Periodization

The Theory and Methodology of Periodization

The Theory and Methodology of Periodization of Strength

Training

Matt Cole

University of Victoria

August 1998

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

2

Introduction

Many strength-training specialists subscribe to

various periodization models for the long-term development

of their athletes (Balyi, 1991; Bompa, 1994; Poliquin,

1992; Verhoshansky, 1992; Wilks, 1994). That is, through

specific manipulations of training variables increases in

performance from year to year may be systematically

orchestrated through the enhancement of sport specific

strength (Bompa, 1993). Periodization protocols are

thought to optimize the development of sport specific

strength over the long term for two reasons: (1)

strategically coordinated regeneration or unloading periods

allow cumulative fatigue to dissipate thereby reducing the

potential for overtraining and fostering super-compensation

(Banister & Calvert, 1981; Fry, Morton, & Keast, 1992b),

and (2) the variation in training stimulus associated with

periodization will yield greater and faster gains than

training at the constant relative intensity associated with

progressive overload training (Kukushkin, 1983; Poliquin,

1997; Sleamaker, 1989).

It should be noted, however, that periodization

methodology is largely based on the beliefs of training

theorists and the empirical observations of the specialists

in the field, while much has yet to be scientifically

validated. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the

theory, methodology, physiological basis, and scientific

validation of periodization designs and identify areas

warranting further investigation.

Terminology

Due to a lack of consistency regarding the definitions

and use of overtraining and periodization terminology in


3

the literature, the following definitions will be applied

to this discussion:

Stress: A host of non-specific physiological responses of

an organism induced by exposure to one or more diverse

stressors.

Stressor: One of many distinct agents that will elicit

stress when exposed to an organism.

Overreaching: The practice and symptoms of the short-term

use of excessive training loads. Decline in performance

may or may not be accompanied by displaced physiological

variables and/or psychological symptoms. Recovery will

occur within 1-2 weeks of active rest.

Overtraining: The practice and symptoms of continuous use

of excessive training loads. Decline in performance may or

may not be accompanied by displaced physiological variables

and/or psychological symptoms. Recovery will demand a

number of weeks to months of active rest.

The Annual Plan: The periodization scheme encompassing the

annual 12-month cycle.

Macrocycle: A period of the annual plan, generally 6-32

weeks1 in length, dedicated to a particular strength goal.

These objectives may reflect the development of sport

specific strength, prerequisites, and/or their maintenance.

Mesocycle: A period of 2-6 weeks of overload training,

usually followed by an unloading microcycl. These cycles

are repeated across the macrocycle to facilitate super-

compensation.

1 A 32-week competitive phase represents a long competitive season as in hockey, whereas the general preparatory, pre-competitive and transition macrocycles can be quite short. The length of the specific preparatory phase is inversely related to the length of the competitive phase.


4

Microcycle: A one-week block of training comprised of one

or more training sessions.

Physiological Basis of Periodization

The aspect of periodization believed to reduce the

risk of overtraining is based on Hans Selye’s general

adaptation syndrome (Stone et al., 1991; Wathen, 1994).

Selye (1976) demonstrated that an organism would react to a

variety of diverse stressors, including muscular work, with

a number of non-specific responses (stress). However, that

is not to say that the stressors themselves would not

induce specific responses as well. In fact, Selye states

that these specific responses invariably modify the stress

response, as do endogenous (i.e. athlete's genetics) and

exogenous (i.e. hormone treatment) conditioning factors.

The general adaptation syndrome (GAS) may manifest in

three stages (Selye, 1976). The first stage, referred to

as the alarm reaction, is characterized by the discharge of

catecholamines from the adrenal cortex, depleting its

storage of secretory granules. Moreover, at the

hypothalamus nervous stimuli induce the emission of

corticotropic hormone releasing factor (CRF). CRF then

elicits the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)

at the anterior pituitary, which in turn induces the

secretion of glucocorticoids, including cortisol, at the

adrenal cortex (Selye). The discharge of sympathetic

neurons and secretion of catecholamines is the more

immediate response; the release of cortisol follows in

later part of the alarm stage and may act to dampen the

acute response (Standford & Salmon, 1993).

However, because the alarm state cannot be maintained

indefinitely, a stage of resistance follows in which

adaptation occurs and the organism re-establishes


5

physiological homeostasis (Selye, 1976). Anabolism and an

enlarged adrenal cortex rich in secretory granules

characterize this stage. During this stage if continued

exposure to the stressor is of relatively smaller amounts,

resistance/adaptation will continue and the organs will

return to normal (Selye). Yet, if the exposure to the

stressor continues at the same high level over a prolonged

period, the adaptation incurred will deteriorate after

several months and symptoms of the alarm reaction stage

will reappear (Standford & Salmon, 1993). This is the

stage of exhaustion in which symptoms may become

irreversible leading to pathology and even death of the

organism (Selye).

Overtraining

While the overtraining syndrome is generally not

considered fatal or its symptoms irreversible, it is a

stress response consistent to Selye’s general adaptation

syndrome (Kraemer, Bradley, & Nindl, 1998; Kuipers &

Keizer, 1988; Stone et al., 1991). Moreover, muscular

exercise should not be considered one type of stressor, but

several. That is, overtraining symptoms will vary between

aerobic endurance training and anaerobic training, and with

respect to anaerobic training, periods of high volume

training will produce different symptoms from those

associated with high intensity training (Fry, 1998).

Recall that the specific effects of the stressor are

superimposed upon and invariably modify the non-specific

stress response. Consequently when two different stressors

are imposed upon an organism simultaneously their specific

effects may interact upon the systemic stress response of

the organism. Therefore, since strength-training sessions

are comprised of both doses of volume and intensity (figure


6

E1) their specific effects can be expected to interact in

varying degree (Fry, 1998; Kraemer et al., 1998).

Figure E1. The relationship between relative training intensity

(%1RM) and training volume (sets X repetitions = total

repetitions) as they relate to resistance training overtraining

(Fry, 1998).

While the specific and non-specific physiological and

psychological consequences of overtraining stressors are

beyond the scope of this paper2, it is suffice to say that

the imbalance between training and recovery results in

neuroendocrine dysfunction localized at the hypothalamic

level. This in turn can result in the compromise of the

immune system, cardiovascular system, nervous system, the

balance between anabolic and catabolic function,

carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, as well as induce

2 For a detailed review the reader is referred to Keider, Fry, & O’Toole, 1998.


7

chronic fatigue (Budgett, 1998; Keider et al., 1998;

Kuipers & Keizer, 1988; Stone et al., 1991).

These medical consequences coupled with prolonged

deterioration of performance may interrupt a competitive

season, sacrifice an upcoming season, or worse, cause the

premature termination of the athlete’s career (Fry et al.,

1992b; Keider et al., 1998). Therefore, it is the design

of periodization methodology to repeatedly cycle the

athlete through the first two stages of the GAS, while

avoiding the onset of the third (overtraining).

Consequently, training sessions of overload training act as

the initial stimulus (stressor) for adaptation while

periods of rest or unloading facilitate restoration and

adaptation, termed super-compensation in sport science

literature (Banister & Calvert, 1981; Fry, Morton, & Keast,

1992b; Gambetta, 1991).

Periodization Methodology

The annual plan (figure E2) for most athletic events

is divided into three phases or macrocycles: the

preparatory phase, the competitive phase, and the

transition phase (Wilks, 1995). The preparatory phase is

often further subdivided into the general preparatory phase

and the specific preparatory phase, while the competitive

phase is occasionally similarly subdivided into the pre-

competitive phase and the main competitive phase (Bompa,

1994; Verhoshansky, 1992).

The Macrocycle

The preparatory phase marks the beginning of the

annual plan. The role of the general preparatory phase is

to establish a base or foundation of strength on which to

build sport specific strength (Charnigra et al., 1994a;

Matveyev, 1992). The focus should be on strengthening the


8

connective tissue and the core stabilizer muscles as well

as those of the limbs (Bompa, 1993). With the specific

preparatory phase there is a shift toward the development

of prerequisites for sport specific strength and sport

specific strength itself (Bompa, 1994; Matveyev, 1992).

The competitive phase encompasses the annual

competition calendar and, depending upon the nature of the

sport, will either serve to forge a performance peak during

the most important competitions or maintain the sport

specific strength developed during the preparatory phase

(Charnigra et al., 1994b). The pre-competitive phase is

utilized when the event allows for exhibition competitions

prior to main competitions (Bompa, 1994). In essence it is

an extension to the specific preparatory phase in which the

development of sport specific strength may be evaluated in

a competition setting. The exact length of the competitive

and preparatory phases are primarily determined by the

competition schedule which, of course, is in turn

determined by the event and the level of the athlete(s)

(Bompa, 1993; Verhoshansky, 1992).

The transition phase follows the competitive phase and

is a macrocycle of active rest (Charnigra et al., 1994a).

That is, it is the role of the transition phase to allow

recovery from fatigue that may have culminated over the

preparatory and competitive phases as well as necessitate

any biological regeneration from micro trauma that may have

occurred (Charnigra et al., 1994b). Typically, both volume

and intensity are dramatically reduced as well as any sport

specific training, if not entirely eliminated. Active rest

is characterized by low volume (moderate intensity) general

conditioning work and recreational physical activity

(Charnigra et al.).


9

Another objective of the transition phase, beyond the

recovery from fatigue, is to have the athlete start off the

forthcoming annual plan at a higher level of performance

than the previous year (Charnigra et al., 1994a;

Verhoshansky, 1992). Therefore, to avoid a stagnant type

pattern in performance from year to year, the transition

phase is much shorter than the preparatory and competitive

macrocycles, typically lasting only 4 to 8 weeks. This

time frame is thought to optimize recovery, while

minimizing ay loss of the accumulated strength gains,

ensuring observable performance enhancement from year to

year (Bompa, 1993).

Figure E2. Training Phases of the Annual Plan (Modified from

Bompa, 1994).

The Mesocycle

The mesocycle is a period of 2-6 weeks in which a

number of microcycles of overload training are followed by

an unloading microcycle in which both volume and intensity,

and possibly frequency as well, are reduced (Bompa, 19933;

Banister & Calvert, 1981; Charnigra, 1993; Fry et al.

1992b; Matveyev, 1992). The theory being that the overload

training provided by the sessions within the initial

3 Banister and Calvert, as well as Bompa, have used the term macrocycle to describe what has been identified here as a mesocyle.


10

microcycles provide a powerful stimulus for adaptation,

while the unloading microcycle facilitates the adaptive

process (Wenger et al., 1996) by providing an interval in

which the stress provided by the training is dramatically

reduced. The mesocycle is then repeated over the length of

the macrocycle to develop a particular strength quality.

Table E1 reveals how a typical 4-week mesocycle might be

structured.

Table E1.

A 4-Week Mesocycle Designed for Strength Development

Microcycle 1 2 3 4

Intensity 8RM 6RM 4RM 10RM

Sets/Muscle Group 6 6 6 3

Frequency 3 3 3 1

Volume 144 108 72 30

Note. Volume is total repetitions for the microcycle (sets x

repetitions x frequency). Intensity is progressively increased

across the first three microcyles. The unloading microcycle is

characterized by a reduction in intensity, volume, and frequency.

Beyond regeneration considerations and the goals and

length of the macrocycles, another factor which will

contribute to the form and sequencing of the mesocycles is

the use of a particular periodization model. These schemes

can be categorized as either linear or non-linear.


11

The Linear Model

Matveyev’s original model of the annual training plan,

what has since become to be known as the linear model, was

first developed in the early 1960’s (Wilks, 1995). The

approach of the linear model is that of an initial onset of

high volume training in the preparatory phase is followed

by a progressive increase in intensity with sharper

decrements in volume into the latter preparatory and

competitive phases, working toward an eventual peak in

intensity and performance (Wilks).

Matveyev’s model has since been adapted specifically

for the strength and power athlete (Stone, O’Bryant, &

Garhammer, 1981). Figure E3 reveals the Stone et al.

model. What has been labeled the first transition may be

likened to the specific preparatory and pre-competitive

macrocycles. The technique-training curve indicates sport

specific training.

Figure E3. A Hypothetical Model for Strength Training

(Stone et al., 1981).


12

Table E2.

Macrocycles Associated with Stone et al (1981) Model General Specific

Preparatory Preparatory Competitive Transition Macrocycle Hypertrophy Strength Power Peaking Active

Rest Volume High Mod-Low Low Low Lowest

Sets 3-5 3-5 3-5 1-3 0-1

Intensity Low High High High Moderate

Reps 8-12 2-6 2-3 1-3 8-12

Specific

Work

Low Low-

Moderate

High High Low/

Nil

Note. Volume refers to total reps, not sets. Set recommendations

are per muscle group per training session.

The authors proposed four specific blocks or

macrocycles of training contributing to the development of

sport specific strength occurring across the preparatory

and competitive phases: hypertrophy, strength, power, and

peaking (table E2). Hypertrophy is the first block of

mesocycles followed by the strength and power macrocycles.

The hypertrophy macrocycle is positioned first because it

is believed that hypertrophied muscle has a greater

potential to increase strength and power than non-

hypertrophied muscle (Bompa, 1993; Stone et al., 1981).

The objective of the strength phase is to develop the

athlete’s maximum or 1RM strength which is believed to be a

prerequisite in the development of sport specific strength

and power (Bompa, 1993). The power macrocycle follows in

which the velocity and specificity of the exercises are

increased and the raw ingredients, now developed, are

transformed into sport specific forms of power (Willoughby,

1991).


13

The peaking block takes up the competitive phase

(table E2) in which volume is further reduced in favor of

intensity and specificity, building towards an eventual

performance peak in the latter half of the competitive

phase (Stone et al., 1981).

Both maximum strength and power training are thought

act as a stimulus for adaptations to neural drive (Bompa,

1993; Fleck & Kraemer, 1997; Poliquin, 1997). Therefore,

the theory is that the initial high volume training will

stimulate the desired muscle hypertrophy and the later high

intensity training will act as stimulus for neural

adaptations4 (Baker, 1993).

Like Stone et al. (1981), Bompa (1993) endorses

similar block type training. However, Bompa has taken into

consideration that not all events allow for hypertrophy.

With weight class events the objective is to maximize sport

specific strength and power without substantial lean tissue

accretion, unless the athlete intends to move up a weight

class. Therefore, the hypertrophy block is only inserted

into the annual plan if it is warranted. However, all

annual plans start off with a macrocycle5 block Bompa refers

to as anatomical adaptation.

The anatomical adaptation macrocycle and the

hypertrophy macrocycle differ in several respects. The

anatomical adaptation phase occurs during the early

preparatory phase and is designed to lay the foundation on

which future strength training can build (Bompa, 1994).

4 See Sale(1988) for a review of these mechanisms.

5 Bompa has used the term macrocycle to describe what has been identified here as a mesocyle in this paper.


14

The scope of this macrocycle then is to involve most, if

not all the muscles groups, by utilizing a large amount of

exercises (Bompa, 1993). The focus is to strengthen core

muscles groups and develop joint and connective tissue

strength as well as ideal muscle strength ratios between

muscle groups.

When the hypertrophy block is included, focus is on

enlarging the prime movers, thus fewer exercises are

prescribed. However, there are exceptions to this.

Bodybuilders, shot putters, and offensive and defensive

linemen will benefit from more broad hypertrophy (Bompa,

1993). Figure E4 reveals annual plans with and without a

hypertrophy block.

Figure E4. The Annual Plan With and Without a Hypertrophy Block.

Criticism of the monocyclic linear model and the

impracticality of peaking once a year for many events led

to the implementation of bi-cyclic (figure E5) and tri-

cyclic annual plans (Wilks, 1995; Fleck & Kraemer, 1997).

These models repeat the original linear model two or three

times within the annual plan by shortening the length of


15

each of the macrocycles6 (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997). For

example a 100-meter sprinter who peaks in the summer for

his event may which to peak as well during the winter to

compete in the 60-meter sprint during the indoor season.

These bi-cycle and tri-cycle models have shown a trend

to produce greater gains than the monocycle (Balyi, 1995;

Bompa, 1993). Therefore, athletes competing in one-peak or

competitive phase events have adopted them as well. Fleck

and Kraemer (1997) have proposed that the superiority of

these designs may be due to their variation of training

stimulus believed to be essential for optimal and

continuous gains (Poliquin, 1997).

Moreover, these models provide for more individual and

sport specific training for elite athletes who will not

benefit from a prolonged general preparatory phase at the

beginning of each annual cycle (Balyi, 1991; Balyi &

Hamilton, 1996).

6 Fleck and Kraemer has used the term macrocycle to describe the annual plan and the term mesocycle to describe what this author has defined as a macrocycle.


16

Figure E5. A Typical Bi-Cyclic Annual Plan (Balyi and Hamilton,

1996).

Note. GPP = general preparatory phase; SPP = specific preparatory

phase; PCP = Pre-competitive phase; CP = Competitive phase; TP =

transition phase. Note the very short transition phase

separating the two cycles and that the second preparatory phase

is entirely specific in nature.

As a general rule with bi-cycle and tri-cycle designs

the first preparatory phase is the longest and therefore

typifies the highest volume of training (Bompa, 1994).

Furthermore, subsequent preparatory phases should be solely

of a specific nature (figure E5) for experienced athletes

since they already possess a foundation of physical

conditioning optimized during the initial general

preparatory phase (Balyi & Hamilton, 1996).

With multiple competitive phases, it is common that

the first peak is a lesser peak and occurs during the least

important competitive phase (Bompa, 1994).

Non-Linear Models

Non-linear or undulating designs are characterized by

short periods of high volume training alternated with


17

shorts periods of high intensity training (Baker, 1993).

This type of periodized loading is thought to optimize

strength gains by regularly employing training protocols

thought to favor both hypertophic adaptations (high volume

training) and neural activation (high intensity training)

enhancement (Baker, 1995; Poliquin, 1992). The specific

manipulations of intensity and volume of the non-linear

model can vary widely and in its various forms has been

referred to as undulating, wave like, accumulation-

intensification, and multiple periodization (Baker, 1993,

Balyi, 1991; Poliquin, 1992). The reader should, however,

not let these terms confuse the issue here. These schemes

are all essentially the same thing: non-linear designs that

alternate between periods of high volume and high

intensity. If they differ, it is only in how the periods

of high volume and high intensity training are manipulated.

The most common non-linear variations alternate

periods of high volume and high intensity training within

the mesocycle or between mesocycles. Poliquin (1992) has

successfully applied a 2:1 ratio of high volume microcycles

to high intensity microcycle, while 3:3 and 4:4 ratios have

also been reported by Baker (1993). Depending upon the

phase of training, volume may be highest in the first

microcycle and decline across the mesocycle as intensity

increases or vice versa. Moreover, volume or intensity may

peak in the middle of the mesocycle or volume may increase

while intensity is held constant across the mesocycle

(Baker). These manipulations coupled with a possibility of

sequencing mesocycles varying in length from 2-6 weeks

allows for tremendous variation and flexibility to suit the

needs of numerous competition schedules.


18

Figure E6 reveals an 18-week undulating model designed

by Poliquin (1992) for hammer thrower, Judson Logan who

thereafter set an indoor world record. 3-week mesocycles

are employed with a 2:1 ratio of accumulation (high volume)

microcycles to intensification (high intensity)

microcycles. Intensity is increased linearly over the 3-

week cycle while volume is decreased, substantially (by 30-

40%) in the third microcycle.

Figure E6. Undulating Model Developed for Hammer Thrower, Judson

Logan (Poliquin, 1992).


19

It should also be noted that Poliquin’s design (1992)

periodized exercise selection, rest intervals, and

contraction velocity or tempo as well as intensity and

volume. During the general preparatory phase contraction

tempo was slow to moderate; the specific preparatory placed

an emphasis on quick contraction velocities. And during

the final weeks leading up to the major competition

contraction tempo was gradually increased as volume was

tapered.

Bompa (1993) has advocated the use of the 3:3

accumulation-intensification microcycle ratio during long

preparatory phases and for power dominant events. Figure

E7.a shows 3-week hypertrophy cycles been alternated with

3-week maximum strength cycles following larger blocks of

hypertrophy and maximum strength training during a lengthy

preparatory phase. Figure E7.b reveals alternating 3-week

cycles of maximum strength with power training.


20

E7.a

E7.b

Figure E7. 3:3 Undulating Models for the Long Preparatory Phase

and Power Development (Bompa, 1993).

Note. Subscript numbers in the upper right corner of each

mesocycle refer to the number of microcycles within it. AA =

anatomical adaptation; MxS = maximum strength; P = power; Hyp =

hypertrophy; Comp = compensation training or active rest.

The noteworthy distinction with undulating mesocycles

is that that volume and intensity are not simultaneously

unloaded. With respect to Selye’s GAS, one stressor is

traded off for another. Thus, while the specific effects

of one stressor are removed, the athlete would still

theoretically be experiencing systemic stress. One could

speculate that loading muscle in such a manner over the

long term would lead to overtraining.

More aggressive undulating approaches has also been

structured within the microcycle sequencing heavy and light

days (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997) and even within the daily

training session incorporating high intensity low volume


21

sets and moderate intensity high volume sets (Wilks, 1995).

Table E3 presents an undulating microcycle in which a high

intensity day is centered within the week, with high volume

days positioned on Monday and Friday, the Friday being of

higher volume and lesser intensity.

Table E3. An Undulating Microcycle (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997)

Monday Wednesday Friday

Intensity (RM) 8-10 RM 3-5RM 12-15RM

Sets 3-4 4-5 3-4

Rest Interval 2 min 3-4 min 1 min

While periodization designs as a whole are believed to

be superior to non-periodized prescriptions in developing

strength and power gains (Baker, 1993; Poliquin, 1997),

undulating models are thought to be superior to the linear

model. The rationale being that prolonged high intensity

periods within the linear model may contribute to neural

fatigue (Baker, 1993; Bompa, 1993).

Maintenance vs. Peaking

For events with many competitions within the

competitive phase, a maintenance program will be utilized

rather than working toward a performance peak (Charnigra et

al., 1994b). Fleck and Kraemer (1997) have therefore

deemed the undulating model appropriate for events in which

the athlete will be competing on a weekly or bi-weekly

basis while the linear model is appropriate for peaking

once or several times a year. However, the bi-cycle should

also be considered a viable alternative for team sports

with a long preparatory phase (Bompa, 1993).


22

A further distinction can be made between events with

shorter competitive phases and weekly competitions, such as

football, and those events with longer competitive phases

and multiple weekly competitions (Charnigra et al., 1994b).

While the latter events’competitive phases will exclusively

include maintenance and restorative mesocycles, events with

shorter competitive phases and weekly competitions may

allow for more intense training earlier in the week

(Charnigra et al, 1994b).

Events focused on peaking will select a limited number

of competitions to peak for and train through the minor

competitions (Charnigra et al, 1994b). Moreover, in the

weeks preceding a major competition the mesocycles should

be shorter, competition specific, and include a taper to

maximize the distance between performance and fatigue

(Bansiter & Calvert, 1981; Balyi & Hamilton, 1996;

Charnigra et al, 1994b). The taper differs from unloading

in that only volume is reduced while intensity is

maintained (Bansiter, 1981). However, in specific

reference to strength training, a complete cessation of 5-

10 days prior to the major competition has been prescribed

(Bompa, 1993; Ruisz, 1987).

Scientific Support

While the body of experimental research into the

periodization as a whole is extremely small, the majority

of these investigations have focused on the linear model

(Herrick & Stone, 1996; Stone, O’Bryant, & Garhammer, 1981;

Kraemer, 1997; Willoughby, 1992, 1993). Stone et al.

(1981) investigated the effects of both a linear and non-

periodized (3 X 6RM) design among 20 college-aged males.

The experiment was 6 weeks long in which both groups

trained three days a week. Monday and Friday exercises


23

included squats, bench press, and one set of leg curls.

Wednesday’s exercises were made up of pulls (mid thigh),

pulls (floor), and behind the neck press. The linear group

performed 5 X 10RM for the first three weeks, 5 X 5RM in

the fourth week, 3 X 3RM in the fifth week, 3 X 2RM in the

sixth week. Measures of 1RM strength, power, and body

composition were taken at weeks 0, 4, and 6. Results

showed significant differences in power, 1RM strength and

relative strength favoring the linear group. Overall body

weight did not change, however LBM was up and %F was down

with the linear group and significantly different from the

non-linear group at T2 and T3.

Further observation by Stone et al. (1981) noted

greater 1RM and relative strength gains over 5.5 months

among Olympic lifters using a linear design compared with

those using a non-linear high intensity (2-3RM) model.

Similarly, in a 12 week study with high school football

players greater gains in 1RM squat, bench press, power

clean and power were associated with the linear model over

those resulting from a non-periodized (3 X 6RM) design

(Stone et al.). However, with all these experiments the

subjects utilizing the linear model were subject to greater

volume in terms of total repetitions. Therefore, it is

difficult to conclude if the superior gains are

attributable to the greater volume or the design itself, or

both.

In a 12 week study using trained college aged males

Willoughby (1992) reported significantly superior 1RM

strength gains in both the squat and bench press with the

use of a linear program over two non-periodized models (3 X

10 RM & 3 X 6-8RM). However, like Stone et al. (1981) the

subjects within the linear group were subject to a greater


24

volume of training, in this case 3-4 times a greater

volume.

In two separate studies Kraemer (1997), using NCAA

division III football players as subjects, investigated a

linear variation and an undulating design along with single

set circuit training protocols of lesser volume. Both

periodization models produced superior gains in vertical

jump, anaerobic power, and 1RM strength compared to the

single set circuit training programs. Although, it is

difficult to extract any sound knowledge regarding

periodization design from these studies since volume, as

well as exercise type, rest interval, and in one case,

frequency were not controlled for.

Herrick et al (1996) trained 22 untrained college aged

females for 15 weeks complying with either a non-periodized

(3 X 6RM) or linear model. The linear model was

characterized by hypertrophy (3 X 10RM) training during the

first 8 weeks followed by strength training (3 X 4RM) for 2

weeks and a peaking/maximum strength phase (3 X 2RM) in the

final 2 weeks. And following each phase, before the

commencement of the next phase, was a microcycle of active

rest (low intensity aerobic training). Volume was not

equated, however similar in terms of total reps per

exercise: linear = 552 reps, non-periodized = 540 reps.

Results showed no significant difference between the

two groups regarding 1RM strength in both the bench press

and the squat. However, the authors did note a consistent

improvement in performance with the periodized group during

the last 9 weeks of the study, while the non-periodized

group appeared to be plateauing near the end of the study.

In a review by Baker (1993) it was concluded that when

intensity was equated higher volume training would yield


25

greater gains and when volume was equated higher intensity

would yield greater gains. However, Willoughby (1993) in a

16 week study utilizing 92 trained males showed greater

gains in 1RM strength (squat & bench press) with a linear

design of reduced volume in the last 8 weeks. The study

equated volume for the first 8 weeks among two non-

periodized groups (5 X 10RM & 6 X 8RM) and a linear

periodized group. The periodized group was subject to 4

weeks of training according to each of the following

protocols: 5 X 10RM, 6 X 8RM, 3 X 6 RM, and 3 X 4RM. At

weeks 8, 12, and 16 the periodized group differed

significantly from the other groups in the squat. At weeks

4, 8, and 12, the periodized group and the 6 X 8RM non-

periodized group differed from the 5 X 10RM non-periodized

group and the control group regarding 1RM strength on the

bench press. At week 16 the periodized 1RM bench press

strength differed significantly from all other groups.

It should be noted that Willoughby’s (1993) method of

equating volume was not in terms of total repetitions, but

total mass lifted per week. It was calculated as reps per

set x number of sets per session x mass lifted per set x

sessions per week. Nonetheless, in terms of total

repetitions per exercise the volume was similar between the

three groups during the first 8 weeks: non-periodized (5 x

10RM) = 1200, non-periodized (6 x 8RM) = 1152, and linear

periodized = 1176. Volume for the non-periodized groups

was identical in the second 8 weeks of training while the

linear group’s volume was reduced to a total of 360

repetitions per exercise.

The non-linear design has been the focus of few

investigations (Baker, Wilson, & Carlyon, 1994; Baker,

1995; Kraemer, 1997). Baker (1995) investigated an


26

undulating variation in a 9-week study utilizing 5 trained

males as subjects. Microcycles were either predominately

high volume or high intensity arranged in a 2:1 fashion

respectively. However, manipulation of volume and

intensity also occurred within the microcycle with heavy

days on the first and third training days and day 2

characterized by more moderate intensity. Results showed a

significant increase in both squat and bench press 1RM

strength as well as an increase in body mass attributed to

an increase in LBM.

Unfortunately, this study offered no other

experimental or control group e.g. linear or non-periodized

in which a comparison of effectiveness could be made. Any

program of sufficient volume and intensity will induce

strength gains over the short term. The goal of

periodization research is to unearth the most effective

design for a particular sport specific strength or

prerequisite, which may be applied to the long-term

development of the athlete.

Perhaps the best-designed study to date is Baker et

al. (1994), in which a linear, undulating, and non-

periodized models were studied over a 12-week period. Both

volume and intensity were equated in terms of total reps

per exercise and RM respectively. IEMG, 1RM strength

(bench press & squat), %F, and body mass were all recorded

at regular intervals. Results indicated that all three

groups increased their vertical jump, LBM, bench press and

squat 1RM similarly. IEMG and %F remained unchanged.

Thus, in considering the limited experimental

research, it appears that when both volume and intensity

are equated, enhancement of strength and power in the first

12 to 15 weeks of training will be similar despite program


27

design. However, there is some indication that strength

and power gains maybe enhanced by periodized designs beyond

15 weeks (Herrick et al., 1996; Willoughby, 1993).

Sequencing of Training Sessions

The sequencing of training sessions within the

microcycle to optimize super-compensation is an aspect of

periodization in which not all sport scientists agree, and

of which the knowledge base is largely theory.

Super-compensation

Figure E8 reveals the classic model of super-

compensation. Following a series of training impulses over

a training session physiological homeostasis is disrupted

and fatigued is induced. During a period of recovery

homeostasis is re-established and regeneration is such that

over compensation occurs resulting in enhanced performance

(Bompa, 1994). However, if subsequent training impulses

are not administered the acquired adaptation and enhanced

performance will eventually degrade.


28

Figure E8. The Super-Compensation Model (Modified from Bompa,

1994).

Banister and Calvert (1981) theorized that a training

session would induce twice as much fatigue as it does

fitness (the training effect). Although, the length of the

residual effect of fatigue, termed the time constant, is

much shorter than that of the training effect7 (figure E9).

Therefore, appropriately timed subsequent training sessions

will build upon the residual training effect, yet not that

of fatigue. On the contrary, subsequent training sessions

imposed too soon will contribute to cumulative fatigue

(Wenger, McFadyen, & McFadyen, 1996) and overreaching (Fry,

Mortan, & Keast, 1992a) and eventually overtraining and a

decline in performance (Banister & Calvert, 1981).

Conversely, training sessions imposed too far apart will

not optimally build upon the strength residue because some

detraining has been allowed to occur (Bompa, 1994;

Kukushkin, 1983). In fact if the training sessions are far

enough apart no apparent performance gain will be observed

at all.

7 Depending on the training protocol, the training effect may be hypertrophy, neural activation, or some combination of the two.


29

Figure E9. The growth and decay of the residual effects of

fatigue and fitness (i.e strength) (Bansiter & Calvert, 1981).

The question then arises, what is the time constant

for fatigue/recovery following a strength training session?

And what then is the number of training sessions that can

be scheduled across the microcycle for the same muscle

groups? In the past a period of 48 hours of recovery has

been prescribed (Atha, 1981; Bompa, 1993) and adopted as

the standard. However, this may be inadequate and a 72-

hour recovery period may be more appropriate (Fleck &

Kraemer, 1997; Poliquin, 1997; Wilson, 1996).

Logan and Abernethy (1995) measured urinary 3-

methylhisidine8 (3MH), IEMG, 1RM strength (leg press) among

19 trained males following an intensive training session.

The training protocol included five sets of both the squat

and leg press exercises with intensities ranging from 2-6RM

(2X6RM, 2X4RM, & 1X2RM). Three sets (1x8RM + 2X6RM) of leg

8 3MH is a metabolite primarily produced from the catabolism of actin and myosin, which is not re-utilized and excreted in the urine.


30

extensions were also employed. Thirteen sets in all with

intensities ranging from 2-8RM constitutes a high volume

and reasonably high intensity training session and the

authors found full recovery occurred within 72 hours.

Eccentric training on the other hand appears to

require a lengthier recovery. Clarkson, Nosaka, & Braun

(1992) presented data on 109 subjects (up to five days

after) and 15 subjects (up to 10 days after) following an

eccentric resistance training session. The loading

protocol included two sets of 35 maximal eccentric

repetitions. One repetition was performed every 15 seconds

and there was a five-minute rest interval between sets.

Maximal isometric force was impaired greater than 50%

immediately afterward and gradually recovered yet was still

depressed after 10 days. Serum creatine kinase had a

delayed rise (48 hours) and did not peak until four days

afterward. Both muscle soreness and swelling

(circumference) were reported to be still evident 8-10 days

afterward. Fry (1998) notes, however, that excessive

eccentric loading, which the above protocol might be

considered, can cause considerable muscle damage.

Overreaching

It has been suggested by some (Harre, 1982; Kukushkin,

1983; Sleamaker, 1989) that complete recovery between

training sessions and microcycles is not necessary within

the mesocycle. In fact these authors (Councilman, 1968;

Kukushkin, 1983; Sleamaker, 1989) have suggested that

incomplete recovery between training sessions provides a

more powerful stimulus for adaptation by progressively

increasing the degree to which homeostasis is displaced

(Councilman, 1968), while still allowing partial recovery.


31

The key point advocated by these theorists is that the

subsequent mesocycle is not commenced until super-

compensation and full recovery has been demonstrated and

therefore overtraining is averted (Bompa, 1994; Harre,

1982; Kukushkin, 1983).

The extreme of this type of training is the

intentional use of overreaching to precipitate a training

effect has been reported elsewhere (Kraemer et al., 1998;

Stone & Fry, 1998; Stone et al., 1991) and has been

suggested to induce a delayed performance gain several

weeks after returning to normal training loads (Stone &

Fry). One way this is done is to “superload” the microcyle

immediately preceding the unloading microcyle (Wenger et

al., 1996). Such microcycles have been referred to in the

literature as shock or crash microcyles and can be

characterized by sharp increases the volume and/or

intensity of training (Councilman, 1968; Harre, 1982;

Kukushkin, 1983; Sleamaker, 1989).

The superior gains achieved through the use of

periodic overreaching, however, is speculation and not an

opinion shared by all. Wilson (1996) recommends complete

recovery between training sessions and therefore

microcycles, contending that incomplete recovery between

sessions will lead to reduced performance gains.

Furthermore, large increments in training loads should be

avoided (Bompa, 1994). More gradual progressions and

variation will increase the stability of the pituitary-

adrenocortical system and therefore elevate the training

level at which abnormal adrenocortical activity would occur

(Kuipers & Keizer, 1988).

Unquestionably, the use of overreaching protocols

within the mesocycle is a controversal methodology that


32

must be either validated or discredited since their

employment will initially impair performance regardless of

what later gains are or not achieved. Future studies might

examine the effectiveness of mesocycles utilizing such

protocols by comparison to those with a more conservative,

yet equated9, distribution of training loads.

Conclusions & Recommendations

Periodization methodology should not be viewed as

rigid training architecture, but rather a flexible

framework that may be adapted for the development of sport

specific performance attributes for any event. Factors to

consider when designing and implementing a periodization

scheme for a particular athlete or group of athletes

include: the training age of the athletes, the specific

demands of the event in terms of sport specific performance

attributes sought, the length and competition frequency of

the competitive phase, and the adoption of a particular

periodization model.

Clearly, however, there is an immense need for equated

investigations between linear, non-linear, and non-

periodized designs 15 weeks or more in length. For when

training volume is equated, there appears to be no

superiority to either linear or undulating designs over a

non-periodized approach when training is confined to a 12-

week period (Baker et al., 1994). However, at 15-16 weeks

periodization designs have shown significantly superior

gains (Willoughby, 1993) or a trend for greater gains

(Herrick et al., 1996). 9 Equating training loads is an essential control in periodization research in order to differentiate between the effect of the mesocycle structure and greater training loads alone. Several methods have been suggested (Baker et al., 1994; Willoghby, 1993) however the method described by Baker et al. is preferable because it equates volume and intensity separately.


33

The use of periodic unloading microcycles appears

theoretically sound and in line with Selye's general

adaptation syndrome and accordingly may effectively curb

overtaining by providing regular interval periods in which

the athlete is not under continuous demand to adapt.

However, long-term studies (>15 weeks) are required to test

their effectiveness compared to non-periodized regimes and

undulating mesocycles which do not simultaneously unload

volume and intensity. In addition, such studies would be

complemented by further investigations of resistance

training induced overtraining (volume vs. intensity) and

identification of appropriate physiological markers.

What should also be of particular interest for

researchers is the length of the mesocycle, or rather the

frequency of unloading. The literature indicates that a

common length of the mesocycle is 4 weeks (Bompa, 1993;

Mateveyev, 1992; Wenger et al., 1996). However, as

indicated earlier, the mesocycle length can vary from 2-6

weeks (Bompa, 1994; Fry et al., 1992a; Wilks, 1995). And

while the total number of weeks allocated to a particular

macrocycle can partially determine the length of its

mesocyles, the length of the mesocycle is still largely

dictated by the intuition of the coach or trainer.

Therefore, a series of well-controlled studies is warranted

in determining the optimal length of the mesocycle or

unloading frequency with respect to different prescriptions

of volume and intensity of training.

Not all sport scientists agree on what the optimal

strategy is for the sequencing of strength training

sessions. Some propose that complete neuromuscular

recovery between training sessions would be best (Banister

& Calvert, 1981; Wilson, 1996), while others (Harre, 1982;


34

Kukushkin, 1983; Slemaker, 1989) have theorized that

partial, yet incomplete neuromuscular recovery acts as a

greater stimulus for adaptation by progressively displacing

homeostatsis over a number of training sessions

(Councilman, 1968) within the microcycle and mesocycle.

Overtraining is thought to be prevented because full

neuromuscular recovery occurs during the unloading

microcycle. Hence, no cumulative fatigue is carried over

into the next mesocycle and therefore not allowed to build

over the macrocycle10 (Bompa, 1994; Harre, 1982; Kukushkin,

1983).

The standard recovery time prescribed between strength

training sessions for the same muscle groups has been 48

hours (Atha, 1981; Bompa, 1993) yet the time course for

complete muscular recovery following a resistance training

session appears to be 72 hours (Logan & Abernathy, 1995).

However, this time course can be increased considerably

with the inclusion of eccentric resistance training

(Clarkson et al., 1992). Therefore, before researchers can

investigate whether complete neuromuscular recovery or

partial, yet incomplete neuromuscular recovery is optimal

within the microcycle and mesocycle, the time course for

complete neuromuscular recovery must be documented for a

variety of interacting prescriptions of volume and

intensity (RM) as well as exercise type i.e. conventional

resistance training, plyometrics, submaximal and subra-

maximal eccentric resistance training.

Nevertheless, It should be noted that even if complete

recovery were to take place between training sessions and

microcycles, the periodic unloading of the mesocycle

10 Bompa has used the term macrocycle to describe what has been identified here as a mesocyle in this paper.


35

structure would still be theoretically sound and in line

with Selye’s general adaptation syndrome. Recall that even

though an organism has demonstrated adaptation to a

stressor, if exposure to that stressor is continued to the

same degree over a prolonged period, the “adaptive energy”

of that organism will become exhausted and adaptation that

has occurred will begin to deteriorate (Selye, 1976).

Unloading microcycles, provide regular interval periods in

which the athlete is not continuously challenged to adapt.

The idea that short-term overreaching protocols may

induce a banked accumulation effect positively benefiting

performance (Kraemer et al., 1998, Stone & Fry, 1998) is

intriguing, however, it may be misguided and more

conservatively distributed, yet equated, training loads

within the mesocycle may induce superior gains.

Overreaching protocols may only appear to induce great

gains because they diminish performance initially. Direct

comparisons between equated mesocycles are required to

validate or discredit these protocols. This may be done be

equating the volume of two mesocycles of the same length,

yet varying their distribution of training volume so that

one mesocyle represents an overreaching approach while the

other has the training volume more uniformly dispersed

across the length of the mesocycle.


36

References

Atha, J. (1984). Strengthening muscle. Exercise and Sport

Sciences Reviews, 9, 1-73. Baker, D. (1993). Periodization of strength training for

sports: A review. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 1, 15-21.

Baker, D. (1995). The effect of a wave-like periodised strength training cycle on maximal strength and lean body mass. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 3, 11-16.

Baker, D., Wilson, G., & Carlyon, R. (1994). Periodization: The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8, 235-242.

Balyi, I. (1991). Quadrenial and double quadrenial planning

of athletic training. Sport Specific, 3, 2-4.

Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (1996). Planning for training and performance the training to compete phase. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 4, 3-9.

Balyi, I., & Way, R. (1995). Long term athletic

development: The training to train phase. B.C. Coach, 4, 1-8.

Bompa, T. (1993). Periodization of strength. Toronto, ON:

Vertas Publishing.

Bompa, T. (1994). Theory and methodology of training. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Banister, E., & Calvert, T.W. (1981). Planning for future performance: Implications for long term training. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 5, 170-176.

Budgett, R. (1998). Fatigue and underperformance in athletes: The overtraining syndrome. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 32, 107-110.


37

Charnigra, A., Gambetta, V., Kraemer, W.J., Newton, H., O’Bryant, H.S., Palmieri, G., Pedemonte, J., Ptaff, D., & Stone, M.H. (1993a). Classic roundtable: Periodization part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 15, 57-67.

Charnigra, A., Gambetta, V., Kraemer, W.J., Newton, H., O’Bryant, H.S., Palmieri, G., Pedemonte, J., Ptaff, D., & Stone, M.H. (1993b). Classic roundtable: Periodization part II. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 15, 69-76. Clarkson, P.M., Nosaka, K., & Braun, B. (1992). Muscle function after exercise-induced muscle damge and rapid adaptation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24, 512-520.

Councilman, J.E. (1968). The science of swimming. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J. (1997). Designing resistance

training programs (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.

Fry, A.C. (1998). The role of training intensity in resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. In R.B. Kreider, A.C. Fry, & M.L. O’toole (Eds.), Overtraining in sport (pp. 107-127). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Fry, R.W., Morton, A.R., & Keast, D. (1992a). Periodisation of training stress: A review. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 234-240.

Fry, R.W., Morton, A.R., & Keast, D. (1992b). Periodisation

and the prevention of overtraining. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 241-248.

Gambetta, V. (1991). Concept and application of

periodization. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 13, 64-66.

Harre, D. (1982). Principles of sports training: Introduction to theory and methods of training. Berlin: Sportverlag.


38

Herrick, A.B., & Stone, W.J. (1996). The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10, 72-76.

Kraemer, W.J. (1997). A series of studies – the

physiological basis for strength training in american football: Fact over philosophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11, 131-142.

Kraemer, W.J., Bradley, C., & Nindl, M.S. (1998). Factors involved with overtraining for strength and power. In R.B. Kreider, A.C. Fry, & M.L. O’toole (Eds.), Overtraining in sport (pp. 69-86). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Kreider, R.B., Fry, A.C. & O’toole, M.L. (Eds.) (1998).

Overtraining in sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics. Kuipers, H., & Keizer, H.A. (1988). Overtraining in elite

athletes: Review and directions for the future. Sports Medicine, 6, 79-92.

Kukushkin, G. (1983). The system of physical education in

the U.S.S.R. Moscow: Radugi Publishers. Logan, P.A., & Abernathy, P.J. (1995). Time course changes

in strength and indices of acute fatigue following heavy resistance exercise. In H. Bruce (Ed.) Australian Conference of Science and Medicine in Sport (pp.238-239). Canberra: Sports Medicine.

Matveyev L.P. (1992). Modern procedures for the

construction of macrocycles. Modern Athlete and Coach, 30, 32-34.

Poliquin, C. (1992). Applied strength training: Part one

short term periodization. Sports Coach, 15, 25-28. Poliquin, C. (1997). The poliquin principles: Successful

methods for strength and mass development. Napa, CA: Dayton Writer’s Group.

Ruisz, E. (1987) Soviet sprint training. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 9, 34-35


39

Sale, D.G. (1988). Neural adaptation to resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20 (suppl.), 135-145.

Selye, H. (1976). Stress in health and disease. Boston, MA: Butterworth Group.

Sleamaker, R. (1989). Serious training for serious

athletes. Champaign, Ill: Leisure Press. Standford, S.C., & Salmon, P. (1993). Stress: From synapse

to syndrome. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stone, M.H., Fry, A.C. (1998). Increased training volume in strength/power athletes. In R.B. Kreider, A.C. Fry, & M.L. O’toole (Eds.), Overtraining in sport (pp. 87-105). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Stone, M.H., Keith, R.E., Kearney, J.T., Fleck, S.J.,

Wilson, G.D., & Triplett, N.T. (1991). Overtraining: A review of the signs, symptoms and possible causes. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 5, 35-50.

Stone, M.H., O’Bryant, H.S., & Garhammer, J. (1981). A

hypothetical model for strength training. Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 342-351.

Verhoshansky, Y. (1992). Principles of the organization of

training for high performance athletes. Modern Athlete and Coach, 31, 3-7.

Wathen, D. (1994). Periodization: Concepts and

applications. In T.P. Baechle (Ed.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning (pp. 459-471). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.

Wenger, H.A., McFadyen, P.F., & McFadyen, R.A. (1996).

Physiological principles of conditioning. In J.E. Zachazewski, D.J. Magee, & W.S. Quillen (Eds.), Athletic injuries and rehabilitation (pp.189-205). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Group

Wilks, R. (1994). Periodization of training for

powerlifting: An applied model of maximal strength training. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 2, 9-37.


40

Wilks, R. (1995). Training theory and strength training. Strength and Conditioning coach, 3, 10-15.

Willoughby, D. (1991). Strength training involving periodization. Texas Coach, 36, 35-37.

Willoughby, D. (1992). A comparison of 3 selected weight

training programs on upper and lower body strength of trained males. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 124-146.

Willoughby, D. (1993). The effects of mesocycle length weight training programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7, 2-8.

Wilson, G.J., (1996). Weight training program design: Importance of muscular recovery and prevention of overtraining. Network, 8, 30-32.

Documents

Periodization