Training periodization is still a way to “schedule” or “organize training.” This article describes in detail what it consists of and provides an introduction to linear and nonlinear periodization.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

Without going into any type or model yet, the basic principle of “periodization” is the change in volume and intensity over the training time frame. The typical trend of these changes is from high volume with low intensity to low volume and high intensity. Naturally, they do not make sense, although it is not the most important thing, that this model of training organization (intensity and volume manipulation), already used by the Greeks in antiquity, is identified with a specific name and not with a term. generic that includes its characteristics in its definition, such as the term “programming”.

More specifically, it is considered that “periodization” has as its main objectives

1. The appropriate balance between training loads and preparation for competition during the season;
2. Control fatigue and reduce the probability of reaching overtraining; and
3. Getting ready for competition at the right time (DeWeese et al., 2015).

One would have to wonder if there is any model, plan, program, way… of training that does not seek these objectives. It does not seem reasonable to accept that by giving it a specific name all these objectives will be met. And, furthermore, it is said that this is achieved mainly by adequate (non-linear) variability, which can be achieved through manipulation of volume, intensity and selection of exercises. Naturally, there is no training program, whatever its name, that does not contemplate and apply this manipulation.

A differentiation between “periodization” and “scheduling” is sometimes proposed. Considering that in the first case it is “a division of training time into phases that guarantee when the necessary adaptations have to be made to achieve specific performance objectives”. While the programming is “the concretion of this work plan through the determination of the exercises, series, repetitions, intensities, pause times…”.

programming is “the realization of this work plan through the determination of the exercises, series, repetitions, intensities, pause times…”

Naturally, “achieving the appropriate adaptation or performance objectives at a specific time” is a wish (“periodization”), without any basis or justification, and that only makes sense if accompanied by the proper and adequate manipulation of the variables that determine the applied load is a big problem under study and not easy to solve) and the effect that this produces (the way to measure the effect is also an important problem, not always adequately solved).

Therefore, regardless of other considerations that question the use of the very concept of “periodization”, what is really important is, once again, the manipulation of numbers; intensities, series, repetitions, rest times… Therefore, “periodize” has no meaning or effect on performance without the expression of the variables that determine the load.

linear periodization

While the volume tends to increase from the beginning of the training cycle until it reaches its maximum value soon, and then decreases until the end of the cycle, the intensity presents a tendency to increase from the beginning of the cycle. When this occurs, the training schedule is referred to as “linear periodization” (PL). The term “linear” itself is not very consistent with reality either, since neither the volume nor the intensity evolve in a neal way, but with a tendency to increase or decrease, but necessarily with permanent ups and downs of greater or lesser magnitude.

When it comes to strength training, in LP four main phases or objectives or denominations are usually differentiated: “strength-endurance” or “muscular resistance” phase, “hypertrophy” phase, “maximum strength” phase and phase of “power”. The latter is sometimes divided into a “force-power” phase and another “power” and “RFD peak”.

When it comes to strength training, in PL four main phases are usually differentiated

This type of approach is also sometimes referred to as “block periodization”. All these names are meaningless because:

1. In the phase of “strength-endurance” or “muscular resistance” there is also an effect on hypertrophy, strength and power,
2. In the “hypertrophy” phase, muscular endurance, strength and power are improved, then there would also be resistance, strength and power phases: would it make sense to improve hypertrophy and not improve strength? strength, is it possible that the power does not improve? For both questions the answer is negative, an affirmative answer is not possible in either of the two cases,
3. From the foregoing it can be deduced that if strength improves (third phase), power will necessarily improve, and it is also probable that hypertrophy and resistance will continue to increase, then this phase is also one of power and probably also hypertrophy, and if the strength, surely it will also improve resistance to the same load,
4. It is not possible for power to improve in the fourth phase without strength improving.

In summary, “giving names” to the phases is, in addition to being useless, clearly wrong and indicates a lack of knowledge of the training effect. The approximate and typical loads of these phases are usually the following:

• In the “strength-endurance” or “muscular resistance” phase, training sessions are programmed with a high number of repetitions per series (15-20), with a stress character (EC) maximum, that is, 1-3 series of 15-20RM (maximum number of repetitions possible in the series, which is known as “until muscular failure”), and the recovery time is low, one minute maximum. The percentage of the RM could be of the order of 60-65%. This training is proposed for 2-3 days / week
• In the “hypertrophy” phase, training is scheduled with a high number of repetitions and series with maximum EC (4-6 series of 8-15 RM), and a recovery time between series of 1-2 minutes. The percentage of the RM would be approximately 65-80%. This training is proposed for 3-5 days/week.
• In the “maximum strength” phase, the number of repetitions per series is reduced (3-5 series of 3-8 RM) and “muscular failure” continues, the percentage of the RM would be estimated between 80 and 90 %, and recovery time between sets of 3-5 minutes. This training is proposed for 3-5 days/week.
• And in the “power” phase, the highest intensities are reached (3-5 series of 1-3RM), the estimated percentage would be 90-100% of the RM and 5-8 minutes of recovery 4-6 days / week ,

“Giving names” to the phases is, in addition to being useless, clearly wrong and indicates a lack of knowledge of the training effect

In the first three phases, single and multi-joint exercises are included, and in the fourth, multi-joint exercises are a priority, but always, as in the other phases, for muscles and small ones. In the first three phases it is usually indicated that the movement be carried out at a moderate speed, even setting specific and constant times for the concentric phase of the movements or a certain stable proportion of eccentric-concentric time, and in the fourth phase it is usually call phases of “morphological adaptation”, and the last two of “neural adaptation”.

With some small variations in the magnitude of the loads, this is the guide model that is proposed with great frequency in the literature to apply to athletes, whatever their specialty, and to non-athletes, although for these sometimes more are proposed. repetitions per series, because supposedly “it is a minor load”.

This approach, which is the most common and widespread, in addition to what is indicated in previous paragraphs, needs some comments.

We haven’t met anyone who, after doing, for example, a true 10-12RM set, was able to do, with a reasonable recovery time (3-5 minutes), a second let alone a third 10-12RM set. with the same absolute charge. For this reason, in addition to the observations that we have made in previous paragraphs regarding the name of the phases and their meanings, we consider that this type of training is not possible to carry out in practice, regardless of whether trying to do so may offer better or worse results than other less tiring workouts, which will be seen in another section.

The claim that the movement is done at a specific non-maximum speed and that muscle failure is also reached is not possible, because the speed of the last repetition must necessarily be equivalent to the speed of the RM, which would be the speed minimum at which the subject can perform the exercise. This means that, if a certain execution speed is to be maintained, all the repetitions would have to be done at the RM speed or, otherwise, the proposed execution times cannot be met, because, necessarily, there would be a decrease in the execution speed.

One more point needs to be made regarding the fourth phase, the “power” phase. According to the scheme described, in this phase it is considered that “power is developed”. In addition to the fact that it has already been indicated that power has been developed in all the previous phases, unless the effect of training had been null or negative for strength, contrary to what is proposed, this fourth phase is the one in which Probably less power will be developed, since the conditions for already high power levels in the execution of the training are the least ideal: maximum load and minimum speed of execution, which gives rise to minimum values ​​of power.

It does not seem reasonable to claim that the phase in which less power is generated in training actions is the phase in which power is developed the most.

Naturally, if only Olympic or partial Olympic exercises were used in this fourth phase, such as the clean or the power snatch, the power generated in each repetition would always be greater than performing a bench press or a sit-up. any other exercise, but this does not mean that power has not been developed earlier, nor does it mean that these Olympic exercises cannot or should not be trained in the earlier phases.

However, it is true that in some versions of the “periodized training” model, “maximum power” phases with explosive or ballistic exercises are proposed, especially based on jumps. Although these conditions would allow reaching higher power values ​​in each execution, this variety does not solve the mentioned problems, because the power will continue without improving if the maximum force does not improve before the loads with which it is jumped, then this still does not make sense ” new stage”.

The denomination of the phases as “morphological adaptation” or “neural adaptation” is not justified, since both types of adaptations are taking place at all times, especially neural adaptation, since the nervous system cannot be excluded from either physical activity or type of physical training that is carried out.

This sequence of “objectives” and types of loads is justified because it is assumed that the effect produced in each of the phases is necessary to obtain a better result in the next one. That is, to improve strength it is necessary to have previously improved or developed muscular endurance and hypertrophy, and to improve power it is necessary to have previously improved strength. None of this is justified or adjusted to reality:

neither greater hypertrophy nor greater training volume are necessarily accompanied by greater strength gains

On the one hand, neither a greater hypertrophy nor a greater training volume are necessarily accompanied by a greater gain in strength (González-Badillo et al., 2005; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016; Schoenfeld et al., 2019). For the same maximum and relative intensity of each session, a volume of 65% of the maximum volume performed by a group of competitive athletes offered the same effect as the group that performed the maximum volume (González-Badillo et al., 2005).

Given the same relative intensity in each session, losing 20% ​​of the speed of the first repetition in the series produced better performance in the squat, jump and 20-meter race than losing more than 40% (situation close to muscular failure), at despite the fact that the group that lost more than 40% experienced a greater increase in muscle volume (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016). Given the same relative intensity and number of repetitions per series in each session, performing five series produced greater hypertrophy than doing one or three series, but not greater strength (Schoenfeld et al., 2019).

On the other hand, it is absurd to consider that “before improving power, you have to improve strength”. The improvement in power at the same absolute load can only be achieved if the maximum force applied at said load has improved: more force applied at the same absolute load for the same distance means doing the same work in less ti increased power, which , necessarily, means that power has increased. If we consider power as a product of strength and speed, the conclusion is the same: more strength for more speed (less absolute load time, more power is impossible.

Therefore, with the same absolute load, it is impossible for “strength to improve without improving power”, in the same way that, in “in the power phase”, it is impossible for power to improve if at the same time it does not the maximum applied force is improving.

Naturally, the degree of load applied, and especially the degree of fatigue generated during the session, will cause the training effect to occur to a greater extent in some areas of the force-velocity curve than in others.

But, in whichever of the areas that the effect occurs, if the force has increased, the power will necessarily improve at the same absolute load. If presumed “maximum power” is measured through jumping, throwing, or lightly loaded actions, it is very likely that performance on these exercises will improve more when fatigue has been reduced, late in the process, by doing fewer repetitions per set. “and explosively” as recommended in the model. But coming to the conclusion that all the previous process is necessary to improve potency does not make any sense.

Periodization in linear or undulating periodization

The use of the same types of training described in the previous point, but applying one of them every day, every week or every two weeks, repeating the hypertrophy-strength-power sequence, in this same order or in other alternative orders, with a The tendency to increase intensity and decrease volume gives rise to what has been called non-linear or undulating periodization (NLP).

All the observations indicated for the LP would be applicable in this case, in addition to the fact that the physiological stress would increase even more, since very high intensities would be reached from the first training sessions. It is argued that this model is justified by the need to provide even greater variability to training, facilitating adaptation and recovery from different loads.

It is likely that, indeed, there is more variability in volume and intensity, but achieving greater or better adaptation and recovery between loads by including all the phases (3 or 4) mentioned in the same week is not guaranteed.

Parallel to the previous models on periodized training, what has been called non-periodized strength training (ENP) is opposed. As stated in the referred article, not periodizing would mean that the entire training cycle is considered without changes that justify differentiating some moments from others, and therefore it would be “a single period”, in which “everything happens or is done the same way”: that is, the same load, the same stimulus, the same training is applied every day.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• Non-periodized training is one in which the entire training cycle is considered without changes that justify differentiating some moments from others.
• “Non-periodized” training is impossible in practice, since if the absolute load changes, a situation will arise in which there will necessarily be a change, an increase or a decrease in the absolute intensity, that is, there will be a “variability of the load”, which is what is required of “periodization”.

In this type of training, “all types of variability” apparently disappear, which is why it is a model that “loses all the advantages” of the two previous ones. This type of training has generally been considered the ineffective “bad” model, precisely due to the lack of variability, although it partly has elements of the previous ones, because training “until muscular failure” continues.

However, it is likely that in many cases the effect of this type of training will also be positive or very positive, even if you try to “not periodize”.

An ideally “non-periodized” training could have many alternatives and all of them, inevitably, with true load changes, that is, violating “non-periodization”. It is proposed that the “periodized” occurs if there are changes in volume and intensity, with a tendency to increase intensity and decrease volume in the space of training time.

Therefore, if the relative intensity remains stable, the training “would not have been periodized”. These workouts are usually characterized by using, for example, a 3x8RM load throughout the training cycle, which would mean that the program is “not periodized” because the relative intensity is always the same: the intensity that represents the 8RM load .

But this is a contradiction, because if the subject always does 8RM, it is unlikely, practically impossible, that he is doing the training with the same absolute load all the time, and, therefore, if the absolute load changes, we would be in a situation in which there will necessarily be a change, an increase or a decrease in the absolute intensity, that is, there will be a “load variability”, which is what that is required of “periodization”.

if, despite increasing the absolute intensity, the relative intensity is maintained, this would be irrefutable proof that there is an improvement in performance in the trained exercise

Therefore, what happens if the relative intensity is maintained and the absolute intensity increases? Is there no “periodization”? That is, is there no load change? Of course there is, even if the contrary has been claimed. But, furthermore, if the relative intensity is maintained despite increasing the absolute intensity, this would be irrefutable proof that there is an improvement in performance in the trained exercise.

Which would indicate that the “non-periodized” program has had a very positive effect. Therefore, “non-periodized” training is impossible in practice, and in some cases maintaining the relative intensity, and even tending to reduce it (here there would be apparently “negative” variability), may be the best indicator of a positive effect. of training.

On the other hand, if all the subjects are training with the same XRM, it is very unlikely that they will all train with the same approximate relative load (percentage of the RM), since there can be very noticeable differences between the subjects in relation to the number of repetitions that they can perform with the same relative load (González-Badillo et al., 2017).

This problem would apply to all other “periodized” training where loading in the form of XRM is applied, that is, practically all of them. Training (periodization) by blocks Apart from what has been commented in the section on the historical review, the periodized model mentioned above, with its corresponding phases, is also considered in some cases as “training by blocks”. Given that this model has already been discussed, now the one related to Verkhochansky’s proposal, which consists of two large “blocks”, is discussed a little more.

Verkhochansky’s proposal on block training

According to this author’s proposal, the first block is performed with power strength exercises, the volume is high, adjusted to the subject’s experience, the intensity is medium, the execution of technical exercises is not recommended during the 6-12 weeks that This block lasts and there is a tendency to lose performance in high-speed actions, which is identified with loss of “explosive force”.

The second block can also have a duration of 6-12 weeks, although two consecutive blocks do not necessarily have to be of the same length. It uses exercises closer to the competition or specific exercises, in which naturally, the competition exercise technique is included, the volume is reduced and the gradually increase the intensity (assumed to be in other “non-strength” exercises), and, as a consequence, it is “expected” to produce an increase in “explosive strength” greater than what the subject had before starting the first block.

It is even proposed that the greater the performance loss during the first “block”, the greater the positive effect in the second.

the first block is performed with power strength exercises, the volume is high, adjusted to the subject’s experience, the intensity is medium

The first observation is that the absence of technical training for practically half of each training period does not seem the most advisable.

The specific training is the most important in the preparation of any athlete, and the abandonment of the technical execution is done due to the possible interference of the strength training itself on the technique for a long time, it can have negative effects on it and the specific performance. In addition, the non-recommendation of the technical execution is made due to the possible interference of the strength training itself on the technique.

This situation should not occur, since strength training should have such characteristics that it does not interfere with any other type of training, and even less with technique. As will be seen later, most of the problems with any of the approaches arise from inadequate strength training.

The performance loss, acceptable and considered unavoidable and even desirable during the first block, risks being excessive, so it is questionable whether an increase in performance is ensured in the subsequent block. As is known, and has been stated in previous notes: greater fatigue does not guarantee greater performance.

The fatigue-performance relationship is curvilinear, and in the shape of an inverted “U”. In addition, there is no explanation to justify that it is positive that for as long as 2-3 months there must be a permanent state of performance loss in order to improve afterwards.

Another questionable aspect is the abandonment of strength training during the second block. It is not possible for “power/performance” to improve during the second block if the subject loses strength. Neither strength training nor technique training should be abandoned at any time.

What could partially “save” this situation is that by performing the “technical training”, typical of the second block, strength is necessarily trained, even if it is not included in the designed program or one does not think that one is training. The proposal that a “strength-power” training be applied in the first cycle does not make sense, because it is not possible for power to improve without improving strength (force applied to any load and exercise with which it is intended to estimate the power).

The proposal that “strength-power” training be applied in the first cycle does not make sense, because it is not possible to improve power without improving strength.

Actually, “power” training does not exist, although it has already appeared in many of the models analyzed and will continue to appear.

Finally, if the minimum time to complete and obtain the benefits of this type of training model goes to 16-18 weeks, with approximately half or more of the training time in the declining phase of performance, the range is greatly reduced. of sports specialties to which it could be applied.

Less applicable the higher the frequency of competitions. In addition, a high strength training load, especially due to the training volume typical of the first block, would probably not be applicable to any sport specialty, much less to those that do not have high maximum strength needs (1RM values).

The comparison of the different training periodization models does not offer a clear superiority of any of them. As a conclusion of a recent review (Hartmann et al., 2015), for example, there are equal or significantly greater effects on the “maximal force” (practically always understood as 1RM) of the model of nonlinear programming (NLP) in front of the of linear programming (PL), while in studies that have compared the effects on “explosive” force and medicine ball throwing in competitive athletes, a significantly higher improvement is observed with LP than with NLP.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• It cannot be concluded which type of training periodization models offer better results.
• No study has controlled fatigue or degree of exertion in each session.
• In a new study matching the relative intensity of the subjects, the results showed a clear tendency to improve more with linear programming.

However, the relatively short duration of the training periods, the difference in the types of sports or subjects to which the training is applied, the values ​​of the training variables, the length of the “mesocycles”… mean that cannot conclude which type of training periodization models offer better results.

The comparison of the different training periodization models does not offer a clear superiority of any of them.

Harris et al. (2015), after a meta-analysis, concludes that there are no differences in the effectiveness of the LP model compared to NLP, neither in the upper nor lower limbs. Bartolomei et al. (2014) did not observe significant differences between LP and PNL in the strength of the lower limbs or in the power of the vertical jump after 15 weeks of training, although they did in the upper limbs in favor of PNL.

However, the results of this study are questionable, as the groups differed in intensity (% of 1RM) and volume. The group to which the LP was applied reached 85% more than the RM in 17 sessions, while the NLP only in 8. It does not seem reasonable that the effect of two ways of organizing training (two ways of programming) can be compared when there are so many discrepancies in key training variables.

Painter et al. (2012) found that although performance tends to favor LP relative to strength and unit time force output, no significant differences were observed between the two groups. However, it was observed that the efficiency (volume of work in relation to the changes produced) of LP was higher than that of NLP in relation to strength improvement.

Miranda the al. (2011) find that both LP and NLP significantly increase RM in leg press and bench press, but with no differences between groups, although NLP had a larger effect size than LP. Apel et al. (2011) observed that weekly LP and NLP achieved significant increases in strength at 8 and 12 weeks of training, but at 12 weeks LP offered better results than weekly NLP. It is suggested that this minor improvement is due to the greater fatigue produced by the weekly NLP, so that in long-term training it would be more practical to apply the LP.

Hoffman et al. (2009) compared NP, PL and NLP training. They found significant improvements in RM in the squat, bench press, and vertical jump in all groups at 7 weeks of training, but not between 7 and 15 weeks. Only the PL group improved their medicine ball throw after 15 weeks of training.

According to Apel et al., in long-term training it would be more practical to apply the LP

It is concluded that the results do not offer a clear answer about which model produces the best results. Hartmann et al. (2009), compared the effect of a training with LP against another of NLP. After 14 weeks of training, with 3 sessions per week, they found an improvement in bench press RM and maximum speed in the thrown bench press with no differences between the groups.

There is speculation about the possibility that performing muscular resistance training in the third weekly session in NLP may have led to excessive fatigue and not improving performance in “power” due to low intensity. In a recent review (Williams et al., 2017) the effect of periodized training (P) versus NP on strength gain was compared. RM was measured in the bench press, leg press, and squat.

It was observed that the P training offered a moderate size of the favorable effect when compared to the NP (TE = 0.43 and without the appearance of zero in the confidence interval: 0.27; 0.58). It was concluded that the typical variation of training P is determinant for the improvement of strength.

As a summary, it can be admitted that there is no relevant information to be able to affirm that one way of organizing training is superior to the others. The number of values ​​that the variables that determine the training load can acquire, as well as the combination of these values, is such that it is difficult to control all this variability so that only the sequence of the loads applied in each appears as an independent variable. training organization model.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, leaving aside the classic load differences related to volume and intensity, some highly relevant aspects not studied in the literature in relation to programming problems are indicated below:

Relevant aspects not studied in the literature in relation to programming

• No study has controlled fatigue or degree of exertion in each session. If the same intensities and repetitions have been programmed for all the subjects, regardless of the programming model, one may have the false belief that all the subjects have done the same training, which, as indicated in previous points, is not This is correct, because given the same relative intensity (assuming that this intensity has been the same for everyone), performing the same number of repetitions in the series can cause different fatigue for each subject.
• In relation to the degree of fatigue, it has never been considered the loss of speed in the series, which is decisive to better understand the load or degree of fatigue generated by the training and to equalize the loads for all the subjects: this would mean doing different numbers of repetitions, but the same degree of fatigue in the series.
• No study has checked whether the intensity with which the subjects trained each day was the programmed intensity and whether it was the same for all.
• No study has considered the Effort Index (IE) that each training session has entailed: the effects of two or more relative intensities or sets of different relative intensities cannot be compared if they are performed with a different EI.

As can be deduced, despite the huge number of studies carried out with the objective of elucidating which is the best training organization model, valid information cannot be expected from any of them if, at least, the sources of information are not considered. variance that can be generated by what is indicated in the four previous points.

New Study Equating Subjects’ Peak Relative Intensity

This problem has been addressed in a recent study in which all the load indicator variables were equalized except the evolution of the maximum relative intensity of each session. With this approach, a training session with a progressive trend in intensity and a regressive trend in volume was compared to another with these same trends, but in an undulating manner.

That is to say, the effects of what in the terminology discussed would be a LP training with another of NLP were compared. The particularity and the difference with the rest of the studies carried out to date is that in this case the intensity (maximum and warm-up intensities) of each day and the loss of speed (the degree of fatigue) were the same for the two groups. , and every day the execution speed was controlled to verify both the intensity with which the subject trained and the loss of speed at which he reached.

Naturally, the number of repetitions in the series was not programmed (although measured), because this would have caused not all subjects to experience the same degree of fatigue. The trained exercise was the full squat, and the speed loss in the series was 15% of the speed of the first repetition.

the results showed a clear trend (percentage changes and effect size) to improve more with LP

There were no significant differences between the groups, but the results showed a clear trend (percent changes and effect size) to improve more with LP. In addition, there were significant interactions (p < 0.05) group x measures in favor of LP in all “strength” variables in the squat and vertical jump (CMJ), which was not trained. A faster and more frequent weekly strength improvement (1RM) was also observed in the squat and CMJ in the LP than in the NLP (laboratory data in press).