Peer Review Assignment on Periodization

Methods of Teaching

Professor Kathleen Querner

Katie Dunn

1 August 2020
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 2

Table of Content:

Peer Review Article on Periodization…………..page 3-20

Article Summary………………………………….page 21-23

Periodization Workout…………………………...page 24

Reference………………………………………....page 25
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 3

Peer Review Article on Periodization

CURRENT CONCEPTS IN PERIODIZATION OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING

FOR THE SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPIST

Abstract

The rehabilitation process is driven by the manipulation of training variables that

elicit specific adaptations in order to meet established goals. Periodization is an
overall concept of training that deals with the division of the training process into
specific phases. Programming is the manipulation of the variables within these
phases (sets, repetitions, load) that are needed to bring about the specific
adaptations desired within that particular period. The current body of literature is
very limited when it comes to how these variables are best combined in an
injured population since most of the periodization research has been done in a
healthy population. This manuscript explores what is currently understood about
periodization, gives clinical guidelines for implementation, and provides the
sports physical therapist with a framework to apply these principles in designing
rehabilitation programs.

Level of Evidence

Keywords: ​periodization, sports rehabilitation, strength and conditioning, sports

physical therapy, progressive overload, strength, power
Go to:

INTRODUCTION

Restoration of strength is arguably the most vital aspect of a rehabilitation plan

and is a central tenet of strength and conditioning programs. Strength is the
foundation from which all other physical qualities of performance like power,
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 4

speed, and agility, are developed. Without proper strength development, these
qualities cannot be optimized.

Sports physical therapists design programs that include several components

including endurance, flexibility, proprioception/kinesthesia, balance, joint and soft
tissue mobility, speed, and power.​1​ These programs often follow a logical
sequence to not only promote optimal healing, but also to restore peak
performance. A significant challenge for sports physical therapists is designing
optimal training programs that facilitate neural and muscular adaptations while
being mindful of biologic healing constraints and safety for the athlete.​1
Unfortunately, most strength training research to date on program design has
been conducted on healthy, trained and/or untrained adults,​1​–​35​ while only two
studies have been loosely based on rehabilitation.​36​,​37​ Unfortunately, few
studies have examined the effect of periodization approaches in adolescent
athletic populations.​38

Periodization is one way for the sports physical therapist to approach the design
of resistance training programs. Periodization is defined as the planned
manipulation of training variables (load, sets, and repetitions) in order to
maximize training adaptations and to prevent the onset of overtraining
syndrome.​1​,​39​ It appears from the strength training literature that is available
that periodization is usually needed for maximal strength gains to
occur,​20​,​31​,​30​,​40​–​44​although evidence stating otherwise exists.​4​,​24​,​45
Periodized training is a safe method of training for older adults, as well as those
in pain.​8​,​46​ Periodization has been shown improve training adaptations but the
most effective periodization approach for muscular strength development for a
wide variety of populations is yet to be determined.​38

The classic understanding of periodization is attributed to Selye's General

Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), the template from which the original concept of
periodization was derived.​47​ In summary, GAS effectively states that systems
will adapt to any stressors they might experience in an attempt to meet the
demands of these stressors.​47​,​48​ According to Selye this is accomplished
through a process of three phases. Initial reaction to the stressor is termed the
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 5

alarm/reaction phase​ where the athlete may experience stiffness, soreness, or a

small drop in performance from fatigue after the training session. The second
phase was termed the ​resistance phase​and is where the body responds to the
stressor by adapting to the new stress with less soreness, stiffness, more
tolerance to activity, and improved performance. This is considered to occur at a
level greater than that demanded by the stressor and was termed
“​supercompensation”​ . The final phase occurs if the stressor goes on longer than
the organism can adapt, and ​exhaustion​ results, whereby the athlete may
experience staleness in training or deal with symptoms of overtraining.​47​ In
contrast to Selye, the ​fitness-fatigue model​ looks at periodization as a balancing
act between fitness and fatigue.​49​ An individual's level of preparedness is thus a
result of the interaction between their level of fitness and the amount of
fatigue.​49​ This idea has significant implications for programming if preparedness
can be optimized by methodical improvements in fitness while minimizing the
resulting fatigue.​49​For the neuromuscular system to adapt maximally to the
training load or stress, volume and intensity alterations are
necessary.​1​Increased demands cause the neuromuscular system to adapt by
increasing muscular performance but there is also a concurrent increase in the
physical, mental, and metabolic cost of recovery. Without concomitant changes
in overload, the system has no need to adapt to stressors. Therefore, no further
adaptations are needed and increases in the desired outcome will eventually
stop.​20​,​50​ On the other hand, if load is too high, the physiological costs will be
too great and the physical readiness for training of the athlete will be comprised.
A periodized program helps avoid these issues because the load on the
neuromuscular system is varied in order to drive adaptation while minimizing
fatigue.

Periodization may also be beneficial due to adding variation to workouts by

manipulating sets, repetitions, exercise order, number of exercises, resistance,
rest periods, type of contractions, or training frequency.​1​,​40​,​48​ Another added
benefit is the avoidance of training plateaus or boredom.​1​,​20​,​50​ The reader is
referred to ​Table 1​ for a summary of training parameters to address specific
training goals.
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 6

Table 1:

​ 02
General Training Guidelines1

The purpose of this commentary is threefold. First, a review of various

periodization models will be provided, and a discussion about the potential pros
and cons of each approach will be explored. A secondary purpose is to provide a
sample program or structural framework of the various approaches described
herein for the sports physical therapist to implement into a rehabilitation or
strength and conditioning program. Finally, a review of programming for
maximization of strength and power will be discussed as these two variables are
most critical not only for the recovering athlete but also for healthy trained or
untrained athletes.

Go to:

LINEAR PERIODIZATION

The “classic” or “linear” periodization (LP) model is based on changing exercise

volume and load across several predictable mesocycles.​1​ Classical periodization
was originally discussed by Russian scientist Leo Matveyev​51​ and further
expanded upon by Stone​44​ and Bompa.​52​ The program is broken down into
distinct blocks that are named based on time frames. Planning that spans over a
12-month period is referred to as a ​macrocycle,​ and two subdivisions are the
mesocycle​ (3-4 months) and the ​microcycle​ (1-4 weeks). Most rehabilitation
protocols follow this model. After pain and swelling have subsided, the sports
physical therapist typically follows a systematic progression of range of motion,
strength, power, and speed with progression to each phase depending on
achievement of specific goals in the previous phase. In an athlete recovering
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 7

from an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the mesocycle from

months three through six may be strength and power focused, but individual
mesocycles may reflect different training loads in one to two weeks of training.
There are a number of potential advantages of utilizing a linear approach. First of
all, repetition and loading schemes are predictable for both the athlete and the
sports physical therapist because they are ultimately determined by what phase
the athlete is in. Each phase typically focuses on only one training parameter.
Secondly, the linear model helps ensure that each training parameter (strength,
power, speed) is addressed in step-wise progression.

Advancement to other training methods is dependent upon successful

completion of training in the previous phase. With declining reimbursement as
well as allowable visits for physical therapy, another possible advantage of the
linear model is that it provides the patient a predictable sequence of loading and
repetitions that they can follow when doing supervised independent home
exercise programs. Effectively, the linear program helps take the “guesswork”
out of loading and repetitions schemes.

There are also several potential disadvantages to the linear program. The linear
program was originally devised as a training model for preparing for one peak
competition per year in Olympic weightlifters.​51​ For athletes that play several
sports or athletes that have multiple competitions in a season, this may not be
optimal as an athlete's tolerance to loading may ebb and flow based on injuries
or frequency/intensity of competition. Another potential disadvantage is that
maintenance of specific training parameters is difficult once an athlete transitions
to another phase. For example, an athlete may have a six-week strength phase,
but once they transition to the power phase, there may be a decline in strength
since the loading and repetition schemes for the power phase are not
well-aligned with strength development. Unfortunately, all of these potential
advantages and disadvantages are speculative at this time. The reader is
referred to ​Table 2​ for a one-week sample program of lower extremity
strengthening utilizing linear periodization.
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 8

Table 2:

Linear Periodization

Author's note: For all sample programs, 2-3 “core” lifts (total body lifts i.e. squat,
deadlift, and power clean central to athletic development) will be used to
illustrate how program design would occur. Such sample programs are not
meant to be all-inclusive and could include many other exercises (i.e lunges,
step ups, calf raises) that may be added in order to provide a comprehensive
program for the athlete.

Go to:

NON-LINEAR/UNDULATING

The other main model is the non-linear or “undulating” periodization model, first
proposed by Poliquin.​53​ While undulating periodization has been used, the term
“non-linear” has become more favorable. Non-linear periodization (NP) is based
on the concept that volume and load are altered more frequently (daily, weekly,
biweekly) in order to allow the neuromuscular system longer periods of recovery
as lighter loads are performed more often.​1​ In the NP model, there are more
frequent changes in stimuli. These more frequent changes may be highly
conducive to strength gains.​1​,​53

There are many potential advantages to the NP approach, although no definitive

conclusions can be made at this time. First of all, the weekly fluctuations in
training loads may lead to better neuromuscular adaptations compared to the LP
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 9

approach, as loads are more unpredictable. Secondly, the NP program accounts

for the need for modifications in the training program based on an athlete's
recovery from competition or from a previous workout/training session.
Additionally, in the NP model, several training parameters may be addressed at
the same time. Therefore, an athlete may address power and strength within the
same week. Finally, due to the concurrent nature of the training, the detraining
effects that occur in a LP approach might be avoided.

Like LP, there are a few potential disadvantages for the NP approach.
Particularly in the recovering athlete, the athlete may not be appropriate for lifts
focusing on power development, like the clean and snatch, if an appropriate
strength base has yet to be achieved or established. Therefore, a “power”
session may not be indicated. Finally, the NP program may not allow each
performance characteristic to be optimally developed due to focus on several
parameters at once. Again, definitive conclusions cannot be made at this time
about the advantages or disadvantages to the NP approach.

The reader is referred to ​Table 3​ for a one-week sample program of NP.

Table 3:

Non-Linear Periodization

Evidence-Based Update: LP vs. NP

A recent meta-analysis and systematic review by Harries et al found that were

no differences in the effectiveness of linear vs. undulating periodization on
upper-body or lower-body strength in healthy trained and untrained subjects.​38
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 10

Possible explanations include the short-term nature of studies and the previous
training history of participants. The results suggest that novelty or training variety
are important for stimulating further strength development.​38​ Based on available
data, it appears that daily program manipulation is more beneficial than
non-periodized training for eliciting strength gains.​9

To date, most authors have found only minimal differences in strength and power
measures between LP and NP.​1​ Recent studies by Franchini et al​54​ in judo
athletes, Miranda et al​55​ in resistance trained men training with the leg press
and bench press, de Lima et al​56​ in young, sedentary women, Prestes et al​19​ in
previously trained females, Baker​3​ and Buford et al​39​ in trained males, Rhea et
al​20​ and Rhea et al​21​ in untrained men and women, and Hoffman et al​9​ in
American football players determined that neither LP or NP were superior.
Although there were subtle differences in outcome measures studied, but these
differences were not statistically significant. No definitive conclusions can be
made at this time as to which method is preferred.

Go to:

BLOCK PERIODIZATION

Block periodization is an approach to the periodization of strength that has

experienced a renewed interest of late.​57​ Block periodization involves highly
concentrated, specialized workloads. Each step in the training cycle has a large
volume of exercises focused on specific, targeted training abilities to ensure
maximum adaptation. The rationale for block periodization is that traditional
models often account for only one “peak” per year, while many athletes have
numerous competitions throughout the year (basketball, soccer, baseball, etc).
The LP model increases basic qualities, but these tend to decline during the
competitive season. The block system allows for these qualities to be maintained
throughout the year. This is known as the ​long-lasting delayed training effect​ –
retention of changes even after the cessation of training.​58​ Issurin has proposed
that power and strength can be maintained for up to 30 days while peak
performance can be maintained for 5-8 days.​57​,​58​ Furthermore, the “classic”
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 11

models, like LP and NP, have time devoted to endurance, strength, power, and
speed, regardless of the sport. In the block approach, if an athlete doesn't
require endurance for their sport, it is not a focus of training. Similarly, the block
approach would not include balance, strength, and agility in one training block –
they would be performed separately with a specific focus. Another example of
differences in the block approach is the concept of “complex training,” whereby a
strength exercise is followed by a biomechanically similar plyometric exercise
(i.e. back squat followed by a squat jump). Because these exercises comprise
two different training modalities (strength and power), they would not be
performed simultaneously. On the contrary, complex training would be used in
an LP or NP programs. Another difference is that the block program is broken
down into 2-4 week blocks, while the linear and non-linear models have at least
four-week phases. In other words, an athlete may do strength, power, and
peaking within four weeks while it may be several months before each phase is
completed in the LP or NP because they are of longer duration.

The block approach is divided into three distinct phases.​58​ The ​accumulation
phase​ builds work capacity. Compared to the other two phases, there is a higher
volume of exercises performed at 50-70% of 1RM, composed of general
movements. Typically, this phase may last from 2-6 weeks, based on how long
the athlete has till the competitive season, as well as their training history.
Untrained athletes would require more time in this phase. The second phase is
the ​transmutation phase.​ In this phase, specific exercises with greater loads,
comprising 75-90% of 1RM are performed. Accommodating resistance, like the
use of chains or elastic bands with squats, may be used to promote a strength
overload. Finally, the ​realization phase​ is comprised of even more specific
movements than the transmutation phase with loads at 90% of 1RM or greater.
For example, accommodating resistance in not typically used in this phase.
Instead, athletes will perform >90% 1RM squats, deadlift, bench press, cleans,
etc. In some cases, there is a week of reduced loading and volume following the
realization phase to allow recovery due to the high-intensities utilized within the
realization phase.
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 12

Evidence-Based Update: Block Periodization

There are a few studies that have utilized the block approach compared to other
approaches. To the authors’ knowledge, only one study by Bartolomei et al​59​ did
not support the block model when compared to an NP program with regard to
strength, power, and hypertrophy in recreationally-trained women. Another study
by Bartolomei et al​60​ found there were no differences between the block and a
more traditional LP program on upper and lower body strength in trained
athletes. Compared to the LP approach block training was found to be a superior
method of training by Ronnstad et al​61​ in a group of cyclists for VO2max and
power output, Ronnstad and others​62​ in a group of elite cross country skiers for
peak power and maximal oxygen uptake, and by Breil and coauthors​63​ in elite
junior alpine skiers. Interestingly, two studies found that the block program lead
to greater improvements in strength per volume of load when compared to other
programs.​60​,​64​ In other words, the block program was more efficient in training
effectiveness.

In summary, block periodization is showing some promise when compared to

more common approaches like LP and NP. The positive results may be partially
explained by the fact that the block periodization studies were short in duration
and the intensity was high. The intensity seemed to be a direct correlate to
performance. Furthermore, it appears that the block program was indeed better
for athletes who have multiple events per year (cycling, skiing, track, etc). More
research is needed before definitive conclusions can be made. See ​Table 4​ for a
generalized four-week block program and ​Table 5​ for more specific training
parameters (sets, repetitions, load).
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 13

Table 4:

Block Periodization - General Structure

Table 5:

Block Periodization – Detailed Description

Programming for Strength and Conditioning

The periodization schemes laid out previously define methods of sequencing the
training process over time. In turn, the creation of the specific program within the
selected periodization scheme drives the desired adaptations. This process is
built around the principles of overload, variation, and specificity. ​Overload​ is
described as a stimulus of sufficient strength, duration, and frequency as such
that it forces an organism to adapt.​65​ ​Variation​describes the manipulation of
training variables that changes the overload stimulus. These variables are
traditionally considered to be the exercise type, the order performed, the intensity
(percentage of repetition maximum) prescribed, as well as the sets, repetitions
and rest periods assigned. ​Specificity​ can be approached via a bioenergetics or
metabolic and/or mechanical perspective. Siff and Verkoshansky laid out a
number of considerations for addressing mechanical specificity such as looking
at the movement's amplitude and direction, the dynamics of the effort, the rates
of force development, and contraction types.​66

When viewed from a bioenergetics perspective, a task analysis must be

performed and the identified demands on the energy systems should be
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 14

reflected in the programming. A growing body of literature exists specific to the

energy system demands of sport. For example, researchers have found that the
physiologic demands in American football include 7-10 seconds of maximal effort
followed by 20-60 seconds of recovery.​8​ When specific research is unavailable
to describe physiologic demands of a sport, a demands analysis must be
performed in order to determine the specific needs of the athlete. The
rehabilitation programming should be structured to prepare the athlete for the
metabolic demands of their specific sport.

Load

Without monitoring and adaptation the most elegant program can quickly
become irrelevant. Furthermore, the sports physical therapist has the added
challenge of dealing with the healing process. While adherence to a consistent
approach will drive adaptation, structured variability is also necessary within this
framework to ensure relevance on any given day. Because of this, a method of
programming that is modifiable based on relevant feedback is important. One
such method is autoregulation, a modification of the daily adjusted progressive
resistive exercise (DAPRE) system that allows for a more flexible application
than more traditional approaches.​68​,​69​ This modified protocol is a zone-based
approach built around a focus on strength/power, strength/hypertrophy, and
hypertrophy (​Table 6​). This approach has been applied successfully in both
rehabilitation and performance based settings and has been shown to actually
outperform more standard methods of periodization in some cases.​70​ The use of
Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) has been shown to be a reliable measure of
session intensity as well as specific exercise intensity within a training
session.​71​–​73​ The use of RPE offers a significant advantage for the
rehabilitation professional since it allows for monitoring intensity without
establishing a true one-repetition maximum (1RM), which is often
contraindicated due to stages of healing. Other models exist to estimate 1RM
without actually lifting a true 1RM such as the Oddvar Holten Curve​74​ and other
models by Baechle et al which are used to establish an estimated 1RM based off
of submaximal loads taken to failure.​75
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 15

Table 6:

Daily Adjusted Progressive Resistance/Autoregulatory​68​,​69​,​70

Velocity based training is another within-session method of monitoring that has

grown increasingly popular as the technology for monitoring repetition velocity in
the clinic or gym has become available. Research at this point is still emerging
but a few practical models have been developed that determine intensity based
on the velocity of the bar during the lift and the end of the set being based on a
predetermined decrease in velocity.​76​ When applied systematically this
approach allows for immediate feedback, fatigue control, prediction and
monitoring of biomotor changes, and a guide to the training process.​77​ To the
authors’ knowledge, velocity-based training has not been studied in rehabilitative
literature to date.

Strength

Strength should be considered fundamental to all other aspects of training and

forms the foundation of most successful return to play (RTP) approaches.​78
Strength is defined as the ability to produce force​68​ and is traditionally measured
with a single repetition maximum (RM) or by taking a percentage of RM to failure
with the RM calculated based on a percentage table. Strength is closely
correlated with the capacity to rapidly produce high levels of force and as a result
maximal force development should be the initial emphasis with those presenting
with lower levels of strength.​79​–​81​The mechanism proposed for this increase in
force as a result of strength work has been attributed to increased muscle
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 16

cross-sectional area and changes in neural drive.​79​ Exercise intensity or load is

commonly accepted as one of the critical components for achieving strength
based adaptations. This is fairly well supported in the literature and the common
recommendation of loads approximately >80% of RM in trained individuals
should build the foundation of most programming for strength.​50​,​82​,​83

Optimal dosage has been debated, but the evidence to date supports multiple
sets over single sets with up to 46% greater strength gains and 40% increase in
hypertrophy seen when comparing multiple set to single set approaches in
trained and untrained healthy individuals.​50​,​82​–​85​ Peterson also found that
three to four sets per exercise with approximately eight sets per muscle group
elicited the greatest pre/post effect sizes (standardized mean differences) in
strength.​84​ When multiple sets are not an option, single set training taken to
failure is still of a sufficient stimulus to elicit significant changes in strength and
hypertrophy.​50​,​82​–​86

This brief review of strength principles highlighted some of the considerations

that the sports rehabilitation professional must consider when programming
within any of the periodization schemes. Practical recommendations for strength
training loads are presented in ​Table 7​.

Table 7:

Intensity Training Zones​104​ *​All loads expressed as percentage of 1RM

Power
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 17

Many aspects of sport and daily life require the ability to produce relatively high
levels of force in a brief period of time. This characteristic is commonly described
as power although there are some concerns that this term may not be as
accurate as the biomechanical term, impulse.​87​ For the purpose of this paper
the term will be used in its commonly accepted definition. Power is defined as
the rate at which work is performed and is the product of force and velocity. As a
result it becomes apparent that the ability to apply high levels of force in a brief
period of time and to contract at high velocities are vital components of its
development.​88​ The importance of power development in the rehabilitation
environment ranges from fall risk reduction in the elderly​89​,​90​ to returning an
athlete to sport post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.​91​ In athletics the
ability to produce high power outputs with a high rate of force development has
been proposed by Stone et al to be a critical aspect of success in many
sports.​92​ As such an understanding of power development and its integration
into a periodization approach is important.

Power development can be subdivided into a focus on muscular strength, rate of

force development, and maximal force at high velocities of movement.​81​ There
are excellent arguments for a high load approach (50-70% of one repetition
maximum 1RM) as well as for a low load approach (<50% [1RM]) in exclusion
but a “mixed methods approach” combining both appears to be the most
beneficial.​93​,​94​ This approach to training for power has been suggested as
optimal since it combines heavy resistance training with higher velocity work in
order to develop power production across the entire force/velocity
spectrum.​80​.​81​ The result is more relevant adaptations when compared with
strength training or ballistic exercise alone. For the novice trainee, focused
strength development alone is often sufficient for power development without the
addition of any specific work​80​,​81​,​95​ and in general, a stronger individual
responds better to the addition of specific power-based exercises than a weaker
counterpart.​79​ It should be noted that all guidelines are general and acceptable
levels of strength prior to initiation of power work is dependent on the individual
and the demands of their task. Regardless of the specifics, maximal strength
levels constrain the upper limits of maximal power output. The ability to generate
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 18

force rapidly is of little use if the level of force generated is below a necessary
threshold and thus adequate strength levels form the foundation of maximal
neuromuscular power development.​32​,​80

Cormie et al randomized individuals into groups based on their squat 1RM to

body mass ratio.​79​ They found that the stronger individuals displayed greater
power production initially and also a trend towards a greater effect size when
compared to the weaker group although both groups improved at a similar
magnitude and displayed similar adaptive abilities when exposed to lower
extremity ballistic (plyometric) power training. As a result, the authors concluded
that there is potential benefit to developing strength initially before performing a
focused ballistic program. In addition, they advise regarding the importance of
maintaining strength throughout a power-specific training phase since decreases
in maximal strength are theorized to result in a decreased ability to adapt to
ballistic training.

There is a paucity of data with regard to power development or training in the

upper body, but the same trend for stronger athletes to respond better to ballistic
work compared to their weaker counterparts has also been seen. Young et al​100
found that athletes with a lower bench press repetition maximum benefited more
from strength work, however, those with higher relative strength also benefit from
the inclusion of ballistic work. Mangine et al​96​ took a group of 17
resistance-trained men and compared combined ballistic and heavy resistance
work with a group that only performed heavy resistance training. Their findings
indicated that the addition of ballistic exercise increased power when compared
to strength training alone.

Training for Power

Ballistic training, which includes techniques such as jump squats, medicine ball
throws, and box jumps has been argued to impact the high velocity area of the
force velocity curve. This is in contrast to power work done with heavier loads,
such as the Olympic lifts, which will have a greater effect on the higher force
aspect of this relationship. These exercises also differ from more traditional
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 19

strength exercises in that they allow for acceleration throughout the entire
movement, versus something like the bench press where up to 52% of the
exercise duration is deceleration.​80​.​81

The concept of optimal load training indicates that training loads should be
chosen to allow for maximal power output as this is the most effective means of
further power development.​97​,​98​Neglecting higher load work can be problematic
however since training power at higher loads results in higher power outputs at
heavier loads which is very important in sports such as American football or
rugby.​99​ Optimal power development across the entire force velocity profile
therefore requires training across the full spectrum of loads and velocities. While
training with the intent to move explosively is very important a majority of the
research demonstrates velocity-specific adaptations to training.​80​ Thus, all
exercises should be performed as rapidly as possible regardless of the actual
speed of exercise. ​Table 8​ gives some general recommendations for power
training intensity zones based on various exercises commonly used for power
development.

Table 8:

Optimal Power Load

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

At this time, the research on periodization is limited, not only in the rehabilitation
literature but also in strength and conditioning. The block model has not yet been
studied in rehabilitation literature. Further, previous papers have shown that
there is clear benefit to periodization over non-periodized programs, but there is
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 20

no conclusive evidence that LP or NP is superior to the other.​1​Likewise, block

periodization has not been established as the definitive approach, but early
studies show some promise with training improvements. Clearly, there is
potential to use these various models for more “long term” rehabilitation
programs, such as labral repairs of the hip and shoulder, rotator cuff repairs,
ulnar collateral ligament reconstructions, or anterior cruciate ligament
reconstructions, to see if recovery time can be improved or clinical testing
methods for performance can be optimized. Additionally, use of these
periodization models has not been utilized in interval sport programs. Truly, this
is a relatively unexplored area of research and there are vast opportunities for
studies to be conducted, all with the goal of maximizing long-term athletic
rehabilitation, development, and performance.
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 21

Article Summary

In this article they are testing to see what type of periodisation is beneficial for athletes

recovering from an injury in a rehabilitation program. This article mentions that the goal

from periodisation is to have “physical qualities of performance like power, speed, and

agility”. A challenge that is brought to the physical therapist writing the program is

making sure it creates muscular adaptations that coincide with healing constraints. The

hope is that periodisation will create a “balance between fitness and fatigue”. The study

looks at the difference between linear and undulating periodisation.

When looking at linear periodisation the article mentions that the programs are normally

conducted over a twelve month period called a macro cycle. Witch is then split into a

macrocycle: a period of three to four weeks, and a microcycle: a period of one to four

weeks. The article mentions an example of this would be “an athlete recovering from an

anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the mesocycle from months three

through six may be strength and power focused, but individual mesocycles may reflect

different training loads in one to two weeks of training”. This controls the load and reps

of the program because they are determined by the athletes ability. The other thing that

is beneficial from using a linear model is that strength, power, and speed are

addressed. The only way the athlete is able to move on from a phase is if they compet

the previous one successfully. The down side to linear periodisation is the program is

devised for “one peak during the year”. Another disadvantage mentioned in the article is

“​maintenance of specific training parameters is difficult once an athlete transitions to

Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 22

another phase.” This means that once they have completed the strength faise and move

on to the power stage some of the straight can be lost.

Undulating periodization is “based on the concept that volume and load are altered

more frequently (daily, weekly, biweekly) in order to allow the neuromuscular system

longer periods of recovery as lighter loads are performed more often.” according to the

article. The advantage to undulating periodization is that the “fluctuations in training load

may lead to better neuromuscular adaptations” this program can take into account the

athletes need for modifications. This type of training can also be beneficial for athletes

to train both strength and power within the same week. The disadvantage to undulating

periodization is that a program for a recovering athlete with a power workout will not be

beneficial if they do not have the appropriate strength. The other down side to

undulating periodization is a program focused on several aspects possible not allowing

a performance to be developed to its full potential.

The article then goes on and mentions block periodization and how it “involves highly

concentrated, specialized workloads. Each step in the training cycle has a large volume

of exercises focused on specific, targeted training abilities to ensure maximum

adaptation.” the block model has not been studied for rehabilitation. The article then

briefly states the benefit of power, strength, and load. And how they all coincide with

each other. For example “In general, a stronger individual responds better to the

addition of specific power-based exercises than a weaker counterpart.” showing that

Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 23

power and strength compliment each other. In conclusion when comparing linear and

undulating periodization “there is no conclusive evidence that linear periodization or

undulating periodization is superior to the other.”

Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 24

Undulating Periodization Workout

I planned this workout with the idea that it is for a football player that has had a full
recovery from a wrist sprain and is training for the season.

DAY 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3

Push Press 4x5 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 85RM
Front squat 3x10 75RM 4x8 80RM 5x6 85RM
Suspended Wt. Bench 3x10 75RM 4x8 80RM 5x6 85RM
Sled Push 4x5 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 85RM
TRX row 3x10 75RM 3x10 75RM 3x10 75RM
Plyo Hamstring Curls 3x10 75RM 3X10 75RM 4X8 75RM
Pull-ups 4x5 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 85RM
Multi Hip Abduction 2x15 75RM 2x12 80RM 2x10 85RM

DAY 2 WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3

Clean Pull 4x5 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 85RM
Bottom up Squat 4x6 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 85RM
Plyo Push-ups 3x10 75RM 3x10 75RM 3x10 75RM
Deadlift 4x5 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 90RM
Bent Over Row 4x6 75RM 5x3 80RM 6x2 85RM
Banded Lateral Walk 2x15 75RM 2x12 80RM 2x10 85RM
Steps Steps steps
Chest Press 3x10 75RM 4x8 80RM 5x6 85RM
DB Reverse Fly 3x10 75RM 4x8 80RM 5x6 85RM
Peer Review Assignment on Periodization 25

Resources:

Lorenz, D., & Morrison, S. (2015, November). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637911/