Contribution to the Field
Although for many years the “concept” of periodization was well accepted by both coaches and sport scientists, several authors have recently criticized and questioned several aspects of the paradigm including underlying mechanisms, room for individualization, and even the historical and evolutionary basis of its development (17,99–101). Although questioning of established paradigms is an accepted method of serving to crystallize thought and promote the evolution of a paradigm, it is not helpful when the questions and criticisms are based on false premises, basic misunderstandings, and incomplete or selective reviews of the existing literature. It is our contention that much of the criticism stems from a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental definition, underlying concepts, mechanisms, and practical applications of a periodized program, especially as it is associated with block periodization (BP). This review is an extension of previous commentaries addressing these criticisms (86,186). In this narrative review, we discuss and provide evidence for the historical coaching and scientific development of periodization, and the basic underlying mechanisms related to periodization. In addition, we address the basic criticisms of periodization that have recently received attention in the coaching and scientific literature. Although the concepts and principles discussed in this article can be useful at any level, the discussion primarily concerns competitive athletes and the coaches training them.
The concept of periodization is a cyclical method of managing training variables such that the adaptive process occurs in a logical developmental order. Furthermore, largely based on descriptive and observational studies, this conceptual paradigm, when appropriately programmed and carried through, allows the coach and sport scientists to qualitatively predict when a performance peak is most likely to occur. The development of this concept has a history going back millennia and, presently, is a paradigm that is accepted by most coaches and sport scientists. Indeed, periodization in some form has been used in various sports, particularly track and field, for over 100 years (90).
However, recently several authors have attempted to highlight the shortcomings in the conceptual paradigm of periodization for sport (17,99–101). We believe that the arguments made by these authors are flawed and are the result of a series of misconceptions or incomplete reviews of the historic literature. These misconceptions include misunderstanding of the basic conceptual nature of periodization, misunderstanding the underlying mechanisms driving adaptation, confusing programming with periodization, the use of inefficient and less efficacious programming methods to drive the selected periodization model, and failure to recognize the developmental and evolutionary history of these factors.
For this narrative review, literature searches using PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were performed. The pertinent literature was included.
Background: Periodization and Programming
The fundamental idea of periodization can be ascertained from the basic definitions of periodization found in dictionaries.
- “a round of time marked by the recurrence of some phenomenon or occupied by some recurring process or action.”Wordreference.com
- “the attempt to categorize something (e.g. history) into named periods.” Your Dictionary.com
Note, from these definitions, that a larger process is being broken into phases or periods, and the periods are recurring (cyclical and nonlinear) in nature. Indeed, periodization is marked by removing linearity (121). Thus, periodization for sports is part of a management process that provides a foundational mechanistic paradigm. Conceptually periodization in a sports context deals with:
- Timelines and fitness phases
- Conceptually (for most sports): higher volume to lower and lower to higher intensity
- Less task specific to more task specific.
We believe this paradigm is best reflected by the following definition:
Periodization is a logical sequential, phasic method of manipulating fitness and recovery phases to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for nonfunctional over-reaching, overtraining, and injury (40,41,190,194,195).
A periodized training process is considered the principal planning strategy for athlete development and preparation by most coaches and sport scientists. Considerable evidence (Table 1) indicates that periodization is quite efficacious and can produce superior performance adaptations compared with traditional nonperiodized methods (32,40,41,47,52,82,83,87,141,163,166,167,233). Indeed, periodization (and appropriate programming) represents a methodological attempt to manage adaptation to training.
Table 1 -
Reviews of the literature comparing periodized training to traditional methods (by ascending year).
||Sport and training activity
|Fleck et al. (52)
|Plisk and Stone (164)
||Multiple (emphasis on strength-power)
|Rhea et al. (168)
|Rhea et al. 2004 (169)
|DeWeese et al. (40,41)
||Track and field
|Williams et al. (234)
|Hellard et al. 2017 (82)
|Hellard et al. 2019 (83)
|Cunanan et al. (32)
|Mujika et al. (142)
||Multiple (emphasis on team sports)
|Molmen et al. (135)
Programming drives the conceptual process of periodization. Programming is the creation and development of the programs (exercises sets and repetitions, rest periods etc.) “inside” the fitness phases to produce the desired fitness effects. Although periodization can be considered a macromanagement process, programming deals with the micromanagement of training (Figure 1).
Historical Development and Evolution of Periodization
Interestingly, a common misconception concerning periodization is that its development was solely a phenomenon of the old Soviet Union and a primary creation of L. Matveyev. Although Matveyev is often recognized as the “Father” of Periodization, the development of any reasonable conceptual paradigm can usually be shown to have a long developmental period. Periodization is no different. Figures 2A–C present a partial historical time-line for the development and evolution of periodization. As can be noted from Figures 2A–C, the development of periodization has a long history and a rich legacy of development.
Matveyev (along with Dyson, Pihkala, and Nadori etc.) was one of the first to present a formalized systematic model of periodization around 1964 (107). Matveyev's original model (from his dissertation) was developed through the monitoring of Soviet athletes preparing for the 1952 and 1956 Olympic Games—particularly track and field (107). He was particularly interested in why some athletes achieved their best performances at the summer Olympics and others did not. In 1965, based on this research, he published an annual training plan modeled on periodization concepts. English translations of this work and his later writings eventually lead to the popularization and use of “periodization” in the West (107,120,121). Matveyev is often credited for creating the “traditional” model of periodization—however, this is somewhat misleading as the foundations for this concept had already been laid. Nevertheless, Matveyev did formalize this model. Matveyev used the mechanistic ideas of H. Selye, N.N.Yakovlev, and I.P. Pavlov to reason that the same stimulus can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the prevailing circumstances and to provide an explanation of the accumulative effect of training coupled with the supplemental effects of additional “stressors” (107).
Linearity is a mathematical function (relationship) that graphically is represented by a straight line. Thus, a typical programmed incremental reduction in repetitions or workload over time (particularly during a mesocycle) has been termed “linear periodization” (168). Matveyev used Yakovlev's concept of “supercompensation” (237,238) as a basis for emphasizing nonlinearity and rhythmicity during training (107,230). Although, Matveyev's model of periodization has provided great insight into the training process and the necessity of cycles, the “classical or traditional” model of periodization is often erroneously termed a “linear” model of periodization. Indeed, Matveyev noted that the removal of linearity and appropriate variation in the form of repeating load oscillations provided a superior method of training:
“wave oscillations characterize load dynamics in both relatively small and more prolonged phases (stages and periods) of the training process.” Correspondingly, we can single out “waves” of several categories: small characterizing load dynamics in the training in microcycles, average, expressing a general tendency of loads in several microcycles, big, which are revealed when evaluating the general tendencies of load dynamics in several average cycles which make up the states of periods of training microcycles” (121).
Using earlier developed ideas of subdividing the training process into fitness phases and timelines (35,56,71,92,104,107,148,157,162), Matveyev further developed this idea in the 1960s–90 s. As noted previously, timelines were divided into macrocycles, mesocyles, and microcyles. Dyson's, Kotov's, and particularly Pihkala's (56,104,107,162) ideas of the progression of more general fitness (less specific) preparation to specialized to specific preparation, for athletic competition, was expanded into general preparation, special preparation, competition (including a taper), and transition (active rest). Depending on specific sport training practices, Matveyev indicated that many variations of the duration of fitness phases, macrocycles, and subdivisions are possible; so, specific phase timelines were not typically prescribed (107). However, Matveyev emphasized that a basic preparatory phase should be maintained at effective levels long enough to enable an athlete to achieve desired results (107,122). As Platonov indicated (111,112), Matveyev's views correspond with the preparation of most modern advanced and elite athletes, who are “not aiming at immediate success in second-league competitions, but at planned and effective preparation for the most important competitions, most of all Olympic Games and World Championships.” Although Matveyev's original model delineated one large macrocycle, however, as the competition calendar began to change, this “monocycle” approach was expanded into 2 and later 3 macrocycles (89). Thus, this expansion provided an increased frequency and distribution for re-establishing general preparation (accumulative) fitness characteristics and qualities (89). Figure 3 provides a generalized schematic representation of this paradigm over one macrocycle.
As Figure 3 shows, training proceeds toward a climax (peak) performance, which coincides with the most important competition of the macrocycle. As can be noted from Figure 3, training generally proceeds from less task specificity to greater and from higher volume to lower creating an inverse relationship with training intensity. The transition or active rest is a necessary phase to recover from peaking for an important competition. This recovery not only deals with accumulated fatigue but also injuries and perhaps most importantly the emotional and psychological highs and lows of competition during preparation for competition. The order of phases and cycles during the year should be performed in a manner that would help ensure that peak performance coincides with the major competition that was the primary target for the athlete during the annual plan. A more detailed discussion of these phases can be found in the reviews of DeWeese et al. (40,41) and Plisk and Stone (164).
Although Matveyev originally dealt with elite and high-level athletes, an advantage of Matveyev's conceptual paradigm was that it could be applied to athletes of any level. Although many coaches and athletes had been using a form or parts of Matveyev's concept for some time, it was applied to all Soviet athletes for the first time for the 1960 Olympic Games. As the USSR was a facile winner in the medal count, it seemed to work (107). As a result, in 1961, a Soviet Central Planning unit was set up to assure that all of the Eastern Bloc countries could also profit from the periodization concept (107). As sport was (and is) tied to politics, a substantial and impressive improvement in all aspects of the medal table seemed to indicate the superiority of the state planning system over the individualistic capitalist system in maximizing human potential (107). In the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Harre (79,80) was the first to incorporate periodization theory outside of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (107). A common criticism of Eastern Block success has been because of the likely (and in many cases confirmed) use of androgens. However, it is worth noting that androgen use was not confined to the German Democratic Republic and the USSR, in fact, far from it, as androgen use was commonplace in many countries during this time period (48,107,218). Thus, the idea that their success was solely because of drug use is at best an oversimplification.
In the United States, J. Garhammer (66) published one of the first articles dealing with periodization specifically for strength training in athletes, particularly for strength-power events. About the same time, “Doc” Counsilman (30,31) described periodized training for swimmers that he had been using for a number of years. The first experimental studies directly dealing with resistance training were those of Stone and colleagues (191,192,204) some of which were part of the doctoral dissertation of H. O'Bryant (156). This proliferation of theoretical concepts, practical observations, and objective studies eventually assured world-wide usage of the concept (107).
Traditional Periodization: Problems
Several sport scientists and coaches, including Bondarchuk (10,11), Verkoshansky (220,221), and Issurin (89), noted potential problems with the traditional periodization paradigm. A contemporary of Matveyev, Y. Verkoshanky was a sport scientist, working primarily with track and field, who developed the Conjugated Successive System of Training as an alternative to traditional periodization models (220,222–224). Issurin, contemporary with both Matveyev and Verkoshanky also noted potential problems with the traditional concept and developed the BP model. The potential problems with the traditional periodization concept included:
A Performance Peak Cannot be Maintained for Long Periods
If fitness declines too much, then performance will suffer. The association between fitness (positive effect) and fatigue (negative effect) has been described in the fitness-fatigue relationship paradigm (164). This paradigm (Figure 4) represents the expression of fitness (underlying mechanisms) in relation to preparedness (potential to perform). Essentially enhanced fitness factors are related to enhanced preparedness. However, during training, fitness expression and therefore preparedness is inhibited or masked by accumulated fatigue. The expression of fitness can be enhanced by reducing accumulated fatigue, as occurs with a reduction in training volume (i.e., training taper). However, as the training load is reduced, fitness begins to decay. Because fatigue dissipates at a faster rate than fitness, preparedness is enhanced, thus producing a potential peak performance. However, as fitness continues to decay, preparedness and performance begin to decline. This interplay of fitness and fatigue leaves very little time for the actual preparedness peak (and potential performance) to be maintained.
A change in International Olympic Committee international rules for amateur athletes in 1981, allowing athletes to accept money for competition, precipitated considerable discussion and debate as to whether an athlete should be in good shape over a relatively long time or an excellent shape for a single major competition (216). Because of this change many athletes, particularly in track and field, started to modify their training according to “market” rules (106,107). Rather than trying to peak when it counted, athletes had to perform over relatively long terms, often to make a decent living (106,107). This alteration in rules and changes in the competition calendar of many sports began to alter training considerations and methods.
Based on observation and some experimental evidence, it seems that a true performance peak can be maintained for approximately 3 weeks or less (12,44,141,145,151). Issurin (88) proposed that although measures of fitness, such as maximum strength, can be maintained for up to 30 days, sports performance is a multifactorial process and peak performance for athletes in some sports can be maintained for only about 5–8 days. The exact time period that a performance peak can be held likely depends on factors such as trained state, the type, length, volume, and intensity factors related to the taper and outside stressors. Thus, it seems that the time window for athletes maintaining a performance peak is quite narrow. Since the 1950s and 60s, the competition calendar has become much more complex, particularly for summer Olympic sports. Often several important contests, that may require the athlete to reach or maintain a high level of performance or a peak, occur within a few weeks of each other (38,108). These observations indicate that maintaining a performance peak over several closely grouped important competitions without retraining would be quite difficult.
Simultaneous Increase in Training Factors
It was noted that during training when various fitness and performance factors were increased simultaneously, as occurred with traditional periodization programming, 3 major problems can occur:
- As training volume increases, all fitness factors can also increase. As long as fatigue is very carefully managed through appropriate variation, training volume can remain relatively high, and typically fitness can be maintained. However, when volume decreases, all fitness factors can also decrease simultaneously (220,222,224). Thus, all aspects of fitness often decline, potentially interfering with the beneficial alterations in preparedness, when the athlete tries to taper and bring performance to a peak.
- Attempting to manipulate large volumes of work, as can occur with simultaneous increases in several or all aspects of fitness, requires very careful fatigue management. Thus, very large volumes of work can (and often do) increase accumulated fatigue to a point that it becomes difficult to recover, as a result adaptation and performance suffer (18,19,49,102,200).
- Simultaneous increases of noncompatible fitness factors during training for a few weeks or more can inhibit adaptation of one or more factors, including learning new skills (14). For example, simultaneous increases in endurance factors, tends to favor endurance adaptations and can inhibit development of strength associated factors, such as muscle and connective tissue architecture (e.g., pennation angle, fascicle length, etc.) and especially explosive strength (rate of force development [RFD]) and power (7,15,46,64,65,68,93,119,128,170,171).
It should be noted that the problematic effects of noncompatible factors and higher volumes of training, resulting from noncompatible fitness factors, may be compounded by ineffectual methods of training. These less productive methods include resistance training to failure or short interset rest periods that decrease recoverability or adaptation (65,95,96,125,135,161,174,187,190) and promote nonfunctional over-reaching and overtraining (22,72).
From the beginning, Matveyev himself and other sport scientists and coaches had doubts as to whether his paradigm worked for all sports, particularly team sports (91,190). For example, soccer, volleyball, or basketball and other sports with a long season, in which each game was supposed to be won, were difficult to reconcile with a concept that allowed only a very few peaks in performance to win Olympic or other major championships. Thus, it was suggested that an in-season maintenance phase should be used for these sports with some type of periodized process leading up to the season and postseason (191,200). Figure 5 represents an example of periodized training for American Football. During the season, it was indicated that training volume in the weight room should be reduced, whereas intensity was held at moderate to high levels. For some sports with very long competition periods (20–40 weeks), such as professional soccer and rugby, periodic return to a brief accumulation period (1–3 weeks) is often necessary to re-establish specific aspects of fitness (e.g., strength and power) and must be carefully planned and monitored. Furthermore, many teams compete in playoffs, conference championships, and regional and national competitions etc.; it is during these periods that team preparedness and potential performance can be increased through appropriate volume and intensity manipulations. In addition, in some sports, for example, professional soccer, there may be player rotations allowing some athletes to periodically “rest and recover” from competition for short periods (1–3 weeks). During these periods, the rotated players may be able to re-establish specific fitness aspects through altered or increased volumes of nonsoccer training. The issue of BP in relation to team sports has been further addressed by Issurin (91).
The BP training approach is an efficient and efficacious alternative to traditional training design.
The basic premises of BP are:
- The primary premise of BP is the employment of highly concentrated training workload phases (periodization blocks) and the resulting after and residual effects.
- The blocks must be sequenced in a logical order to benefit from the residual effects.
- The BP approach has been proposed in 2 variations: the concentrated unidirectional design (single goal or factor) and the multitargeted version of the block training design (multi goal or factor)
As a result of the observed problems associated with the traditional periodization paradigm, Verkoshansky (221,224) created the concept of a concentrated load (CL) and developed the conjugated successive system of training for athletes, again focusing on nonteam sports. This concept laid the foundation for BP. A CL is a “block” of unidirectional training that emphasizes a single or very few related characteristics, such as strength and rate of force development (221,224). Unidirectional refers to the de-emphasis of fitness characteristics other than the training of the primary fitness characteristic. Issurin (91) noted that residual effects (effects lasting several weeks after the CL was completed) persisted and could potentiate the next phase (block) of training. Residual effects must be considered within the context of “reversibility.” As training load is reduced or removed, improved fitness characteristics return toward baseline (reversal), however, there are always residual effects of improved fitness characteristics that persist for some period of time (Figure 6). It should be noted (Figure 6) that the term “fitness” is used as a summation of all the different fitness residual effects, and the decay rate for different aspects of fitness is different.
Potentially, the fitness characteristic that was emphasized in a specific block would have a relatively long-lasting residual. Furthermore, decay rates can be influenced by the trained state, and sport training that continues after the primary fitness characteristics training is dropped or decreased (143,144). Several studies have investigated the decay rate of fitness characteristics among athletes. For example, even when strength training was discontinued, maximum strength has been shown to decrease ≤2% after 3 weeks (126,143,144) and V̇o2max approximately 3–5% over 4 weeks with substantial reductions in endurance training (126,143,144). As noted previously, residual effects decay at different rates lasting for years to days. Table 2 shows the potential residual effects and relative decay rates (88,231). These effects may persist for days to weeks depending on the systems being affected, the training state, and the extent and type of preceding training.
Table 2 -
Residual effects: decay timelines with cessation of specific training.*
||Rate of loss‡
||Musculoskeletal: hypertrophy and architecture
||No large alteration
||Transformations (muscle, skeleton, and joints),
||Until mid-old age
||Increased body mass.
||Neural: improved coordination and general
||Movement skills, general event specific skills
||Cardiovascular: resting bradycardia, enhanced
||Capillary density, resting and exercise SV, CO, myocardial hypertrophy, and volume alterations
||Neuromuscular: enhanced effort discrimination
||Force modulation and sport-specific balance
||Cardiovascular and bioenergetic: enhanced V̇o
||Enhanced lactate threshold
||Rate of loss
||Strength: S > SE > power
||wks to days
S = maximum strength, SE = strength endurance (high intensity exercise endurance), P = power output (88,126,143,144
†Assumes no substantial alteration in training status.
‡Decay by 5%.
Of importance, do residual effects, as the result of sequenced training blocks, actually persist across subsequent blocks during training? Although few studies have addressed this question, Stone et al. (201) investigated the effects of a resistance training accumulation periodization block in which the first summated microcycle (5 weeks) emphasized strength endurance, and the second (3 weeks) had a lower volume and greater emphasis on basic strength. They (201) found that among initially minimally trained subjects, the increases in V̇o2max and cycle endurance persisted through the second summated microcycle although the volume was markedly decreased. Table 3 displays these results.
Table 3 -
Percent alterations in endurance-related factors across 8 weeks of resistance training.
||Expected decrease (no strength training)
2max (L × min−1)
2max (ml × kg−1 x min−1)
*Incremental to exhaustion.
Interestingly, although aerobic power plateaued after the first summated microcycle, cycle endurance continued to improve although training volume decreased across the second summated microcycle, indicating a degree of disconnect between aerobic power and cycle endurance. Nevertheless, it seems that although volume was reduced, endurance-related effects did persist and even improved. So, based on available evidence, it seems that residual effects are sustainable and could potentiate a subsequent phase; this theoretical concept is shown in Figure 7 in which the goal is increased power.
Another important basis of the theoretical BP background are the phasic alterations of training magnitude and sport performances that often follow the execution of one or more blocks (3–12 weeks) of highly concentrated strength-endurance or strength-power training. Among advanced athletes, these alterations typically show a decline during the initial phase and subsequent enhancement of speed, RFD, and related variables on return to “normal” training (91,205,222,224). In addition, achievement of peak performance in the targeted sport activity was often delayed and “supercompensated” above baseline. Verkoshansky (222) proposed that these phasic alterations would have a deterministic effect and termed this phenomenon the “long-term lagging training effect”—or “delayed training effect” (DTE) (88,90,222).
Based on these observations and after considerable experimentation with different types and numbers of concentrated loads, a 3-block unidirectional training system was proposed (91,225). This unidirectional system used a work-loading sequence that progressed from power and strength development (2–3 months) to more training emphasizing specialized sport-specific power oriented movements (≈2 months) and event-specific technique enhancement (along with a taper) with competitive performance practice (≈3–5 weeks). Verkoshansky termed this 3-block sequence (blocks “A,” “B,” and “C”) the “big adaptation cycle,” the duration of which was 22–26 weeks (91,226,227). This 3-block cycle became the basis of the 3 “periodization” blocks: accumulation, transmutation, and realization = stage. A stage roughly corresponds to a mesocycle. Because of continued alterations in the competition calendar, specific needs of different sports and individual athlete, the exact length of these blocks have been further altered and blocks may range from 2—8 weeks (40,41,195–197,200). In addition, blocks may be aggregated (summed) such that 2 or more smaller blocks make up a BP block. For example, in strength-power sports, a 4 weeks block of strength endurance may be combined with a subsequent 4 weeks block of basic strength training to form an 8 weeks accumulation block. The individual blocks (3 ± 2 weeks) have been termed summated microcycles as the fitness characteristic being emphasized is constant throughout (40,41,195–197,200).
A fundamental axiom of BP (and periodization in general) is that within a stage, the blocks must be sequenced logically in order to produce the desired effects. For example, if explosive strength (RFD) and power output are the primary goals, the sequence typically proceeds as shown in Figure 8.
In this example (Figure 8), during the realization phase, note that a short (1 week) planned overreaching (POR) period precedes the taper. Some evidence and careful observation indicate that a brief return to higher volume training with relatively high loading will further enhance the accumulation phase adaptations and enhance the residual effects thus leading to greater realization of performance (8,9,24,25,199,200).
Problems With Single Factor Block Periodization
As previously noted for traditional periodization, single factor BP is not always suitable for team sports requiring multiple fitness and technical factors to be improved simultaneously (23,107,138). This simultaneous improvement of various technical and fitness aspects is particularly important for high-school and collegiate team sports in the United States (and some other countries with similar systems). This is related to the limited time periods from the end of an active rest or holiday (such as summer break) and the first game of the season. Often this period of time is only 2–3 weeks. In any case, it became quite obvious that some aspects of training did not always carryover or some important factor did not develop at the appropriate time. Multiple factor periodization concepts were developed to help obviate these problems (89,90). Multiple factor (target) BP can present challenges:
- Several factors—sometimes not completely compatible, must be trained early in process (win every game)—however, some types of multiple factor concentration must take place to take advantage of residual effects—thus this training paradigm is semiunidirectional
- Simultaneous multifactor training should be made to be as compatible as possible
- Multiple factors trained simultaneously can raise total volume of training, making fatigue management more challenging.
The primary differences between traditional and the 2 subtypes of BP are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 -
Primary differences between block and traditional periodization.*
|Development of skills and fitness characteristics
|Training variable compatibility
|Training load concentration
|Relative difficulty for
| Focal emphasis
||Cumulative + some residual effects
||Cumulative + residual effects
| Potential compatibility with calendar
*BPm = multifactor block periodization; BPs = single factor block periodization.
The primary challenge(s) using multifactor BP is reducing noncompatibility and excessive training volume during training. For example, especially during an accumulation phase, evidence indicates that simultaneously training for endurance, strength, explosiveness, and speed can mute the adaptations for strength and particularly for explosiveness and speed (29,62,64,76,84,130,131,154,180). Therefore, to reduce noncompatibility, the selection of exercise methods should be critically appraised. For example, during accumulation phases, gaining endurance is often a goal; however, rather than long slow distance training, evidence indicates that specific interval or intermittent training methods can offer less compromise, are more time (and volume) efficient, and produce equivalent or superior adaptation (36,85,98,173,217).
Although various factors are being trained simultaneously, the degree of de-emphasis of noncompatible factors is not as substantial as in single factor paradigms. In this example (Figure 9), note that in the accumulation phase, although basketball practice is minimized, the other fitness variables increase and strength training predominates. However, by the early transmutation phase, basketball practice becomes dominate and the exercise selection during strength training and sprint agility exercise become considerably more task specific. Strength training again briefly predominates during planned overreaching (POR) at the beginning of realization. Exercises become more task specific and power oriented as volume decreases during the taper portion of realization.
Evidence of Block Periodization Efficacy
This section will deal with evidence that BP produces superior performance alterations compared with other methods of training. It should be noted that the programming of these comparisons would affect the outcome—a factor discussed later in this article. We are also limiting the evidence presented to studies using athletes or very well-trained subjects using sport training paradigms in which training was performed in addition to resistance training. The studies range from a few weeks to years. Although there have been a few comparisons which do not favor BP, we note that none of the studies we have been able to locate indicated that BP was not at least equal in effecting performance (67,97). Tables 5–8 illustrate results of comparisons. These studies indicate that BP can be a very efficacious and typically superior method of training.
Table 5 -
Unidirectional (single target) Block Periodized Program.*
||Effects, mixed sports
|Villani and Gesuale (228)
||5 CL blocks vs trad mixed program (21 SEM Shoot boxing) (13 wk)
||BP >trad: endurance, HIT frequency, and HIT endurance
|da Silva Mariho (34)
||3 CL blocks: strength and power speed (3 EM swimmers) (18 wk)
||BP > anaerobic power and body comp (PhD dissertation)
|Breil et al. (15)
||BP vs. trad mixed program (21 EMJ alpine Ski) (short overreach)
||Superior effect of BP program on V̇o
2max and anaerobic threshold power
| Hartmann et al. (81)
||2 blocks design: hypertrophy (10 wk) and strength-power vs DUP (40 M trained strong and weak subjects) (14 wk)
||BP > DUP 1 Rm bench, IBP, and IRFD
| Painter et al. (159,160)
||3 CL blocks: (SE, strength, and power) (26 MF D-1T and F) (11 wk)
||BP > IMTP, IRFD, 1RM squat strength, and RFD gains/VL > trad; BP < trad monotony and s strain, fewer negative hormonal alterations
| Carroll et al. (24,25)
||3 CL blocks: (SE, strength, power) (15M well-trained) (10 wk)
||BP > trad IMTP PF, RFD jumps (50 ms); loaded and unloaded jumps; BP > trad CSA gain, greater II:I CSA
| Suarez et al. (205)
||Characterization of BP effects on advanced- 9 SEMF WL's
||RFD increases and falls with alterations in volume and intensity. Small to moderate increases in RFD and CSA over a stage
*CL = concentrated load.; CSA = cross-sectional area; EM = elite male; EMJ = elite male juniors; DUP = Daily Undulating Periodization; HIT = high intensity training; IBP = isometric bench press; IMTP = isometric mid-thigh pull; PF = peak force; RFD = rate of force development; VL = volume load; MF = male and female; SEMF = sub-elite male and female; WL's = weightlifters.
Table 6 -
Single Target—Sports with strong endurance component.*
|Issurin et al. (93,94)
||T Program (1 season) vs. BP design using 3 block-types (2 seasons); 3 y, (23 EM kayak)
||Significant superiority of BP for power propulsive efficiency and performance time in 1000-m kayak
|Garcia-Pallares et al. (64)
||BP vs trad using 3 block types (10 EM kayak) (2 y)
||Significant superiority of BP in kayak peak performance and peak power; earned Olympic gold medal
|Rønnestad et al. (170)
||BP program (1 wk HIT 3 wk LIT) vs. trad mixed
||Superiority of BP group in program (21 SEM cycling) V̇o
2max and power output at (4 wk overreach) 2 mmol/L although volume and intensity was similar to trad
|Storen et al. (202)
||BP program (4 mo with 2 blocks HIT 9 and 10 d) vs. mixed trad program; 2 seasons; 1 EM cyclist, case study (4 mo)
||BP > trad: V̇o
2max and time trial performance
||BP program: 5 wk with 2 weekly blocks of HIT vs. trad program; (10 SEM skiers) (5 wk overreach)
||BP > trad: V̇o
2max and time to exhaustion
||BP annual program (5 stages, 3 block types) vs. trad program; (19 SEMF Ski) (1 season)
||BP > trad: endurance trials multi-peak performances and training volume
|Rønnestad et al. (171)
||BP vs mixed trad (7 SEM cyclist) (12 wk; 4 wk overreach)
||BP > trad: V̇o
2max, power output at 2 mmol/L and power output during 40-min all-out trial
*EM = elite male; HIT = high intensity training; LIT = low intensity training; SEMF = sub-elite male and female.
Table 7 -
Multifactor BP for strength-power sports.*
|Characterization and comparison against previous training
| Moreira et al. (138) BP:
||3 blocks: strength-power, speed and intensity, game practice; 2 cycles (8 EM basketball)—no comparison group (23 and 19 wks
||Significant gains in jump performance; game activities not reported
| Porta and Sanz (165)
||Annual plan based on 3 block types, single case study elite M tennis player (3 y)
||Outstanding performances of Carlos Moya in 2002–2004
| de Souza et al. (39)
||BP program (4 blocks: strength, power, speed, and practice); (11 EM team handball) comparison group (16 wks)
||Significant gains in jump performances, agility, anaerobic, and games activities not reported
| Campeiz and de Oliveira (23)
||Seasonal program including blocks of highly concentrated strength/power training (16 EM soccer) (1 y)
||Significant gains of anaerobic power, decreased body fat, and games activities not reported
| Marques et al. (118)
||BP: 5-wk accumulation phase, 5-wk transmutation, 3-wk realization phase (21 EM and 11 NatM judo players (13 wk))
||Statistical increase in SJFT
|Comparisons vs traditional
| Bartolomei et al. (6)
||BP vs. trad: 3 blocks (SE, S, and P) 25 strength and power athletes competing in track and field throwing events or in rugby and American football in the Italian leagues (15 wk)
||BP > trad: 1 RM bench and bench power
| Pliauga et al. (163)
||BP vs trad (10 SEM Basketball) (8 wk preseason)
||BP > trad: CMJ, no sprint differences
| Rønnestad et al. (172)
||BP (wks 1, 3,4,and 6 strength training; wks 2 and 5 HIT aerobic) vs. trad mixed methods (Hockey) (6 wk)
||BP > trad: peak torque knee extension knee at 60° × s−1, mean power output during a 30-s cycling sprint
*1 RM = 1 repetition maximum; CMJ = countermovement vertical jump; EM = elite male; HIT = high intensity training; SJFT = static jump flight time.
Table 8 -
Multifactor BP—team sports with strong endurance component.*
|Comparison with different methods
| Stolen et al. (185)
||Aerobic block versus dribbling drills (20 SEM soccer) (10 d)
||BP > DD: V̇o
2max—favorable game activity?
|Characterization/compare with previous training
| Mallo et al. (115)
||BP annual plan based on 3 block types, 4 seasons, 77 elite soccer players (4 y)
||Significantly better performances after realization block and mesocycle
| Mallo (116)
||Annual plan divided into 5 stages with 3 block types; (22 E soccer players (1 y))
||Significant gains in jumping performance, sprint, and Yo-Yo test
| Wahl et al. (232)
||Single block of aerobic HIT program; (12 SE soccer players) (13 d)
||Significant gains in RSA (46%) and Yo-Yo endurance (24%)
*HIT = high intensity training; DD = dribbling drills; RSA = repeated sprint ability.
These studies were conducted in a variety of activities and sports requiring different physiological and performance characteristics.
Programming Considerations: Details, Subtleties, and Nuances
As noted previously, programming drives periodization. This means that to “cause” a periodization block to produce desired effects, sets, repetitions, exercise selection, etc., must be chosen so that the desired result has a strong potential for success (32,206). Although this section is not meant to be all inclusive of programming details and nuances, there are several important considerations:
- Generally large multijoint (MJ) exercises typically affect greater physiological adaptations or more efficiently produced performance alterations and typically provide greater transfer to sport-related variables and sport performance (92,113,160,198,206).
- Exercise order during a session makes a difference—the most important exercises should be programmed first. Typically, this requires large muscle mass, MJ exercises to be performed first. There are 2 major reasons to use this order: first, the intensity falls off as a session moves forward which can affect the level of adaptation in more important exercises, and second, it is possible that small muscle mass exercises first may fatigue stabilizers increasing injury potential during large MJ exercises (3,4,42,77,177–179,190).
- The session order likely makes a difference, simultaneous endurance activities can interfere with strength-power adaptations, particularly explosive strength (RFD) and high velocity movements (62). Especially for athletes using multiple sessions per day, placing the strength training session first (or in some cases on a different day) may reduce or eliminate the interference effects (43,45,146).
- Although it is not clear, some evidence suggests that combining high intensities of training with low aerobic intensities or very low volumes creates less interference during typical long slow distance training (127,183). Importantly, very short bouts of high intensity interval activity such as sprints also seem to minimize the effects of concurrent training interference from typically associated with endurance training and likely offer superior benefits for strength-power athletes (128).
- Within the microcycle, programming wave-like loading from day to day or week to week seems to enhance training out comes (40,41,163,190,197). These findings encompass a variety of sports and resistance training (19,20,25,55,156,158).
- For resistance training, and likely other forms of training (55), combination training (heavy plus light loading) creates a wave-like variation throughout a microcycle and makes a positive difference in performance adaptation, particularly RFD and power output. This training method can be combined into the same training session (208–210) or take the form of unload weeks and heavy and light days (19,20,25,156,158). Heavy and light resistance training days (24,158,159) typically consist of reduced loading (10–20%) and volume load on the light day and not training to failure as this would obviate the contrasting effects (failure always produces a relative maximum). This method (Table 9, Figure 10A–C) can also be integrated such that combination training can take place both within a training day and also across the microcycle (heavy and light days) and is commonly used in resistance training (25,40,41,78,158).
There seems to be 2 important aspects to this method of training that may enhance performance adaptations. First is fatigue management (40,41,188,189). Indeed, programming paradigms using unload weeks and heavy and light days can reduce training strain and monotony compared with programs using less variation (25,158). The second aspect deals with providing a diverse loading scheme which results in a spectrum of force, RFD, velocity, and power outputs across a training session and through each microcycle. By using a spectrum of loading, it may be possible to substantially enhance 2 compatible aspects of training simultaneously, beyond that of only training one aspect, for example, strength and velocity of movement (78,208–210). Among strength-power athletes, weightlifters likely train more often with this type of combination training and display marked enhancement of both strength and power, typically higher than most other athletes (123,193).
It should be noted that this concept of combined training does not mean that one factor cannot be emphasized at specific times. Figures 10A–C provides examples of different emphases for advanced athletes (Table 9).
- Concentrated load: normally associated with single factor BP and individual sports but is often incorporated into team sport programs in the “off” season. Typically, one summated microcycle (≈4 weeks) that takes advantage of unidirectional stimuli (concentration) and volume alterations. The final effect is due to the interplay of a concentrated stimulus and volume manipulations. The concentration can be one of any fitness characteristics (e.g., strength endurance, strength, power etc.). Primary performance may decrease during the CL. After returning to more normal training, there can be a DTE causing an increased performance (222).
Table 9 -
Example of exercises used to create a strength emphasis, power emphasis, and power and explosive emphasis.§
Strength emphasis (Figure 10A)
|Monday and Thursday
|| Power snatch (very light)
|| Power snatch (very light)
| Push press
|| Snatch grip shrugs*
|| Clean grip shrugs*
| Bench press
|| Snatch pulls (floor)
|| Clean pulls (floor)
|| Bent over rows†
|| Bent over rows†
|Tuesday and Friday
| Short (15–20 m) sprint build-ups
| Heavy med ball (backward overhead throw)
| Sit-ups (3 × 10)
| Lying windshield wipers (3 × 10)
Power emphasis (Figure 10B)
|Monday and Thursday
| 1/3 squats (power rack)
|| Power snatch (very light)
|| Power snatch (very light)
| Push jerk
|| Snatch grip shrugs*
|| Clean grip shrugs*
| Incline press
|| Snatch pulls (mid-thigh pulls from blocks)
|| Clean pulls (mid-thigh pulls from blocks)
|Tuesday and Friday
| Short (15–20 m) sprint build-ups
| Incremental med ball (backward overhead throw)
| Sit-ups (3 × 10)
| Lying windshield wipers (3 × 10)
power and explosive emphasis (Figure 10C)
|Monday and Thursday
| 1/4 squats (power rack)‡
|| Power snatch (very light)
|| Power snatch (very light)
| Box jumps‡
|| Snatch grip shrugs*
|| Clean grip shrugs*
| 100 incline press (dumbbells)
|| Power snatch
|| Power cleans
|Tuesday and Friday
| Short (15–20 m) sprint build-ups
| Incremental med ball (forward and side from 1/4 squat)
| Sit-ups (3 × 10)
| Lying windshield wipers (3 × 10)
*Pull first repetition from floor.
†Assistance exercises (volume not included).
‡Complex with 1/4 squats (vest: loaded up to 5% of 1 RM squat).
Strength emphasis and power emphasis that the exercises do not always have to change substantially to change the programming emphasis (Figures 6A, B
). Typically, major exercise alterations should be made during the realization
block to better ensure task specificity is being addressed. These task-specific alterations are not only movement pattern based but should also include an emphasis on explosive strength (RFD) and power output. It should also be noted that combination training heavy and light days cannot be effectively accomplished when training to failure. Training to failure entails a consistent relative maximum effort, resulting in poor fatigue management and inability to achieve a true loading spectrum (25,136
A type of CL referred to as POR is a short-term period of very high volume or intensity (1–2 weeks). Performance often shows a decrease during the POR phase. After returning to normal volume training, as with a CL, there can be a DTE causing a more stable or often an increased performance. The POR likely causes additional adaptations beyond normal training (8,188,203). The POR should be applied suddenly, represent a substantial increase in loading, and result in a considerable perturbation in homeostasis. Some data indicate that well-trained and advanced athletes respond to the POR better than lesser trained athletes (58,82). Often a primary vehicle for the POR is an increase in basic strength training (8,82). When the POR precedes a taper, this may increase the performance enhancement effects of the taper (8,82,200). Figure 11 shows the expected theoretical effects of a POR coupled with a taper.
This section has summarized many of the most important aspects of programming that affect the outcome of periodization blocks, the stage and the final outcome of a periodization process. We have not discussed several programming methods such as polarized training for endurance, cluster sets, complex sets, etc. because this is beyond the scope of this review. For strength-power training, and a more detailed discussion of exercise selection, sets, and repetitions, etc., the reader is referred to Carroll et al. (25); DeWeese et al. (40,41), Haff et al. (74) and Haff and Nimphius (73). For endurance training and accompanying strength training, the reader is referred to Shumann and Ronnestad (175).
Criticisms of Periodization and Block Periodization and Factors Effecting the Mechanistic Paradigm
The following are criticisms of “periodization” often noted in the literature (and unfortunately social media). We briefly address these criticisms:
Periodization was Created for the Management of Resistance Training Along With Other Stressors
One common misconception often encountered in the literature is the implication that periodization was developed to incorporate resistance training into an overall training management structure (16). Although there is no doubt that resistance training should be an essential component of human performance development, there is no evidence that we are aware of that indicates that periodization was created or developed to specifically incorporate resistance training into a periodized program, integrated, or stand alone. As noted in the introduction of this article, periodization did not come into being with Matveyev as it was developed and historically evolved as a concept for the integration and management of all aspects of training, not specifically resistance training (32,89,90). Furthermore, there have been several studies that examine “periodization” (programming) simultaneously with other “stressors” (24,25,78,105,158,159).
Periodization and Programming are Often Confused
From a conceptual paradigm, it is apparent that many authors are still confusing periodization with programming (32,86,186). In brief, periodization is a conceptual athlete management system dealing with periodic timelines and fitness phases; depending on the goal of the training process, it creates time direction of training volume, intensity, and task specificity factors. For example, a goal for most sports is to increase strength, power, and velocity of movement, generally the conceptual paradigm moves from higher to lower volume, lower to higher intensity, and less task specific to more task specific (32,40,164). Programming “drives” the periodization phases as properly applied programming creates the appropriate physiological and psychological environment in order for the appropriate adaptions during a specific phase to take place. Thus, programming includes exercise selections, loading parameters, rest periods, etc. (32). For example, Buckner et al. (16) refer to induction of muscle size alterations using a variety of intensities (30–80% 1 repetition maximum [1 RM]) as rationale against periodization, when a specific reference in this manner would actually be referencing a programming decision.
Periodization is Unnecessary, Particularly for Resistance Training
Kiely (99–101) and Buckner et al. (16,17) indicate that the periodization conceptual paradigm is flawed and does not work, particularly for resistance training. Part of this criticism stems from the idea that periodization is not “flexible” enough to meet athlete needs. Much of this type of criticism usually stems from the often erroneously stated and very typical confusion of periodization with programming (32,86). As a result of this misunderstanding, several forms of programming such as “autoregulatory periodization” “flexible periodization, “tactical/technical periodization, “agile periodization,” etc. have been created that are purported to offer increased flexibility and address the individual characteristics and attributes of athletes (86,100). However, none of these programming models adequately address the basic tenants of periodization (86), particularly for long-term development. It should be noted that substantial flexibility for individualization, and thus a substantial degree of “autoregulation” can be built into appropriate programming schemes (e.g., ranges of intensity and work within set-rep schemes), individualized warm-up protocols, individualized relative intensities, individualized rest periods, monitoring induced alterations, etc. (32,40,41). Furthermore, a substantial degree of flexibility can be built into the periodization paradigm itself. Typically for most sports, the periodization paradigm proceeds from high to low volume. However, these phases can be reversed for some sports to produce somewhat different effects often enhancing specific endurance factors (69). In addition, the length of time that a phase lasts can be altered based on a number of factors, including the competition calendar, the trained state, or the level of accumulated fatigue carried over from the previous stage. Using BP as an example, if the time from the last active rest stage until the next important competition is 8 weeks then several variations of the block time periods could occur, for example,
In underdeveloped athlete (based on monitoring):
Accumulation (3 weeks), transmutation (3 weeks), and realization (2 weeks).
In an elite athlete in good condition (based on monitoring):
Accumulation (1 week), transmutation (4 weeks), and realization (3 weeks).
In addition, if, based on monitoring, illness, injury etc., expected development is not occurring during a specific periodization block (or a CL), a different block can be substituted such that appropriate development resumes. Thus, there can be considerable individualization and flexibility within both the paradigm of periodization and the programming constructs.
For resistance training, there are 2 primary reasons underlying this criticism: first, it is indicated (16) that increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA [hypertrophy]) from resistance training do not contribute to strength gains and thus an initial high-volume phase is unnecessary. Indeed, an initial alteration in body composition (including myofibrillar hypertrophy) is conceptually (along with the more important increased work capacity) a tenet of resistance training periodization aimed at increased strength, RFD, power, etc. From a periodization and programming standpoint, the initial hypertrophic gains are not only related to strength gains but also likely potentiate later gains in strength and related characteristics across subsequent training phases. From a logical conceptual aspect, the paradigm of first increasing muscle CSA to potentiate strength (and power) gains have been around for a considerable length of time (137) and have substantial theoretical support (114,119,133,213,239). In brief, we believe that there is sufficient evidence indicating that resistance trained hypertrophy, along with other factors, does in fact enhance maximum strength and related characteristics. CSA enhancement magnitude depends on several factors including training methods and trained state. Compared wi other factors such as neurological adaptations, selective motor unit hypertrophy, tissue stiffness etc., it is likely that the whole muscle hypertrophy impact on maximum strength and related factors is relatively small, particularly in early phases of training. However, total hypertrophy (myofibrillar) resulting from long-term resistance training does substantially contribute to strength development (114). We also note that there is evidence from both early muscle activation and CSA studies (75,139) and later studies (33,37) indicating that the initial gains (up to 6–8 weeks) in hypertrophy (myofibrillar) are negligible to small and likely do not contribute markedly to increased maximum strength because these hypertrophic gains are largely edema or sarcoplasmic (169). However, this evidence also suggests that later alterations (after ≈8 weeks) in CSA (myofibrillar) can begin to contribute to alterations in strength and related characteristics (114,219). This idea is in concert with most studies with which we are familiar. Thus, there is (and has been) ample evidence to understand why initial resistance-trained increases in CSA do not always associate with gains in strength and related characteristics, particularly among untrained and minimally trained subjects.
Second, it has also been indicated that variation in training is largely unnecessary and that there is little or no evidence to support the need for variation in resistance training or in periodization programming or for that matter periodization in general (16). However, consider simple observation, subjects including athletes cannot typically tolerate constant high volume or heavy MJ exercise loading for extended periods without experiencing nonfunctional overreaching or perhaps overtraining and certainly increased injury potential. Indeed, in pilot studies in our laboratory results (Auburn, Edith Cowen University, East Tennessee State University, and West Virginia University), we noted that subjects, from a spectrum of training backgrounds, performing MJ, heavy loading (95–100% of 1 RM), constant heavy loading for the required set and repetition scheme (for example: 3 × 5 at 95–100%), or high-volume training could at best only increase or maintain performance (1 RMs, sprints, and jumps) for about 4–5 weeks—longer periods resulted in performance declines. This agrees with the observations of Fry et al. (60,61). In addition, if Buckner et al. (16) are correct then rearranging the phases of periodization would make no difference in the outcome; however, this does not seem to be the case. For example, in several studies, researchers have reversed the order of fitness phases (and therefore programming) from typical and found different outcomes, sometimes subtle, nevertheless different (2,26–28,69). This evidence also includes resistance training (166,168). It should be noted that in many of the early resistance training studies, researchers examined programming using variation versus various constant repetition programming schemes with high and low volumes, to failure and not to failure (124,155,191,192,204,234,235). In each case, the variation group produced superior results. A recent systematic review indicates that providing essentially the same training stimulus for “greater than 6 weeks could result in a plateau in maximal strength development, necessitating training variation to elicit further improvement” (207). In addition, there is evidence indicating that how the programming variation is structured in a periodization and programming context can also make a difference in maximum strength, power, motor unit (MU) type selective hypertrophy, and fatigue management (24,25,134,158,159). Indeed, most reviews and meta-analyses have concluded that periodization and appropriate programming offer advantages over other methodologies (47,164,167) (Table 1).
Resistance Training Gains in Performance are the Result of Specificity and Neural Adaptation
It has also been suggested that gains in resistance-induced gains in strength are simply because of “specificity” of training and is largely a nervous system phenomenon (16). At best, this is an oversimplification of training adaptation. Clearly the nervous system, muscle CSA and architecture, tissue stiffness, training with the “intent” to maximally activate muscle(s) impact physiological and cognitive characteristics (54,63,103,119,184,186,214,215). However, adaptations in each underlying mechanism are potentially affected by “specificity.p As “specificity” and the physiological (and likely psychological) adaptation aspects also impact the “transfer of training effect”; specificity becomes an extremely important factor for appropriately training athletes. For example, from the standpoint of mechanical specificity, appropriate manipulation of exercises and other training variables (e.g., load, volume, etc.) become paramount in optimizing transfer from training to performance (138,140,198,206). Although attempting to measure (only) nonspecific alterations in strength may be interesting, it does not provide adequate insights into potential transfer. Additional insight into possible transferability can be examined by using exercise measurement specificity along with concurrent calculation of alterations in appropriate performance variables.
Resistance Training to Failure is Necessary for Optimum Gains
From a programming standpoint, it has been suggested that training to or near failure using a load (≈30–85% of 1RM) largely determined by preference is sufficient for optimum hypertrophy (16,70) or for maximal strength (50,51).
As a training concept, this suggestion is rather remarkable considering most well-conducted studies, and reviews have indicated that training to failure is unnecessary, can be counterproductive, and loading does make a difference for maximum strength and power outcomes, particularly with MJ movements (24,25,53,70,95,96,109,117,153,207). Although the degree of hypertrophy may be unclear, the type of hypertrophy produced as a result of low load and high repetitions versus high load/low repetitions and ballistic movements may be different. Type II fibers produce somewhat greater specific tension, substantially higher rates of force development, velocities, and power outputs (13,127,129). Although training to failure, as a result of fatigue, can recruit high threshold MU's, recruitment seems to be incomplete and selective (110,132). Training to failure, particularly with higher repetitions, tends to select Type I MU and heavier loading and ballistic movements targeting type II MU (24,57,152,153,229). In addition, evidence indicates that endurance training can interfere with strength training adaptations (62,236). Many athletes who depend on an endurance factor as well as strength and speed-related factors (e.g., soccer) use training that relies heavily on both aspects of training. Of interests would be the possibility that typical endurance training, increases the fiber type selectivity of strength training to failure, particularly using higher repetitions, thus substantially altering the fiber type make-up of muscle, especially the II:I ratio.
There is evidence from reviews of the literature (213) and both cross-sectional (59,127,129) and longitudinal studies (24,134,153) indicating that selective hypertrophy can result from different resistance training programs with different loading schemes without training to failure. These observations likely play an important role in the training outcomes and performance capabilities of athletes, particularly strength-power athletes (127,129).
There are No Long-Term Studies Dealing With Periodization
One criticism that we do agree with (partially) is that few long-term experimental studies have been performed, particularly for resistance training. Although this is certainly true for typical experimental studies for a number of reasons (e.g., time constraints, subject availability, athlete availability, adequate funding, ecological validity versus internal validity, etc.), it has not been true for observational and descriptive studies. These observational studies, many of which lasted several years, included many of the original studies of Matveyev (120), Nadori (149,150), Verkoshansky (220), etc. More recent long-term observational and descriptive studies have dealt with a number of periodization related factors including performance-related variables, sport performance, and injuries and have included a variety of sports such as swimming (82), volleyball (181), orienteering (211), cross-country skiing and biathlon (147,176,182,212), and weightlifting (21). These types of studies and observations are especially important because they were performed observing athletes in their normal environment, thus maintaining ecological validity.
A Final Thought
Classical periodization has been shown to produce superior results for many sports. One important criticism of BP is that by breaking up the training process over a macrocycle into many small blocks, attaining high levels of fitness and development of the athlete may not be possible (107,111,112). Indeed, appropriate sequencing and programming BP stages over a macrocycle often follow a more traditional pattern of periodization. Note in the example presented in Figure 12, representing a process for an advanced athlete, there are 3 stages in a 34 weeks macrocycle. In keeping with traditional tenants, the greatest emphasis on developing “general” fitness occurs in the first stage. Thus, the first accumulation and transmutation blocks contain the greatest volume of training relative to the same blocks later in the macrocycle. After each active rest phase, there is a return to the accumulation block, and high levels of general fitness are re-established. Note that after the initial block each accumulation and transmutation block is smaller in extent as are the transmutation blocks. This is based on (a) there is sufficient loading during active rest that “fitness” does not decline to baseline and (b) residual effects and retaining a reasonable level of “general” and “specialized” fitness; thus, extensive accumulation and transmutation phases are not needed, and more time can be spent on realization. Programming additional “waves and oscillations” such as heavy and light days, unload weeks, etc. are still intact. Thus, in this context, BP can be viewed as an integral part of traditional periodization. Indeed, both single factor and multiple factor BP would be compatible with this concept (Figure 12) as the programming for each phase could be appropriately adjusted to accommodate team or individual sports.
Periodization is a logical phasic method of managing fitness phases and timelines for athletes. Through appropriate programming, alterations in training variables can be made such that, qualitatively, predictions can be made as to when peak preparedness and performance are likely to occur. As a concept periodization has a long and rich history of evolution into the 2 current paradigms of Traditional Periodization and BP. Block periodization has evolved and developed into 2 sub-types, single-factor (one primary performance goal) and multi-factor (several primary goals). Block periodization is a process of macromanagement and consists of 3 “periodization blocks, accumulation, transmutation, and realization followed by an active rest phase; together these make up a stage. Evidence indicates that each periodization block results in “residual effects” that persist and can potentiate the next block. Stages repeated throughout an annual plan (calendar) providing a blueprint toward optimum performance development. Programming is a process of micromanagement and consists of factors (e.g., exercise selection, sets, repetitions, etc.) that drive the periodization blocks toward completion. Considerable evidence indicates that periodization and proper programming can produce superior results compared with other methods of training.
No conceptual paradigm with which we are familiar is without problems. However, many of the criticisms leveled at periodization are without merit. These criticisms have been addressed to ensure the reader and practitioner are not misled.
This narrative review has presented evidence for the efficacy and efficiency of Periodization and appropriate programming. Periodization and programming has considerable means for variation and flexibility when properly integrated into the training process. There are two different types of Periodization: Traditional and Block. Block has 2 subtypes, Single and multiple goal. Coaches should carefully, and critically examine the sports with which they are involved and integrate a periodization and programming model appropriate for these sports.
1. Alecu A. Importance of using periodization in blocks in quality development in kayak biomotrics. Marathon 5: 127–133, 2013.
2. Arroyo-Toledo JJ, Clemente VJ, Gonzalez-Rave JM, et al. Comparison between traditional and reverse periodization: Swimming performance and specific strength values. Int J Swim Kinet 2: 87–96, 2013.
3. Assumpcao CO, Tibana RA, Viana LC, et al. Influence of exercise order on upper body maximum and submaximal strength gains in trained men. Clin Physiol Functio Imaging 33: 359–363, 2013.
4. Avelar A, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Effects of order of resistance training exercises on muscle hypertrophy in young adult men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 44: 420–424, 2019.
5. Bakken TA. Effects of Block Periodization Training Versus Traditional Periodization Training in Trained Cross Country skiers. Master Thesis. Liliehammer, France: Liliehammer University College, 2013.
6. Bartolomei S, Hoffman JR, Merni F, et al. A comparison of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28: 990–997, 2014.
7. Barzdukas A, Berning BM, et al. The training response of highly trained swimmers. In: Studies by the International Center for Aquatic Research. Troup J, ed. Colorado Springs: US Swimming Press, 1990. pp. 45–51.
8. Bazyler C, Mizuguchi S, Sato K, et al. Changes in muscle architecture, explosive ability, and track and field throwing performance throughout a competitive season and following a taper. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2785–2793, 2017.
9. Bazyler CD, Mizuguchi S, Sole CJ, et al. Jumping performance is preserved not muscle thickness in collegiate volleyball players after a taper. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1020–1028, 2018.
10. Bondarchuck AP. Constructing a training system. Track Tech 102: 254–269, 1988.
11. Bondarchuk AP. Transfer of Training in Sports. Muskegon, MI: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2007.
12. Bosque T, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, et al. Effects of tapering on performance: A meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 1358–1365, 2007.
13. Bottinelli R, Pellegrino M, Campari M, et al. Specific contributions of various muscle fibre types to human muscle performance: An in vitro study. J Electromyog Kinesiol 9: 87–95, 1999.
14. Branscheidt M, Kassavetis N, Anaya M, et al. Fatigue induces long lasting detrimental changes in motor skill learning. Elife 5–25, 2019. Epub ahead of print.
15. Breil F, Weber SN, Koller S, et al. Block training periodization in alpine skiing: Effects of 1-day HIT on VO2max
and performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 109: 1077–1086, 2010.
16. Buckner S, Jessee MB, Mouser JG, et al. The basics of training for muscle size and strength: A brief review on the theory. Med Sci Sports Exerc 52: 645–653, 2020.
17. Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Dankel SJ, et al. The general adaptation syndrome: Potential misapplications to resistance exercise. J Sci Med Sport 20: 1015–1017, 2017.
18. Burhus KA, Lettinichi JL, Casey ML, et al. The effects of two different types of resistance exercise on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24: S76, 1992.
19. Busso T, Candau R, Lacour JR. Fatigue and fitness modelled from the effects of training on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 69: 50–54, 1994.
20. BussoT Benoit H, Bonnefoy R, et al. Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout. J Appl Physiol 92: 572–589, 2002.
21. Byrd R, Pierce K, Reilly L, et al. Young weightlifters' performance across time. Sports Biomech 2: 133–140, 2003.
22. Cadegiani F. The underappreciated athlete: Overtraining syndrome in resistance training, high-intensity functional training (HIFT), and female athletes. In: Overtraining Syndrome in Athletes. Cham, CH: Springer, 2020. pp. 131–154.
23. Campeiz JM, de Oliveira PR. Effects of concentrated changes of strength training on anaerobic variables and body composition of professional soccer players. J Sport Sci Med 10: 172, 2007.
24. CarrollBazyler KM, Bernards JR. Skeletal muscle fiber adaptations following resistance training using repetition maximums or relative intensity. Sports (Basel) 7: 168, 2019. Epub ahead of print.
25. Carroll KM, Bernards JR, Bazyler CD, et al. Divergent performance outcomes following resistance training using repetition maximums or relative intensity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 29: 1–28, 2018.
26. Clemente- Suarez VJ, Fernandez RJ, Arroyo-Toledo JJ, et al. Autonomic adaptations after traditional and reverse swimming training periodizations. Acta Physiol Hung 102: 105–113, 2015.
27. Clemente-Suárez VJ, Dalamitros A, Ribeiro J, et al. The effects of two different swimming training periodization on physiological parameters at various exercise intensities. Eur J Sport Sci 17: 425–432, 2017.
28. Clemente-Suárez VJ, Ramos-Campo DJ. Effectiveness of reverse vs. Traditional linear training periodization in triathlon. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 16: 2807, 2019.
29. Coffey VG, Hawley JA. Concurrent exercise training: Do opposites distract? J Physiol 595: 2883–2896, 2017.
30. Counsilman JE. The Complete Book of Swimming. New York, NY: Atheneum, 1979.
31. Counsilman JE, Counsilman BE. The New Science of Swimming (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994.
32. Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, et al. The general adaptation syndrome: A foundation for the concept of periodization. Sports Med 48: 787–797, 2018.
33. Damas F, Libardi CA, Ugrinowitsch C. The development of skeletal muscle hypertrophy through resistance training: The role of muscle damage and muscle protein synthesis. Eur J Appl Physiol 118: 485–500, 2018.
34. da Silva MP. Block Periodization Systems: Main Training Effects on the Performance of High Level Swimmers. São Paulo: PhD Thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2008.
35. Day D. Geoff Dyson: Experience, the 'Coaching Eye' and Learning 'on the Job'. Manchester Metropolitan University Centre for Research into Coaching Biannual International Conference in conjunction with Sports Coaching Review, Crewe, Cheshire, 9–10 September, 2015. (on-line)—based on Geoffrey Dyson, “Forty Years on: Some Thoughts on Coaching and Development” (Paper Presented at the International Olympic Academy Nineteenth Session, Olympia, July 6–19, 1979).
36. de Aguiar RA, Lisbôa FD, Turnes T, et al. The effects of different training backgrounds on VO2
responses to all-out and supramaximal constant-velocity running bouts. PLoS One 10, 2015.
37. DeFreitasBeck J, Stock MS. An examination of the time course of training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 2785–2790, 2010.
38. Dellal A, Lago-Penas C, Rey E, et al. The effects of a congested fixture period on physical performance, technical activity and injury rate during matches in a professional soccer team. Br J Sports Med 49: 390–394, 2015.
39. De Souza J, Gomes AC, Leme, et al. Changes in metabolic and motor performance variables induced by training in handball players. Rev Bras Med Esporte 12: 118–122, 2006.
40. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, et al. The training process: Planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. J Sport Health Sci 4: 308–317, 2015a.
41. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, et al. The training process: Planning strength–power training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. J Sport Health Sci 4: 318–324, 2015b.
42. Dias I. Influence of exercise order on maximum strength in untrained young men. J Sci Med Sport 13: 65–69, 2010.
43. Eddens L, van Someren K, Howatson G. The role of intra-session exercise sequence in the interference effect: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med 48: 177–188, 2018.
44. Edington PW, Edgerton VR. Biology of Physical Activity. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.
45. Eklund D, Häkkinen A, Laukkanen JA, et al. Fitness, body composition and blood lipids following 3 concurrent strength and endurance training modes. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 767–774, 2016.
46. Elliot M, Wagner PP, Chui L. Power athletes and distance training. Sports Med 37: 47–57, 2007.
47. Evans JW. Periodized resistance training for enhancing skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength: A mini-review. Front Physiol 2019. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00013. Epub ahead of print.
48. Fair JD. Olympic weightlifting and the introduction of steroids: A statistical analysis of world championship results, 1948–72. Int J Hist Sport 5: 96–114, 1988.
49. Farinatti P, Neto AGC, Amorim PR. Oxygen consumption and substrate utilization during and after resistance exercises performed with different muscle mass. Int J Exerc Sci 9: 77–88, 2016.
50. Fisher JP, Blossom D, Steele J. A comparison of volume-equated knee extensions to failure, or not to failure, upon rating of perceived exertion and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 117–124, 2016.
51. Fisher JP, Steele J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training to momentary failure produce similar increases in strength with differing degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve 56: 797–803, 2017.
52. Fleck SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999.
53. Folland JP. Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br J Sports Med 36: 370–373, 2002.
54. FollandIrish JP, Buckthorpe MW, Hannah R. Human capacity for explosive force production: Neural and contractile determinants. Scand J Med Sci Sports 24: 894–906, 2014.
55. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 1164–1168, 1998.
56. Friel J. Periodization- the history, the terms, the principles. Perform Cycl Cond 2012. Available at: https://performancecondition.com/cycling/
57. Frobose I, Verdonck A, Duesberg F, et al. Effects of various load intensities in the framework of postoperative stationary endurance training on performance deficit of the quadriceps muscle of the thigh. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 131: 164–167, 1993.
58. Fry A, Kraemer WJ, Gordon S, et al. Endocrine responses to overreaching before and after 1 year of weightlifting. Can J Appl Physiol 19: 400–410, 1994.
59. Fry AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adaptations. Sports Med 34: 663–679, 2004.
60. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Lynch JM, et al. Does short-term near-maximal intensity machine resistance training induce overtraining?. J Strength Cond Res 8: 188–191, 1994a.
61. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, vanBorselen F, et al. Performance decrements with high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26: 1165–1173, 1994b.
62. Fyfe JJ, Bishop DJ, Stepto NK. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Sports Med 44: 743–762, 2014.
63. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise: Mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med 36: 133–149, 2006.
64. Garcia-Pallares J, Garcia-Fernandez M, Sanchez-Medina L, et al. Performance changes in world-class kayakers following two different training periodization models. Eur J Appl Physiol 110: 99–107, 2010.
65. García-Pallarés J, Izquierdo. M Strategies to optimize concurrent training of strength and aerobic fitness for rowing and canoeing. Sports Med 41: 329–343, 2011.
66. Garhammer J. Periodization of strength training for athletes. Track Tech 75: 2398–2399, 1979.
67. Gavanda S, Geisler S, Quittmann OJ, et al. The effect of block versus daily undulating periodization on strength and performance in adolescent Football players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 814–821, 2019.
68. Gergley JC. Comparison of two lower-body modes of endurance training on lower-body strength development while concurrently training. J Strength Cond Res 23: 979–987, 2009.
69. Gomez-Martín JP, Clemente-Suárez VJ, Ramos-Campo DJ. Hematological and running performance modification of trained athletes after reverse vs. Block training periodization. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 4825, 2020.
70. Gonzalez AM. Acute anabolic response and muscular adaptation following hypertrophy-style and strength-style resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2959–2964, 2016.
71. Graham J. Periodizatión research and example application. Strength Cond J 24: 52–70, 2002.
72. Grandou C, Wallace L, Coutts AJ, et al. Symptoms of overtraining in resistance exercise: International cross-sectional survey. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 16: 80–89, 2020.
73. Haff GG, Nimphius S. Training principles for power. Strength Cond J 34: 2–12, 2012.
74. Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, et al. Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 17: 95–103, 2003.
75. Häkkinen K, Komi PV. Electromyographic changes during strength training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 15: 455–460, 1983.
76. Häkkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 42–52, 2003.
77. Halperin I, Aboodarda SJ, Behm DG. Knee extension fatigue attenuates repeated force production of the elbow flexors. Eur J Sport Sci 14: 823–829, 2014.
78. Harris G, Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, et al. Short term performance effects of high speed, high force or combined weight training. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20, 2000.
79. Harre D, ed. Trainingslehre: Einführung in Dieallgemeine Trainingsmethodik. Berlin (O), Sportverlag, 1969.
80. Harre D, ed. Einführung in die allgemeine Trainings—und Wettkampflehre: Anleitung für das Fernstudium. Leipzig: DHfK, 1964.
81. Hartmann H, Bob A, Wirth K, et al. Effects of different periodization models on rate of force development and power ability of the upper extremity. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1921–1932, 2009.
82. Hellard P, Avalos-Fernandes M, Lefort G, et al. Elite swimmers' training patterns in the 25 Weeks prior to their season's best performances: Insights into periodization from a 20-years cohort. Front Physiol 2019. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00363. Epub ahead of print.
83. Hellard P, Scordia C, Avalos M, et al. Modelling of optimal training load patterns during the 11 weeks preceding major competition in elite swimmers. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 42: 1106–1117, 2017.
84. Hennessy LC, Watson AWC. The interference effects of training for strength and endurance simultaneously. J Strength Cond Res 8: 12–19, 1994.
85. Hoffmann JJ, Reed JP, Leiting K, et al. Repeated sprints, high intensity interval training, small sided games: Theory and application to field sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 352–357, 2014.
86. Hornsby WG, Fry A, Haff GG, Stone MH. Addressing the confusion within periodization research. J Funct Morph Kinesiol 5: 68, 2020. Epub ahead of print.
87. Issurin V. Block periodization versus traditional training theory: A review. J Sports Med Phys Fit 48: 65–75, 2008.
88. Issurin VB. Generalized training effects induced by athletic preparation. A review. J Sports Med Phys 49: 333–345, 2009.
89. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med 40: 189–206, 2010.
90. Issurin V. Periodization training from ancient precursors to structured block models. Kinesiology 46(Supplement 1): 3–9, 2014.
91. Issurin VB. Benefits and limitations of block periodized training approaches to athletes' preparation: A review. Sports Med 46: 329–338, 2016.
92. Issurin VB. Biological background of block periodized endurance training: A review. Sports Med 49: 31–39, 2019.
93. Issurin V, Sahrobajko IV. Proportion of maximal voluntary strength values and adaptation peculiarities of muscle to strength exercises in men and women. Hum Physiol Acad Sci USSR 11: 17–22, 1985.
94. Issurin V, Sharobajko I, Timofeyev V, et al. Particularities of Annual Preparation of Top-Level Canoe-Kayak Paddlers during 1984–1988 Olympic Cycle. Scientific Report. Leningrad, Russia:Leningrad Research Institute for Physical Culture, 1988.
95. Izquierdo M, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, et al. Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength and muscle power. J Appl Physiol 100: 1647–1656, 2006.
96. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, Exposito RG, Garcia-Pallares J, et al. Concurrent endurance and strength training not to failure optimizes performance gains. Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1191–1199, 2010.
97. Javaloyes A, Sarabia JM, Lamberts RP, et al. Training prescription guided by heart rate variability vs. Block periodization in well-trained cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 34: 1511–1518, 2020.
98. Kelly DT, Tobin C, Egan B, et al. Comparison of sprint interval and endurance training in team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32: 3051–3058, 2018.
99. Kiely J. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization block periodization: New horizon or a false dawn?. Sports Med 40: 803–807, 2010.
100. Kiely J. Periodization paradigms in the 21st century:evidence-led or tradition-driven?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 242–250, 2012.
101. Kiely J. Periodization theory: Confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Med 48: 753–764, 2018.
102. Knicker AJ, Renshaw I, Oldham AR, et al. Interactive processes link the multiple symptoms of fatigue in sport competition. Sports Med 41: 307–328, 2011.
103. Komi PV. Training of muscle strength and power: Interaction of neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical factors. Int J Sports Med 7: S10–S15, 1986.
104. Kotov BA. Olympic Sport. Guidelines for Track and Field. Sankt Petersburg, Russia: Majtov Publisher, 1916.
105. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, et al. 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.
106. Krüger A. Prolegomena zum Zusammenhang zwischen Trainingslehre und Sportökonomie. In: Pogranicza Edukacje. Festschrift für Joachim Raczek Raciborz: Scriba. Bugdol M, Kaica M, Pospiech J, eds. Zurich, Switzerland: Scriba, 2004. pp. 180–188.
107. Kruger A. From Russia with love? Sixty years of proliferation of L.P. Matveyev's concept of periodisation? Staps 114: 51–59, 2016.
108. Lago-Penas C, Rey E, Lago-Ballesteros J, et al. The influence of a congested calendar on physical performance in elite soccer. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2111–2117, 2011.
109. Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva-Batista C, et al. Muscle failure promotes greater muscle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2019. Epub ahead of print.
110. Looney DP, Kraemer WJ, Joseph MF, et al. Electromyographical and perceptual responses to different resistance intensities in a squat protocol: Does performing sets to failure with light loads produce the same activity? J Strength Cond Res 30: 792–799, 2016.
111. Lyakh V, Mikołajec, Bujas P, et al. Review of platonov's sports training periodization. General theory and its practical application – Kiev: Olympic literature, 2013 (part one). J Hum Kinet 44: 359–263, 2015a.
112. Lyakh V, Mikołajec K, Bujas P, et al. Review of platonov's sports training periodization. General theory and its practical application – Kiev: Olympic literature, 2013 (part two). J Hum Kinet 46: 273–278, 2015b.
113. Luebbers PE, Fry AC. The Kansas squat test modality comparison: Free weights vs. Smith machine. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2186–2193, 2016.
114. Maden-Wilkinson TM, Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, et al. What makes long-term resistance-trained individuals so strong? A comparison of skeletal muscle morphology, architecture, and joint mechanics. J Appl Physiol 128: 1000–1011, 1985. 2020.
115. Mallo J. Effect of block periodization on performance in competition in a soccer team during four consecutive seasons: A case study. Int J Perform Anal Sport 11: 476–485, 2011.
116. Mallo J. Effect of block periodization on physical fitness during a competitive soccer season. Int J Perform Anal Sport 12: 64–74, 2012.
117. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Fukuda DH, et al. Improving muscle strength and size: Importance of training volume, intensity and status. Kinesiology 47: 131–138, 2015.
118. Marques L, Franchini E, Drago G, et al. Physiological and performance changes in national and international judo athletes during block periodization training. Biol Sport 34: 371–378, 2017.
119. Massey G, Evangelidis P, Folland J. Influence of contractile force on the architecture and morphology of the quadriceps femoris. Exp Physiol 100: 1342–1351, 2015.
120. Matveyev L. Periodization of Sports Training. Moskow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport, 1965.
121. Matveyev LP. Fundamentals of Sports Training. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultua i Sport, 1977.
122. Matveyev LP. Osnovy Obshchey Teorii Sporta I Sistemy Podgotovki Sportsmenov. Kyev, Ukraine, 1999.
123. McBride JM, Triplett-Mcbride T, Davie A, et al. A comparison of strength and power characteristics between power lifters, Olympic lifters and sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 13: 58–66, 1999.
124. McGee D, Jessee TC, Stone MH, et al. Leg and hip endurance adaptations to three weight-training programs. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6: 92–95, 1992.
125. McKendry J, Pérez-López A, McLeod M, et al. Short inter-set rest blunts resistance exercise-induced increases in myofibrillar protein synthesis and intracellular signaling in young males. Exp Physiol 101: 866–882, 2016.
126. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, et al. The development, retention and decay rates of strength and power in elite rugby union, rugby league and American Football. Sports Med 43: 367–384, 2013.
127. Meijer JP, Jaspers RT, Rittweger J, et al. Single fiber contractile properties differ between body-builders, power athletes and control subjects. Exp Physiol 100: 1331–2141, 2015.
128. Methenitis S. A brief review on concurrent training: From laboratory to the field. Sports (Basel) 6: 127, 2018.
129. Methenitis S, Karandreas N, Spengot K, et al. Muscle fiber conduction velocity, muscle fiber composition, and power performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 48: 1761–7171, 2016.
130. Michalski RJ, LormesGrunert-Fuchs WM, et al. Leistungsentvicklung von Ruderen im Langsschnitt. In: Rudern. Steinnacker JM, ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1988. pp. 307–312.
131. Mikkola J, Rusko H, Izquierdo M, et al. Neuromuscular and Cardiovascular Adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training in untrained men. Int J Sports Med 33: 702–710, 2012.
132. Miller JD, Lippman JD, Trevino MA, et al. Neural drive is greater for a high-intensity contraction than for moderate-intensity contractions performed to fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 2020. Epub ahead of print.
133. Minetti AE. On the mechanical power of joint extensions as affected by the change in muscle force (or cross-sectional area), ceteris paribus. Eur J Appl Physiol 86: 363–369, 2002.
134. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DWD, et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol 113: 71–77, 2012.
135. Mølmen KS, Øfsteng SJ, Rønnestad BR. Block periodization of endurance training – a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Med 10: 145–160, 2019.
136. Morán-Navarro R, Pérez CE, Mora-Rodríguez R, et al. Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. Eur J Appl Physiol 117: 2387–2399, 2017.
137. Morehouse LE, Miller AT. Physiology of Exercise. St. Loius, MO: C.V. Mosby, 1976.
138. Moriera A, de Oliveira PR, AH Okano AH, et al. Dynamics of power measure alterations and the posterior long-lasting training effect on basketball players submitted to the block training system. Rev Bras Med Esporte 10: 251–257, 2004.
139. Moritani T, deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58: 115–130, 1979.
140. Morrissey M, Harman EA, Johnson MJ. Resistance training modes: Specificity and effectiveness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 648–660, 1995.
141. Mujika I. Tapering and Peaking. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.
142. Mujika I, Halson S, Burke LM, et al. An integrated, multifactorial approach to periodization for optimal performance in individual and team sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13: 538–561, 2018.
143. Mujika I, Padilla S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part I. Sports Med 30: 79–87, 2000a.
144. Mujika I, Padilla S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part II. Sports Med 30: 145–154, 2000b.
145. Mujika I, Padilla S, Pyne D, et al. Physiological changes associated with the pre-event taper in athletes. Sports Med 34: 891–927, 2004.
146. Murlasits Z, Kneffel Z, Thalib L. The physiological effects of concurrent strength and endurance training sequence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 36: 1212–1219, 2018.
147. Myakinchenko EB, Kriuchkov AS, Adodin NV, etal. The annual periodization of training volumes of international-level cross-country skiers and biathletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 15: 1181–1188, 2020.
148. Naclerio F, Moody J, Chapman M. Applied periodization: A methodological approach. J Hum Sport Exerc 8: 350–366, 2013.
149. Nadori L. Training and Competition. Budapest, Hungary: Sport, 1962.
150. Nadori L. Theory of Training and Exercise. Budapest, Hungary: Sport, 1968.
151. Neary JP, Bhambhani YN, McKenzie DC. Effects of different stepwise reduction taper protocols on cycling performance. Can J Appl Physiol 28: 576–587, 2003.
152. Netreba A, Popov D, Bravyy Y, et al. Responses of knee extensor muscles to leg press training of various types in human. Ross Fiziol Zh Im I M Sechenova 99: 406–416, 2013.
153. Nóbrega SR, Libardi CA. Is resistance training to muscular failure necessary? Front Physiol 7: 10, 2016.
154. Nuhr M. Functional and biochemical properties of chronically stimulated human skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 202–208, 2003.
155. O'Bryant HS. Periodization: A Hypothetical Training Model for Strength and Power. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU, 1982.
156. O'Bryant HS, Byrd R, Stone MH. Cycle ergometer performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight-training. J Appl Sport Sci Res 2: 27–30, 1988.
157. Osolin N. Das Training des Leichtathleten. Berlin, Germany: Sportverlag, 1952.
158. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, et al. Strength gains: Block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. Intern J Sport Physiol Perform 7: 161–169, 2012.
159. Painter KB, Haff GG, Triplett NT, et al. Resting hormone alterations and injuries: Block vs. DUP weight-training among D-1 track and field athletes. Sports 6, 2018.
160. Paoli A, Gentil P, Moro T, et al. Resistance training with single vs. multi-joint exercises at equal total load volume: Effects of body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, and muscle strength. Front Physiol, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.01105. Epub ahead of print.
161. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: Are view of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res 19: 950–958, 2005.
162. Pihkala L. Allgemeine Richtlinien für das athletische Training. Krümmel G, ed. Athletik. Handbuch, der lebenswichtigen Leibesübungen München. Munich, Germany: Lehmann, 1930.
163. Pliauga V, Lukonaitiene I, Kamandulis S, et al. The effect of block and traditional periodization training models on jump and sprint performance in collegiate basketball players. Biol Sport 35: 373–382, 2018.
164. Plisk S, Stone MH. Periodization strategies. Strength Cond 25: 19–37, 2003.
165. Porta J, Sanz D. Periodization in top level men's tennis. ITF. Coach Sport Sci Rev 36: 12–13, 2005.
166. Prestes J, De Lima C, Frollini AB, et al. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 23: 266–274, 2009.
167. Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc Sport 75: 413–422, 2004.
168. Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, et al. 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.
169. Roberts MD, Haun CT, Vann CG, et al. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in skeletal muscle: A scientific “unicorn” or resistance training adaptation? Front Physiol 11: 816, 2020. Epub ahead of print.
170. Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Ellefsen S. Block periodization of high‐intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports 24: 34–42, 2014.
171. Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. High volume of endurance training impairs adaptations to 12 weeks of strength training in well-trained endurance athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 1457–1466, 2012.
172. Rønnestad BR, Øfsteng SJ, Ellefsen S. Block periodization of strength and endurance training is superior to traditional periodization in ice hockey players. Scand J Med Sci Sports 29: 180–188, 2019.
173. Ross A, Leveritt M. Long-term metabolic and skeletal muscle adaptations to short-sprint training: Implications for sprint training and tapering. Sports Med 31: 1063–1082, 2001.
174. Schoenfeld BJ, Pope K, Benik FM, et al. Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1805–1812, 2016.
175. Schumann M, Ronnestad BR. Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Training. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018.
176. Schmitt L, Bouthiaux S, Millet GP. Eleven Years monitoring of the world's most successful male biathlete of the last decade. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 1–6, 2020. Epub ahead of print.
177. Sforzo GA, Touey PR. Manipulating exercise order affects muscular performance during a resistance exercise training session. J Strength Cond Res 10: 20–24, 1996.
178. Simao R, Figueiredo T, Leite RD, et al. Influence of exercise order on repetition performance during low-intensity resistance exercise. Res Sports Med 20: 263–273, 2012a.
179. Simao R, de Salles BR, Figueiredo T, et al. Exercise order in resistance training. Sports Med 42: 251–265, 2012b.
180. Søgaard K, Gandevia SC, Todd G, et al. The effect of sustained low-intensity contractions on supraspinal fatigue in human elbow flexor muscles. J Physiol 573: 511–523, 2006.
181. Sole CJ, Kavanaugh AA, Stone MH. Injuries in collegiate women's volleyball: A four-year retrospective analysis. Sports 5: 26, 2017.196.
182. Solli GS, Tønnessen E, Sandbakk O. The training characteristics of the World's most successful female cross-country skier. Front Physiol 18: 2017. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.01069. Epub ahead of print.
183. Sousa AC, NeivaIzquierdo PM, et al. Concurrent training and detraining: Brief review on the effect of exercise intensities. Int J Sports Med 40: 747–755, 2019.197.
184. Sterczala AJ, Miller JD, Dimmick HL. Eight weeks of resistance training increases strength, muscle cross-sectional area and motor unit size, but does not alter firing rates in the vastus lateralis. Eur J Appl Physiol 20: 281–294, 2020.
185. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, et al. Physiology of soccer: An update. Sports Med 35: 501–536, 2005.
186. Stone MH, Adams K, Bazyler C, et al. On the basics of training for muscle size and strength (Letter to the Editor). Med Sci Sports Exerc 52: 2047–2050, 2020.
187. Stone MH, Chandler TJ, Conley M, et al. Training to muscular failure: Is it necessary?
. Strength Cond 18: 44–51, 1996.
188. Stone MH, Fry AC. Increased training volume in strength\power athletes. In: Overtraining in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998. pp. 87–106.Chapter 5.
189. Stone MH, Keith R, Kearney JT, et al. Overtraining: A review of the signs and symptoms of overtraining. J Appl Sports Sci Res 5: 35–50, 1991.
190. Stone MH, O'Bryant H. Weight Training: A Scientific Approach (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing, 1987.
191. Stone MH, O'Bryant H, Garhammer J. A hypothetical model for strength training. J Sports Med Phys Fit 21: 342–351, 1981.
192. Stone MH, O'Bryant H, Garhammer J, et al. A theoretical model of strength training. Nat Strength Cond Assoc J 4: 36–39, 1982.
193. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, McCoy L, et al. Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17: 140–147, 2003.
194. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, Pierce KC, et al. Periodization: Effects of manipulating volume and intensity—Part 1. Strength Cond 21: 56–62, 1999a.
195. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, Pierce KC, et al. Periodization: Effects of manipulating volume and intensity—Part 2. Strength Cond 21: 54–60, 1999b.
196. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, et al. Weightlifting Part 1: A brief overview. Strength Cond 28: 50–66, 2006a.
197. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, et al. Weightlifting Part 2: Program design. Strength Cond 28: 10–17, 2006b.191.
198. Stone MH, Plisk S, Collins D. Training principles: Evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training – a coaching perspective. Sport Biomech 1: 79–104, 2002.
199. Stone MH, Potteiger J, Pierce K, et al. Comparison of the effects of three different weight training programs on the 1 RM squat. J Strength Cond Res 14: 332–337, 2000.
200. Stone MH, Sands WA, Stone ME. Principles and Practice of Strength-Power Training. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics, 2007.
201. Stone MH, Wilson GD, Blessing D, et al. Cardiovascular responses to short term Olympic style weight training in young men. Can J Appl Sports Sci 8: 134–139, 1983.
202. Støren O, Sanda SB, Haave M, et al. Improved VO2max
and time trial performance with more high aerobic intensity interval training and reduced training volume: A case study on an elite national cyclist. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2705–2711, 2011.200.
203. Storey AG, Birch NP, Fan V, et al. Stress responses to short-term intensified and reduced training in competitive weightlifters. Scand J Med Sci Sports 25: 29–40, 2016.
204. Stowers T, McMillan J, Scala D, et al. The short term effects of three different strength power training methods. Nat Strength Cond Assoc J 5: 24–27, 1983.
205. Suarez DG, Mizuguchi S, Hornsby WG, et al. Phase specific changes in rate of force development and muscle morphology throughout a block periodized training cycle in weightlifters. Sports 7: 129, 2019a.
206. Suarez DG, Wagle JP, Cunanan AJ, et al. Dynamic correspondence of resistance training to sport: A brief review. J Strength Cond 4: 80–88, 2019b.
207. Thompson SW, Rogerson D, Ruddock A, et al. The effectiveness of two methods of prescribing load on maximal strength development: A systematic review. Sports Med 50: 919–938, 2020.
208. Toji H, Kaneko M. Effect of multiple-load training on the force-velocity relationship. J Strength Cond Res 18: 792–795, 2004.
209. Toji H, Suei K, Kaneko M. Effect of combined training programs on force-velocity relation and power in human muscle. Jpn J Phys Fit Sports Med 44: 439–446, 1995.
210. TojiSuei HK, Kaneko M. Effect of combined training loads on relations among force, velocity and power development. Can J Appl Physiol 22: 328–336, 1997.
211. Tønnessen E, Svendsen IS, Ronnestad BR, Hisdal J, Haugen TA, Seiler S. The annual training periodization of 8 world champions in orienteering. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 29–38, 2015.
212. Tønnessen E, Sylta O, Haugen TA, Hem E, Svendsen IS, Seiler S. The road to gold: Training and peaking characteristics in the year prior to a gold medal endurance performance. PLoS One 9: e101796, 2014.
213. Travis SK, Ishida A, Taber CB, Fry AC, Stone MH. Emphasizing task-specific hypertrophy to enhance sequential strength and power performance. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 5: 1–25, 2020. Epub ahead of print.
214. Trezise J, Blazevich AJ. Anatomical and neuromuscular determinants of strength change in previously untrained men following heavy strength training. Front Physiol, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01001. Epub ahead of print.
215. Trezise J, Collier N, Blazevich AJ. Anatomical and neuromuscular variables strongly predict maximum knee extension torque in healthy men. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 1159–1177, 2016.
216. Tschiene P. Sportliche Form oder Topform? Disput um das Erbe von L. P. Matvejev. Leistungssport
36: 7–8, 2011.
217. Tüzün N, Ergün M, Alioğlu E, et al. TEI Index in elite sprinters and endurance athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55: 988–994, 2015.
218. Ungerleider S, Bradley B. Faust's Gold Inside the East German Doping Machine. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2001.
219. Vann CG, Roberson PA, Osburn SC, et al. Skeletal muscle myofibrillar protein abundance is higher in resistance-trained men, and aging in the absence of training may have an opposite effect. Sports 8: 7. doi: 10.3390/sports8010007. Epub ahead of print.
220. Verkhoshansky YV. The Basics of Special Strength Training in Sport. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport, 1977.
221. Verkhoshansky Y. Principles of planning speed/strength training program in track athletes. Legaya Athleticka 8: 8–10, 1979.
222. Verkhoshansky YV. Programming and Organization of the Training Process. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura i sport, 1985.
223. Verkoshansky YV. Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sport. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press, 1986.
224. Verkoshansky YV. Programming and Organization of Training. Livonoia, MI: Sportivny Press, 1988.
225. Verkoshansky YV. Organization of the training process. New Stud Athlet 13: 21–31, 1998.
226. Verkhoshansky YV. Special Strength Training. A Practical Manual for Coaches. Muskegon, MI: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2006.
227. Verkhoshansky YV, Siff M. Supertraining (7th ed.). Muskegon, MI: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2009.
228. Villani R, Gesuale D. Comparative Analysis of the Systems of Classic and Block Periodization in the Shoot Boxing. Salzburg: 8th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, 2003.
229. Vinogradova OL, Popov DV, Netreba AI, et al. Optimization of training: Development of a new partial load mode of strength training. Fiziol Cheloveka 39: 71–85, 2013.
230. Viru A. Early contributions of Russian stress and exercise physiologists. J Appl Physiol 92: 1378–1382, 2002.
231. Viru A, Viru M. Biochemical Monitoring of Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2001.
232. Wahl P, Güldner M, Mester J. Effects and sustainability of a 13-day high-intensity shock microcycle in soccer. J Sports Sci Med 13: 259–265, 2014.
233. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, et al. Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: A meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2083–2100, 2014.
234. Willoughby DS. A comparison of three selected weight training programs on the upper and lower body strength of trained males. Ann J Appl Res Coach Athlet: 124–146, 1992.
235. Willoughby DS. The effects of meso-cycle-length weight training programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. J Strength Cond Res 7: 2–8, 1993.
236. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, et al. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2293–2307, 2012.
237. Yakovlev NN. Biochemical foundations of muscle training (in Russian). Uspekhi Sovr Biol 27: 257–271, 1949.
238. Yakovlev NN. Biochemistry of sport in the Soviet union: Beginning, development and present status. Med Sci Sports Exerc 7: 237–247, 1975.
239. Zamparo P, Minetti AE, di Prampero PE. Interplay among the changes of muscle strength, cross-sectional area and maximal explosive power: Theory and facts. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 193–202, 2002.