healthy adults. It has been significant differences were observed in fat mass (Table 2). previously shown that a complementary aerobic training TABLE 2. Anthropometric variables during 12 weeks of strength training. AV FM FFM BF% Groups LP RLP LP RLP LP RLP A1 13.46 14.39 43.37 41.39 23.05 25.06 6 0.62 6 1.03 6 1.03 6 1.33 6 0.80 6 1.61 A2 11.91 6 13.80 6 46.03 6 41.93 6 20.58 6 24.02 6 A3 0.90 0.97 0.85† 1.30 1.15 1.59 11.83 13.32 45.68 42.34 20.38 23.25 6 1.01 6 0.96 6 0.75† 6 1.24 6 1.25 6 1.56 A4 11.07 12.79 46.44 42.92 19.23 22.31 6 0.93* 6 0.93 6 0.95*† 6 1.23 6 1.25* 6 1.38 A5 11.13 12.34 46.72 42.68 19.09 22.76 6 0.95 6 0.65 6 0.96*† 6 1.12 6 1.23* 6 1.47 AV = anthropometric variables; FM = fat mass (kg); FFM = fat-free mass (kg); BF% = body fat percentage (%); LP = linear periodization (n = 10); RLP = reverse linear periodization (n = 10). A1 = baseline evaluation; A2 = evaluation after 4 weeks of training; A3 = evaluation after 8 weeks of training; A4 = evaluation after 12 weeks of training; A5 = evaluation after 1 week of detraining. *Significant statistical difference in relation to A1; †significant statistical difference between the periodizations in the same week of evaluation. The values were expressed by mean 6 standard error of the mean (p # 0.05). VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 269 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodization Effects There was an increase in fat-free mass of 6.62% (p = 0.04) and 7.18% (p = 0.02) for LP in A4L and after 1 week of detraining (A5L), respectively, in relation to A1L (Table 2). On the other hand, no significant alterations were found in fat-free mass for the RLP group during the study (Table 2). Finally, fat-free mass was significantly increased in all evaluations for the LP group (evaluation after 4 weeks of training: A2L!8.91%, p = 0.01; evaluation after 8 weeks of training: A3L!7.32%, p = 0.03; A4L!7.58%, p = 0.03; A5L!8.65%, p = 0.01) in comparison with RLP group. There was a significant decrease of 16.58% in body fat percentage (p = 0.01) for the LP group in A4L and a decrease of 17.19% (p = 0.01) in A5L compared with baseline (Table 2). In contrast, for the RLP group, no statistically significant differences were observed in body fat percentage between the evaluations or in comparison with LP (Table 2). Maximal Strength Bench Press. The LP group presented significant increases in bench press maximal strength of 10.66% (p = 0.04) in A3L, 14.57% (p = 0.01) in A4L, and 17.38% (p = 0.01) in A5L in comparison with A1L (Figure 3A). Furthermore, in the LP group, increases of 10.68% (p = 0.02) in A4L and 13.62% (p = 0.01) in A5L were found in comparison with A2L for the bench press (Figure 3A). For the RLP group, significant increases in bench press maximal strength were observed in A4LR (16.15%, p = 0.04) and A5LR (16.59%, p = 0.04) in comparison with A1LR. No statistically significant Figure 3. Maximal strength levels for bench press, lat pull-down, arm curl, and leg extension exercises. Black squares refer to the linear periodization group (n = 10), and white squares refer to the reverse linear periodization group (n = 10). A1 = baseline evaluation; A2 = evaluation after 4 weeks of training; A3 = evaluation after 8 weeks of training; A4 = evaluation after 12 weeks of training; A5 = evaluation after 1 week of detraining. * Statistically significant difference in comparison with A1; # statistically significant difference in comparison with A2; $ statistically significant difference in comparison with A3; & statistically significant difference between the periodizations in the same week of evaluation. The values are expressed as mean 6 SEM (p # 0.05). 270 the TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. the TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research differences were found between the LP and RLP groups in the bench press (Figure 3A). Lat Pull-Down The LP group presented a significant increase in all evaluations during the training period (A2L, A3L, A4L) and in A5L in comparison with the baseline evaluation. This increase was 12.07% (p = 0.01) in A2L, 21.14% (p = 0.01) in A3L, 26.45% (p = 0.01) in A4L, and 29.5% (p = 0.01) in A5L (Figure 3B). The LP group also showed increases of 10.31% (p = 0.03) in A3L, 16.35% (p = 0.01) in A4L, and 19.82% (p = 0.01) in A5L in comparison with A2L (Figure 3B). Moreover, in A5L there was a significant increase in lat pull-down strength of 10.6% (p = 0.03) in comparison with A3L (Figure 3B). For the RLP group there were increases in lat pull-down strength in A3LR (16.96%, p = 0.01), A4LR (21.55%, p = 0.01), and A5LR (21.98%, p = 0.01) when compared with A1LR (Figure 3B). Furthermore, for lat pull-down, the RLP group presented an increase of 11.12% (p = 0.01) in A3LR, 16.03% (p = 0.01) in A4LR, and 16.49% (p = 0.01) in A5LR in comparison with A2LR (Figure 3B). In the comparison between the periodizations, LP was superior to RLP in lat pull-down strength, so significant increases were observed in all evaluations performed during the training and after 1 week of detraining in LP in comparison with the same evaluations in RLP. The increases were 12.65% (p = 0.01) in A2, 11.86% (p = 0.01) in A3, 13% (p = 0.01) in A4, and 16.13% (p = 0.01) in A5 (Figure 3B). Arm Curl For the LP group, there was a significant increase of 9.96% (p = 0.04) in arm curl strength in A3L, 15.67% (p = 0.01) in A4L, and 20.42% (p = 0.01) in A5L when compared with A1L (Figure 3C). The LP group also presented significant increases of 11.19% (p = 0.01) in A4L and 16.20% (p = 0.01) in A5L in comparison with A2L (Figure 3C). An increase of 11.62% (p = 0.01) in A5L was observed when compared with A3L. For the RLP group, arm curl strength showed increases of 17.07% (p = 0.01) in A4LR and 15.7% (p = 0.03) in A5LR when compared with A1LR. No statistically significant differences were found between the other evaluation periods | www.nsca-jscr.org for the RLP group in the arm curl (Figure 3C). When the periodizations were compared, the LP group showed an increase in arm curl strength of 14.79% (p = 0.01) in A5L in comparison with the RLP group in the same evaluation period (Figure 3C). Leg Extension There was a significant increase in leg extension maximal strength in all evaluations (A2, A3, A4, and A5) for both periodizations (LP and RLP) in comparison with A1. The evaluations A2L, A3L, A4L, A5L, A2LR, A3LR, A4LR, and A5LR showed increases of 22.30% (p = 0.01), 30.62% (p = 0.01), 36.84% (p = 0.01), 36.84% (p = 0.01), 18.46% (p = 0.04), 25.35% (p = 0.01), 30.26% (p = 0.01), and 31.76% (p = 0.01), respectively (Figure 3D). However, for the LP group, increases of 18.71% (p = 0.01) in A4L and 18.71% (p = 0.01) in A5L were observed in comparison with A2L in the leg extension (Figure 3D). Local Muscular Endurance No statistically significant differences were observed in local muscular endurance for arm curl and leg extension in the evaluations performed during the study (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) for both groups (LP and RLP) (Table 3). Intraclass Correlation Coefficient According to the Fleiss (10) classification, maximal strength in bench press, leg extension, and arm curl presented moderate to good reliability for the LP and RLP groups. On the other hand, maximal strength in lat pull-down presented poor reliability for the LP and RLP groups (Table 4). DISCUSSION The aim of the present study was to compare maximal strength gains and alterations in body composition after two different periodizations with loads between 4 and 14RM in trained women. The volume and intensity of LP and RLP were equal and lasted a period of 12 weeks, plus a detraining week. The results show that both LP and RLP induce increases in maximal strength for the upper and lower body. However, LP produced a higher percent increase in strength, TABLE 3. Local muscular endurance (LME) during the study. LME Arm curl Leg extension Groups LP RLP LP RLP A1 18.4 21.3 16.5 17.4 6 1.73 6 2.26 6 1.24 6 1.03 A2 18.5 6 1.79 17.7 6 1.56 16.1 6 1.26 16.5 6 1.43 A3 21.2 20.5 17.2 18.9 6 2.35 6 1.55 6 1.44 6 1.87 A4 19.2 6 1.54 20.8 6 1.48 15.8 6 1.28 18.8 6 1.73 A5 19.5 20.2 16.2 19.5 6 1.51 6 1.73 6 1.11 6 2.71 LP = linear periodization (n = 10); RLP = reverse linear periodization (n = 10). A1 = baseline evaluation; A2 = evaluation after 4 weeks of training; A3 = evaluation after 8 weeks of training; A4 = evaluation after 12 weeks of training; A5 = evaluation after 1 week of detraining. The values were expressed by mean 6 standard error of the mean (p # 0.05). VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 271 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodization Effects TABLE 4. Test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for maximal strength. Maximal strength Groups Bench press Lat pull-down Leg extension Arm curl ICC LP 0.80 0.20 0.70 0.60 RLP 0.75 0.31 0.70 0.70 Fleiss (10) reliability classification For both groups Moderate to good Poor Moderate to good Moderate to good LP = linear periodization (n = 10); RLP = reverse linear periodization (n = 10). for the upper and lower body, in comparison with RLP. Therefore, although the participants of the present study had a minimum of 6 months of experience in strength training, on the basis of these results, the modifications of training loads with the periodizations applied constituted a new stimulus for them. A variety of studies have shown the benefits of strength training programs in improving strength (21,24,28). Indeed, other authors have conducted studies with LP models (7,19,22), and the results have emphasized that LP was efficient in inducing positive alterations in body composition and maximal strength. Similarly, the present study results show that the group submitted to LP increased fat-free mass in all evaluations and decreased body fat percentage after 12 weeks of training, and that these values remained decreased after 1 week of detraining in comparison with baseline measurements. These alterations were not detected for the RLP group. The strength gains during the first weeks of training are more dependent on neural adaptations (1–8 weeks); therefore, after this period, more significant alterations may occur in muscle mass and fat mass, assuming that these modifications can be detected earlier, but to a lesser extent (8). This is in agreement with the present study, because more pronounced alterations with regard to body composition occurred after 12 weeks of training. Similarly, other studies found increases in fat-free mass, showing an average increase of 2–4% with strength training and similar periods of analysis to those of the present study (6,19). Hunter et al. (16) found that after 25 weeks of periodized strength training with variable intensities (50 to 65 to 80% of 1RM in the same week) and 3 days of weekly frequency, there were significant decreases in body fat (kg) and body fat percentage (%) in elderly men and women. Corroborating, Prestes et al. (25) verified that linear strength training periodization associated with aerobic training for 16 weeks promoted reductions in body fat percentage and in abdominal and waist circumference. In contrast, Kraemer et al. (19) did not observe decreases in fat body after 272 the 6 months of periodized strength training in young detrained women. The purpose of the present research in choosing LP was based on several studies that have used this model (3,4,19,26,27), and also because of the great application in practice. On the other hand, only one study by Rhea et al. (27) was found that had directly compared the effects of LP with those of RLP. However, the goal of the loads used by the authors was to increase local muscular endurance. Therefore, to date, this is the first study to compare LP and RLP using higher loads, between 4 and 14RM. The results of the present study show a significant gain in maximal strength levels for all tested exercises (bench press, lat pull-down, arm curl, and leg extension), with more pronounced increases in LP. In accordance with the present study, several studies have reported gains in maximal strength levels after LP with the objective of muscle hypertrophy (3,15,19). Among the mechanisms involved in strength increases are motor unit firing rate and increased neural drive, decrease in antagonist muscle coactivation and addition of new myonuclei by activation of satellite cells and myofibers (muscle hypertrophy), and others (1,8,14). During the initial 4 weeks of training in the present study, there was an increase in maximal strength in lat pull-down and leg extension and after 8 weeks in bench press and arm curl for the LP group, without significant modifications occurring in body composition (which were observed only after 12 weeks of training), emphasizing that the initial adaptations for strength increase were the results of neural factors, predominantly. Interestingly, another important finding was that although RLP began with higher training loads in comparison with LP, manifestations of strength gain were delayed in this group, and no body composition alterations were detected for RLP. In local muscular endurance, no significant statistical alterations were observed for LP and RLP in arm curl and leg extension. In contrast to the present study, Rhea et al. (27) have proposed a comparison between LP, RLP, and DUP with 15 weeks of training, involving three series varying from 15, 20, and 25RM, organized according to each periodization model. The authors conclude that the gradual increase in volume and decrease in intensity (by RLP) was more effective for increasing local muscular endurance. However, the present study shows that RLP is not the most effective periodization model for strength gains. Indeed, LP was a more effective method for increasing strength when compared with RLP. Therefore, the higher loads used in this study were possibly not a specific stimulus to increasing local muscular endurance. Nevertheless, the present study found that LP had more significant results in the variables analyzed (maximal strength and body composition) in comparison with RLP, and these alterations were directly related to intensity applied (4–14RM). In this study, a missing comparison was a DUP TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. the TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research group, as Rhea et al. (26,27) have shown superior results in maximal strength for DUP compared with either LP or RLP. Interestingly, after 1 week of detraining, in which no exercise was performed, there was no decrease in maximal strength and no negative alterations in body composition. In fact, for muscle strength, a percent increase was found during this week; however, there were no statistically significant differences in these values in comparison with the evaluation made after 12 weeks. Other studies have shown that after 8–12 weeks of detraining, muscle strength can decrease significantly, with values between 12 and 68% (13,30). Gibala et al. (12) found that after 10 days of reduced training, positive effects on strength were observed in trained individuals. In this sense, there are several questions raised by the professionals involved in strength training and conditioning. If an individual stops training, how long does it take for strength to decrease significantly? For how long can a regularly trained individual stop training without decreasing performance and fat-free mass and increasing fat mass? The answers to these questions are complex and depend on a series of factors, such as individual physical fitness, type of strength training, and nutritional and genetic factors. Yet, at least in a population with similar characteristics to those of the individuals in the present study, a detraining week seems to be efficient for maintaining muscle strength and body composition, after a 12-week period of strength training in LP and RLP models. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Linear periodization strength training with 4–14RM for 12 weeks can induce positive effects on body composition by increasing fat-free mass and decreasing body fat, which was not observed for RLP. However, LP and RLP can induce significant gains in maximal strength for the upper and lower body. On the other hand, as regards local muscular endurance, both in LP and RLP at intensities between 4 and 14RM, no increase was observed. From this aspect, it is clear that the increases in strength manifestations depend on training specificity. Another important finding of the present research was that after 1 week of detraining, no negative effects were observed in upper- and lower-body strength and body composition. These results have direct implications in strength training and conditioning practice, considering that, for young, trained women, 1 week may be an adequate period for application of detraining without causing a decrease in the performance of the parameters analyzed. With regard to the model of periodization applied, LP presented more positive effects on body composition and maximal strength in comparison with RLP, when intensity was between 4 and 14RM. There is a possibility for LP to be more effective as it allows for more quality training with the lead up to heavier weights at the end. Other comparisons with DUP, LP, and RLP using different intensities and populations are required. | www.nsca-jscr.org REFERENCES 1. Adams, GR. Exercise effects on muscle insulin signaling and action invited review: autocrine/paracrine IGF-I and skeletal muscle adaptation. J Appl Physiol 93: 1159–1167, 2002. 2. American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364–380, 2002. 3. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8: 235–242, 1994. 4. Brown, LE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models. Strength Cond J 23(1): 42–44, 2001. 5. Brown, LE and Weir, JP. Procedures recommendation I: accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol 4: 1–21, 2001. 6. Chilibeck, PD, Calder, AW, Sale, DG, and Webber, CE. Twenty weeks of weight training increases lean tissue mass but not bone mineral mass or density in healthy, active young women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 74: 1180–1185, 1996. 7. Chilibeck, PD, Calder, AW, Sale, DG, and Webber, CE. A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol 77: 170–175, 1998. 8. Deschenes, MR and Kraemer, WJ. Performance and physiologic adaptations to resistance training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81: S3-S16, 2002. 9. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: a critical review. J Strength Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999. 10. Fleiss, JL. The Design of Clinical Experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986. 11. Fry, AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adaptations. Sports Med 34: 663–679, 2004. 12. Gibala, MJ, MacDougall, JD, and Sale, DG. The effects of tapering on strength performance in trained athletes. Int J Sports Med 15: 492– 497, 1994. 13. Graves, JE, Pollock, ML, Leggett, SH, Braith, RW, Carpenter, DM, and Bishop, LE. Effects of reduced training frequency on muscular strength. Int J Sports Med 9: 316–319, 1988. 14. Häkkinen, K, Alen, M, Kallinen, M, Newton, RU, and Kraemer, WJ. Neuromuscular adaptation during prolonged strength training, detraining and re-strength-training in middle-aged and elderly people. Eur J Appl Physiol 83: 51–62, 2000. 15. Herrick, AB, and Stone, WJ. The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. J Strength Cond Res 10: 72–76, 1996. 16. Hunter, GR, Wetzstein, CJ, McLafferty, JR, Zuckerman, PA, Landers, KA, and Bamman, MM. High-resistance versus variableresistance training in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1759–1764, 2001. 17. Jackson, AS, Pollock, ML, and Ward, A. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 175–182, 1980. 18. Karvonen, M, Kentala, K, and Musta, O. The effects of training heart rate: a longitudinal study. Ann Med Exptl Biol Fenn 35: 307–315, 1957. 19. Kraemer, WJ, Nindl, BC, Ratamess, NA, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, Fleck, SJ, Newton, RU, and Häkkinen, K. Changes in muscle hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 697–708, 2004. 20. Kraemer, WJ, Ratamess, N, Fry, AC, Triplett-McBride, T, Koziris, LP, Bauer, JA, Lynch, JM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med 28: 626–633, 2000. VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2009 | 273 Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodization Effects 21. Kraemer, WJ, Volek, JS, Clark, KL, Gordon, SE, Incledon, T, Puhl, SM, Triplett-McBride, NT, McBride, JM, Putukian, M, and Sebastianelli, WJ. Physiological adaptations to a weight-loss dietary regimen and exercise programs in women. J Appl Physiol 83: 270– 279, 1997. 22. Marx, JO, Ratamess, NA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, Dohi, K, Bush, JA, Gomez, AL, Mazzetti, SA, Fleck, SJ, Häkkinen, K, Newton, RU, and Kraemer, WJ. Low-volume circuit versus highvolume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 635–643, 2001. 23. Matuszak, ME, Fry, AC, Weiss, LW, Ireland, TR, and McKnight, MM. Effect of rest interval length on repeated 1 repetition maximum back squats. J Strength Cond Res 17: 634–637, 2003. 24. Nindl, BC, Harman, EA, Marx, JO, Gotshalk, LA, Frykman, PN, Lammi, E, Palmer, C, and Kraemer, WJ. Regional body composition changes in women after 6 months of periodized physical training. J Appl Physiol 88:2251–2259, 2000. 25. Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, Borin, JP, Moura, NA, Júnior, NN, and Perez, SEA. Efeitos de um treinamento de 16 semanas sobre a composicxão corporal de homens e mulheres. Rev Bras Ativ Fis Sau´de 11: 19–28, 2006. 274 the 26. Rhea, MR, Ball, SB, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodization with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250–255, 2002. 27. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN, Stone, WJ, Ball, SB, Alvar, BA, and Thomas, AB. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res 17: 82–87, 2003. 28. Ross, R, Janssen, I, Dawson, J, Kungl, AM, Kuk, JJ, Wong, SL, Nguyen-Duy, TB, Lee, S, Kilpatrick, K, and Hudson, R. Exerciseinduced reduction in obesity and insulin resistance in women: a randomized controlled trial. Obes Res 12: 789–798, 2004. 29. Tanaka, H, Monahan, KD, and Seals, DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 1: 153–156, 2001. 30. Thorstensson, A. Observation on strength training and detraining. Acta Physiol Scand 100: 491–493, 1977. 31. Volpe, SL, Walberg-Rankin, J, Rodman, KW, and Sebolt, DR. The effect of endurance running on training adaptations in women participating in a weight lifting program. J Strength Cond Res 7: 101–107, 1993. TM Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5638447 Block periodization versus traditional training theory: A review Article in The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · April 2008 Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 129 14,469 1 author: Vladimir B Issurin Orde Wingate Institute for Physical Education and Sports 34 PUBLICATIONS 1,542 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: integration sport analytics View project The book on Athletic Talent will be released by the Ultimate Athlete Concepts Publisher during nearest weeks View project All content following this page was uploaded by Vladimir B Issurin on 29 August 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. REVIEWS J SPORTS MED PHYS FITNESS 2008;48:65-75 A C I D E M ® A T V H T R G E I IN YR M P O C Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review V. ISSURIN The basis of contemporary training theory were founded a few decades ago when knowledge was far from complete and workload levels, athletic results and demands were much lower than now. Traditional training periodization, i.e. the division of the seasonal program into smaller periods and training cycles, was proposed at that time and became a universal and monopolistic approach to training planning and analysis. Further sport progress emphasized the limitations and drawbacks of traditional periodization with regard to the preparation of contemporary top-level athletes and their demands. Major contradictions between traditional theory and practice needs appeared as 1) an inability to provide multi peak performances during the season; 2) the drawbacks of long lasting mixed training programs; 3) negative interactions of non-compatible workloads that induced conflicting training responses; and 4) insufficient training stimuli to help highly qualified athletes to progress, as a result of mixed training. The trials and successful experiences of prominent coaches and researchers led to alternative training concepts and, ultimately, to a reformed training approach that was called block periodization (BP). Its general idea suggests the use and sequencing of specialized mesocycle-blocks, where highly concentrated training workloads are focused on a minimal number of motor and technical abilities. Unlike traditional periodization, which usually tries to develop many abilities simultaneously, the block concept suggests consecutive training stimulation of carefully selected fitness components. The rational sequencing of specialized mesocycle-blocks presupposes the exploitation and superimposition of residual training effects, an idea that has recently been conceptualized and studied. It is hypothesized that different types of mesocycle-blocks are suitable to various modes of biological adaptation, i.e. homeostatic regulation or a mechanism of general adaptation. KEY WORDS: Physical education and training - Exercises - Muscle, skeletal, physiology. Address reprint requests to: V. Issurin, PhD, Elite Sport Department, Wingate Institute, 42902, Netanya, Israel. E-mail: v_issurin@hotmail.com Vol. 48 - No. 1 Elite Sport Department at the Wingate Institute Netanya, Israel raining periodization, i.e. a division of the entire seasonal program into smaller periods and training units, was proposed and explained about five decades ago.1-3 This theory began to widespread in Eastern Europe 4-6 and later in Western countries,7-10 and set up a universal and monopolistic approach to training planning and analysis. The drastic changes and further progress of high-performance sport highlighted inherent contradictions between traditional periodization and the successful experiences of prominent coaches and athletes. Gradually these experiences led to alternative coaching concepts and, ultimately, to a reformed training approach called block periodization (BP). This new approach has been implemented in various sports and has led to outstanding athletic achievements. This progress has been evidenced in many professional reports, anecdotal statements and several publications, mainly journals and coaching magazines.11-14. As a result, BPhas become a popular term widely used by coaches and training experts, even if, at the same time, it is difficult to find a systematic and critical description of this concept, which needs thorough professional elucidation. is the aim of this review was then to consider BP of sport training as a general concept and widely used approach to training construction and elucidation. THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 65 ISSURIN BLOCK PERIODIZATION VERSUS TRADITIONAL TRAINING THEORY TABLE I.—Hierarchy of periodized training cycles (based on Matveyev).1, 2 Preparation component Multi-year preparation Duration Comments Several years Two basic modifications: 1) for high-level athletes – Quadrennial Olympic cycle; 2) for other categories – 2-4 year programs A C I D E M ® A T V H R G E I IN YR M P O C Macrocycle Several months Sometimes identified as the annual cycle: includes preparatory, competition and transition periods Mesocycle Several weeks Medium size training cycle consisting of a number of microcycles Microcycle Several days Small size training cycle consisting of a number of days; frequently one week Workout Several hours/min A workout with a break lasting more than 40 min qualifies as two separate workouts Basics and limitations of traditional periodization In general, periodization theory exploits the periodic changes in all human biological and social activities. The cornerstones of periodization are made up by a hierarchical system of training units that are periodically repeated (Table I). The upper level of the hierarchy includes multi-year periods like the Olympic Quadrennial cycle; the next level of the hierarchy is represented by the macrocycles, with a duration of one year or of months. The macrocycles are divided into training periods that fulfill a key function in traditional theory as they divide the macrocycle into two major parts: the first for more generalized and preliminary work (preparatory period); the second for more eventspecific work and competitions (competition period). In addition, a third and shortest period is set aside for active recovery and rehabilitation. The next two levels of the hierarchy are reserved for the mesocycles (medium-size training cycles) and microcycles (small-size training cycles), whereas the lowest rung belongs to workouts and exercises, which are the building elements of the whole training system. Traditional training periodization, which incorporated the latest knowhow of the 1960s, was a breakthrough for coaching and training theory. Many of the elements postulated during these years still remain valid today, including the hierarchical taxonomy and terminology of training cycles, differentiation between general and specific athletic preparation, seasonal trends of exercise volume and intensity, basic approaches to short-term, mediumterm and long-term planning, etc. The bases of contemporary training theory were founded about four decades ago when knowledge was far from complete and workload levels, results and demands were much lower than now. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect that all the ideas proposed at that time remain applicable today; among the 66 salient limitations of the traditional theory there are: 1) an inability to provide multi peak performances in many competitions; 2) the drawbacks of long lasting mixed training programs; 3) negative interactions of non- (or restrictedly) compatible workloads during traditional mixed (multi-targeted) training; 4) insufficient training stimulus (produced by mixed training) for progress in certain abilities among highly qualified athletes. In this review the Author will consider and discuss these major drawbacks of the traditional theory. Inability to provide multi peak performances Even in its later versions, 15-18 traditional periodization presupposed one-, two-, and three-peak annual designs, whereas since the 1980s multi peak performances have become common in high-performance sport practice. This world-wide tendency can be illustrated by the highly typical examples of several outstanding track and field athletes (Table II). Undoubtedly, such large numbers of extremely successful performances can not be attained following the traditional training design, as they demand a totally different approach to periodization. Drawbacks of prolonged mixed training programs The drawbacks of prolonged mixed training programs have been noted for a long time; however, most of scientific evidence of this training insufficiency has been reported during the last two decades. (Table III). The outcomes of the above research projects highlight typical negative consequences of prolonged mixed training, namely: 1. excessive fatigue accumulation as indicated by persistently increased excretion of stress hormones and creatine phosphokinase (CPK);24, 30-32 2. intensive prolonged mixed training yields remark- THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS March 2008 BLOCK PERIODIZATION VERSUS TRADITIONAL TRAINING THEORY ISSURIN TABLE II.—Multi peak performances in the preparation season of world-star track and field athletes (modified from Suslov).19 Athlete, disciplines Example Marion Jones; 100-200 m running, long jump Season 1998 Sergei Bubka; pole vault; Season 1991 Stefka Kostadinova; high jump Season 1998 Number of peaks in season Intervals between the peaks 10* 7** 11*** 19-22 days 23-43 days 14-25 days Total time span for competing 200 days 265 days Winter -20 days; spring and summer – 135 days A C I D E M ® A T V H R G E I IN YR M P O C *Marion Jones (USA); 3-time Olympic Champion 2000; 5-time World Champion. She had eight peaks in running and two peaks in the long jump during her personal season of best results. **Sergei Bubka (USSR); Olympic Champion 1988; 5-time World Champion; world record holder; all the peaks were within a 3% zone of his season’s best result — 595-612 cm. ***Stefka Kostadinova (Bulgaria); Olympic Champion 1996; 2-time World Champion; world record holder; her peaks were within a 3% zone of the season’s best result; — 200-205 cm. TABLE III.—Impact of long-duration mixed training on sport-specific fitness and adaptation of high-performance athletes. Sample Training description Evidence Elite kayakers 20, 21 12 weeks mixed training with high volumes of strength and aerobic loads Improvement of muscular and aerobic endurance with stagnation of strength and decline of speed Elite kayakers 22 22 weeks mixed intensified training with high specific workloads Earlier gain of specific fitness and further plateau in late season; high incidence of staleness Trained junior track and field athletes 23 6 months mixed multilateral training 5 d/w average 1.5-2 h/day Improved cardiorespiratory and flexibility variables; no gain of maximal aerobic power, anaerobic fitness and maximal strength Sub-elite swimmers 24 12 weeks mixed specific training about 15 km/day Elite and sub-elite runners 25 6 months mixed training with intensity increase from March to August; 15-17 h/w and 6-10 sessions weekly Persistent increase of cortisol, CPK and stress index; no improvement in performances . Anaerobic threshold,VO2max and total oxygen debt increased from March to May and decreased from May to August Trained road cyclists 26 16 weeks of high-intensity mixed program vs. periodized intensity training Periodized intensity training improved fitness and performance more than the traditional program Elite rowers 27 36 weeks seasonal training including 3 wk intensified prolonged work about 3 h/d Mesocycle of intensified training lasted 2-3 weeks, approaching critical border of overtraining Elite junior rowers 28 6 weeks training prior to world championship changing content and load magnitude 18 days of intensified exhaustive training of 3 h/d causes response near borderline of adaptation Trained Athletes 29 6 weeks mixed monotonous and intensified training 6 d/w lasting 40-60 m/d 3 weeks produce enhanced fitness but a further 3 weeks causes deterioration or stagnation able results initially but stagnation or low improvement rate later on;20, 22, 29 3. intensive exhaustive training lasting three-four weeks causes a pronounced stress response when athletes approach the upper limits of their biological adaptation;27, 28, 30 prolongation of such a program dramatically increases the risk of overtraining.30, 33 Interactions of non- (or restrictedly) compatible workloads Interactions of non- (or restrictedly) compatible workloads is a highly characteristic disadvantage of multi targeted exhaustive training among high-per- Vol. 48 - No. 1 formance athletes. Such mixed training elicits conflicting responses when the loads of certain training modalities suppress or eliminate the effect of workloads directed at other targets. Many studies have shown that prolonged exhaustive mixed training diminishes maximal strength in elite skiers,34 elite fencers,35 elite rowers,36 elite male kayakers,22 and elite basketball players.37 Similarly, high-volume mixed training suppresses sprinting abilities in swimmers 38 and elite kayakers.22 Concomitantly, well controlled studies of elite rowers,39, 40 elite skiers,34 and runners 41 indicated that intensive exhaustive mixed training, typical of a precompetition program, reduces maximal aerobic power and/or anaerobic THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 67 ISSURIN BLOCK PERIODIZATION VERSUS TRADITIONAL TRAINING THEORY TABLE IV.—The total volumes of yearly workloads (km) in several endurance sports (modified from sources).12, 53-55 Cycling-road Running-MD Sport 1985-1990 1993-2006 Swimming Middle distance running Canoe/kayak paddling Rowing Road cycling 1400- 3000 3300- 5000 4500-6.200 5500-6700 35000-45000 1250-2700 3000-4700 3500-5500 5000-6300 25000-35000 Fencing Wrestling A C I D E M ® A T V H R G E I IN YR M P O C Judo Sailing Rowing 1991-2000 1980-1990 Kayaking Swimming 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Total number of competition days per year Figure 1.—Total number of competition days in annual preparation of highly qualified athletes in different sports; data obtained from internationally recognized experts in the sports mentioned (modified from Issurin).79 threshold. It is obvious that the concurrent administration of training workloads with conflicting physiological responses has a deleterious effect on physiological adaptation, and prolonged use evokes excessive fatigue and staleness. The mixed training does not provide sufficient stimuli for high-performance athletes The slogan claims that “mixed training produces mixed results”.42 However these mixed results meet expectations of relatively low level athletes, whose multi targeted training still provides sufficient stimuli for progress in various motor manifestations. In highperformance athletes, however, facilitating much more specified responses is of principal importance in order to obtain a high concentration of appropriate workloads that provide a sufficiently large amount of specific training stimuli for their progress.12, 13, 42 In fact, there is much evidence from elite athletes that multi targeted training does not provide sufficient stimulus for improvement. For instance, highly intensive in-season training of elite road cyclists 43 and elite long-distance runners 44 did not result in an increase of maximal aerobic power, which is decisive for these events.45, 46 Likewise, highly intensive mixed training of elite speed skaters did not augment their maximal anaerobic power, which strongly affects their performance results.47 Prominent coaches from different sports have noted the importance of a critical mass of specifical- 68 ly directed drills to obtain planned gains in targeted abilities among high-level athletes.27,48-50 Main factors affecting reformation of the traditional theory of periodization Since the 1980s many postulates of the traditional theory have been discussed following new global tendencies in world sport. The crucial factors affecting the reformation of traditional periodization include: 1. dramatic changes in world sport and training, i.e. an increase in the number of competitions and competitive performances and a reduction of the total volume of training workloads; 2. limitations and drawbacks of the traditional model in terms of training design; 3. the introduction of new concepts concerning the design of alternative types of training periodization. Dramatic increase in the number of competitions The dramatic increase in the number of competitions has been already noted in the example of worldclass athletes (Table II). This global tendency in most sports is the result of international sport federation policy, which has drastically increased the number of competitions involving large numbers of elite and subelite athletes.51-53 Following this tendency, national federations also began to organize many more events than previously. As a result, high-performance athletes participate in many more competitive performances than in the past (Figure 1). Reduction in the total volume of training workloads The reduction in the total volume of training workloads became a salient tendency in world sport towards the end of the 1980s. This trend has been marked in different sports and in many countries and can be illustrated as in Table IV. THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS March 2008 BLOCK PERIODIZATION VERSUS TRADITIONAL TRAINING THEORY A similar tendency has been noted in other sports. For instance, world-level hammer, discus and shotput throwers used to perform 120-150 throws per workout, whereas nowadays such athletes execute only about 30 throws per session (Bondarchuk, 2007; personal communication). A number of circumstances and factors have probably had a considerable influence on this tendency as a whole a number: 1. some parts of the training routine have been replaced by competitive performances. This factor, which was already mentioned (Table II, Figure 1) strongly reduces training volume. Intense, emotionally charged performances have replaced a substantial part of training routines. Unlike the previous schedule, the contemporary competition season embraces a major part of the annual cycle.14, 19, 56 2. Progress in training methods. Social and political changes in recent decades in sport-developed countries have led to extensive sharing of successful experiences among coaches around the world. Coaches’ clinics, seminars and courses employ top international experts, who not hesitate to bring up items previously qualified as “top-secret”. As a result the level of international cooperation and sharing of advanced training methods has increased drastically. 3. Enhancement of sport technologies. It is obvious that the technological revolution has radically changed training practice. This is particularly true in regard to real-time diagnostics and training monitoring,57 implementation of new training equipment 58 and materials.59 As a result the follow up, technologies for monitoring heart rate, blood lactate, movement rate, etc. have been incorporated into practice and have increased the quality of training. 4. Rejection of illegal pharmacological interventions. One of the reasons why training workloads increased so extensively was the administration of certain illegal pharmacological substances, which facilitated physiological responses such as speedy recovery, muscle hypertrophy, etc.,60, 61 and assisted the execution of extreme workloads. The out-ofcompetition doping control initiated by the International Olympic Committee in the mid 1990s has made great strides towards preventing the use and proliferation of these harmful technologies in high-performance sport. Consequently, the possibility of performing high-load training programs was also reduced. ISSURIN New concepts affecting the introduction of alternative training periodization Already in the 1980s, the term training blocks became popular and was widely used by prominent coaches. As implemented, this term has usually been understood to consist of training cycles of highly concentrated specialized workloads. Without scientific conceptualization, the concept was open to various interpretations. Further consideration of training blocks as a coaching concept leads to the following conclusions: 1. highly concentrated training workloads cannot be managed at the same time for multiple targets and therefore, the number of abilities being developed simultaneously should be radically reduced; 2. athletic performance in any sport usually demands the manifestation of many abilities, which, in the case of highly concentrated training, can be developed only consecutively but not concurrently; 3. unlike the traditional mixed program, consecutive highly concentrated training leads to improvement of targeted abilities while others receive no stimuli and therefore decline, so that the sequencing of appropriate training blocks became extremely important; 4. attaining morphological, organic and biochemical changes requires periods of at least 2-6 weeks, which correspond to the duration of mesocycles; hence, training blocks are mostly mesocycle-blocks. One of the earliest attempts to build up athletes’ preparation based on mesocycle-blocks was executed by Bondarchuk,13, 62 who created the original periodization chart with three types of properly specialized blocks: 1) developmental, where workloads attain maximal level; 2) competitive, which focuses on competitive performance; and 3) restoration, which is intended to provide active recovery and prepare athletes for the next developmental program. The first two types of mesocycles usually lasted four weeks while the third type encompassed two weeks. The timing and sequencing of these blocks depended on the individual responses of athletes and on the competition schedule. Successful realization of this reformed training system led to amazing achievements: athletes coached by Bondarchuk earned gold, silver, and bronze medals in the hammer throw at the 1988 Olympic Games. Another well documented attempt to implement an alternative periodization concept was fulfilled in the preparation of elite canoe-kayak paddlers,11 where the idea of training block- and mesocycle-sequencing was A C I D E M ® A T V H R G E I IN YR M P O C Vol. 48 - No. 1 THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS 69 ISSURIN BLOCK PERIODIZATION VERSUS TRADITIONAL TRAINING THEORY TABLE V.—The duration and physiological background of residual training effects (RTE) for different motor abilities (modified from Issurin and Lustig).66 Motor ability RTE, days 30±5 Aerobic endurance Physiological background Increased amount of aerobic enzymes, mitochondria number, muscle capillaries, hemoglobin capacity, glycogen storage, higher rate of fat metabolism 70, 71 A C I D E M ® A T V H R G E I IN YR M P O C Maximal strength 30±5 Improvement of neural mechanism, muscle hypertrophy due mainly to muscle fiber enlargement 65, 72, 73 Anaerobic glycolitic endurance 18±4 Increased amount of anaerobic enzymes, buffering capacity and glycogen storage, higher possibility of lactate accumulation 74, 75 Strength endurance 15±5 Muscle hypertrophy mainly in slow-twitch fibers, improved aerobic/anaerobic enzymes, better local blood circulation and lactic tolerance 68, 76 5±3 Improved neuromuscular interactions and motor control, increased phosphocreatine storage and alactic power 77, 78 Maximal speed (alactic) TABLE VI.—Taxonomy of mesocycles employed for block periodized planning.11, 12, 79 Type Training modalities Duration Particularities Accumulation Basic abilities: general aerobic endurance, muscle strength, basic technique 2-6 weeks Targeted abilities yield the longest training residuals Transmutation Sport-specific abilities: anaerobic (also mixed) and muscle endurance, techno-tactical preparedness 2-4 weeks Pronounced training responses, accumulated fatigue, shortened training residuals Realization Modeling competition performance, maximal speed and quickness, active recovery 8-15 days Reduced training loads, emotional strain increases pending competition utilized in a thoroughly prepared training program. Three types of mesocycle-blocks were established: 1) accumulation, which was intended to develop basic abilities such as aerobic endurance, muscle strength, and general technical ability; 2) transformation, which was devoted to enhancing event- specific motor and technical abilities, e.g. aerobic-anaerobic and/or anaerobic endurance, muscle endurance, and proper technique; and 3) realization, which focused on precompetitive preparation, e.g. race simulation, maximal speed improvement and recovery after preceding exhaustive workloads. These three mesocycle-blocks formed a separate training stage that was completed with several competitions. The annual cycle contained five-six stages, where the last one preceded main season’s competition. The modified preparation system allowed reducing excessive training workloads and attained outstanding achievements in the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games.63 As already mentioned, the consecutive administration of specialized training blocks is associated with a loss of trainedness in non-targeted abilities. Keeping this in mind, the concept of residual training effects 70 acquires special importance. This concept was first introduced by Brian and James Counsilman.64 Compared to other types of training effects (acute, immediate, cumulative and delayed), residual effect is still less known and relatively obscure. Based on previous publications 64-66 it can be defined as “the retention of changes induced by systematic workloads beyond a certain time period after the cessation of training.” Following the above definition, the duration of the period in which athletes still retain the effect of a previous training block is very important to plan subsequent mesocycles. Studies reveal various factors affecting the duration of training residuals: more prolonged training causes longer residuals,65, 67 older and more experienced athletes retain their trainedness for longer periods,66, 67 and abilities associated with pronounced morphological and biochemical changes have longer residuals.68, 69 Despite the high variability of individual responses, average data pertaining to different motor abilities can be presented (Table V). It should be emphasized that residual training effect as a phenomenon and concept is particularly mean- THE JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE AND PHYSICAL FITNESS March 2008 BLOCK PERIODIZATION VERSUS TRADITIONAL TRAINING THEORY ISSURIN Winter trials Spring trials Targeted competition Trials Competition Realization R R R R A C I D E M ® A T V H R G E I IN YR M P O C Mesocycles Transmutation Accumulation Accumulation Transmutation Realization Stage I T A Stage II Preparation period Residual training effects T A T A Stage III Stage IV T A Stage V Competition period Figure 3.—The chart of annual training cycle compiled following the block periodization approach (the transition period is not shown). Modified from Issurin.79 Figure 2.—Superimposition of residual training effects produced by different mesocycle-blocks (modified from Issurin and Shkliar).12 ingful for BP where progress in s...
Purchase answer to see full attachment