Detraining and Training Periodization: 6 Months On "Six Weeks On + Three Weeks Off" Macrocycle Yields Identical Gains Strength and Size Gains as Continuous Training

"Is everyone at home taking some time off to recover + prime future muscle growth?"

Human beings are creatures of habit. This is particularly true, when it comes to those things and procedures we either like or enjoy or have found to be highly conducive to our goals, in the past. Just like some people simply won't drop their beloved Twinkies and Ding Dongs, although they know that these sugar bombs are bad for them, and others tend to stick to whatever dietary regimen has allowed them to lose 20lbs of body weight in the past, despite the fact that this "trick" has long ceased working for them, many "recreationally active" individuals (aka gymrats) are totally reluctant to any form of carefully planned deviation of their training regimen.

Six weeks on, three weeks off - for better or for worse!?

If anything, switching gears from a more hypertrophy to a more strength training oriented program, or vice versa, is probably the one modification most trainees could come to terms with. The notion to take one, let alone three weeks off after the completion of a 6 weeks mesocycle, on the other hand, scares the hack out of 99% of the ambitious strength trainees. Unjustly, as a study that's been published less than one week ago in the online edition of the European Journal of Physiology goes to show you (Ogasawara. 2012).

Systematically periodized trainig routines (yet often with only one detraining phase per season) are among the various reasons professional athletes are at a lower risk of developing the athletes' triad than overambitious gymrats.

As surprising as it may sound to the "I will lose my precious muscle" faction, the results of the study Riki Ogasawara and his colleagues from the University of Tokio conducted do actually just confirm what we knew all along:

"[A]fter short-term (>1 month) cessation of training (detraining), muscle adaptation responses may return to their initial levels, and the effects of retraining after short-term cessation on muscle growth are comparable with those observed during the early phase of training." (Ogasawara. 2012)

If we further acknowledge that the loss of protein from the muscle during the detraining phase is much slower than the rapid gain, during the early weeks of (re-)training, it should be obvious that any retraining phase will lead to overall increments in skeletal muscle cross sectional area that will easily overcompensate the small amount of size your muscles will have lost during the comparatively short phase without physical exercise.

Based on the actual results of previous research by Narici et al, Bemben et al. Hakkinen et al. and Hulmi et al., Ogosaware et al. propose the following example to illustrate this effect:

*Why is it problematic that the study participants were untrained? With the initial growth response to weight training being much more pronounced in previously untrained individuals, it is very likely that the same is going to be the case for the similarly pronounced response to "retraining" after a three-week detraining phase. This does not generally speak against the usefulness and maybe even the need for well-planned periodization in advanced trainees, but it renders the concept of a complete three weeks lay-off (=classic detraining) at least questionable. Read my comments towards the end of this post for possibly better-suited alternatives.

"[...] assuming that the decrease in thigh muscle CSA during 3 weeks of detraining is 2.1 % (estimated at 0.10 % per day and 21 days), and the increase in muscle CSA during 6 weeks of retraining is 5.9 % (estimated at 0.14 % per day and 42 days), the increase in muscle CSA during a 3-week detraining/6-week retraining period (estimated at 0.06 % per day during 9 weeks) would be 3.8 %. The estimated value of 0.06 % per day is similar to values obtained in previous studies, where the average increase in thigh muscle CSA was reportedly around 0.05 % per day." (Ogasawara. 2012)

Well, I see this alone can't convince you, right? What about the detailed results of Ogasawara very own study, then? Allegedly, it was done in untrained individuals*, 14 young men (age 25 ± 3 years, standing height 1.72 ± 0.06 m, body mass 65 ± 10 kg), but the results the training regimen the researchers characterize as follows,

"Both groups performed high-intensity, free-weight bench press exercise training 3 days per week. [...] Training intensity was set at 75 % of one repetition (rep) maximum (1-RM), and training volume was set at 3 sets of 10 reps (with 2–3 min rest between sets). To ensure an adequate training load, all training sessions were overseen by a supervisor. Training load was renewed every 3 weeks, and, if subjects could perform 12 reps or more at the 3rd set during training sessions, the training load was increased by about 5 % for the next training session." (Ogasawara. 2012)

speak for themselves and were virtually identical in both groups - regardless of whether the subjects trained for 24-weeks continuously (CTR), or performed their regimen in the form of two cycles of 3-week detraining/6-week retraining periods after an initial 6-week mesocycle.

Figure 1: Relative changes 1-RM and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) + time-course of these changes (left); time-course of relative changes in cross sectional area in triceps bracchii (top, right) and pectoralis major (bottom, right; based on Ogasawara. 2012)

Aside from the already mentioned training status of the study participants there are yet two other things I am missing in this study:

Figure 2: Just in case you've forgotten about that - different muscles react in different ways to modulations in training volume. So why would they react identically to off-times? Moreover if legs benefit most from a higher training volume, wouldn't it be likely that they suffer most from longer periods of detraining?

1. Detailed data on the pre / post body composition. The identical increase in body weight (+2%) is not of interest to me (and probably to only very few of you) and the simple assumption that identical body weight gain + identical CSA gains of triceps brachii (TB) and pectoralis major (PM) would translate into identical changes in total body fatness / muscularity is about is unwarranted (see link in figure 2).
2. A realistic full-body workout routine: The low volume chest only workout regimen is not just unrepresentative of a real workout protocol, it does also raise the question if other body parts as the legs, for example, would not respond very differently to a three week lay-off phase (see figure 2 + respective reference to a previous post on training volume).

As far as the pectoralis and triceps specific gains in muscle size and strengths in strength training newbies are concerned, the results of the study at hand do however add  o the initially mentioned practicability of a simplistic, but effective "6 weeks on, 3 weeks off" approach to periodization, which - and this is a novel finding compared to Ogasawara's study from last year (Ogasawara. 2011) - does still work even in the third mesocycle (take another look at figure 1 the "catch up growth" does not diminish!).

Conclusion + "What about advanced athletes?"

Despite the fact that the last mentioned sustainability of this approach over a pretty long time period (24 weeks, i.e. 3x complete macrocycles) would indicate that a similar approach will work for trained (maybe even elite) athletes as well, I am pretty convinced that a period of three weeks of complete idleness is not the optimal periodization strategy for advanced trainees, because:

Possible alternatives for advanced athletes: Rather than taking a complete 3-week time out from all athletic endeavors, you can to stick to ...

• a maximal complete off-time of 1-week (as in not doing anything), 
• a 2-3 weeks of active off time (as in going on vacation w/ regular non-exhaustive physical activity), or
• the incorporation of a tapering regimen as described in Part VI of the Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout

Alternatively you can combine / mix one or two of these (you won't go on vacation every 6 weeks, will you?)

• The discrepancy between the accrual of skeletal muscle protein and the loss of the latter in response to total laziness gets lower, if not totally reversed, the bigger you get. Consequently the added bonus of "faster gains" upon recommencing the training will diminish, or even disappear completely.
• Many more or less "professional" trainees follow dietary regimen that are not sustainable, when they are not training. During a complete time-off of three weeks without any alternative "outlet", the chances to gain fat are thus much higher for them, than for the average beginner, who - if anything - guzzles a protein shake after each of his three weekly training sessions.
• Competitive amateur athletes who are training 5x a week or more actually run the risk of both, physical and psychological withdrawl symptoms, when they simply stop training altogether (another argument in favor taper, if you asked me; see infobox on the right).

Regardless of which of the alternatives in the blue infobox next to the three arguments that make a complete 3-week lay off at least questionable for advanced / professional trainees you pick, if you decide against the "No, that's bullocks, I train day-in-day-out till I drop" approach, there is one thing you should keep in mind:

If you are not the one in a million expection from the rule,
you cannot simply "play this by ear"!

Periodization requires planning and planning is done in advance and not in a "well, I feel like I could go for another week" or "damn, I am tired today, let's take three weeks off and see how it goes then" fashion. Alright?

References:

• Bemben DA, Fetters NL, Bemben MG, Nabavi N, Koh ET. Musculoskeletal responses to high- and low-intensity resistance training in early postmenopausal women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000: 32:1949–1957
• Hakkinen K, Newton RU, Gordon SE, McCormick M, Volek JS, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Campbell WW, Evans WJ, Hakkinen A, Humphries BJ, Kraemer WJ. Changes in muscle morphology, electromyographic activity, and force production characteristics during progressive strength training in young and older men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1998; 53:B415–B423
• Hakkinen K, Alen M, Kallinen M, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Neuromuscular adaptation during prolonged strength training, detraining and re-strength-training in middle-aged and elderly
  people. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000; 83:51–62.
• Hakkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Gorostiaga E, Izquierdo M, Rusko H, Mikkola J, Hakkinen A, Valkeinen H, Kaarakainen E, Romu S, Erola V, Ahtiainen J, Paavolainen L. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003; 89:42–52
• Hulmi JJ, Kovanen V, Selanne H, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Mero AA. Acute and long-term effects of resistance exercise with or without protein ingestion on muscle hypertrophy and gene expression. Amino Acids. 2009; 37:297–308.
• Narici MV, Hoppeler H, Kayser B, Landoni L, Claassen H, Gavardi C, Conti M, Cerretelli P. Human quadriceps crosssectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months strength training. Acta Physiol Scand. 1996; 157:175–186
• Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Sakamaki M, Ozaki H, Abe T. Effects of periodic and continued resistance training on muscle CSA and strength in previously untrained men. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2011 Sep;31(5):399-404.
• Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Ishii N, Abe T. Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. Oct 06, 2012. 

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).

Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine - Part VI: Periodization, Yeah! But How? Plus: Tapering vs. Detraining

Image 1: Do you really need to plan your workouts months in advance to gain muscle and build strength?

In the past installments of this series you have learned how to integrate your workouts into your schedule, how to select the appropriate workout style(s), type(s) and parameters and what specific workouts for general health, hypertrophy, fat loss and strength could look like. In today's installment of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout", we are going to take another look at what you have gotten so far and why this probably isn't the "be all and end all" of working out - no matter, how cleverly designed your workout routine may be.

Obligatory built-in progression (i + 1) vs. periodization

If there is one fundamental determinant training for strength, for fat loss, hypertrophy and, at least to a certain degree, even health have in common, it would unquestionably the "i + 1" principle - or put simply: The principle of continuous progression / overload. Obviously, every routine (the four I have introduced you to in the weeks before included) have a built-in progression - after all, they require you to train within a certain RM or put differently to increase the weight, whenever you feel that it becomes "too easy" to perform the prescribed number of reps. So, if you think of your current 100kg bench press, you can perform for 10 reps without ending up suffocating yourself with the bar, the i +1 principle would demand that you try (remember it is unrealistic to assume that you can increase reps and weight every workout) to bench 100kg for 11 reps or 102.5kg for 10 reps, the next time you hit the gym.

Now as easy as this may seem - I mean if you trained each muscle once a week and increased your bench by 2.5kg with each workout you would bench 230kg after one year - it usually does not work out in practice. And though the direct scientific evidence for this hypothesis is scarce, it appears prudent to assume that hypertrophy and strength are like master and slave - with your personal priority determining who is who.

• hypertrophy priority - someone who's main goal is to increase muscle size must look at strength as a means to an end; he/she has to get stronger to expose her muscles to continously increasing amounts of weights and thusly permanent overload
• strength priority - someone who's main goal is to increase muscle strength must look at size as a means to an end; he/she has to get bigger to be able able to lift heavier weights

If you take a closer look at the distinction above you will realize that it appears that no matter what you may have in mind, hypertrophy is more of a side-effect of strength (or lifting heavy objects) than vice versa.

Figure 1: Comparison of changes in arm and thigh girth in 20 pre-conditioned healthy young women (age ~20y) in response to a 12-week 3x per week training protocol employing linear or undulating periodization; the scientists found no statistical significant differences (adapted from Kok. 2009)

Despite the fact that there is there is insufficient scientific evidence for the superiority of periodized training for trainees whose only goal is to increase muscle size - there is evidence that it works and that it does not seem to matter whether you use linear vs. undulating periodization programs, cf figure 1 and the following mini-overview -

• Stone. 1981 - 6 weeks: 6x 3x6 vs. 3x 5x10, 1x 5x5, 1x 3x3, 1x 3x2, subjects were trained college age male: Greater increase in lean body mass and decrease in percent body fat (determined by hydrostatic weighing ) than the non-periodized group.
• Baker. 1994 - 12 weeks: 5x6 for core and 3x8 for auxilliary vs. linear vs. undulating periodization, subjects were trained young men: No differences in lean mass gains, or fat loss, but significantly greater increases in bench press and squat strength in the undulating periodization group
• Kramer. 1997 - 24 weeks: 1x8-10 +forced reps vs. 2-4x 12-15, 8-10, 3-5 (strength pyramid) + 2-4x 8-10 (classic hypertrophy), subjects were Division III college football players: Similar increases in strength and loss in body fat, but significant hypertrophy only in the "periodization" group

- it appears prudent to assume that the incorporation of rather strength oriented periods into your hypertrophy routine does make sense.

Finding the right approach for you

If you look back at my "training programming", you will notice that at least the health and hypertrophy programs had a weekly or intra-workout periodization "built-in", so to say.

• Health training template - full body hypertrophy + 5x5 strength workout (= weekly periodization)
   
• Hypertrophy template - strength / power focus in the core movements (4x 5-6), hypertrophy focus in the auxilliary movement 2x10-15 (=intra-workout periodization)

The rational here is to make the constant weekly or at least monthly change between different workout styles obsolete or at least optional. The fat loss routine on the other hand is nothing you would do "indefinitely", anyways - instead of periodizing the latter, it would be more prudent to stop dieting and chosing an appropriate training mode to increase strength or size over a 3-6 week maintenance phase.

A training regimen that sucks is never "optimal": Even a program that may be "optimal" from a physiological stand point can produce inferior gains in strength and size, if it "just isn't for you"! For me, this is the case for any workout that will have me lift in the <3 rep per set range for more than one week (even when tapering, I usually stick to 5 reps). If you have to drag your a** to the gym, feel that your workout sucks and would be happy, if the gym burned down so that you could skimp on one week of the current block in your periodization regimen, your results will suck, as well - there is no debating this.

In the end it is thus (once more ;-) up to you, to decide whether you feel that it is necessary to further periodize your program. Personally, I have always faired well with 4-6 weeks on intra-workout or intra-week periodization programs. After those 4-6 weeks I would totally re-vamp my program, anyways - making changes according to my past progress and not to what XY wrote in his smart e-book about clever periodization.

There is still one thing to take away from classic periodization: Tapering!

There is yet one very valuable asset in the toolbox of classic periodization, the use of which appears to be beneficial specifically for the advanced trainee, regardless of whether he or she trains on a

• linear periodization program, e.g. 3 weeks each of  hypertrophy (8-12RM), strength (5-6RM) and power (3RM) oriented training (optional peak week at 1RM), or a
• undulating periodization program, e.g. 3 cycles of 1 week each of each hypertrophy (8-12RM), strength (5-6RM) and power (3RM) oriented training, or follow a 
• "Hatfield-esque" intra-week or intra-workout periodization programm, as I outlined in the templates and elaborated in the previous paragraph,

And this asset is "tapering". Contrary to classic "detraining", as in dropping the bar on Friday and lying around on the couch for 14-28 days, tapering revolves around 2-4 weeks (if you want also only one) of intense but very low volume training.

Figure 2: Effects of 4 week tapering or detraining after a 16-week periodized strength training program in 46 competitive male Basque ball players (data adapted from Izquierdo. 2007)

In a 2007 study which compared the effects of classic detraining (dropping the bar, not training at all) to tapering (higher intensity - 3-4RM, lower volume - bench press and squat 4-6 sets total) on body composition and strength of 46 competitive Basque ball players (avg. 12 years of of regular training and competition) and found that the 4-weeks of training on an reduced volume, yet with an increased intensity, lead to reductions in body fat percentages and increases in bench press and half squat performance, while the "classic" detraining let to a profound decline in power in the upper and lower extremities and a minimal, yet compared to the tapering group statistically significant increase in body fat (Izquierdo. 2007).

Image 2: Adelfo's "famine phase" was essentially a very brief taper with reduced protein intake.

The take home message of this installment of the "Step by Step Guide to Your Own Workout" is thusly not to ask whether or not to periodize your training, but rather how to do it best - with the latter depending on your goals and preferences this leaves you with the aforementioned three possibilities, i.e. intra-workout, weekly, linear and undulating periodization, and emphases on strength or hypertrophy, with the latter being reflected in either the type (intra- and weekly periodization) of the workout, respectively their combination within your workout week, or the length of specific periods within your periodization regimen. Add in at least 1-2 weeks of tapering after every cycle (4-6 week intra- and weekly, or 6-12 week linear or undulating periodization) and you have made another step on your way to your ever-evolving "Own Workout Routine".

Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes: Revolutionary Training Concept, Or Just a Good Way to Eventually Break Out of the Comfort Zone?

Block Periodization - Training revolution or simple trick? This is what we have to ask ourselves in view of these results.

With all the news and discussion about nutrition and dietary supplements, it's easy to lose sight of the significant impact even minor tweaks to your training routine may have on your results. The results of a recent study from the Lillehammer University College in Norway, for example, remind us all of the importance to periodize our training regimen. Now you could obviously randomly divide a year into cycles with different workout frequencies, intensities, volume, etc. It does yet go without saying that this is probably not the most promising approach to periodization.

What are good ways to periodize your training?

As B. R. Rønnestad, J. Hansen, S. Ellefsen point out in the introduction to their latest paper in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, there is yet a "paucity of studies" that would allow us to decide which of the myriad of possible periodization strategies works best.

You can learn more about periodization at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Too much ado about protein?

There is, for example, preliminary evidence that would suggest that block periodization is more effective than traditional periodization in improving performance (García-Pallarés. 2010), but this evidence is far from being conclusive and thus reason enough for the Norwegian scientists to conduct their own study to investigate

"the effects of a 1-week block of five HIT sessions, followed by a 3-week period of one HIT session per week and a naturally high volume of lowintensity training in trained cyclists." (Rønnestad. 2014)

And compare the results to those of a group of cyclists who employ a more traditional two HIT sessions per week organization while simultaneously performing a relatively high volume of low intensity training.

Mixed or exclusive periodization?

If you think in strength training terms you could probably say that we're comparing the nasty classic HST regimen with it's fixed strength-endurance, hypertrophy, strength blocks to a mixed mode regimen without a clear distinction between strength-endurance-, hypertrophy-, and strength-phases.

Different rules apply for increases in size and strength | learn more

Don't extrapolate data from trained cyclists to noobs and/or other athletes: At this point it's probably advisable to remind ourselves that we cannot extrapolate the results of this study to your own strength training regimen and/or cycling rookies who may achieve similar performance gains with either the classic mixed mode vs. blocked periodization regimen.

If your goals are strength and size, I highly suggest not to discard mixing things up, as it is done in undulating periodization regimen (learn more)

Much contrary to what we've seen in Spinetti's resistance training study from 2013 (learn more), the cyclists in the study at hand did capitalize on the strict separation of HIIT and steady state HIT and LISS training as it is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Weekly distribution of training in the different intensity zones during the intervention period for the block periodization group (BP) and the traditional group (TRAD; upper panel). The relative distribution of the training in the different intensity zones during the intervention period in the two intervention groups (lower panel; Rønnestad. 2014)

If you take into consideration that the "zones" represent the three heart rate (HR) zones: (1) 60–82%; (2) 83–87%; and (3) 88–100% of maximal HR. A brief glimpse at Figure 1 should suffice to see that the main difference between the two groups is the high intensity focus in week one in the blocked periodization (BP) group and the subsequent reduction of intensive training to an absolute minimum in weeks 2-4.

During these HIT sessions the participants in both groups alternated between 6x5 and 5x6 min in the intensity zone 3 (➲ all cyclists were instructed to perform each HIT session with the aim to produce the highest possible mean power output across intervals). The intervals were separated by 2.5- or 3-min recovery, respectively. This makes the actual mean power output of each HIT session an indicator of performance level.

Figure 2: Perceived well-being in the legs during the intervention period (Rønnestad. 2014) .

"In order to monitor the power output during HIT sessions, seven cyclists in the BP group and six cyclists in the TRAD group were equipped with a PowerTap SL 2.4 (CycleOps, Madison, WI, USA) mounted on the rear wheel. The PowerTap device is a valid and reliable power meter (Bertucci. 2005). Furthermore, in order to quantify how the training weeks affected the perceived well-being in the legs, the cyclists reported their perceived feelings on a 9-point scale, going fromvery very good to very very heavy after each training week (Fig. 2)." (Rønnestad. 2014)

Needless to say that the initial week took it's toll on the legs of the 21 trained male cyclists with 6 ± 4 years of competitive cycling experience in the cycling shorts (data from two dropouts due to illness was excluded).

Figure 3: Maximal power, maximal oxygen uptake and average power output of the cyclists after the intervention expressed relative to baseline (Rønnestad. 2014)

Is it all about breaking out of the comfort zone? Likewise neeedless (?), but probably still worth mentioning is that they had to break out of their comfort zone during these initial 7 days of intense training, which were so different to their previous  9 ± 3 h per week of low-intensity endurance training, with no HIIT component in it. Against that background we must ask ourselves if the impressive performance gains you see in Figure 3 are a simple result of a novel training stimulus, or the consequence of this specific (i.e. blocked periodization) trainning stimulus.

So, is what we see in the study at hand the effect of the adaptation to the unconditioned stress initial HIIT week or is it a result of clever periodization?

If you asked me, it's the former - a result of one week of high intensity interval training. A result as it was observed by Lindsay et al. (1996), Westgarth-Taylor et al. (1997), Laursen et al. (2002), Swart et al. (2009) or Driller et al. (2009) in cyclists and other highly trained athletes. The take home message is thus not that mixing things up sucks, but the simple truth that you got to push beyond what your body is used to to trigger adaptation.

Reference:

• Bertucci, William, et al. "Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM device." International journal of sports medicine 26.10 (2005): 868-873.
• García-Pallarés, Jesús, et al. "Performance changes in world-class kayakers following two different training periodization models." European journal of applied physiology 110.1 (2010): 99-107.
• Laursen, Paul B., Michelle A. Blanchard, and David G. Jenkins. "Acute high-intensity interval training improves Tvent and peak power output in highly trained males." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 27.4 (2002): 336-348.
• Lindsyay, Fiona H., et al. "Improved athletic performance in highly trained cyclists after interval training." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 28.11 (1996): 1427-1434. 
• 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.
• 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)
• Swart, Jeroen, et al. "Effects of high-intensity training by heart rate or power in well-trained cyclists." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.2 (2009): 619-625..  
• Westgarth-Taylor, Christopher, et al. "Metabolic and performance adaptations to interval training in endurance-trained cyclists." European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology 75.4 (1997): 298-304.