Periodization Techniques Revisited: Improved Strength & Size Gains W/ 12-Week Undulatory vs. Linear Periodization

There is going to be a point in everyone's training career, when 100 push-ups a day alone are no longer going to "cut" it and you got to to modify and later periodize your training to keep making progress.

Ah, that feels so good... No, not what you are thinking, now. I am sitting at my desk - alone, no female White House intern around ;-) Still, it's simply nice to see another study with real-world relevance for the average and not so average trainee.

The study comes from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and was conducted by Juliano Spineti and colleagues. The Brazilian researchers compared two periodization models: Linear periodization, which probably what most of you will have been starting out with what the scientists consistently (mis-)label  as "ondulatory periodization", a training method of which you will soon realize that you may be more familiar with it's fundamental principles than it may seem initially.

"Ondulatory periodization?"

I have to admit I was confused at first. I mean, I am the last person to complain about typos, so I willingly accepted that the scientists must have made a mistake in the abstract. When I downloaded the full text to the study and found that they stuck to "ondulatory" instead of "undulatory" periodization, I did however begin to question, whether this may in fact be a new twist to the good old undulating periodization, which is based on the hypothesis that changing reps, volume and intensity from one workout to the other (Table 1, left + red) would yield more beneficial results than the classic 4-week cycles.

Table 1: Undulating (left) and linear (right) periodization prgram used in the study at hand (Spinetti. 2013)

Apropos classic. I guess this is what everyone of you will be thinking of, when they hear about periodization. It's also part of the so called HST (=Hypertrophy Specific Trainting) routines and has you change the set and rep-ranges, intensity, rest times etc. on a monthly basis. In that, the order is usually as follows: "Resistance" (usually this is called "strength endurance"), "hypertrophy", "maximal strength" → repeat...

Suggested Read: "Periodization, Yeah! But How? " | read more

Don't forget that there is more to periodization than changing up your set/rep/intensity... no idea what that could be? Well, what about detraining or tapering? Taking some time off is about as important as hitting it hard. Unfortunately this simple wisdom is ignored by the majority of trainees who love to hit it hard, but hate and/or refuse to take it easy for some time - no matter how beneficial that may be (learn more).

If you look at the left-hand side of table 1 you will realize that the "misnomer" of the "strength endurance phase" which is called "resistance" in the Spinetti study is the only thing that would point towards an innovative training protocol and away from a simple typo in "ondulatory"... a typo that is repeated 5+ times within the full-text though :-/

Typos, but intriguing results

If we still put some faith in the results the 32 men from the Brazilian Marine corps (26 years, 15% body fat),  who were advised to refrain from any additional physical activity during the trial achieved, we'd have to follow the researchers' very own conclusion that the undulatory training regimen would make a better choice - at least for the average, lean, physically active individual who is starting his or her first resistance training regimen in the gym.

Figure 1: Effect sizes of 12 weeks tranining with undulatory (OP; remember the typo ;-) and linear (LP) periodization on 1RM strength, maximal voluntary contraction force (MVC) and muscle thickness (Spinetti. 2013)

Both the effect sizes (left, 3D) and the absolute values (right; muscle size only; 2D) clearly speak in favor of the more versatile undulatory training regimen.

Intra-workout periodiziation inspired by Dr. Squat: Some of you will already know that I personally like to train in a way that is based on a concept by Hatfield (Dr. Squat) with different rep/rest/intensity patterns within one training sessions.

If you have no idea what this may look like, these two examples may help:

5x5 for squats w/ max. 2min rest (strength); 3x10 for leg presses w/90s rest (hypertrophy) 2x20 for leg extensions w/60s rest (strength endurance)

5x5 for decline bench press w/ max. 2min rest (strength); 3x10 for incline bench press w/90s rest (hypertrophy) 2x20 for cable cross (strength endurance)

The fundamental pattern is compound for strength, basic for hypertrophy, stretch / pump exercise for strength endurance.

Linear periodization no more?If you look at the study data it is obvious that undulatory training makes you stronger, allows for faster muscle growth and... well, that's not in the study, but once you try it you will realize it, it's much more fun, as well. So why bother with linear periodization any longer? Well, the reason should be obvious: This is a single study the result of which are

• supported by Rhea et al. (2002), Monteiro et al. (2009), Prestes (2009), Miranda et al (2011)  and Simao (2012), but
• refuted / questioned by Baker et al. (1994), Bufford et al. (2007) and Kok et al. (2009),

who report identical gains in strength and size in 22strength and power in experienced male athletes (Baker. 1994), 26 recreationally trained college-aged male and female (Bufford. 2007), and 20 untrained but fit women (20yr, normal weight) (Kok; 2009).

Personally, I like to dabble with both undulating, but also with intra-workout "periodization" a la "Dr. Squat" (see box to the right) while I hate, and I mean "hate" as in totally detest, these lame 4-week cylces of doing the same stuff every workout. The "I hate ..." argument may not sound as if it would hardly qualify as being "SuppVersity Approved", but it in fact is. I am the last person to suggest you drag yourself to the gym and do something you hate. That's not going to be productive, trust me - no matter what science says, by the way.

References: .

• Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon J. Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulation volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res1994;8:235-42.
• Bufford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, Warren AJ.A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:1245-50.
• Kok LY, Hamer J, Bishop DJ. Enhancing muscular qualities in untrained women: linear versus undulating periodization. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009;41:1797-807. 
• Miranda F, Simão R, Rhea M, Bunker D, Prestes J, Leite RD, et al. Effect of linear vs. ondulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:1824-30.
• Monteiro AG, Aoki MS, Evangelista AL, Alveno DA, Monteiro GA, Piçarro IC, et al. Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training Stone routines. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:1321-6
• Prestes J, Frollini AB, Lima C, Donatto FF, Foschini D, Marqueti R, et al. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:2437-42.
• Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res2002;16:250-5.
• Simão R, Spineti J, Salles BF, Oliveira L, Matta TT, Fleck SJ. Comparison between linear and nonlinear periodized resistance training: strength and muscle thickness effects. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:1389-95.
• Spinetti J, et al. Comparison Between Different Periodization Models On Muscular Strength And Thickness In A Muscle Group Increasing Sequence. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2013; 19(4).

Cutting W/ Combined Resistance + Specific Plyometric Exercises: 15.7% Reduced Fat Mass, 2.1% Increase Lean Mass in 7 Week Study With Elite Handballers

Deadlifts as staple, plyometrics as bonus - wouldn't this be worth trying for you or one of your clients, as well?

I hope that it's no news for you that losing weight usually starts in the kitchen. Diet, not exercise it the main determinant of your body weight. Exercise, on the other hand, is the main determinant of how this body weight is distributed, i.e. whether you're 100kg and lean or 100kg and fat.

The 12 elite competing Portuguese Major League handball players who participated in a recent study by researchers from the Research Center in Sports Science at the CIDESD and the Human Movement Laboratory at the ISMAI in Portugal, obviously were lean. Not 100kg, though - rather ~80k and not bodybuilding ripped, but with 14% body fat still below average.

Want to get stronger, bigger, faster and leaner? Periodize appropriately!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

The actual study period of twelve weeks comprised three different training phases, with the first three weeks having a clear focus on resistance exercises:

"Training sessions consisted of 15 exercises focused on both upper and lower limbs. Every exercise was performed in 2 sets of 15-20 repetitions (60 to 75% of 1 RM), an interval of 45 s between exercises and 2 min between sets. The main goal was to learn the exercise motions in order to prevent injuries and prepare athletes for a further load increase with individual load assignments. The exercises included: 1) leg press; 2) leg extension; 3) leg flexion; 4) standing calf raise; 5) cable bent-over triceps extension; 6) lat pull; 7) butterfly; 8) bench press; 9) barbell upright row; 10) sit-up in inclined bench; 11) lower back extensions; 12) cufflink flexors; 13) shoulder external rotation; 14) barbell half squats; 15) reverse and forward lunges with a bar."

In the subsequent second 4-week phase, the training was hypertrophy-specific.The program consisted of 8 exercises (leg press, leg extension, leg flexion, calf muscles, triceps, lat pull, butterfly and bench press) which were conducted in two sets of 8-12 maximal repetitions (75 to 80% of 1 RM) with a 60 s interval between exercises and 2 min between sets. The load increased in all exercises each time a subject performed over 12 RM. The main goal was to increase the muscle cross sectional area.

Don't forget to periodize your workouts! Professional athlete or not, without periodization you will never be able to make optimal gains. Learn more about periodization techniques @ www.suppversity.com/feeds/posts/summary/-/periodization/?max-results=9999 (RSS compatible browser or plugin required)

The third and last phase, focused on neural adaptations and lasted five weeks. The exercises were still the same, but the load was increased.

"Players performed a pyramid model (6-4-2 maximum repetitions) with a load increasing throughout the sets. The resting intervals were 2 min between exercises and 3.5 min between sets. The load was increased in all exercises each time a subject performed over 6 RM. The main goal of this particular phase was to increase neural adaptations."

Moreover, from week 6-12 a specific plyometric program was added to the strength training program. The plyometric training was based on the combination of concentric and eccentric actions with a similar speed and muscular contraction used in handball specific technical abilities. Upper limbs, trunk and head movements contributed to an increase in jumping performance so as to potentiate the concentric action (positive jump phase).

"Four exercises of 3 sets of 12 reps were used in this plyometric program with no additional loads. An interval of 30 to 40 s of rest was allowed between exercises and 3 min between sets. The plyometric exercises included hurdle jumps, lateral multi-jumps for plantar flexors and leg extensors and frontal multi-jumps. The plyometric program was integrated in the technical training of regular handball practice, 3 times per week. The execution speed was high so as to increase the stretch shortening cycle force development."

To summarize, what we've got here is the classic ramp up with a light load, high rep introduction, a hypertrophy and a brute strength phase with a plyometric twist to the program from weeks 6-12.

Figure 1: Changes in skinfold measures, body fat %, fat mass and lean mass (Carvalho. 2014)

With quite astonishing results - specifically in view of the fact that there was no diet component involved (see Figure 1), the concomitant reduction in body fat and increases in lean mass speak are significant.

The same goes for the increases in squat jump, counter movement jump and 40 consecutive jump height (6.1%, 3.8%, 6.8%) and the isokinetic strength gains that ranged from +1.3% to 11.4% depending on the muscle that was tested.

You may also be interested in: "Ballistics Lunge Activates Muscle to the Same Extent as 34% Lighter Standardlift, Elastic Band & DBs Target Different Muscles" | more

Bottom Line: "The present findings suggest that handball coaches should use combined strength and plyometric training programs with regularity throughout the competitive season in order to achieve gains in maximal strength improvement in the capacity to generate force seems to potentiate the performance of specific handball motor actions such as the VJ [vertical jump]" (Carvalho. 2014)

The above is the authors' bottom line to which I can just add that even non-handball coaches may think about using similar combination protocols for their clients, if increases in athletic performance and body composition are more important than maximal mass gains.

References:

• Carvalho, Alberto, Paulo Mourão, and Eduardo Abade. "Effects of Strength Training Combined with Specific Plyometric exercises on body composition, vertical jump height and lower limb strength development in elite male handball players: a case study."

Want to Cut 12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks, Get Stronger, Bigger or Better Conditioned? Periodize Appropriately!

Image 1 (hitchfit.com): I know I am repeating myself, here, but 12% less body fat mass in 12 weeks without dieting should be a reason to pick up those dumbbells, ladies, right?

If you have read Adelfo's blogpost, yesterday, you will have noticed the versatility of his routine. The combination of volume, 5x5 and EDT training, which may appear somewhat chaotic at first, is yet well-planned, clearly structured and has little of the "cookie-cutter" approach to training people follow who will tell you in the locker room, whenever you meet them: "Ah, I better train biceps today, my legs don't feel right, bro" ;-) In the end, Adelfo's approach is just an unconventional twist on undulating periodization; in other words, a training split where you switch your rep and set numbers in relatively short (but regular!) intervals - often from one training to the next. But is this really the optimal way to train? I mean HST = hypertrophy specific training looks different and that is "hypertrophy specific", right? And in fact, if analyzed on its own, a recently published study from Brazil appears to suggest that what Adelfo feels is the best way to train could in fact be inferior to a less sophisticated linear periodization program  (de Lima. 2012). - and you know what? At least for his sedentary cousin that may in fact be right!

Lifting weights works! Regardless of how you periodize, but...

The 28 healthy, normal-weight, formerly sedentary women (age 20–35; body fat ~25%) from the de Lima study had been randomly assigned to follow 2-day body split routines which differed only with respect to the means of periodization, i.e. the sequence of lower vs. higher rep work (see illustration 1 for an outline of the training regimen) for 12 weeks (no dietary changes or other inventions).

Illustration 1: Outline of the workout (left) and periodization regimen (right) the 28 young women followed over the course of the 12-week intervention period (de Lima. 2012)

If we based our predictions on previous data in 28 recreationally trained college-aged men (Buford. 2007), 40 young men (21.5y) with a minimum 1-year strength training experience (Prestes. 2009a) and 20 resistance trained men (26y; 4-5 years of training experience; Miranda.. 2007) both conducted with linear vs. undulating periodization schemes in the strength-to-hypertrophy rep ranges of 4-8 and 4-14 reps, respectively, we would expect either no difference (Buford. 2007) or a slight advantage for the undulating periodization protocol with respect to its effects on maximal strength (Prestes. 2009 a,b).

Figure 1: Rel. changes in body composition, maximal strength and strength endurance (de Lima 2012)

As the data in figure 1 shows, neither of those predictions is accurate. Contrary to Buford et al. de Lima et al. did observe statistically significant differences between the study arms, yet other than Prestes et al. those changes were not in the maximal strength, but rather in the strength endurance domain. And while the latter showed significantly greater improvement in the women who trained according to the undulating periodization protocol, the classic, some people would probably say "boring", linear periodization protocol elicited a substantially more pronounced decreases in body fat and increases in strength.

Periodicize according to your training level & goals

As boring as those highly structured linear periodization protocols may be, the results from the de Lima study would suggest that there is a reason why Brian Haycock's HST (=Hypertrophy Specific Training) periodization prescriptions are downright anal. It is also reasonable to assume that for beginners and (early) advanced trainees, long(er) cycles will allow for optimal structural adaptations to the individual loading patterns, with the "growths" phases in the medium (8-12) rep ranges and facilitative strength gains and endurance gains in the lower-rep (4-6) respectively higher rep (15-20) weeks. It is also interesting to note that in these early days, when trainees makes the transition from undermuscled couch potato to "recreationally active" muscle gains and fat loss are coupled and can, as the data from the de Lima study shows, be influenced not just by modulating the total number of sets (volume) or the rep range, but also by changing the sequence of phases of training at the upper, medium and lower range of a given set x rep continuum (here 3x15-3x30) - that the latter was somewhat higher than normal (here "normal" indicates 6-15), may have exerted confounding effects, but it does not take away from the constantly overlooked, yet non-negligible effects different means of periodization exert on both your performance and your body composition!

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
Navigate the SuppVersity EMG Series and learn about the best exercises for a given body part (incl. example workouts).

The studies by Buford Miranda and Prestes on the other hand, suggest that those facilitative strength and strength endurance gains, without which no strength trainee, rookie, advanced or veteran will be able to generate the necessary overload to cause structural adaptations, or put simply, skeletal muscle hypertrophy, may require a slightly more creative, yet by no means chaotic workout organization, once you have a couple of years of weight lifting under your belt.

Daily vs. weekly undulation? I am with Dr. Hatfield and prefer the former!

Personally I prefer the intra-workout or as Miranda et al. call it "daily undulatory" periodization à la Dr. Squat (Hatfield): It makes training more fun and allows me to perform every exercise and train for every body part in a rep range of which I feel that it suits it best:

• lower rep work and a focus on continuously increasing the poundage on compound exercises, such as the squat, deadlift, bench press, military press, pull ups and bend over rows at the beginning of my workouts or as the first exercise for a given body part
• medium and sometimes high(er) rep work and a focus on maximal muscle tension on auxiliary exercises such as biceps curls, triceps extensions, flys, cable cross, pullovers, seated rows, dumbbell rows, reverse DB/cable flys, side laterals, upright rows and shrugs in the latter part of my workouts or as follow up exercises for a given body part

And though Miranda et al. may not have found statistically significant differences in any of the individual tests the 20 strength training veterans in their study had to perform, the greater effect sizes in the undulating periodization group (1.54 = large for daily undulating periodization vs. 1.04  = moderate for linear periodization) appear to prove my instincts and training experience right ... but to be honest, even if it didn't I would rather train "suboptimal" than bore myself to death during another HST (=linear periodization) cycle.

Ressources:

1. Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, Warren AJ. A comparison of periodization models  during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Nov;21(4):1245-50. 
2. de Lima C, Boullosa DA, Frollini AB, Donatto FF, Leite RD, Gonelli PR, Montebello MI, Prestes J, Cesar MC. Linear and Daily Undulating Resistance Training Periodizations Have Differential Beneficial Effects in Young Sedentary Women. Int J Sports Med. 2012 May 4
3. Miranda F, Simão R, Rhea M, Bunker D, Prestes J, Leite RD, Miranda H, de Salles BF, Novaes J. Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Jul;25(7):1824-30.
4. Prestes J, Frollini AB, de Lima C, Donatto FF, Foschini D, de Cássia Marqueti R, Figueira A Jr, Fleck SJ. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Dec;23(9):2437-42.
5. Prestes J, De Lima C, Frollini AB, Donatto FF, Conte M. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):266-74.

Trying to Build Strength? Periodized Training Yields 30% / 34% / 77% Increases in Bench Press, Squat and Deadlift Performance in Elite(!) Powerlifters over 16 Weeks

With the huge success of Crossfit more and more women are "hitting the weights"

Almost 80% increase in deadlift performance in "elite powerlifters" with 7 ± 3 yrs of training experience and a mean age of 34 ± 5 yrs and a mean body mass of 94.4 ± 16.7 kg? That's catching your attention, right? Now, what would you say that there was no magic supplement involved and that the periodization routine the researchers prescribed to their 9 male study participants is far from being revolutionary?

You're still interested to learn more? Even if I tell you that the baseline lifts don't look very elite, rather average, though? Let's see, then, what the subjects had to do during their three weekly 120min training sessions.

Want to get stronger? Don't take creatine? Huge mistake! Learn why at the SuppVersity

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine, DHT & Broscience

Creatine Better After Workout

ALA + Creatine = Max Uptake?

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

As the graphical overview in Figure 1 shows, the subjects trained in four mesocycles, each of them lasting for four weeks (although the fulltext does not mention this, I assume that the subjects did all three exercises in all sessions - how else would you spend 120 training minutes?).

Figure 1: Overview of the study protocol and assessment points 1-5 (Allegretti. 2014)

Well, if we are honest, this is not 100% exact. The last of the four mesocycles was actually further devided into two 2-week and one 1-week microcycles... but I guess, it's best you check out the details in Table 1 for yourself.

Table 1. Periodization of 4 Powerlifting Training Mesocycles. Explanation of the acronyms: MESO: mesocycle; MICRO: microcycle; No. SER: number of sets; No. REP: number of repetitions; ID: rest interval; RM%: percentage of 1 repetition maximum; CT: Workload (the product of sets x reps)

I am not sure how familiar you are with classic powerlifting programs, but I personally wouldn't call the above scheme "revolutionary". What I would do, though, is call the results it produced over the course of the 16-week study period "damn impressive!".

Figure 2: Strength development from one assessment (AS) to the other (Allegretti. 2014)

Overall the researchers recorded highly significant strength increases of 31.7kg, 45.0kg and 101.7kg in the three major powerlifting exercises, the bench press, the squat and the deadlift, respectively.

Tapering is a must for professional athletes before an event like the Olympic games - learn how to do it in a previous SuppVersity article.

Bottom line: Assuming that strength (not size - that may need a higher volume and lower rest times) is your main goal, you may want to spend the next four months doing exactly what Table 1 tells you to do.

Assuming that you're eating clean (and enough), it would be a real stroke of bad luck if you didn't increase all your major lifts... well, a stroke of bad luck or the inability to recognize that the real "strength explosion" occurs only, when you are reducing volume and intensity of at the end of mesocycle four and the subsequent ignorance towards the worth of layoff phases and weeks of well-deserved rest.

Reference: 

• Astorino, Todd, et al. "Effect of 16 Weeks of Periodized Resistance Training on Strength Gains of Powerlifting Athletes." Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline 17.3 (2014).

Strength Training for NCAA Athletes: Highly Suggested! But What's the Best Power to Strength to Hypertrophy Ratio?

Wallace Spearman, US Olympic Track & Field Athlete, a sure candidate to benefit from 12-wks of resistance training in the off-season... and I bet that's what he's doing, anyways.

I am preaching this day in and day out: Pick up the weight. It's not going to harm you! It's just for your own benefit. However, for whatever reason women and male athletes competing in sports where the guys they look up to don't look exactly like muscular machines are stubbornly reluctant to listen to this advice... about as stubborn, by the way, as a couple of gymbros in my surrounding, when it comes to doing a minimal amount of "cardio" (not even necessarily HIIT) to (a) keep the fat at bay, (b) maintain the overall conditioning that's necessary to train actually intense, i.e. maximal muscle stimuation vs. packing on the maximum amounts of plates and (c) ensure that they don't die from a heart failure on yet another 1-rep max attempt after having to take 15min break between sets sitting on a bench gasping for air.

Ok, I am both digressing as well as exaggerating here, but I believe you got the notion. The thing people still seem to be questioning is:  

"Can I runner really benefit from doing something else than running"?

If you asked a coach, the answer will be yes (unless he is an idiot), but even for trainers the question still remains: "How much non-sports-specific training is beneficial, how much is too much?" And I bet you that the number of NCAA Division I coaches who would subscribe to the statement that the best way to advance your trainees athletic abilities would be to prioritize classic progressive strength training during their whole 12 week off-saison training program.

Figure 1: Summary of the study outcomes and overview of the training goals and goal frequency within the training programs of groups 1-3 (Dombrowsky. 2013)

As the data in figure 1 goes to show you, none of the alternatives, which were training for power, local muscular endurance, and general strength training and consisted of

• power workouts - ballistic exercises such as bench throws, jump squats, cleans, and variations of the Olympic lifts
• strength workouts - multiple (4+) sets with fewer reps must be performed using more force 
• hypertrophy workouts - anaerobic strength training. short duration, high intensity anaerobic exercises

that were combined different ratios were a real waste of time. Still, the "best overall effect on the performance variables" (Dombrowsky. 2013) was achieved by those of the 34 male NCAA Division I track and field athletes (age: 20.3± 1.9 y; body mass: 83.9 ± 11.1 kg) with at least three months of resistance training experience who had not been randomized, but assigned to

Table 1-3: Workout templates for group 1-3 (from top to bottom; Dombrowsky. 2013)

• Group 1 - power focus: athletes lifted four times each week, and focused most on strength and power (throwers, jumpers, short sprinters)
  

  "Group 1’s RT program consisted of at least one power exercise daily, three strength exercises and a few local muscular endurance exercises last."  (Dombrowsky. 2013)

• Group 2 - endurance focus: athletes lifted three times a week, and had the most strenuous out of the weight room fall conditioning (pole vaulters, multi’s, long sprinters)
  

  "Group 2 also used a planned non-linear periodization program. RT program consisted of at least one power exercise daily, three strength exercises and a few local muscular endurance exercises last." (Dombrowsky. 2013)

• Group 3 - general strength training: athletes lifted three times a week and were all anaerobically trained individuals who also participated in an interval training program, demanding two running workouts per week (all first-year athletes were placed in group 3, as well)
  

  Group 3 also used a planned non-linear periodization program. RT program consisted of at least one power exercise daily, three strength exercises and a few localmuscular endurance exercises last. [...] The first two power workouts (one for upper and one for lower) were done as general strength." (Dombrowsky. 2013)

based on their training goals (details on the workouts in table 1-3; BB = Barbell, BA = Band, BW = Body Weight, CC = Cable Column, DB = Dumbbell, LB= Lower Body, MB = Medicine Ball, Oly = Olympic, Ply = Plyometric, SB = Stability Ball, UB = Upper Body). The latter may be logical in view of the fact that you certainly don't want a competitive athlete to be assigned to a training regimen of which you'd expect that it may be sub-optimal or even contradictory to his goals. On the other hand, the missing randomization raises the question of whether or not the following observations (cited literally from the results section), ...

• 

  Training different in the off-season is one thing, but what about combining training style? Is "Cardio in-between weights" a novel solution to the never-ending "before or after"-debate? A study from August 2012 would suggest just that - includes concrete workout suggestions to experiment with (learn more)

  Athletes whose disciples in track and field were more power based were able to see the highest increase in vertical jump over the twelve week training period. 
• Group one were athletes who’s events were ATP based and had the highest need for quick, powerful movements (5.8% increases between pre and post testing). 
• Group two was more anaerobic based and therefore saw a slightly lower increase (2.9% increase between pre and post testing). 
• Athletes with a low training age are about to make high performance increases during early development (6.3% increase between pre and post testing)."

... are generalizable and/or a mere result of the goal- and sports-specific group assignment... what? Why that would matter? Well, assume Dombrowsky and the coaches of the athletes were totally off base and someone whose competing as an endurance runner would benefit most from doing the routine of a strongmen!? Unlikely, I know, but taking that for granted makes is a build in bias in favor of the current training paradigm you should be aware of, when you look at the study outcomes.

Nutritional and other confounding factors

All training sessions were performed under the eyes of the performance coaching staff and accompanied by general conditioning work in the form of linear speed, general conditioning, and sport-specific training during the week.

Moreover, at the end of each strength and conditioning workout a Muscle Milk Collegiate shake was given to each athlete (250 kcal, 7g fat, 28g carbohydrate, 18g protein). Otherwise, subjects followed the individual nutrition plans, which happened to include a "holiday binge" (I assume) on Thanksgiving in week 10 ;-)

---

Suggested read: "You Want Maximal Performance & Size Gains + Complete Thigh Development? Then Full Squats are For You!" Learn why trying to impress the bros or girls at the gym by racking and reracking the largest weights is not going to cut it (read more)

Bottom line: I am not sure, whether the main message of the study at hand really is the superiority of one training regimen to other - this is particularly true in view of the previously mentioned limitations resulting from the missing randomization. Therefore, my personal take home and broadcast to your peers message would rather be:

"No matter what the specifics of your athletic goals may be, there is a resistance training regimen out there you can and should utilize at least during the off-season to build the muscular foundation that's necessary to excel in any sports!"

This primer on the inclusion of goal-specific strength training into otherwise sports-specific workout routines is yet obviously valid for everyone from the (semi-)professional athlete and gymrat over the people who "just wanna look good naked" to the baby boomer who realizes that it's about time to make sure he or she won't be sitting in a wheelchair or be sarcopenic and bed-ridden in couple of years: Hit the weights, folks! Now!

References

• Dombrowsky, D. The Effects of Resistance T raining Prioritization In NCAA Division I T rack and Field Athletes. Master' s Theses. 2013; paper 399.

Block Periodization for Resistance Trainees: 3x Higher Strength Gains on the Bench vs. Zero Benefits for Legs

The deadlift probably won't benefit from blocked periodization either... at least if you do it only once a week anyway.

I hope you all remember my recent article about the beneficial effects of block periodization on the training outcome of trained cyclists (if you don't I'd suggest you read up on it: "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes") and the hypothesis that the mechanism behind the beneficial effects Rønnestad et al. report in the corresponding paper are not actually a consequence of this specific periodization scheme. Rather than that, the benefits the researchers have observed may well have been a mere consequences of the "change", of "breaking out of the rut" and the provision of a new challenge that's absolutely essential to induce what everyone, from housewife to Olympian athlete is training for: adaptation.

Let's discard the mechanism for a moment, though and let's rather focus on the hard facts - hard facts that are complemented by the results of a soon-to-be-published paper by researchers from the University of Bologna and the University of Central Florida.

What's so interesting about this paper is ...

....that it looks at the effects of block periodization in trained strength athletes and could thus help us answer a question that may have been preying on your mind, ever since I published the previously cited article about the beneficial effects of block periodization in endurance athletes: "Do Different Rules Apply for Strength vs. Endurance Athletes?" Or, put simply: Would a weight lifter benefit to a similar extend from block periodizing his training regimen as a cyclist - irrespective of what the underlying mechanisms may be?

Figure 1: The subjects trained 4x per week - identical training plans in both groups (Bartolomei. 2014)

The answer is "yes and no" - Yes, if we are talking about the upper body, no - and that's interesting because cycling obviously involves the same muscle groups - when we are looking at the lower body performance gains in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Changes in max. strength (1RM in kg), mean power (in % of baseline) and jump height (in cm) in the 24 study particpants in response to traditional linear or block periodization (Bartolomei. 2014)

As you can see, the gains in lower body power was identical - irrespective of the type of periodization (see overview in Figure 1). For the upper body, on the other hand, the subjects who did not simply ramp up the intensity continuously from 5 sets of 8-10 reps at 65-75% of  1RM  with  less  than  2  minutes  of  recovery  between  sets to 5 sets of 3 - 4 reps at 85 -95% of 1RM with 3 minutes of recovery from week 1 to week 12 (TP group), the ...

"[p]articipants  in  BP  were  more  likely  (79.8%)  to increase the area under the force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in the load corresponding to maximal power at the bench  press compared to TP group, and a possible improvement (~ 60%) in maximal strength and power in the bench press." (Bartolomei. 2014)

Whether that's muscle-specific reaction to the three 5-week mesocycles, instead of one 15-week mesocycle is yet highly questionable - or do you think the legs respond less to the periodization program that's depicted in Figure 3, than chest, back, arms & co?

Figure 3: Illustration of the interplay between intensity and volume of the n=14 24-year-old male, resistance trained (>3 years, >3 sessions per week) subjects in the block periodization group (Bartolomei. 2014)

Personally, I would rather come back to the "novelty approach". It goes without saying that we can assume that the abrupt changes on a blocked periodization regimen favor "growth promoting overloads". In the case of the musculature of the lower body, the simple fact that it was trained just once a week may yet have provided a similarly "novel" or at least less accustomed stimulus on every leg-day.

"Periodize Appropriately and Cut 12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks!" | more

Bottom line: Again, it's difficult to tell, whether there is any special magic in block periodization. What can be said, though, is that we can again (see "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes: Revolutionary Training Concept, Or Just a Good Way to Eventually Break Out of the Comfort Zone?" | read more) make an argument for the "breaking out of the rut" hypothesis... in this case, however, in an ostensibly muscle-specific manner that's eventually not "muscle-", but actually "training-frequency-specific".

In the end, it does not matter, if my ad-hoc explanation is or isn't accurate. For you as a practicioner who is probably training the muscles of his upper body thrice a week, the results of this study are significant - no matter what the underlying mechanisms are. In other words: The results of the A classic HST-oriented training program that is eventually "block periodized" will yield better training results than one, where you train in the same rep ranger 365 days a year. But let's be honest: That's not surprising, is it?

References

• Bartolomei, Sandro, et al. "A Comparison of Traditional And Block Periodized Strength Training Programs in Trained Athletes." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). [ahead of print]
• Rønnestad, B. R., J. Hansen, and S. Ellefsen. "Block periodization of high‐intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists." Scand J Med Sci Sports 24 (2014): 34–42.