periodization strategies

December 2003 Strength and Conditioning Journal 19

© National Strength & Conditioning AssociationVolume 25, Number 6, page 19–37

Periodization StrategiesSteven S. Plisk, MS, CSCS,*DVelocity Sports PerformanceTrumbull, Connecticut

Michael H. Stone, PhDU.S. Olympic CommitteeColorado Springs, Colorado

Keywords: mean; method; strategy; tactic

AUTHORS’ NOTE: THE ISSUE OFprogram planning is based on pro-fessional practice knowledge,rather than scientific evidence. Al-though an effort is made to pre-sent relevant research findingswhere appropriate, most of theconcepts discussed in this articleare intuitive or anecdotal.

Many strength and conditioningpractitioners have embraced peri-odization theory over the last twodecades. Different interpretationsare now commonly applied inpractice and discussed in profes-sional publications or meetings.Yet despite its popularity, somepeople still seem to struggle withthe concept. Periodization origi-nated in Eastern Europe, andtherefore is perceived by many inthe West as a foreign idea (refer toSiff [58] and Graham [20] for his-torical reviews). Although this hasenhanced its mystique, the con-cept often seems disconnectedfrom our knowledge and experi-ence. Likewise, a working under-standing of periodization involvesa fair bit of scientific theory andjargon, some of which may not

translate well. This has madesome straightforward issues ap-pear complicated and has alienat-ed its share of coaches or athletes.

The intent of this article isthreefold: (a) to relate periodiza-tion to a familiar idea (game theo-ry); (b) to discuss the decision-making challenges involved indesigning periodized training pro-grams; and (c) to present some ex-amples of applied strategies. Notethat there are definite gaps in ourcurrent knowledge because peri-odization theory is based largelyon empirical evidence; related(e.g., overtraining) research; and afew mesocycle-length variationstudies. Most of these involved ex-perimental periods no longer than2–3 months and/or subjects withlimited training experience,whereas no actual multiple-meso-cycle or integrated studies (e.g.,combined strength/power andspeed/endurance training) on ad-vanced athletes have been pub-lished in English.

Nevertheless, the availableevidence supports two conclu-sions (67, 68): first, periodizationseems to be a superior approachto strength/power training even

over the short term, especially inpreviously trained subjects. Sec-ond, optimal results are achievedby manipulating training vari-ables in appropriate sequence(s)and combination(s), rather thansimply accomplishing a givenamount of work. Our objective inthis article is to discuss the prac-tical issues involved in applyingthese conclusions.

■ Periodization and Game TheoryOn one hand, periodization can bedefined as planned distribution orvariation in training methods andmeans on a cyclic or periodic basis(1, 8, 11, 17, 18, 20, 27, 38, 39,53, 58, 60, 67, 68, 81, 87, 88). Thebasic goals are to exploit comple-mentary training effects at optimaltimes, manage fatigue, and pre-vent stagnation or overtraining.This involves long-term, interme-diate, and short-term planning.Accordingly, periodized trainingprograms are typically structuredinto macro-, meso-, and microcy-cles that progress from extensiveto intensive workloads as well asgeneral to special tasks. Corre-sponding decisions should be

20 Strength and Conditioning Journal December 2003

made with respect to several fac-tors, including the biological re-sponses to training stimuli, theathlete’s developmental status,and the specific demands of his orher sport.

Game theory, on the otherhand, is the science of strategicthinking (5, 7, 9, 10, 26). (Game

theory came of age a half centurylater when John Nash, JohnHarsanyi, and Reinhard Seltenshared the 1994 Nobel prize fortheir pioneering analysis of gametheory as a foundation for under-standing complex economic is-sues.) This theory originated whenthe principles of certain parlor

games (e.g., chess, poker) werefirst applied to economics. Its play-like connotations do not do justiceto the real-world significance ofgame theory. Since mathematicianJohn Von Neumann and econo-mist Oskar Morgenstern first pub-lished their Theory of Games andEconomic Behavior (86), its novel

Table 1Continuum of Classic Training Methods for Specialized Strength Development

Maximal strength

Brief maximal efforts [intra/intermuscular coordination; rate of force development]Relative intensity: 75–100%Action speed: slow to explosiveVolume: 15–25 reps/session @ 95–100%; 20–40 reps/session @ 90–95%; 35–85 reps/session @ 80–90%;70–110 rps/session @ 75–80% (≤8 reps/set for low skill movements; ≤3 reps/set for high skill movements)Density: full (up to 8 min) recovery between sets

Repeated submaximal efforts [hypertrophy]Relative intensity: 80–90%Action speed: slow to explosiveVolume: 5–10 sets per exerciseDensity: 1–4 min recovery between sets; 24–48 hours between sessions

Combination methods

Speed-strength

Submaximal accelerative efforts [power; rate of force development]Relative intensity: 30–85%Action speed: explosive/maximalVolume: 3–7 sets per exercise; 1–3 reps/set @ 85%; 3–5 reps/set @ 80–85%; 5–8 reps/set @ 70–80%;8–15 reps/set @ <70%Density: 2–8 min recovery between sets; daily sessions

Reactive-ballistic efforts [stretch-shortening cycle; stiffness regulation]

Contrast methods [acute after-effects; potentiation]

Strength-endurance

Extensive interval [low/moderate intensity endurance capacity; recoverability]Relative intensity: 30–40%Action speed: brisk/continuousVolume: 3–6 sets per exercise; 20–30 reps per setDensity: <5 min recovery between sets

Intensive interval [high intensity endurance capacity; recoverability]Relative intensity: 50–60%Action speed: explosiveVolume: 3–6 sets per exercise; 20–45 second duration per set (rep count is irrelevant)Density: 1–3 min recovery between sets

Note: Objectives are indicated in brackets. Source: Plisk (50, p.75).


insights and diverse applicationshave made game theory enor-mously important. In fact, it hasevolved into a “unified field theory”used to explain and predict manyphenomena in the social sciences.Note that a game is any situationof strategic interdependence whereone player’s decisions or actionsinteract with another’s. Suchgames can be very real, the playersneed not be persons, and their in-teractions need not be adversarial.Indeed, convergence, not conflict,of interest is the rule, rather thanthe exception, in many circum-stances. Therein lies the relevanceof this concept to training programdesign.

In terms of game theory, peri-odization is the use of planned un-predictability to manipulate oroutmaneuver another player. Theother player in this case is thebody’s adaptive mechanism. Theunderlying goals are to influenceyour counterpart to adjust or redi-rect its actions in probable waysand prevent it from accommodat-ing your tendencies. This bringsus to a critical distinction: in con-trast to athletics, where a compet-itive strategy is used to achieve a“win-lose” outcome, the key intraining is a cooperative strategyaimed at a “win-win” result. Al-though the basic principle of gametheory applies in either case, com-plementing, rather than defeating,another player is the strategy ofchoice in this situation. In thissense, periodization is a form of“coopetition” (5, 46).

■ Coaching StrategyCoaching is often described as thescience of total preparation. Insome respects (e.g., game plan-ning, play calling), it can also bedescribed as the art of systematicunpredictability. The trick is tomix your plays with no demon-strable pattern in order to prevent

your adversary from effectivelycountering your tactics. This in-volves a randomized plan intend-ed to thwart an opponent’s abilityto anticipate your next move orconcentrate its resources at a sin-gle point of attack. As Dixit andNalebuff (10) put it, “The rightamount of unpredictability shouldnot be left to chance” (p. 170).

The essence of periodized pro-gram design is to skillfully com-bine different training methods inorder to yield better results thancan be achieved through exclusiveor disproportionate use of any 1 ofthem. To use a baseball analogy,an adept pitcher uses off-speedpitches (e.g., breaking ball,change-up) to set up his or herfastball, rather than relying on asingle tactic—even a dominantone. Likewise, strength and condi-tioning professionals can use a“mixed methods” strategy that ex-

ploits certain physiological re-sponses and achieves specific ob-jectives. The first step in the plan-ning process is to classify one’straining tactics into a rational sys-tem. Tables 1 and 2 outline tworeasonable taxonomies of strengthand endurance developmentmethods, respectively, that can beused as a sort of “playbook.” Theseschemes reflect general agreementin the literature, making themuseful examples.

In light of recent economicevents, modern portfolio theory of-fers an instructive and timely les-son as well. (This theory was for-mally introduced by Markowitz(37); he shared the 1990 Nobelprize with Merton Miller andWilliam Sharpe for their pioneer-ing work in the theory of financialeconomics.) Contrary to the gam-bling venture it is sometimes be-lieved to be, there is a science to

Figure 1. Fitness-fatigue theory. An athlete’s preparedness is determined by thesummation of positive (fitness) and negative (fatigue) responses. In con-trast to the “supercompensation” theory based on a cause-and-effect re-lationship between these two processes, this model proposes that im-mediate training effects are characterized by their opposing action.Reprinted by permission from Zatsiorsky (92, p. 16).


investment finance. A centralpremise of this theory is that assetallocation is the main determinantof portfolio performance. Althoughthere is a limit to the feasiblerisk/reward combinations for dif-ferent allocation strategies, opti-mal results are achieved throughmultilevel diversification: distrib-uting resources between as well aswithin asset classes, sectors, in-dustries, styles, regions, and soon. Even if each chosen invest-ment is fundamentally sound, fail-ure to diversify properly yields thegreatest risks and poorest returnsof all. The salient point is that aportfolio can behave differentlythan the assets comprising itwhen skillfully blended into an ap-propriate strategy (results may ac-tually be enhanced by including“high risk” assets that have a lowcorrelation with one another).

■ Decision-Making:Trade-Offsand ImplicationsPeriodized program design is atype of multilevel diversification.The strength and conditioningcoach can direct the adaptationprocess toward specific goals byvarying the load (methods) and/orcontent (means) of training with-in—as well as between—macro-,meso-, and microcycles (andtraining sessions). In fact, theavailable tactics are so numerousthat the issue really becomes oneof avoiding haphazard strategies.

The risk/reward trade-off dis-cussed above is also a useful anal-ogy. Consider how the followingparadoxes influence the decisionsinvolved in program design: fit-ness vs. fatigue, intensity vs. vol-ume, specificity vs. variation,strength vs. endurance, and peri-odization vs. programming.

Fitness vs. Fatigue

The prevailing theory of trainingadaptation is the fitness-fatigue

paradigm (Figure 1; 92). Accordingto this theory, an athlete’s pre-paredness is defined as the sum-mation of two after-effects of train-ing: fatigue and fitness. Incontrast to the “supercompensa-tion” theory based on a cause-and-effect relationship betweenthese factors, the fitness-fatiguemodel proposes that they have op-posing effects. This has a simplebut profound implication for pro-gram design and implementation:preparedness can be optimizedwith strategies that maximize thefitness responses to training stim-uli while minimizing fatigue.

Since fatigue is a natural con-sequence of training stress, espe-cially with high-volume loads, andadaptations are manifested duringsubsequent unloading periods, fa-tigue management tactics are inte-gral to a sound program. These canbe implemented at different levels(8, 17, 18, 27, 53, 58, 81, 85):

• Macrocycle: Active rest/transi-tion periods after competitiveperiods.

• Mesocycle: Restitution micro-cycles after overreaching mi-crocycles, concentrated blocks,or stressful competitions.

• Microcycle: Maintenance/resti-tution workloads or recoverydays; daily training routinesdistributed into modules sepa-rated by recovery breaks; andadditional intrasession reliefbreaks (rather than a “repeti-tion maximum” approachwhere each set is completed incontinuous fashion, it can beadvantageous to subdivide as-signed workloads into clustersseparated by rest-pauses; notethe consistency of this ap-proach with the brief maximalefforts, submaximal accelera-tive efforts and reactive-ballis-tic efforts methods described inTable 1; 21, 58, 92)

Note that rational program de-sign is one prong of a restorationplan that should also address nutri-tion, sleep, and regenerative/thera-peutic techniques.

Intensity vs.Volume

The idea of a trade-off between in-tensity and volume seems prettybasic, but it has important ramifi-cations because the interaction ofthese variables drives many of thedecisions made when designingtraining programs. Periodizationinvolves fluctuating emphasis onthese variables such that adapta-tion is steered toward specific ob-jectives, but it is rather meaning-less to consider one independentlyof the other; hence the practicalvalue of the volume load conceptas an indicator of training stress(63, 67–69).

Volume load prescriptionshould be viewed in the context ofproductive workload ranges. Atthe lower end is the stimulusthreshold required to trigger de-sired effects, whereas at the upperend is a point of diminishing re-turns, beyond which further ap-plication yields no beneficial orperhaps even detrimental effects.These tend to be moving targets asan athlete’s adaptivity and fitnessimproves with long-term develop-ment.

Primary emphasis is generallyplaced on training quality (i.e., in-tensity), which can be expressedin quantitative terms such as im-pulse or power output during task execution. In practice, suchparameters are useful indicatorsof stimulus intensity and corre-sponding training effect. The cen-tral issue regarding programmingstrategy is the method by whichincreased intensity is achieved.Variable rather than linear work-load progressions tend to yield su-perior results (8, 17, 18, 27, 29,38, 39, 53, 58, 60, 67, 68, 81, 92)


and can be accomplished throughdifferent tactics.

By definition, high work vol-umes are associated with the de-velopment of endurance qualities(Tables 1 and 2). But work volumealso fulfills several other importantfunctions when rationally appliedwith respect to intensity. In termsof general preparation, extensivevolume loads establish a function-al base of work capacity, influencethe duration and stability of corre-sponding training effects, and arean important prerequisite for in-tensive efforts involved in spe-cial/technical preparation.

Two basic tactics are often as-sociated with extensive work vol-umes: high-repetition sets withcorresponding reductions in work-load, or increased number of setsand/or exercises. There are othertactics, however, that should alsobe considered. For example, vol-ume loads can be adjusted by periodically manipulating densityvariables (training session distribution and frequency) inorder to achieve certain objectives.This issue will be revisited in theApplied Strategies section.

Specificity vs.Variation

Zatsiorsky (92) points out that asound periodization plan is atrade-off between the conflictingdemands for fluctuation (accord-ing to the law of variability) vs. sta-bility (to satisfy the demand forspecificity; pp. 108–135). Optimaleffects are achieved through sys-tematic variation in training con-tent and/or workload, whereasmonotonous loads or tasks (e.g.,entirely activity-specific move-ments) can predispose an athleteto accommodation or stagnationproblems. This is the rationale for regular application of novelstressors. In practice, the chal-lenge is to structure these into ap-propriate variation “bandwidths.”

A basic principle of training isthat adaptation becomes increas-ingly specific to the demands im-posed on an athlete as his/herpreparation level improves. Speci-ficity exists on several fronts, in-cluding biomechanical, coordina-tive, and energetic, each of which isa useful criterion for selecting andprioritizing training tasks. Aftercompleting a needs analysis, therelative emphasis placed on differ-ent means and methods should beinfluenced by the athlete’s develop-mental status, especially with re-gard to critical or sensitive periods(8, 27, 81, 82, 83, 84). Preadoles-cence seems to be the optimal win-dow for enhancing the “coordina-tive abilities” upon which motorskills are based. Although these arestill trainable to an extent duringand after adolescence, trainingshould shift toward a greater em-phasis on strength/power im-provement upon reaching puberty.This issue has intriguing implica-tions in all aspects of programplanning but receives little atten-tion in the West.

Strength vs. Endurance

Certain types of endurance train-ing can hinder strength and powerdevelopment when performedconcurrently, at least in previous-ly untrained subjects (33, 35, 58,81). This creates a dual problem:

• High levels of these qualitiesmust be developed in specificcombinations in order to opti-mize athletic performance.Even brief, explosive “powersports” require special en-durance qualities in order to achieve the prescribed vol-ume loads in training. And, of course, most transitionalsports involve a blend of sub-maximal activity and repetitive,intense bursts of power outputwith limited relief allowance.

• Although advanced athletescan tolerate greater trainingstress than novices, cumula-tive fatigue can be problemat-ic when developing multiplefitness qualities simultaneous-ly. Unfortunately, such com-patibility studies on trainedsubjects are lacking.

The challenge in practice is tointegrate strength and endurancetraining effects (Tables 1 and 2)such that they enhance, ratherthan interfere with, one another.In basic applications, this may beachievable with fairly simple train-ing and recovery tactics. For qual-ified athletes, however, advancedstrategies are valuable in minimiz-ing cumulative fatigue and com-patibility problems.

Periodization vs.“Programming”

If there is one self-limiting tenden-cy among strength and condition-ing professionals, it is that weoften focus on numerical models,rather than underlying strategy,when designing programs. Thismay be an artifact of the repetitionper set counting mentality thatwas prevalent before periodizationbecame popular in the West. Inany case, it poses an interestingproblem: a given training stimulus(input) results in a response (out-put) that is not entirely pre-dictable.

According to Siff (58, p. 326),“The use of numerical computa-tions as the sole descriptor ofloading often overlooks the factthat apparently objective mea-sures like this do not take into ac-count the athlete’s subjective per-ception of the intensity and overalleffects of the loading.” He recom-mended a combined objective-subjective approach referred to as“cybernetic periodization” wherezones of workload intensity areplanned in advance, but tactics


are adjusted as necessary basedon technique evaluation by thecoach as well as performancefeedback from the athlete regard-ing perceived effort/fatigue.

This is not meant to dissuadepractitioners from calculating athoughtful game plan. The salientpoint is that volume load parame-ters, repetition and set schemes,and so on are secondary to train-ing goals and objectives. Further-more, rather than applying themrigidly, intuitive factors can beused to make prudent adjust-ments during implementation.

Summary

Strategic decision making wouldbe unnecessary if the pieces of theprogram design puzzle fell togeth-er automatically. The art of peri-odization involves resolving somechallenging paradoxes as part of acoherent plan.

Cyclic Program Structure: Basis &Guidelines.

The cyclic structure of early peri-odization models was usuallybased on the competitive calen-dar more so than on adaptiveprocesses because informationregarding the latter was limited.As our knowledge base has ex-panded, it has become apparentthat there are opportunities toaugment training effects by ex-ploiting certain biological phe-nomena. For example, by usingappropriate sequencing or timingstrategies, the after-effect of onetraining stimulus can modulatethe response to another. This is afundamental objective of contem-porary periodization: to system-atically converge the cumulativeor interactive effects of differentmeans and methods (i.e., to setup one play with another). Suchtactics are particularly valuablewhen training time is restrictedand/or an athlete is approaching

Figure 2b. Generalized periodization scheme of strength-power training (basic ap-plication). Strength-endurance is a more accurate objective of the GPphase than hypertrophy because increased anaerobic capacity is its pri-mary objective; body composition changes—-although important—-aresecondary. Basic strength, strength and power, and peaking/mainte-nance reflect a continuum of training objectives during subsequent pe-riods (peaking applies to sports with climax; maintenance applies tosports with extended season). *Sets: excludes warm-ups. †Intensitycycle: ratio of heavy to light training weeks. Adapted from Stone et al.(65, 66).

Figure 2a. Generalized periodization model of strength-power training (basic ap-plication). The main premise is a wave-like shift from high-volume, low-intensity training to low-volume, high-intensity training over the meso-cycle or macrocycle. GP = general preparation; SP = special preparation(first transition), during which emphasis shifts from extensive to inten-sive methods and technique training; C = competition; P = peaking; AR= active rest (second transition) consisting of unstructured/recreation-al activities where both intensity and volume are reduced and restitu-tion is the main objective. Adapted from Stone et al. (65, 66).


the limits of his or her develop-mental potential.

Rate of involution or decay ofvarious training effects is a centralphysiological consideration incyclic program design (81, 85, 92).Acutely, this is a function of thehalf-life of structures synthesizedduring adaptive tissue remodel-ing. As might be expected, theirtime courses vary since the half-life of glycolytic enzymes is rela-tively brief, ranging from ~1.5hours to a few days, whereas ox-idative enzymes turn over lessrapidly, and myofibrillar proteinshave a comparatively greater lifespan. Chronically, involution ismodulated by the length of thepreparation period. In general, thegreater the duration of a trainingprogram, the more stable its resid-ual training effect. This allows fit-ness qualities acquired during onephase to be maintained with rela-tively small volume loads duringthe next, such that emphasis canbe redirected and cumulative fa-tigue problems can be minimized.This is the rationale for using se-quential training strategies withqualified athletes, as will be dis-cussed in the Applied Strategiessection.

The consensus arising fromthe literature is to organize train-ing programs into 4-week peri-ods, which seem to be an optimalbiological window for integratingresponses: Matveyev (39) citesthe existence of natural monthlybiocycles as a rationale for con-structing training cycles that areapproximately 1 month in dura-tion, each consisting of 3–6 sub-cycles of approximately 1 weekduration, in order to exploit cu-mulative training effects (pp.245–259). Viru (81) cites the half-time of training effect involutionas the rationale for a 24–28 daycyclic training structure consist-ing of 4–6 subcycles, each 4–7

days in duration, in order tosummate their training effects(pp. 241–299). Zatsiorsky (92)cites the need to structure train-ing cycles around a 4 (±2) weekwindow in order to superimposethe delayed training effects of dis-tinct targets distributed over thattime (pp. 344–421).

Even the most advanced train-ing strategies, such as the “conju-gate sequence” system discussedin the following sections (29, 55,58, 73–81, 89, 92) generally agreewith this monthly cycle guideline.As will be seen, this period can bestructured in at least 2 differentways: as a mesocycle to be subdi-vided into multiple microcyclesand objectives (for basic and inter-mediate applications), or as a“block” with essentially 1 objectivearranged as part of a series (foradvanced applications).

■ Classic VariantsMany practitioners still perceiveMatveyev’s model (38, 39)—whichinvolves gradual, wave-like in-crease in workload over eachphase—as the standard approachto periodization (Figure 2; alsorefer to Harre [27], Kukushkin[34], and Ozolin [47, 48]). From hisdiscussions of microcyclic varia-tions and “intermediate mesocy-cles” during the competition peri-od, however, it is evident thatMatveyev did not intend for thismodel to be applied rigidly or uni-versally (38–41). Indeed, therehave been varied interpretationsthroughout the international sportscience community. The followingare examples of different peri-odization schemes designed forspecific applications:

• Abrupt step-like alteration in workload intensity overweekly or monthly cycles (e.g.,Ermakov [12, 13]; Vorobyev[87]).

• Balanced distribution of tech-nical skill and strength work-loads during preparation aswell as competition phases(e.g., Bondartchouk [3]), or withemphasis on technique duringthe preparatory period andstrength during the competitiveperiod (e.g., Komarova [32];Topchiyan et al. [72]).

• An interesting strategy for eliteathletes that will be addressedin more detail in the AppliedStrategies section is the “con-jugate sequence” system,where concentrated workloadswith one primary emphasisare arranged in a series ofblocks (e.g., Verkhoshansky[79, 80]; Werchoshanski [89];also refer to Hartmann andTünnemann [29], Siff [58],Satori and Tschiene [55];Tschiene [73–77]; Viru [81];and Zatsiorsky [92]). This ap-proach emphasizes the role of delayed training effects inthe adaptation process and re-jects the idea that differentabilities should be developedsimultaneously.

It is instructive to comparephilosophies used by coachesthroughout the former EasternBloc. Using the sport of weightlift-ing as an example, the trainingmeans and methods used byMedvedev (Russia) and Abadjiev(Bulgaria) were at opposite ends ofthe spectrum in terms of variation(11, 19, 31, 43, 44, 91, 92), andyet their athletes achieved similarcompetitive success, although ar-guably the latter may have beenmore effective because Bulgaria’sathlete population was smaller.Likewise, Aján and Baroga (1) offera combined Hungarian-Romanianperspective that bears some simi-larities to Abadjiev’s.

As is the case in any sport,there are likely as many interpre-


tations as there are practitionersapplying them, just as footballcoaches debate the pros and consof different offensive systems.Each can be effective if fundamen-tally sound. In fact, many coachesblend elements of different sys-tems in an effort to be as “multi-ple” as possible. But the basicgoals are remarkably consistent:using the interior/running gameto set up the perimeter/passinggame, spreading the defense hori-zontally in order to move vertical-ly up the field, and so on. In simi-lar fashion, optimal trainingeffects may be achieved by strate-gically blending methods (Tables 1and 2), including those that aresport- or activity-specific, withsome that are not such that theresponse to one amplifies another.

■ Applied StrategiesThe following is an overview ofsome basic, intermediate, and ad-vanced approaches to periodiza-tion. This discussion is intendedto illustrate how strategic thinkingcan be applied to training programdesign, but is not an exhaustivesummary of tactics. Moreover,since content variations (e.g.,technique variants, assistancemovements) are inherent in skill-based programs, focus is directedtoward workload and recovery is-sues. Several other points shouldalso be kept in mind.

First, many concepts proposedin this section originated in theformer Eastern Bloc and arebased on empiricism more so thanscientific evidence. Although it ishoped that this information will beuseful to coaches in the West, it isimportant to recognize the respec-tive societies’ differences in bothresearch and training practices.

Second, the basic-intermedi-ate-advanced scheme discussedhere represents a continuum withno discrete divisions and is not in-tended as a rating system. All ath-letes should begin at a basic leveland then progress through an in-termediate developmental process,whereas few achieve what wouldbe considered the “sport mastery”stage by international standards.It is a serious mistake to perceivebasic and intermediate approach-es as being inferior or insignificantand attempt advanced tactics tooearly in an athlete’s long-termpreparation.

Third, stressors should be ap-plied strategically, with regard tointegration rather than isolation ofresponses to stimuli. Although ourunderstanding of training effectinteraction may be in its infancy,there are opportunities to enhancefitness, manage fatigue, andthereby optimize an athlete’s over-

Figure 3a. Generalized periodizationmodel (intermediate appli-cation). Although the basicmacrocyclic pattern of de-creasing volume (V) and in-creasing intensity (I) is ev-ident, both parameters arevaried at meso- and micro-cyclic levels. Emphasis ontechnique training (T) in-creases during preparationand competition periods.Reprinted from Stone et al.(67, 68).

Figure 3b. Annual macrocycle for shot put (intermediate application). Trainingpeaks characterized by low volumes (V) and high intensities (I) are sched-uled to coincide with important competitions at the end of each meso-cycle. Reprinted from Stone et al. (67, 68).


all preparation by exploiting cer-tain phenomena.

Finally, a periodized planshould reflect an increasing level of“micromanagement” as the ath-lete’s development progresses. Thisdoes not mean that all decisionsshould be deferred to the coach,but instead that more sophisticat-ed variation should be applied on multiple fronts (i.e., trainingmethods and means, within andbetween cycles).

Basic Strategy

In general, basic periodizationstrategies can be characterized byrelatively limited variation intraining methods and means. Asmentioned above, a case can bemade for such strategies being themost valuable of all because oftheir broad applicability. Certainlythere are many more novice ath-letes in the early stages of devel-opment (for whom advanced tac-tics would be inappropriate) thanelite athletes in later stages. As isthe case with other stressors, theinitial adaptive responses tend tobe fairly general, and simple train-ing/recovery strategies can bequite effective in these situations.With chronic application, howev-er, adaptation becomes increas-ingly specific and resistant to low-level or monotonic stimuli.

The traditional periodizationmodel attributed to Matveyev is asimple approach characterized bygradual, wave-like increases inworkload (Figure 2; 38, 39). Notethat this diagram was originallyintended to illustrate a basic con-cept, but is sometimes simplisti-cally interpreted as a “linear peri-odization” model (2, 4, 88). (Thisterm has been used to describetraining cycles involving gradual,progressive increases in intensi-ty. It was originally adopted byBaker et al. [2] from Poliquin’s[52] discussion of problems with

linear intensification strategies.For further discussion, refer tothe editorial letters by Stone andO’Bryant [64] and Stone and Wa-then [71].) This is a contradictionin terms because, by definition,periodization implies nonlinearvariation in training parameters.For example, Figure 2a depicts amesocycle that would produce anundulating long-term pattern ifrepeated over a macrocycle. Fur-thermore, these intensity andvolume progressions typicallyfluctuate at the microcyclic level.And so it would be more appro-priate to refer to periodizationmodels as traditional or nontra-ditional, whereas “linear” and“nonlinear” terminology is mis-leading.

A potential problem existswith steplike versions of thismodel where relatively flat work-loads are prescribed over a periodof several weeks (e.g., 3–4 weekstrength-endurance phase, 3–4week maximum strength phase,3–4 week speed-strength phase).Presumably the intent of this ap-proach is to intensify the work-loads used at each step beforeproceeding to the next. But con-secutive weeks spent within suchnarrow workload ranges can effec-tively amount to ≤1 week of novelstimulus followed by up to 3weeks of monotony, which may in-crease the likelihood of accommo-dation/stagnation problems. Thisstrategy can be viable for noviceathletes who are learning new

Figure 3c. Annual macrocycle for college football (intermediate application).Maintenance phases characterized by low volumes (V) andmoderate/high intensities (I) are scheduled to coincide with competi-tion periods at the end of each mesocycle. Reprinted from Stone et al.(67, 68).

movement techniques and/or un-accustomed to high intensities. Itshould be possible to alleviate itsshortcomings by using zig-zagprogressions where volume loadsare varied within reasonableranges (e.g., a conservative“heavy/light day” system that al-ternates between repeated sub-maximal efforts and submaximalaccelerative efforts; Table 1).

Intermediate Strategy

Intermediate periodization strate-gies can be characterized by in-creasing levels of variation with-in—as well as between—respectivecycles. Whereas a beginner’s pro-gram may consist of simple pro-gression on a macrocyclic basis,tactical decisions are now directedmore toward meso- and micro-cyclic variables (the degree ofworkload contrast betweenmonthly phases, weeks, and/orindividual training sessions aswell as within sessions; Figure 3).

Emphasis on intensive methodscan be increased (brief maximalefforts, reactive-ballistic efforts;Table 1) and a broader range ofmeans can be applied as the ath-lete’s repertoire of movement skillsand abilities grows. Although thisis limited to some extent by prac-tical considerations such as theprofessional:athlete ratio and timeavailable for instruction and su-pervision, it can certainly be bene-ficial to expand training content toinclude additional exercisesand/or variants up to a point. Inany case, the need for creativetraining and recovery tactics in-creases as athletes progress be-yond the novice developmentalstage.

Based on the training effectsummation phenomenon dis-cussed earlier, the concept of“summated microcycles” can bevaluable as an intermediate strat-egy (Figure 4). It is characterizedby 4-week mesocycles with an ex-

tensive to intensive workload pro-gression and a brief restitution pe-riod. Training method distributionis the key difference from the basicapproach described above. Specif-ically, a microcycle, rather thanmesocycle, is allocated forstrength-endurance, maximumstrength, and speed-strengthmethods, respectively (Table 1).This pattern of loading, where 3weeks of increasing volumeand/or intensity is followed by anunloading week and the progres-sion is then repeated at higher in-tensities, allows complementarystimuli to be reintroduced in aregular cyclic fashion such thattheir effects do not decay signifi-cantly. Practitioners should becareful when using this type of 3:1approach because the greatestworkloads occur in week 3, bywhich time cumulative fatiguemay hinder speed-strength ex-pression; hence the need for un-loading week 4 to reduce over-training potential and promoteadaptation.

A summation strategy mayoffer dual benefits (17, 18, 38, 53):as a form of intra-mesocycle vari-ation, it increases the probabilityof converging training effects whileminimizing the likelihood of over-stress or accommodation/involu-tion problems. Furthermore, itadds an aspect of inter-mesocyclecontrast that may stimulate adap-tation over the long term. Otherstrategies such as planned over-reaching may be more effective foradvanced athletes whose traininggoals are to maximize strength,power, and speed, as will be dis-cussed in the next section.

Summated microcycles canbe complemented with intra-mi-crocycle variation tactics. For ex-ample, the progression describedabove can be modified simply andefficiently by using a heavy/lightday system where the emphasis

Figure 4a. Mesocycles consisting of 3 weeks of “summated microcycles” at pro-gressively higher workloads and 1 unloading week (intermediate ap-plication). Volume loads are highest in week 3, by which time cumula-tive fatigue may hinder certain adaptations (e.g., speed-strength); hencethe need for unloading week 4 to reduce overtraining potential and pro-mote adaptation. The same basic pattern can be used in each cycle to re-peatedly introduce certain stimuli at progressively higher workloads.



alternates between maximumstrength and speed-strengthmethods, respectively (Table 1).Human (14) and animal (6) dataindicate that regular inclusion ofsubmaximal days within a micro-cycle allows given training loadsto be accomplished with greaterpotential for positive adaptationsand results in fewer problems(note that the latter study byBruin et al. involved 7 male racehorses over 39 weeks of training,so the results should be inter-preted cautiously with humanathletes). Likewise, competitive-trial, interval, and repetitionmethods can be distributedamong speed and speed-en-

durance sessions or modules inthe field (Table 2). More researchis needed to expand our under-standing of this issue.

Some interesting possibilitiesfor intrasession variation havebecome increasingly popularover the last decade. Many ofthese are based on “acute after-ef fect” phenomena such aspostactivation potentiation (54,58) and include tactics like com-bination/hybrid exercises (e.g.,clean and front squat, snatchand overhead squat); complextraining (alternating betweenmaximum strength and speed-strength methods; Table 1); andwave loading (alternating be-

tween brief maximal efforts andsubmaximal accelerative efforts;Table 1). The underlying strategyis to use one type of stimulus toenhance acute power outputand/or rate of force developmentin another. Recall the modernportfolio concept mentioned ear-lier: just as overall return may beimproved by including high-riskassets that have a low correlationwith others in the portfolio, ad-vanced athletes can strategicallyuse movements that are not me-chanically specific to their sportto augment the effects of morespecialized tasks.

Collectively, these conceptsshould be viewed in a strategic

Figure 4b. Annual macrocycle for modern pentathlon (intermediate application). Training effects are induced during the foun-dation and preseason periods via a series of mesocycles—-referred to as macrocycles in this diagram—-consistingof 3–4 “summated (workload) microcycles” and 1–2 unloading (rest) weeks. Reprinted by permission from Nádori andGranek (45), p. 16.


context. If applied with discretion,there may be opportunities to in-clude certain training and recov-ery tactics fairly early in an ath-lete’s development. Likewise,

intermediate approaches need notbe abandoned when the athletereaches an advanced stage. Thekey in either case is systematicapplication of sound means and

methods in order to enhance theeffects. At present, however, thesummated training concept isbased largely on empiricism andintuition. Further research is

Table 2Continuum of Classic Training Methods for Speed, Agility, and

Speed-endurance Development

Competitive-trial [special endurance]

Supramaximal trainingIntensity: greater than competitionDuration/distance: less than competition

Maximal trainingIntensity: equal to or less than competitionDuration/distance: equal to competition

Submaximal trainingIntensity: less than competitionDuration/distance: greater than competition

Distance-duration [submaximal endurance]

Continuous training: 70–95% competitive speed/powerFartlek training: unstructured changes in intensity, duration, volume, and densityVariable training: structured changes in intensity, duration, volume, and density

Interval [speed-endurance]

Extensive trainingRelative intensity: low–medium (60–80% competitive speed/power)Duration/distance: short–medium (e.g., 14–180 s over 100–1,000 m running distance for advanced athletes; 17–100 s over 100–400 m running distance for novices)Volume: large (e.g., 8–40 reps for advanced athletes; 5–12 reps for novices)Density: high; short incomplete relief interval allowing HR to recover to 125–130 bpm for advanced athletes or 110–120 bpm for novices (i.e. less than one third time needed for complete recovery; e.g., 45–90 s or 60–120 s for advanced or novice athletes, respectively)

Intensive trainingRelative intensity: high (80–90% competitive speed/power)Duration/distance: short (e.g., 13–180 s over 100–1,000 m running distance for advanced athletes; 14–95 s over 100–400 m running distance for novices)Volume: small (e.g., 4–12 reps for advanced athletes; or 4–8 reps for novices)Density: medium; longer but still incomplete relief interval allowing HR to recover to 110–120 bpm (e.g, 90–180 s for advanced athletes; 120–240 s for novices)

Repetition [speed/agility]

Relative intensity: very high (90–100% competitive speed/power)Duration/distance: very short/medium (e.g., 2–3 s up to several min)Volume: very small (e.g., 3–6 reps)Density: low; long near-complete rest interval allowing HR to recover to ≤100 bpm (e.g., 3–45 min)

Note: Objectives are indicated in brackets. Source: Plisk (51, p.484). HR = heart rate; bpm = beats per minute.


needed to investigate the possibil-ities of this and other strategies.

Advanced Strategy

Highly qualified athletes requiregreater stimulus variation andnovelty than intermediate ornovice athletes, especially at themicrocyclic level. As they approachtheir developmental limits, higherworkload intensities and volumesare necessary to trigger furtheradaptation and achieve peak per-formance. Thus they typically trainwith greater volume loads and maybe closer to an overtraining thresh-old. The key is to avoid monoto-nous or frequent heavy loading,which can increase “trainingstrain” and the potential for nega-tive results (14, 17, 18, 53, 62).

Advanced periodization strate-gies can therefore be characterizedby extensive, systematic variationin both content and workload atmultiple levels of the program (i.e.,between and within respectivemicro-, meso-, and macrocycles).Although these are extensions ofthe means and methods present-ed above for basic and intermedi-ate approaches, such training/re-covery tactics can get quitesophisticated.

The “conjugate sequence” sys-tem is an intriguing approach foradvanced athletes (Figure 5; 29,55, 58, 61, 70, 73–77, 79–81, 89,92). This concept, also referred toas the “coupled successive” sys-tem, was pioneered by Yuri Verk-hoshansky (79). Subsequent arti-cles were published in thatjournal, as well as the SovietSports Review and several textstranslated through Bud Charni-ga’s Sportivny Press (79, 80). Mostrecently, it was discussed in AtkoViru’s Adaptation In Sports Train-ing text (81) and Mel Siff’s Super-training text (58). This method isan inter-mesocycle variation strat-egy that involves periods of accu-

mulation or intentional overreach-ing followed by restitution duringwhich supernormal responses canbe exploited. This is achievedthrough a series of “concentratedblocks” that are usually 4 weeks induration. During the first block,the athlete performs high-volume

loads of work with one primaryemphasis (strength/power) andminimal—presumably mainte-nance-type—volume loads allocat-ed to other abilities. The objectiveis to saturate the system with onetype of stress over a period of sev-eral weeks, during which tempo-

Figure 5a. General scheme of the long-term delayed training effect (LDTE) of con-centrated strength loading associated with the “conjugate sequence”system (advanced application). The duration of the LDTE (T2) is ap-proximately equal to that of the concentrated strength block (T1) andis usually 4–12 weeks depending on volume load and individual recov-erability. Within optimal ranges, the greater the decrement in speed-strength indices (F1, F2, and F3) during accumulation block A, thegreater their recovery during restitution block B. Reprinted by permis-sion from Siff (58; p. 362).

Figure 5b. Increase in speed-strength by systematic, overlapping sequence of con-centrated and moderate volume loads associated with the “conjugatesequence” system (advanced application). Accumulation blocks A andC represent periods of high-volume, low-intensity strength training dur-ing which the athlete intentionally overreaches (and temporary perfor-mance decrements are expected). Restitution blocks B and D representmoderate volumes of specialized, high-intensity speed-strength andtechnique training during which supernormal responses are exploited(and performance capabilities rebound by virtue of the LDTE phenome-non). Reprinted by permission from Siff (58; p. 386).


rary decrements in certain perfor-mance capabilities can be expect-ed due to residual fatigue. Empha-sis is essentially reversed duringthe subsequent restitution block:strength-training volume load ismarkedly reduced, whereas thevolume load of work allocated toanother quality (speed/technique)is increased moderately. If imple-mented skillfully, the athlete’s per-formance capabilities rebound byvirtue of a delayed training effectphenomenon, allowing new levelsof movement speed and technicalexecution to be achieved. The ath-lete can then proceed to the nextsequence of blocks with progres-sively stronger stimuli.

Proponents of this strategycite several advantages (55, 58,61, 70, 75, 79–81, 89, 92): (a) itprovides the potent training stressors needed to bring ad-vanced athletes to a new function-al state that otherwise cannot beachieved through traditionalmethods; (b) by emphasizing re-spective qualities during separateblocks, the cumulative fatigueproblems associated with parallelor concurrent training can be cir-cumvented; and (c) work volumescan be reduced over the long term.This comes with a price over theshort term, however. During eachaccumulation block, athletesmust be able to tolerate high vol-ume loads for several consecutiveweeks. This can be particularlyproblematic without the systemat-ic application of restorative/re-generative measures.

One line of evidence support-ing the sequenced training con-cept is based on longitudinaland cross-sectional studies sug-gesting superior gains in athlet-ic performance variables (partic-ularly those involving power andspeed) compared with heavy re-sistance or speed-strength train-ing exclusively (23, 69). More

significantly, beneficial changeshave been demonstrated in botha wider range and greater extentof parameters (28, 44). More re-search is needed to expand onthese findings.

Additional supporting evidencecan be found in studies of en-docrine responses to planned over-reaching strategies (i.e., periodicincreases in volume load aimed atenhancing adaptation and perfor-mance 2–5 weeks after returningto normal training). For example,serum testosterone concentration(T) and the testosterone:cortisolratio (T:C) are indices of anabol-ic/catabolic balance as well asphysiological training strain (notethat these can be useful markerswhen monitoring an athlete’s re-sponse to overreaching protocols,but do not necessarily indicate anovertraining syndrome; 30, 78,85). Resting or pre-exercise T andT:C have been shown to decreasesignificantly in response to severe,prolonged (≥3 week) increases involume load (22, 24, 25, 42, 47),whereas supernormal levels andcorresponding performance im-provements have been document-ed upon returning to normal vol-ume loads with a subsequenttaper (22, 25, 47). SupernormalT:C responses have also beendemonstrated after short-term (1-week) overreaching (15, 61, 63).Furthermore, prior exposure totemporary overreaching may en-hance an athlete’s tolerance forsubsequent high volume loadtraining and associated perfor-mance gains (15, 16). Collectively,these findings seem to explainsome of the results of sequencedtraining and support its role as auseful periodization strategy foradvanced athletes. Ongoing re-search is needed to enhance ourunderstanding of sequenced train-ing and other advanced periodiza-tion strategies.

In contrast to the concurrentapproach used in many basic andintermediate programs, se-quenced training is a significantdeparture (i.e., developing variousqualities over successive mesocy-cles such that one potentiates an-other while minimizing residualfatigue and compatibility prob-lems). Unfortunately, most advo-cates of this strategy describe it intheoretical terms but offer limitedpractical guidelines for safe andeffective implementation.

In any case, several things areclear: sequenced training strate-gies are intended for advanced(not novice or intermediate) ath-letes. The duration of the off-sea-son period must be long enoughto deploy a series of blocks, whichmay not be the case in sports withlong competitive seasons. Appro-priate ordering can potentiate theeffect of one block on the next,whereas inappropriate orderingmay have a negative effect. Thepractitioner needs to understandthe principle of dynamic corre-spondence (i.e., mechanical speci-ficity; 58, 79, 80) as well as thenature of residual/delayed train-ing effects (58, 79–81, 92) in orderto make it work. Intensive meansand methods should be used withdiscretion during accumulationperiods due to the high work vol-umes being performed. Likewise,practitioners should limit the du-ration of these blocks so that anovertraining syndrome does notdevelop and be attentive to poten-tial signs and symptoms witheach passing week (14, 30, 33,58, 62, 78, 81, 85).

The sequenced training con-cept arose in an environmentwithout external constraints ontraining time. The following aresome practical suggestions foradapting it to situations whereathletes are bound by such re-strictions. For example, a 14-


week preseason program can beorganized into a series of blocksas follows:

• Accumulation I (3-week dura-tion): 12 strength-power ses-sions distributed over this pe-riod on a 4 d/wk schedule; 6speed-agility-conditioning ses-sions distributed on a 2 d/wkschedule.

• Restitution I (4-week dura-tion): 12 strength-power ses-sions distributed over this pe-riod on a 3 d/wk schedule; 12speed-agility-conditioning ses-sions distributed on a 3 d/wkschedule.

• Accumulation II (3-week dura-tion): 12 strength-power ses-sions distributed over this pe-riod on a 4 d/wk schedule; 6speed-agility-conditioning ses-sions distributed on a 2 d/wkschedule.

• Restitution II (4-week dura-tion): 12 strength-power ses-sions distributed over this pe-riod on a 3 d/wk schedule; 12speed-agility-conditioning ses-sions distributed on a 3 d/wkschedule.

In this way, significantly differ-ent volume loads can be allocatedto respective qualities by manipu-lating the training density and du-ration of each phase withoutchanging basic intensity/volumeparameters. Even greater contrastmight be achieved by further re-ducing density during the restitu-tion blocks (distributing 8strength-power sessions over theseperiods on a 2 d/wk schedule).

Additional tactics would be toadjust the prescribed number ofsets per exercise, exercises per ses-sion, and/or sessions (modules)per day. Each of these are simplebut effective ways to alter the vol-ume loads apportioned to differentabilities during particular phases.

When evaluating the pros and consof various options, it is important toconsider their practical implica-tions such as compatibility of train-ing session duration and frequen-cy with athletes’ other schedulingcommitments.

Summary

As is the case with plays com-prising a game plan or assetscomprising a portfolio, a peri-odized training program is morethan the sum of its parts. Indeed,short-yardage plays can set uplong-yardage plays; high-risk in-vestments can improve overallrisk/return; and nonspecifictraining methods can enhancethe effects of specific ones. Thekey is to establish a playbook offundamentally sound tactics andthen skillfully combine them intoappropriate strategies. Althoughrelatively simple plans may be ef-fective for novices, more sophis-ticated training and recoverymethods are applicable in inter-mediate or advanced situations.The practical challenge is to di-rect adaptation toward specifictargets by prescribing a band-width of stimuli appropriate forthe athlete’s sport and develop-mental status.

Viru (81) summarizes theissue as follows:

The tasks of training have tobe distributed rationally dur-ing the whole period of 10–12years. Training strategy hasto determine how to distrib-ute the tasks, taking into ac-count the organisms’s devel-opment during adolescence.It means that the most favor-able periods have to be foundfor inducing the necessarystructural, metabolic, andfunctional changes. To train-ing strategy also belongs the distribution of various

tasks within a year by train-ing periods, and withintraining periods by meso-and microcycles of training.Carrying out the induction ofnecessary changes is part oftraining tactics. Accordingly,the most rational ways forthe organizing of training mi-crocycles and training ses-sions have to be found. Andfinally the necessary trainingmethods and exercises haveto be chosen. (p. 9)

■ ConclusionSiff (58) described training pro-gram design as an organization-al/management problem (pp.334–343). Stated differently, it is aproblem in game theory. The valueof this paradigm is that each of usregularly plays interactive games,has acquired some instinctivelevel of strategic thinking exper-tise, and can thereby infer somebasic principles. Sometimes intu-itive strategies are optimal, al-though our actions are often guid-ed, correctly or otherwise, byemotion and impulse instead ofrational decision making. By com-plementing the exercise/sport sci-ence competencies needed to de-sign effective programs, gametheory provides a useful concep-tual framework that minimizes theproblems with trial-and-error pro-gram design.

Game theory also offers a per-spective beyond the “winning vs.losing” or “war and peace” views ofcompetition. The take-home mes-sage for strength and conditioningcoaches is to use cooperative pro-gram design strategies. Clearly wewant to influence, but not defeat,our athletes’ adaptive processes.Mix your plays and think win-win.

Finally, there are other oppor-tunities to apply game theory instrength and conditioning prac-tice. Consider the possibilities in


skill instruction and acquisition:for example, the contextual inter-ference effect is a well-establishedmotor behavior/learning phenom-enon (36, 56, 57, 59, 90) whererandom and variable practicemethods result in short-term per-formance decrements but im-proved long-term retention. This isanother practical application ofgame theory with importantteaching ramifications for skill-based training programs.

■ AcknowledgmentsThanks to Mike Barnes, JohnGraham, Greg Haff, Lon Kilgore,Tom Migdalski, Scott Riewald,Brian Schilling, Mel Siff, JohnTaylor, Retesha Thadison, andVladimir Zatsiorsky. ▲

■ References1. Aján, T., and L. Baroga.

Weightlifting. Budapest: Inter-national Weightlifting Federa-tion/Medicina, 1988. pp.183–395.

2. Baker, D., G. Wilson, and R.Carlyon. Periodization: The ef-fect on strength of manipulat-ing volume and intensity. J.Strength Cond. Res. 8:235–242.1994.

3. Bondartchouk, A. Long TermTraining For Throwers. Bris-bane/Sydney: AustralianTrack and Field Coaches As-sociation/Rothmans Founda-tion, 1994. pp. 12–20.

4. Bradley-Popovich, G.E., andG.G. Haff. Nonlinear versuslinear periodization models[point/counterpoint]. StrengthCond. J. 23(1):42–43. 2001.

5. Brandenburger, A.M., and B.J.Nalebuff. The right game: Usegame theory to shape strategy.Harv. Bus. Rev. 73(4):57–71.1995.

6. Bruin, G., H. Kuipers, H.A.Keizer, and G.J. VanderVusse.Adaptation and overtraining

in horses subjected to in-creasing training loads. J.Appl. Physiol. 76:1908–1913.1994.

7. Davis, M.D. Game Theory. Mi-neola, NY: Dover, 1997.

8. Dick, F.W. Planning the pro-gramme. In: Sports TrainingPrinciples (3rd ed.). London:A&C Black, 1997. pp. 253–304.

9. Dixit, A., and S. Skeath.Games Of Strategy. New York:W.W. Norton, 1999.

10. Dixit, A.K, and B.J. Nalebuff.Thinking Strategically. NewYork: W.W. Norton, 1991.

11. Dreschler, A.J. Putting it alltogether: Developing the train-ing plan. In: The WeightliftingEncyclopedia. Flushing, NY: Ais A Communications, 1998.pp. 245–318.

12. Ermakov, A.D., M.S. Abramyan,and V.F. Kim. Training load ofweightlifters in pulls andsquats. Sov. Sports Rev.18(1):33–35, 1983.

13. Ermakov, A.D., and N.S.Atanasov. The amount of re-sistance used in the training ofhigh level weightlifters. Sov.Sports Rev. 18(3):115–117,1983.

14. Foster, C. Monitoring trainingin athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.30:1164–1168. 1998.

15. Fry A.C., W.J. Kraemer, M.H.Stone, L.P. Koziris, J.T. Thrush,and S.J. Fleck. Relationshipsbetween serum testosterone,cortisol, and weightlifting per-formance. J. Strength Cond.Res. 14:338–343. 2000.

16. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, M.H.Stone, B.J. Warren, S.J. Fleck,J.T. Kearney, and S.E. Gor-don. Endocrine responses tooverreaching before and after1 year of weightlifting. Can. J.Appl. Physiol. 19:400–410.1994.

17. Fry, R.W., A.R. Morton, and D.Keast. Periodisation of trainingstress: A review. Can. J. SportsSci. 17:234–240. 1992.

18. Fry, R.W., A.R. Morton, and D.Keast. Periodisation and theprevention of overtraining.Can. J. Sports Sci. 17:241–248.1992.

19. Furnadzhiev, V., and I.Abadzhiev. The preparation ofBulgarian weightlifters for the1980 Olympics. In: 1982Weightlifting Yearbook. S.I. Le-likov et al., eds. Moscow:Fizkultura i Sport, 1982. pp. 83–89.

20. Graham J. Periodization re-search and an example appli-cation. Strength Cond. J.24:62–70. 2002.

21. Haff, G.G., A. Whitley, L.B.McCoy, H.S. O’Bryant, J.L. Kil-gore, E.E. Haff, K. Pierce, andM.H. Stone. Effects of differentset configurations on barbellvelocity and displacement dur-ing a clean pull. J. StrengthCond. Res. 17:95–103. 2003.

22. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscularand hormonal adaptations dur-ing strength and power train-ing: A review. J. Sports Med.Phys. Fitness. 29:9–26. 1989.

23. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscularadaptation during strengthtraining, aging, detraining andimmobilization. Crit. Rev. Phys.Rehabil. Med. 6(3):161–198,1994.

24. Häkkinen, K., K.L. Keskinen,M. Alen, P.V. Komi, and H.Kauhanen. Serum hormoneconcentrations during pro-longed training in elite en-durance-trained and strength-trained athletes. Eur. J. Appl.Physiol. 59:233-238. 1989.

25. Häkkinen, K., A. Pakarinen,M. Alen, H. Kauhanen, andP.V. Komi. Neuromuscularand hormonal adaptations inathletes to strength training in


two years. J. Appl. Physiol.65:2406–2412. 1988.

26. Hargreaves Heap, S.P., and Y.Varoufakis. Game Theory.London: Routledge, 1995.

27. Harre, D., ed. Principles of ath-letic training. In: Principles ofSports Training: Introduction tothe Theory and Methods ofTraining. Berlin: Sportverlag,1982. pp. 73–94.

28. Harris, G., M.H. Stone, H.S.O’Bryant, C.M. Proulx, andR.L. Johnson. Short-term per-formance effects of highpower, high force, or combinedweight-training methods. J.Strength Cond. Res. 14:14–20.2000.

29. Hartmann, J., and H. Tünne-mann. Fitness and StrengthTraining. Berlin: Sportverlag,1989.

30. Jones, L. Do Bulgarian meth-ods lead the way for USA?Weightlift. U.S.A. 9(1):10–11.1991.

31. Keizer, H.A. Neuroendocrineaspects of overtraining. In:Overtraining in Sport. R.B. Krei-der, A.C. Fry, & M.L. O’Toole,eds. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics, 1998. pp. 145–167.

32. Komarova, A. The trainingloads of young throwers. Sov.Sports Rev. 20(2):79–83. 1984.

33. Kraemer, W.J. Physiologicaladaptations to anaerobic andaerobic endurance trainingprograms. In: National Strengthand Conditioning Association:Essentials Of Strength Trainingand Conditioning (2nd ed.). T.R.Baechle and R.W. Earle, eds.Champaign IL: Human Kinet-ics, 2000. pp. 137–168.

34. Kukushkin, G.I. Sport in theSoviet physical education sys-tem. In: The System of Physi-cal Education in the USSR.Moscow: Raduga, 1983. pp.128–174.

35. Leveritt, M., P.J. Abernethy,

B.K. Barry, and P.A. Logan.Concurrent strength and en-durance training: A review.Sports Med. 28:413–427. 1999.

36. Magill, R. Motor Learning (6thed.). New York: McGraw-HillHigher Education, 2001.

37. Markowitz, H. Portfolio selec-tion. J. Fin. 7:77–91. 1952.

38. Matveyev, L. Fundamentals OfSports Training. Moscow:Fizkultura i Sport, 1977.

39. Matveyev, L.P. PeriodisierungDes Sportlichen Trainings.Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport,1972.

40. Matveyev, L.P. Modern proce-dures for the construction ofmacrocycles. Mod. AthleteCoach. 30:32–34. 1992.

41. Matveyev, L.P. About the con-struction of training. Mod. Ath-lete Coach. 32:12–16. 1994.

42. McMillan, J.L., M.H. Stone, J.Sartin, R. Keith, D. Marples,C. Brown, and R.D. Lewis. 20-hour physiological responsesto a single weight-training ses-sion. J. Strength Cond. Res.7(1):9–21. 1993.

43. Medvedyev, A.S. A System ofMulti-Year Training in Weight-lifting. Moscow: Fizkultura iSport, 1986.

44. Medvedyev, A.S., V.I. Rodi-onov, V.N. Rogazyzn, and A.E.Gulyants. Training content ofweightlifters in the preparato-ry period. Sov. Sports Rev.17:90–93. 1982.

45. Nádori, L., and I. Granek. The-oretical and MethodologicalBasis of Training PlanningWith Special ConsiderationsWithin a Microcycle. LincolnNE: NSCA, 1989.

46. Noorda, R. Elect. Bus. Buyer.19(12). 1993.

47. Ozolin, N.G. SouvremennayaSistema Sportivnoy Trenirovki.Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport,1970.

48. Ozolin, N.G., and D.P. Markov.

Legkaya Atletika. Moscow:Fizkultura i Sport, 1972.

49. Pendlay, G., and L. Kilgore.Hormonal fluctuation: A newmethod for the programmingof training. Weightlift. U.S.A.19(2):15. 2001.

50. Plisk, S.S. Muscular strengthand stamina. In: High-Perfor-mance Sports Conditioning. B.Foran, ed. Champaign IL:Human Kinetics, 2000. pp.63–82.

51. Plisk, S.S. Speed, agility, andspeed-endurance develop-ment. In: National Strengthand Conditioning Association:Essentials Of Strength Training& Conditioning (2nd ed.). T.R.Baechle & R.W. Earle, eds.Champaign IL: Human Kinet-ics, 2000. pp. 471–491.

52. Poliquin, C. Five steps to in-creasing the effectiveness ofyour strength training pro-gram. NSCA J. 10(3):34–39.1988.

53. Rowbottom, D. Periodization oftraining. In: Exercise and SportScience. W.E. Garrett and D.TKirkendall, eds. PhiladelphiaPA: Lippincott Williams &Wilkins, 2000. pp. 499–512.

54. Sale, D.G. Postactivation po-tentiation: Role in human per-formance. Exerc. Sport Sci.Rev. 30(3):138–143. 2002.

55. Satori, J., and P. Tschiene.The further development oftraining theory: New ele-ments and tendencies. Sci.Period. Res. Technol. Sport.8(4):Physical Training W-1.1988.

56. Schmidt, R.A., and T.D. Lee.Motor Control and Learning(3rd ed.). Champaign IL:Human Kinetics, 1999.

57. Schmidt, R.A., and C.A. Wris-berg. Motor Learning and Per-formance (2nd ed.). Cham-paign IL: Human Kinetics,1999.


58. Siff, M.C. Supertraining (5thed.). Denver CO: Supertrain-ing Institute, 2000.

59. Singer, R.N., H.A. Hausenblas,and C.M. Janelle, eds. Hand-book Of Sport Psychology (2nded.). New York: Wiley, 2001.

60. Stone, M., and H. O’Bryant.Weight Training. Minneapolis,MN: Bellwether Press/BurgessInternational Group, 1987.

61. Stone, M.H., and A.C. Fry. In-creased training volume instrength/power athletes. In:Overtraining in Sport. R.B.Kreider, A.C. Fry, and M.L. O’-Toole, eds. Champaign IL:Human Kinetics, 1998. pp.87–105.

62. Stone, M.H., R.E. Keith, J.T.Kearney, S.J. Fleck, G.D. Wil-son, and N.T. Triplett. Over-training: A review of the signs,symptoms and possible caus-es. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res.5:35–50. 1991.

63. Stone, M.H., R. Keith, D.Marple, S. Fleck, and J.T. Kear-ney. Physiological adaptationsduring a one week junior eliteweightlifting training camp.Presentation at SEACSM Meet-ing. Atlanta, GA, January 1989.

64. Stone, M.H., and H.S. O’Bryant.Letter to the editor. J. StrengthCond. Res. 9(2):125–127. 1995.

65. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, andJ. Garhammer. A hypotheticalmodel for strength training.J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit.21(4):342–351. 1981.

66. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, J.Garhammer, et al. A theoreti-cal model of strength training.NSCA J. 4(4):36–39. 1982.

67. Stone, M.H., H.S. O’Bryant,B.K. Schilling, R.L. Johnson,K.C. Pierce, G.G. Haff, A.J.Koch, and M.E. Stone. Peri-odization. Part 1: Effects ofmanipulating volume and in-tensity. Strength Cond. J.21(2):56–62. 1999.

68. Stone, M.H., H.S. O’Bryant,B.K. Schilling, R.L. Johnson,K.C. Pierce, G.G. Haff, A.J.Koch, and M.E. Stone. Peri-odization. Part 2: Effects ofmanipulating volume and in-tensity. Strength Cond. J.21(3):54–60. 1999.

69. Stone, M.H., S.S. Plisk, M.E.Stone, B.K. Schilling, H.S.O’Bryant, and K.C. Pierce. Ath-letic performance develop-ment: Volume load—1 set vs.multiple sets, training velocityand training variation.Strength Cond. 20(6):22–31.1998.

70. Stone, M.H., J.A. Potteiger,K.P. Pierce, C.M. Proulx, H.S.O’Bryant, R.L. Johnson, andM.E. Stone. Comparison of theeffects of three differentweight-training programs onthe one repetition maximumsquat. J. Strength Cond. Res.14:332–337. 2000.

71. Stone, M.H., and D. Wathen.Letter to the editor. StrengthCond. J. 23(5):7–9. 2001.

72. Topchiyan, V.S., P.I. Kadachko-va P.I., and A.D. Komarova.Training young athletes in theyearly cycle in speed-strengthand cyclical type sports. Sov.Sports Rev. 19(4):157–160.1984.

73. Tschiene, P. The Current Stateof the Theory of Training. Ade-laide: South Australian SportsInstitute, 1990.

74. Tschiene, P. The Priority of theBiological Aspect in the “Theo-ry of Training.” Adelaide:South Australian Sports Insti-tute, 1992.

75. Tschiene, P. A necessary di-rection in training: The inte-gration of biological adapta-tion in the training program.Coach Sport Sci. J. 1(3):2–14.1995.

76. Tschiene, P. Conditioning train-ing: Formation of Theory Based

Only on Adaptation Models.Adelaide: South AustralianSports Institute, 1997.

77. Tschiene, P. Theory of Condi-tioning Training: Classificationof Loads and Modelling ofMethods From Adaptation As-pects. Adelaide: South Aus-tralian Sports Institute, 1998.

78. Urhausen, A., and W. Kinder-mann. The endocrine systemin overtraining. In: Sports En-docrinology. M.P. Warren andN.W. Constantini, eds. TotowaNJ: Humana Press, 2000. pp.347–370.

79. Verkhoshansky, Y.V. Funda-mentals of Special Strength-Training in Sport. Livonia, MI:Sportivny Press, 1986.

80. Verkhoshansky, Y.V. Program-ming and Organization of Train-ing. Livonia, MI: SportivnyPress, 1988.

81. Viru, A. Adaptation in SportsTraining. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress, 1995.

82. Viru, A., J. Loko, M. Harro, A.Volver, L. Laaneots, and M.Viru. Critical periods in thedevelopment of performancecapacity during childhood andadolescence. Eur. J. Phys.Educ. 4(1):75–119. 1999.

83. Viru, A., J. Loko, A. Volver, L.Laaneots, K. Karelson, and M.Viru. Age periods of accelerat-ed improvement of musclestrength, power, speed andendurance in the age interval6–18 years. Biol. Sport.15(4):211–227. 1998.

84. Viru, A., J. Loko, A. Volver, L.Laaneots, M. Sallo, T. Smirno-va, and K. Karelson. Alter-ations in foundations formotor development in childrenand adolescents. Coach SportSci J. 1(4):11–19. 1996.

85. Viru, A., and M. Viru. Bio-chemical Monitoring of SportTraining. Champaign IL:Human Kinetics, 2001.


86. Von Neumann, J., and O. Mor-genstern. Theory of Gamesand Economic Behavior.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press, 1944.

87. Vorobyev, A.N. Trainingmethods. In: A Textbook onWeightlifting. Budapest: Inter-national Weightlifting Federa-tion, 1978. pp.172–242.

88. Wathen, D., T.R. Baechle,and R.W. Earle. Trainingvariation: Periodization. In:National Strength and Condi-tioning Association. Essen-tials Of Strength Training andConditioning (2nd ed.). T.R.Baechle and R.W. Earle, eds.Champaign IL: Human Ki-netics, 2000. pp. 513–527.

89. Werchoshanski, J. Specifictraining principles for power. Mod. Athlete Coach.17(3):11–13. 1979.

90. Williams, J.M., ed. AppliedSport Psychology (4th ed.).Mountain View, CA: Mayfield,2001.

91. Zatsiorsky, V.M. Intensity ofstrength training facts andtheory: Russian and EasternEuropean approach. Natl.Strength Cond. Assoc. J.14(5):46–57. 1992.

92. Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science andPractice of Strength Training.Champaign IL: Human Kinet-ics, 1995.

Steven Plisk is the sports perfor-mance director for Velocity SportsPerformance in Fairfield County,CT. He received his BS in Sportand Exercise Science from SUNYBuffalo (1987) and his MS in Ki-nesiology from the University ofColorado (1990)

Michael H. Stone is currently thehead of Sports Physiology for theUSOC. He joined the USOC SportsScience staff in Colorado Springsin January 2002. Previously hewas chair of sport at EdinburghUniversity, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Plisk

Stone

periodization strategies

Documents