When designing a training schedule, the elements and factors that constitute a work plan are organized in a concrete and detailed way. In this case, the objective will be to improve strength qualities so that they contribute effectively to the achievement of specific performance in competition.

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

• Training programming is the organization of the sequence of efforts and rest times to achieve specific goals.
• Training must be quantified in order to make programming decisions based on data and not opinions.
• The evolution of the loads during the programming depends, fundamentally, on three determining factors: the initial situation of the subject, the strength needs in the sport specialty and the strength needs of the subject himself.

Introduction to the concept of programming

Programming is a way of organizing various activities to achieve specific goals, and for this reason it has nothing in common with carrying out training routinely, or based on improvisations that are not supported by a plan that justifies and delimits them. the margin of variation that can be admitted from what was planned. This means that programming must ensure, on the one hand, the unity of the training process and, on the other, its flexibility, as a consequence of the systematic and frequent control and evaluation of the process itself.

The programming of daily training is understood as a task made up of multiple subtasks, but unique as a process, whose objective is to improve the performance of the athlete or of any person, and which is expressed through a sequence of efforts duly adjusted according to specific objectives and the subject’s training needs and possibilities. This unit of the training process is fulfilled when said programmed sequence of efforts is respected.

Training programming is expressed as a sequence of efforts adjusted to objectives

But for this sequence to be respected, flexibility must also be given. The flexibility of the programming allows us to modify the specific load programmed (weights, series and repetitions per series) for one or several days so that the effort made is the one foreseen and not another different one. In other words, the target load (proposed load) is modified so as not to modify the programmed actual effort (actual load). Although the modification of the proposed load does not necessarily guarantee an improvement of the program or of the performance, rather it allows maintaining the programmed, the unity of the programming.

Only the evaluation of the elements of the training process can justify the opportune revisions of the programming in progress and of those that are going to be carried out in the future. From the foregoing it can be deduced that the trainer’s mission as a programmer, rather than determining a detailed series of activities to be carried out during training practice, is a permanent task of structuring, analyzing and constantly reviewing what he is doing. Among the functions of the coach is to observe daily the evolution of the athlete’s form, something that, especially in strength training, is not done frequently.

Only if this systematic observation is carried out, a true source of the coach’s experience, can it be said that someone is being trained. Otherwise, only a standard or average athlete model is trained that rarely, OR never matches the actual athlete. This has the consequence that the programmed loads will quickly stop adjusting to the true training needs and possibilities of the subject, and, therefore, the real load will not be the programmed one.

The trainer’s mission as programmer is the permanent structuring, analysis and revision of what is being trained.

This same observation also aims to analyze the variables involved in the process, which will allow us to discover the possible connections and reciprocal influences between these variables and between them and the results.

If we set ourselves the task of training in this way, we will be in the best conditions to understand, apply and adapt the contributions of science to our daily practice. This, necessarily, will lead to the development of an authentic training experience, which is what makes the coach improve his work and his knowledge every day.

The effects of training on physical and sports performance arise from the application of a series of stimuli organized in such a way that they allow a sufficient development of the physical condition and of the abilities of any sport specialty or type of performance that is intended.

At this point, it will be necessary to focus on the training that is usually considered as “strength training”, although all training aimed at improving physical condition and almost all sports performance are strength training itself.

The organization of the training is carried out through a schedule. Programming means “devising and ordering the actions necessary to carry out a project”. (RAE Dictionary). In the case of sports training, for some time programming has been defined as the expression of a series or ordered succession of efforts that are dependent on each other. This definition includes the concepts that define the term “programming”.

“Devise”, because it is thought with a determined degree of effort, is an idea, which is what is programmed. But, in addition, these efforts are actions that must be ordered, second concept of the definition, and in an interdependent way, to carry out the project of developing the physical and sports condition of the subject or sports group. However, in the literature and in the jargon of sports training, the term “periodization” is used very frequently to refer to the organization of training. Periodization means “action and effect of periodizing”, and periodizing means “establishing periods for a historical, cultural, scientific process…” (DRAE).

A training process that allows the correct use of loads and recovery times to avoid excessive fatigue

The most striking thing is that the term “periodization” is used as the solution to the training problem, because “periodized” training is considered as “a training process that allows the correct use of loads and recovery times to avoid the excessive fatigue” or “the division of annual training or a cycle into appropriate phases with the aim of reaching the peak of maximum performance at the appropriate and predetermined time” or “the process through which the intensity and volume of training is manipulated”. the right way for the athlete to reach their maximum performance at the right time, minimizing the risk of injury, stagnation and overtraining”.

But, of course, “periodization” by itself does not ensure any of this. In sports, establishing periods does not guarantee a good workout. In the same way, it is evident that, in a project, dividing the process into periods does not guarantee that it is a good project. For this reason, the term “periodization” is not useful and, furthermore, it is not adequate for what it intends to define, because “periodization” is not the “organization of the activities of a process (training)”, but the “division into periods ”

The term “programming” or “program” is the one that adjusts to what you really want to do, which is, as indicated, “devise and order the actions necessary to carry out a project”. Therefore, the appropriate term would be programming. Although saying that the training has been “scheduled” does not ensure anything either, since the programming can be good or bad. However, the term is correct. Its meaning corresponds to what is intended to be done: “devise and order the actions”, which in this case means above all organizing a sequence of efforts (loads) to achieve the intended objective, even if this sequence is not correct and therefore does not the objectives are achieved.

Therefore, the term “scheduling” should be used instead of “periodization.” This proposal is even more justified if one takes into account that when one speaks of “periodization” what one wants to express is a form of “programming”, of designing a program to systematically and specifically direct the training and the variation of the exercise. volume, intensity and exercises to achieve the best results at the right time. This would really be programming. The problem is that unnecessary terms tend to be introduced without considering their suitability.

But the matter is complicated when the term “non-periodized” is also used in the language of training. It would literally mean that something, training is supposed to “not be divided into periods”. If periodizing is dividing into periods, not periodizing would mean that the entire process, of whatever type, is considered as a unit, without changes that justify differentiating some moments from others, and therefore it would be a question of “a single period”, in the one that “everything happens or is done the same”: that is, every day the same load is applied, the same stimulus, the same training.

This situation is unrealistic, because, on the one hand, it cannot be guaranteed that the same load is always applied, and, mainly, because no person who is dedicated to training other people to improve their physical and sports condition can be happen to ignore one of the few principles or rules of adaptation that can be considered as such, such as the principle of the progression of the loads, and another that, in part, is already included in the first one, which is the variability of the loads. loads.

Therefore, this distinction does not seem very useful. Although much space has been devoted in the literature to comparing the effect of “periodized” versus “non-periodized” training. Generally, the “non-periodized” has always had the worst luck. Other terms related to the organization of training refer to the phases or periods that comprise a space of training time. It is very common to refer to the “preparatory”, “competitive” and “transition” periods, which occur in the order indicated.

At the end of the “competitive period” the competitions are held (maybe also within the “competitive period” itself). None of these terms, in our opinion, is appropriate, as will be seen below, nor does their name serve to improve the training program. If “preparing” is “performing the necessary operations to obtain a result or product”, why isn’t “competitive” also “preparatory”, if the athlete has not even competed yet? Doesn’t the athlete continue to “prepare” until reach the competition?, what is the indicator that the “preparatory period” is over and you are already in the “competitive”?, what change or magnitude of change in training justifies it?, do all the specialists understand what itself? Or is it simply a question of dividing or naming the total training time into two or three parts or denominations?

On the other hand, if “transition” is “the action and effect of passing from one mode of being (a state) to another”, “transition” would be the passage from each of the “periods” to the next, not the denomination of one of them. It would be much more reasonable to call this supposed “transition period”, “recovery” or “detraining” period, or something similar.

Very close to this denomination is the one that includes four other terms and is the one that divides the space of training time into “general preparation phase”, “special preparation phase”, “competitive phase” and “transition phase”.

training time in “general preparation phase”, “special preparation phase”, “competitive phase” and “transition phase”.

General preparation phase

In this case it is unlikely that all professionals understand the “general preparation phase”. Because by its very name, the “general” can include many activities of a different nature, which, in sport, in most cases are far removed from the type of performance typical of the specialty for which one trains. In addition, it would be necessary to consider which sports or sports specialties should “make a general preparation”, because if the “general” activity is not reflected in an improvement. of specific performance, it would not make sense for it to be carried out. A “general activity” remote from the mechanical and metabolic characteristics of competitive activity is at least unlikely to have (positive) transfer to competitive exercise, but rather could cause interference (negative transfer), or, in the best of log cases, being sterile and wasting time.

Special preparation phase

The “special preparation” phase could be understood to a greater extent, since it can be interpreted as the phase in which you train with the exercises closest to those of the competition and with those of the competition itself, including the speed / intensity values. and volume typical of the competition or close to them. Really, all the preparation time should be “special preparation”, if by this is meant the application of training that truly has a high probability of having a positive effect on specific performance.

competitive phase

About the “competitive phase” and “transition” comments have already been made previously. Another group of widely used terms is “macrocycle”, “mesocycle” and “microciole”. The first source of confusion with this terminology is that the range of time to which we can refer is not a specific one, but multiple, which means that using one of these terms without adding the time that we want it to understand will always be imprecise and will generate confusion. . For example, when we refer to a “macrocycle”, the time it comprises can range from several weeks (10-12) to several years, for example four, an Olympic cycle. But of course, there will be those who say no, that a “macrocycle” does not cover more than one year.

In other words, we already have three measures for the same term, and they are quite different measures and all of them are used. The same happens with the other terms, although the average time is lower for the “mesocycle” and even lower for the “microcycle”. But what deserves more attention is the justification for which the different terms are usually used. For example, if we train for a period of 12 weeks in order to improve strength, and we consider the first “mesocycle”, of three weeks, to be a “mesocycle” of hypertrophy”, we would be saying that during the remaining 9 weeks it is no longer stimulated nor does “hypertrophy” develop, or if from week 4 to week 6 we have the “mesocycle” of “maximum strength”, we would have to understand that in the previous “mesocycle” strength has not been trained or improved.

We consider that it is out of the question that none of these conclusions is reasonable, so it must be admitted that the naming of these time slots with any of these names does not serve to better understand training, nor to improve programmed training, nor for communication between professionals and specialists in the field of physical and sports training.

Training expressed through numbers can be analyzed and quantified, giving you the opportunity to draw data-driven conclusions and make informed decisions.

In short, the training is not organized through “names”, because these do not have the property of determining what the load is. Training training is organized through “numbers”. Training expressed through numbers can be analyzed and quantified, giving you the opportunity to draw data-driven conclusions and make informed decisions. It serves to express with greater precision than in any other way what the applied load is and to check the acute and medium and long-term effect it produces, and also allows communication between training professionals.

We understand that in connection with this aspect of programming terminology, only the term “cycle” should be used, ie “programming a training cycle”. Therefore, we only use the term “cycle” when we want to refer to the extension of a certain training period of time.

We define a training cycle as a training period of time in which all the necessary loads have been applied, according to the programmer’s criteria, to achieve the expected objective. It could also be expressed as the process in which the necessary evolution of the main characteristic variables of training load is produced: volume, intensity and type of exercise, to achieve the expected objective.

The evolution of the loads depends, fundamentally, on three determining factors: the initial situation of the subject, the strength needs in the sports specialty and the strength needs of the subject himself. At the end of the cycle there can be a competition or a test or even none of the two controls, and there will always be a recovery time before starting another training cycle. Although occasionally one can speak of “phases” within the training cycle, it really is a continuum in which to identify at what point in the cycle an athlete is, it could be added that he is in the “phase” of high, medium or low volume, or in the “phase” of high, medium or low intensity or any other reference of the variables that determine the training load.

The evolution of the loads depends, fundamentally, on three determining factors: the initial situation of the subject, the strength needs in the sports specialty and the strength needs of the subject himself.

The cycles can have different lengths. For this reason, for a better definition of the cycle, we must add its duration, generally indicating the number of days or weeks it comprises.. The adaptation processes oriented towards performance improvement are developed through cycles that are repeated periodically. Cycles aimed at improving a physical quality are common in all training sessions, whatever the sport, although they will not develop in the same way in all cases.

When the development needs of the physical qualities are high, the characteristics of each cycle (volume and intensity values, mainly) are more accentuated: the intensities and volumes are higher and the differences between the maximum and minimum values ​​are greater. The opposite occurs when the needs for these qualities are low.

The general objective of any training cycle is the improvement of the manifestation of strength, resistance and force production in the unit of time in specific actions, that is, the improvement of useful force. The way to develop each of these cycles will be different, as we have indicated, depending on the characteristics of the sports or sports specialties and the specialties of the subjects.

The degree of development of the physical qualities will be different according to the specialties. The need to significantly improve some quality above the others also determines the characteristics and orientation of the cycle. The duration of a complete cycle is conditioned by the characteristics of the sport, but fundamentally by the adaptation time. The adaptation time that most influences the duration of the cycle, is the one that is necessary for the development of physical qualities. Although good physical condition is not enough to ensure sports form (specific form), it is the first condition and absolutely necessary.

full cycle length for strength training should not exceed 14-16 weeks

In any case, the full cycle length for strength training should not exceed 14-16 weeks. The most effective length could be between and 12 weeks. Other shorter cycles can be used to maintain or recover or at least approach recently achieved levels of strength.

The effectiveness of a training cycle will depend to a large extent on the combination of volume and intensity values, but always, both the result and the values ​​of the variables themselves will be conditioned by the initial situation of the subject, state of performance. initial, initial work capacity, current training time, current detraining time, age… and to all this we must add the objectives that are sought and the strength needs of the sporting specialty and the subject. Naturally, all these nuances will be developed later in the contents related to training programming.

This post describes and analyzes the 4 strength training schedules based on the variation in intensity and volume throughout the training cycle.

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

• Introduction of the four training programs: stable intensity (PIE), progressive intensity (PIP), mixed progressive intensity (PIPM) and accentuated oscillations (PAO).
• The PIE is the most suitable if the subjects are little or no trained or if they are very young or both.
• PIP is the most common and useful for most subjects.
• The PIPM is a programming that should be applied only to subjects with medium or high strength needs, who have worked with the previous programming and with experience in strength training.
• PAO is probably only necessary in the case of subjects with very high maximal strength needs and with a lot of training experience.

Evolution of loads through a training cycle

It seems that both the overload and the variation of the load are positive to maintain the improvement of strength and sports performance for a long time. A problem that is further from the solution is how to carry out the manipulation of volume and intensity to provide adequate progression and variation of loads. The results of the studies that have addressed this issue do not allow for the time being to reach definitive conclusions.

The current solution is in a suitable mixture of the contributions of the science and of the “art” and common sense of the trainer. This entry describes the basic alternatives that can be used, adding explanatory comments on the possibilities of use.

Programming of a progressive increase in absolute intensity with stable volume and relative intensity.

This model can be called “stable intensity programming” (SIP), and would correspond to what has already been commented regarding “non-periodized training”, because, apparently, there is no “variation” in the load of training. The intensity is stable or even in regression in relative terms, the volume practically stable and the absolute load (weight) in progression.

This model is characterized by maintaining the same training format throughout the cycle. If you train to failure, you choose a number of maximum repetitions per set, say six, which corresponds to a relative intensity of 6RM, and you do three sets. We would thus have a training with a relative intensity and a permanent volume, in this case 3x6RM, which is performed with a determined resistance (weight), which represents the absolute intensity.

When the subject is capable of performing more than 6 repetitions per series, the resistance is increased, so that the relative intensity is maintained and the absolute intensity is increased.

The figure shows the schematic evolution of volume and absolute and relative intensity.

(PIE). The volume and relative intensity are theoretically stable. The absolute intensity (weight) used should increase progressively throughout the cycle.

But this model, as described, should never be used, since it is based and controlled, as usual, on training to muscle failure. However, this model, without failing, would be applicable especially to beginners but also to any athlete for as long as it produces a positive effect.

The PIE model, as described, should never be used, as it is based and controlled on training to failure. It should be applied without ruling.

Because this model is the Ideal: each time you can move more absolute load representing the same relative intensity, the same effort or degree of fatigue, and even in the most favorable cases, representing an increasingly lower relative intensity.

This means that performance is permanently improved. If the relative intensity is controlled through the speed of execution, the number of repetitions per programmed series must represent a non-maximum effort character, being able to choose the one that is considered most appropriate, although a moderate or low one would be the most recommendable. If the loss of speed in the series is added to the control of the speed of the first repetition of the series, the control of the training load would be the most complete and, with high probability, the most precise.

Among other reasons, because if the loss of speed in the series is controlled, the number of repetitions is not programmed, since this would mean training with the same relative intensity, but with different degree of effort, due to the differences in the number of repetitions before the same relative load that each person can perform (González-Badillo et al., 2017).

In this way, the trainer can make mistakes in the choice of speeds and in the losses of serial speed, but will have available the necessary information to know what training is being done and is responsible for the results obtained, which will allow him to take decisions based on the analysis of the relationship between the load and its effects, which is the only way to improve the training methodology itself.

Once a relative intensity has been chosen, preferably through the speed of the first repetition of the series, the athlete will maintain the absolute load that represents it until the speed of the first repetition is 7-9 hundredths of a meter per second higher than the reached in the first session with said absolute load. At this time, the absolute load should be increased to the extent necessary for the speed to return to the programmed speed.

In this way, the relative intensity throughout the cycle will be very stable, but it will oscillate from the programmed level to a lower level of approximately 5%, which is what decreases when the speed increases by 7-9 hundredths of a meter per second, according to the exercise in question. The volume will stay the same with the same repetitions per set or it will fluctuate in a range of about two repetitions per set.

Although this will be discussed later, the relative maximum intensities in this type of training will be the lowest in sports life. This training programming scheme would be ideal if it could be applied at all times, throughout sports life. But as performance increases, intensity stability, whatever it may be, may no longer be useful, since, on the one hand, lower intensities will not suffice, and on the other hand, medium and high intensities cannot be matched. / should be used from the first session nor can they be maintained constantly over time.

Therefore, within this scheme, it is possible to program progressive intensities, not totally stable, within the cycle, but in a very small range, such as, for example, from 45 to 60% of the estimated initial RM. Once these relative intensities have been chosen, the absolute loads corresponding to each percentage would be programmed, and when the time comes to increase the weight, if the speed of execution tells us that the intensity represented by the new weight is below the programmed relative intensity , the new weight will be maintained, without increasing it to equal the expected relative intensity, even if the relative intensity remains stable or even in regression, and below the programmed one.

It will pass, or will be, in the following programming model when the subject needs a relative intensity to improve their performance equal to or greater than the real 70-75% of the RM.

Programming of a progressive increase in intensity and a progressive reduction in volume

This model can be referred to as “stepping intensity programming” (PIP). What has come to be called “periodized training”. This can be considered as the classic form of training variation. As its own name indicates, it basically consists of progressively increasing the intensity during the training cycle while reducing the volume, although in the first two-four weeks there can be an increase in both volume and intensity.

The progressive increase in intensity does not mean that each session has to increase it, and this would be practically impossible unless the cycle was extremely short. In the same way that the volume or the number of repetitions per series is not permanently reduced.

The base of this type of programming is in the increase of intensity, since the reduction of the repetitions by series is a logical consequence of the increase of the intensity.

The use of this programming scheme should be governed by the same control procedure as the previous one. Therefore, it should be dosed and controlled by speed of the first repetition and by the loss of speed in the series. The difference with respect to the previous scheme will be especially in the values ​​of the speed of the first repetition, which will tend to decrease progressively as the cycle progresses (tendency to greater relative intensity). The specific relative intensity values ​​will be seen in later sections, but we will never reach the character of maximum effort (muscular failure).

This model would be applicable to subjects who have passed the previous stage and have manifested stagnation. It is valid for all strength needs. The differences between the groups with different strength needs will be in the relative loads, which will tend to increase the greater the strength need, and somewhat in the speed losses in the series (the degree of fatigue) which will also tend to increase slightly. s strength needs are greater.

Schematic evolution of intensity and volume in PIP.

Programming of a progressive increase in intensity and a progressive reduction in repetitions per series with load oscillations.

This model can be referred to as “mixed progressive intensity programming (PIPM)”. This scheme would also be associated with what is understood by “periodized training”, but with oscillation of the maximum relative intensities. This type of programming would have the same characteristics as the previous one, except that the alternative reduction and elevation of the maximum relative intensity is admitted at certain moments of the cycle.

Until the relative intensity does not reach an effort equivalent to 80-85% of the RM, the intensity will vary in the same way as in the previous model. From here, high intensities will alternate with smaller ones. The need to alternate intensities occurs mainly for two reasons: the increase in the frequency of training the same exercise to three times a week and the increase in the maximum intensity reached, which is so high that a recovery is necessary, between sessions.

Until the relative intensity does not reach an effort equivalent to 80-85% of the RM, the intensity will vary in the same way as in the previous model. From here, high intensities will alternate with other smaller ones

It could also be justified by the need to smooth the progression of intensity. For example, it would probably be too stressful to have to do an effort equivalent to 85% of the 1RM for the first time in the cycle three times in a row in the same week, so using 75 or 80% in any of the sessions could better adjust to the current capacity of the subject and achieve a better adaptation.

Therefore, this way of programming is fundamentally progressive, but it is also slightly “wavy” or “undulating” between sessions. The dosage and load control should be done following the same procedure as in the previous schemes, and without considering the possibility of muscle failure.

Schematic evolution of intensity and volume in the PIPM.

The use of this scheme should occur in very few cases, since on few occasions the same exercise should be done three times a week. Except in the specialty of weightlifting, it will practically never be necessary to use the same exercise three times a week.

It would be applicable only to subjects who have passed the previous stages, have manifested stagnation, have to increase the frequency of training and exercises, and have high strength needs.

Programming of a progressive increase in intensity and a progressive reduction in repetitions per series, but with accentuated oscillations in volume and intensity

Let’s call this pattern “sharp oscillation (PAO) scheduling”. This scheduling model is characterized by a sharp oscillation of volume and intensity every two weeks or so. Increasing the intensity every two weeks approximately. The increase in intensity is very rapid from the first weeks. Two weeks —generally— of high volume and lower intensity are alternated with two weeks of higher intensity and volume, and the process is repeated until the cycle is complete.

Despite these oscillations, the volume values ​​tend to decrease as the cycle progresses, while the intensity tends to rise. It is argued that short bouts of high volume stimulating hypertrophy, alternated with short phases of neural stimulation (although neural stimulation is always present) may offer greater strength gains than continuous intensity progression models.

Probably this model is not necessary to apply it in any case. The load values, especially high volume and “hypertrophy” training until muscle failure, are not applicable to any sports specialty, as they do not provide better performance than lower loads before the same training exercise (Folland, e 2002; Izquierdo, Ibáñez et al., 2006: Sampson 4 Groeller, 2016; Drinkwater, et al., 2 Willardson, et al., 2008; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016) nor on other untrained exercises (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016).

Schematic evolution of volume and intensity in PAO.

As indicated, this model probably does not need to be applied in any case. If it were to be applied, it would be with subjects who have passed the previous stages, have manifested stagnation, have to increase the training frequency of some exercises and have very high strength needs.

Some of the works in which the effects of models with structures similar to those described have been studied, find that some are more effective in improving strength, while others conclude that there are no significant differences between the results obtained. However, it must be taken into account that the models that we have described are not applicable as alternatives at the same time for the same subjects, but as models that can be applied progressively as progress is made in the development of strength and level of performance. .

In the studies that appear below, they are not understood in this way, but as models with structures similar to ours that are applied at any time. In addition, it must be taken into account that the training sessions in these studies are practically always to failure, which should not be recommended at any time in sports life. Despite all these nuances, it is convenient to have an idea of ​​how the behavior of these models could be with subjects at different levels of training.

Baker et al., (1994) found no significant differences in 1RM squat and bench press, vertical jump, and body composition (fat-free muscle mass) between three groups that performed programming equivalent to one PIP/PIPM, one PAO and a PIE; equalizing volume and intensity. It seems, therefore, that by equalizing the volumes and intensity, no differences are found between different forms of the program.

It seems that by equalizing the volumes and intensity, no differences are found between different forms of the program.

Herrick & Stone (1996) used a PIP type of training that ranged from 3×10 to 3x2RM, and another of the PIE type of 3x6RM for 15 weeks. It is concluded that there were no significant differences in the strength gains between groups, but there did appear a tendency to produce a stabilization of the improvement at 15 weeks in the PIE type group, and the percentages of improvements, although not significantly. Significantly, they were higher in the PIP group. Volume is considered to have a greater effect than manipulation of reps per set and sets.

Bradley-Popovich, (2001) maintains that there are no reasons to consider that PAO programming is superior to the classical model (PIP/PIPM). However, Haff (2001) considers that the incorporation of intensity fluctuations could prevent fatigue and its negative effects on technique and injury prevention. In two reviews carried out by Fleck (1999, 2002) the conclusion is reached that despite the few studies carried out on this problem, PIP and PIPM programming offer better results in strength and power than PIE with a and multiple series.

The greatest strength gain may be related to the changes in training volume (volume reduction at the end of the cycle) that occurs in the PIP and PIPM. when talking about the comparison of the different programming models (“periodized and non-periodized”).

incorporating fluctuations in intensity could prevent fatigue and its negative effects on technique and injury prevention

In summary, although in these specific studies it seems that the PIP type programming and, above all, the PIPM type are the most appropriate to manipulate the volume and intensity if it is intended to improve strength in training periods that last up to 16 weeks Some issues should be taken into account.

A schedule of 16 weeks is too long a period of training time, so it is hardly applicable. The use, in many cases, of loads with different intensity and volumes does not allow an adequate comparison of the different models. Each of these basic types of programming has its most suitable application.

What training schedule to choose?

PIE is most appropriate if the subjects are poorly trained or untrained or very young or both, regardless of the degree of force development required by the subjects.

The results obtained in different studies by the authors suggest that to improve performance it is enough to maintain a certain degree of low effort stable, which in practice could be as low as the equivalent of 30-50% of the RM, for a period of time. from 6 to 12 months as long as the absolute load is gradually increased.

To improve performance, it is enough to maintain a certain degree of low effort stable, which in practice could be as low as the equivalent of 30-50% of RM, for a period of 6 to 12 months as long as the absolute load goes away. gradually increasing.

PIP is the most common and useful for most subjects. It should be applied to somewhat trained subjects with medium or high strength needs and who have already passed the previous stage, and to experienced subjects who have low or medium strength needs. Depending on the strength needs, the load will be increased to a greater or lesser extent.

The PIPM is a programming that should be applied only to subjects with medium or high strength needs, who have worked with the previous programming and, therefore, with experience in strength training, although it is considered that it would only be necessary in a few cases.

PAO is probably not necessary in any case, but if it is applied, it is only necessary in the case of subjects with very high maximal strength needs and with a lot of training experience.

This article reviews the most relevant theories in the history of training programming since it has been known and its key points.

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.

In many cases, the practical experience of the coaches continues to be used as a reference and explanation of the training problem: “this has gone well for me and this is what has to be done”. This statement is not of a scientific nature since it does not try to find the causes that have caused a certain performance. But the strength of the good result is too important to accept another alternative, no matter how well founded it may appear to be.

It is quite common to find coaches who achieve good results and confess that they really do not know why one thing or another works for them. The only reason is that it “works well” (at least on some occasion). This approach will probably never end. We all act —consciously or unconsciously— under the umbrella of a theory, “our theory”, which supports us and justifies us —for us personally— the decisions we make when faced with any training problem.

In fact, in sport you act to a large extent based on conjectures, which you have to tend to confirm. Many of those that are considered the “theoretical bases” of training and that are currently applied have not been scientifically proven, so, from a scientific point of view, they should be considered more as hypotheses (often not even substantiated) than as theories.

In practice, it is usually considered as theory “what a famous coach says and writes, usually a foreigner”. Above all, his “theory” is followed, he agrees and “confirms” what we do and say. This usually creates “a theoretical body” that has never been subjected to scientific verification. This has been and is the situation in many cases. It must be recognized, however, that this -not finished- stage of the development of sports training has been very fruitful and has given rise to reflection on the fact of sports training. It is probably a necessary and natural stage through which the scientific knowledge of an object of study has to pass.

The science of human physical behavior is currently not in a position to provide an answer to most training problems. Generally, technicians act by intuition and elementary logic and obtain results, while science tries to find explanations for what is happening. Until reaching the current conceptions, which are not necessarily correct, a long way has been traveled in the knowledge of training, the main contributions of which are presented below.

The idea of ​​scheduling or structuring sports training already appears in ancient Greece with the Tetra

The idea of ​​scheduling or structuring sports training already appears in ancient Greece with the Tetra. The Tetra, or four-day plan, determined the training sequence. On the first day, light work was carried out, followed by a day with a high-load work, another very light one, and ending with another with a medium load. The participants in the Olympic Games had to train for about 10 months and do some competition practices before the arrival of the games.

Subsequently there is a long stage in which sport has little relevance in society. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the preparation time for athletes was 2-3 weeks, and 5-6 weeks was considered a very long time. A few years later, in 1916/17, Kotov proposed the need to carry out the training uninterruptedly and divided it into more or less differentiated cycles: general, preparatory and special training. He advocates a sports universalism without completely rejecting specialization.

In 1922, the Russian Gorinexskii was strongly opposed to “sports universalism”: you cannot practice all sports and compete in all. This prevents the improvement of sports performance. However, it admits that the general and harmonious development of the athlete is a necessary condition for sports specialization.

Shortly after, Birsin tries to conceive the training from the perspective of the laws that are observed in the development of the organism: the intensity must be raised until reaching an optimal load, fatigue It is not a biological phenomenon detrimental to performance and a rational alternation of loading and recovery must occur. It proposes a general stage and a special stage, with the need to increase the intensity in the special stage. On the same dates, L. Mang proposes training throughout the year, that the objectives of body and technical conditioning be carried out simultaneously and that athletes compete 20-30 times a year.

Gorinexskii: you cannot practice all sports and compete in all.

In 1930m the Finn L. Pihkala proposed a series of rules, some of which could still be considered valid:

• The alternation of charge and recovery,
• Undulating rhythm of the charge for days, weeks, months and years,
• The load should progressively decrease in volume and increase in intensity,
• All specific training must be based on a broad general physical condition,
• Includes a 3-4 month recovery period.

In 1939, the Russian Grantyn collected the ideas generated from the late 20’s and early 30’s and tried to state the essential features of what would later be known as “periodization” of training: he divided the training cycle into three periods: 1) the preparation, 2) the main one and 3) the transition one.

The first to create the conditions for specialization, the second for learning and improving the technique, application of specific loads, achievement and maintenance of sports form, and the third for recovery. It does not determine the duration of the periods because it thinks that they can be very different depending on the sports specialties. It can be considered that the training is already uninterrupted because the rest time is minimal.

Grantyn outlines the essential features of periodization

In 1946, Dyson proposes five periods from September to August in the preparation for specialists in athletics:

1. Without competitions (preparatory) September to March 6 months,
2. Pre-competitive (special preparation begins) (March),
3. Medium level competition (to achieve optimal sports form) (May to mid-June),
4. Of main competitions (mid-June-July), and
5. Post-competitive (mid-July end of August).

In 1949, N.G. Ozolin, proposes a series of ideas:

• Detailed plans in stages and weekly cycles and their relationship with each period,
• During the transition period, training must not be interrupted or training changed to another discipline,
• The training process is presented as a year-round specialization based on multi-purpose body training (here an apparent contradiction between “year-round specialization” and “based on multi-purpose body training” arises).

Figure 1, General scheme of Ozolín’s proposal (years 40-50).

In 1950, Letunov gave a scientific advance to the conception of training by considering the biological response as a reference for training planning:

1. The planning of training in periods depending on the season (weather conditions, dates of competitions…) is wrong (Ozolín was opposed to this opinion),
2. Training must be planned based on changes in training states, that is, biological adaptations. He proposed a test to control the athlete’s fitness that consisted of measuring the heart rate and blood pressure while doing a series of skipping.

Adapting the theories on Selye’s adaptation syndrome, Matveev, in the 50s and 60s, developed a complete training structure for a whole year that he divided into three major ones:

1. Form development phase
2. maintenance phase,
3. Phase of temporary reduction of the form.

Matveev’s influence caused the term “training planning” to be replaced by the term “training periodization”.

The book written by Matveev entitled “Periodization of training” published in 1965, had a great impact among sports technicians around the world because until then there were almost no publications on the subject and because Russian Olympians were achieving great international successes at that time. The success and influence of Matveev’s book was so extraordinary that the term “training planning” was replaced by Matveev’s term “training periodization”.

However, the theories developed by Matveev were oriented towards the preparation of athletes who only had to compete in “optimal conditions” once a year. When the need to compete more times a year increased, these approaches could not respond to the new needs.

From the first conception of training programming or periodization proposed by Matveev we can highlight the following characteristics:

• Many months of “preparation” for a reduced stage of competition with some preparatory competitions and a fundamental one. .
• A very prolonged phase of increasing volume and intensity.
• Much importance to the “general preparation” of “base”.
• Separate conditional and technical preparation.
• Many months without specific training, especially in relation to specific intensity.
• An alleged delayed transfer of the large volume of cargo.

Figure 2. Evolution of the volume and intensity of a year of training (Matveev, years 50-60).

This way of approaching training has led to the creation of certain terminology related to training programming, such as “periodization”, “microcycle”, “mesocycle”, “macrocycle”… This terminology spread throughout the world, although many times there is a great disparity in the extension, interpretation and meaning of each of these terms depending on who uses them. Perhaps one of the most objectionable characteristics of this trend or stage is precisely the “inflation” of terminology coined without adequate justification.

The beginnings of this type of training periodization were popularized by Russian sports scientists and technicians.

The beginnings of this type of training periodization were popularized by Russian sports scientists and technicians. Periodization consists of the distribution of training sessions and recovery periods between said sessions in order to obtain an optimal improvement of the brand at a specific time of the year. Matveev’s proposal has undoubtedly been the The best known and the one that has had the most influence, although it has been losing importance remarkably in the last 20-30 years.

Most of the proposals elaborated later have been made almost in opposition to Matveev’s approach, with the intention of overcoming its deficiencies. The weak points that have been proposed in recent years about the theories of this type of planning are that these theories are merely speculative, not at all quantifiable and full of stereotypes.

Horwill (1992) points out as an example of inconsistency that these theorists frequently insist in their writings on the importance of obtaining the peak of shape at the right moment, but never point out the practical way to obtain it. It also indicates that the language used in training planning theory is often difficult for athletes and coaches to understand because the nomenclature is complex and the language imprecise.

Horwill (1992) writes an article entitled “Periodization — Plausible or piffle”. This author points out what is usually understood when speaking of the following terms: “macrocycle”: between 1 and 4 years (we would say that the time interval considered may be even longer), “mesocycle”: between 1 and 3 months (also here the interval could be extended) and “microcycle”: between 1 and 7 days (here also the interval could be extended) and indicates that the main criticism that can be made of these theoretical bases of training planning is that said Theories are not scientifically proven or have any biological basis.

By ignoring the biological mechanisms of training and recovery, many of the theoretical concepts of training planning become mere conjecture and speculation and unfortunately, according to Verkhoshansky, in various writings, have been treated as infallible dogma.

Ignoring the biological mechanisms of training and recovery means that the theoretical concepts of training planning are conjecture

This criticism of this author may be correct, but there is no known “very scientific” alternative on his part. Since there are no scientific bases, the terminology of training planning is full of contradictions and suffers. Other training planning theorists, such as Arosjev, Vorobiev, Tschiene, Boiko, Bondarcuk during the 1970s and 1980s developed, modified and criticized Malveev’s theories.

These modifications have basically consisted of the following:

• Decrease the duration of the “general conditioning” phase.
• Increase the importance of specific training.
• Perform multiple phases and “macrocycles” throughout the year instead of all three phases in a single annual Matveev “macrocycle”.
• Concentrate very intense training sessions in phases lasting a few weeks.
• Take into account the specific characteristics of each individual and each sport when planning training.

Therefore, starting in the 70s, some alternative ways of approaching training have been proposed.

Arosiev, a disciple of Matveev, proposes a smoother transition from the conditioning phase to the technical part, gradually passing from one to the other, which is why this structure has been called “pendular”. The basic characteristics are:

1. Systematic pendulum alternation between general and specific load, with an increase in the specific load and a decrease in the general one as the competition approaches,
2. Progressive decrease in the general volume of load while increasing the intensity of the specific load until the competition,
3. Training not yet individualized,
4. Attempt to achieve transfer of the general load to the specific capacity,
5. Conditional and technical preparation separately, vi) frequent recovery periods. Although an attempt is made to adapt to some extent the previous approaches, the characteristics iii), iv) and v) would not currently be considered appropriate.

Also in the 1970s, Vorobiev, a doctor, world champion in weightlifting, and coach of the USSR national team, was one of the forerunners of double or triple annual “periodization.” The most characteristic of his approaches is the following:

1. Constant alternation of volume and intensity,
2. Phases or short periods (approximately one month) of load increase and decrease in order to avoid negative adaptation due to load stability,
3. The point of reference is biological adaptation,
4. The workouts are very specific.
5. Conditional preparation and technique develop simultaneously (especially in weightlifting),
6. Specially designed for strength training.

These approaches could be applied today, although the load values ​​in strength training would be lower than those applied to weightlifting specialists.

Figure 3. Evolution of volume and intensity of a top-level athlete (weightlifter) (Vorobiev, 70s).

Verkhoshansky proposes working in specific “blocks” for the development of strength followed by other “blocks” of “strength-technique”

At the end of the 70’s and during the 80’s, Verkhoshansky makes a proposal oriented mainly to the sports called “strength-speed”, but which later extends to most sports specialties. This proposal indicates that strength must be worked on in specific “blocks” for the development of strength followed by other “blocks” of “strength-technique”.

This decision is due to the fact that “maximum force” training is temporarily negative for technique and, therefore, if “maximum force” training is stopped for a while, the effect of this training will remain for several weeks or months and at the same time it will be possible to improve technique and speed and improve sports results.

The justification for this proposal may be based on an error determined by the type of training carried out to improve “maximum strength”, both in volume and intensity. If the training done for “maximal strength” improvement is very heavy: high volume and intensity, it will likely (almost certainly) interfere with technique or any other type of training, but if the strength training does not produce excessive fatigue, the separation of “strength” and “technical” training is not justified.

The characteristics of the proposal are the following:

1. The objective of the training to which it is intended is to improve “muscular power” (as we have explained extensively, there is no improvement in “power” without improvement in strength),
2. There are phases or “blocks” aimed at improving the “maximum strength” of 1-3 months and “blocks” of “strength-speed-technical” of a similar duration or somewhat longer,
3. A certain separation between conditional and technical preparation is maintained,
4. Although there is some overlap between both objectives due to the application of exercises that can influence strength and technique,
5. An individualized proposal is not yet considered.

Figure 4. Basic scheme of the application of a “block” of force and the “delayed effect” so: the production of force (Verkhoshansky, years 70 and 80). According to the scheme, it is indicated that there is an optimal loss of force (the so-called explosive force, f-1…) during the force block so that afterwards there is a greater “delayed effect”.

Tschiene proposes a training characterized by maintaining a very high intensity throughout the year

On the same dates, the German Tschiene proposes a workout characterized by maintaining a very high intensity throughout the year:

1. The load, volume and intensity, are maintained throughout the year at very high values,
2. Introduces a recovery period “prophylactic interval” after the preparatory period and before the competitive, and even within the competitive,
3. Participation in a large number of competitions is proposed with the intention of maintaining a high intensity and developing and maintaining form,
4. Special and competition exercises are mainly used.

These orientations are mainly adaptable to sports with a high demand for strength and speed and with two big events a year.

Figure 5. Evolution of the load according to P Tschiene (years 70 and 80). Volume: wavy line. Intensity: wavy line with circles.

During the 80s, Bondartchuk, a specialist in the training of pitchers, made his proposal. It considers the athlete as an inseparable conditional-technical unit and adjusts the loads based on the athlete’s response. The characteristic features of his proposal are the following:

1. The fundamental criterion of reference is in the biological adaptation that differentiates some subjects from others,
2. This adaptation is determined by the time each subject needs to improve their performance or achieve fitness,
3. This means that training must be individualized,
4. The athlete is an indivisible unit that reacts in a total way to the conditional preparation (strength, speed, resistance) and technique, so both objectives must be developed simultaneously,
5. The efforts must be oriented to the specific effect and the competition.

Bondartchuk raises the disappearance of the general preparation since it is unlikely that he will have a transfer on the competition

Therefore, the specific load prevails and the general preparation disappears, since it is unlikely that it will have a transfer on the competition. It distinguishes different periods of adaptation according to the characteristics of the subjects, from 2 to 7 months or more. This means that an equal annual scheme for all subjects disappears.

The most talented subjects will be those who need two months to get in shape, maintain it for one month and lose it progressively the next. After this period and a rest period of 1-2 weeks the process starts again. These periods of 2 + 1 + 1 can be prolonged in other less talented or older subjects.

He proposes a constant change of exercises between 20 and 50%. Beyond this percentage it is not recommendable. These approaches, which seem to be the most complete and perhaps the most accurate of all those exposed, do not take into account that the periods to reach the form necessarily have to lengthen as the subject, even the talented one, improves their results, and that in the early ages (although his proposal is only for very high-level subjects) the form is acquired very quickly and is maintained for a longer time.

Another important observation regarding what is perhaps the most questionable of the proposal is the constant modification of the exercises. This means forgetting the principle of specificity.

This introduction on the trajectory of the advancement of training approaches has been made without bibliographical references, since they are quite well-known issues through many different channels and publications, and they are part of the history of training and the important thing is that each proposal is linked to their respective authors, which is what has been done.