roundtable discussion: periodization of training— … · periodization of training ... sports...

The concept of periodization oftraining has been a topic of discus-sion and debate amongst athletes,

coaches, and sport scientists for manydecades. Large volumes of research havebeen done on the concept and its rela-tionship to peak performance of athletes.In 1986, the National Strength and Con-ditioning Association (NSCA) broughttogether a group of strength and condi-tioning professionals to discuss the con-cept of periodization from a practicaland scientific perspective in the pages ofthe NSCA Journal. The purpose of thiscurrent roundtable discussion is to revis-it the topic of periodization with some ofthe original participants and add some ofthe latest scientific and practical applica-tions of this training method.

Question 1: How Would you de-fine the Concept of Periodization,

Macrocycle, Mesocycle, Micro-cycle, Transition Phase, Volume,Intensity, Restoration, Frequen-cy, Peaking, Overtraining, andOverreaching?

Kraemer: First, one must realize thatwith the progress in the study and use ofperiodization of resistance training sinceour last roundtablein 1986, the opera-tional definitionshave been pushed inmany directions ofwhich one can argueand debate, but thisprovides the intel-lectual perspectivesto work with whenusing this concept. Ihave had the oppor-tunity to hear somany different ver-sions and work witha host of different periodization modelsfrom practice to laboratory; I am amazedat how far it has all come. The concept ofperiodization is what is most fascinatingto me, and so many fine coaches andsport scientists are making headway intoits understanding. Ultimately, periodiza-tion of training is mediated by the needfor variation in the training stimuli (22).

One is also dramatically challenged bythe need for “individualization” based onphysiological status and predispositionand individual training goals to meetsport demands (3, 4). So, although theanswers to these questions will havemany different permutations and seem-ingly differences in various opinions, thebasis for periodization is the need for

program variationand programmedrest to keep the stim-ulus effective as oneworks toward his orher genetic predis-position for a givenphysiological or per-formance variable.

Many of the termsused are from theformer Soviet Unionand Eastern Euro-pean countries in

origin, as I remember reading aboutthem in 1973 from blue mimeographedsheets sent out by Carl Miller with U.S.Weightlifting at the time (22, 23). Overtime, American lifters, coaches, and sci-entists adapted the concepts and theterms so that many “hybrids” of the pe-riodization concept and terms exist andcontinue to evolve today (3). This shows

Roundtable Discussion:Periodization of Training—Part 1G. Gregory Haff, PhD, CSCSHuman Performance Laboratory, Midwestern State University,Wichita Falls,Texas

© National Strength and Conditioning AssociationVolume 26, Number 1, page 50–69

s u m m a r y

The concept of periodization is im-

portant for strength and condition-

ing professionals. This roundtable

covers several aspects of periodiza-

tion strategies.

G. Gregory Haff, PhD, CSCSColumn Editor

50

R o u n d t a b l e

February 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal

the level of utility and creative use of thisimportant concept of training theory.So, it is important that each programcarefully define what is meant by each ofthe terms so that better communicationcan be achieved when speaking aboutperiodized training programs, as it is nota single entity anymore.

Despite the many different versions ofperiodization we have used, we essen-tially have “periodization” as a conceptthat can be defined by programmedvariation in the training stimuli with theuse of planned rest periods to augmentrecovery and restoration of an athlete’spotential (16). Again, the key factor tooptimal gains going toward one’s geneticpotential is “variation” in the exercisestimulus with systematic rest pro-grammed into the equation. How thatvariation is achieved and used is thetopic of a wide variety of different train-ing goals and must also be individual-ized for each athlete and sport to achieveoptimal success in his or her sport. Evenin the model I used in a later question,the basic form is just the template fromwhich to work. We have tried to stickwith the classic terms and have limitedexcessive term creation, as the need hasnot been there for our applications insport and in the laboratory. So, in classicterms of periodization theory, themacrocyle is the longest duration of thetraining cycle; typically a year is used formost situations, but some internationalprograms have used a 4-year duration tocoincide with peaking for the OlympicGames. The mesocycle is the next cycleduration further defining the amount ofvariation during the macrocycle. Priorwork has shown that more mesocyclesallow for greater training gains in physi-ological adaptation and performance,and thus many have used a 3-monthmesocycle allowing 4 to be cycled in ayear. The microcycle is the next andprobably most important phase of train-ing where changes in the acute programvariables are prescribed to define eachmesocycle and provide change and vari-ation over time. The microcycle is typi-

cally about 2 weeks in duration, and thisallows for variation to be carefully cus-tomized. My laboratory definition of in-tensity has been related to the resistanceused for the exercise of which some call“load”. We prescribe this typically intraining repetition maximum (RM)ranges for most exercises (e.g., 3 to5RM, 8 to 10RM) where the athletedoes not have to go necessarily to failureon every set because of compressionstress, but he or she should not be able tovolitionally lift more repetitions in a setthan the training range prescribed orthen must alter the resistance on thenext set up or down based on percep-tion. Historically we have found thatathletes can easily understand and pickthe resistance to achieve this 3-repeti-tion range resistance goal by trail anderror. This approach reduces the needfor multiple 1RM testing in every lift,which is administratively impossible.For structural lifts (e.g., cleans, hangcleans, etc) we use a combination of per-centages of their 1RM for a given num-ber of repetitions in a set. This is espe-cially important for certain resistancesused for power training but even whenwe are associating percentage and loadfailure in whole body lifts such as apower clean. On power training, withemerging research data in our laboratoryand along with those of Robert U. New-ton’s laboratory, we have found thatpower exercises need to focus on “quali-ty” of each repetition for maximal poweror velocity of movement, and with theuse of more sophisticated monitoringinstrumentation and equipment wehave found that this occurs in sets nolonger than 6 repetitions, and that manyof the repetitions do not hit critical cut-off levels needed for the quality training(unpublished data, 18, 24). Therefore,many athletes are not ready for high-quality power training because of manyfactors related to the fatigue state of theathlete (e.g., sport practice demands,other supplemental training, orderproblems in a workout design). Restora-tion is related to the need for rest and re-covery over a training cycle. This is

achieved with frequency of lifting, lowervolumes of exercise, absolute rest, activerest, and strict attention to restorationtechniques when needed (e.g., sleep,massage, hydrotherapy, etc). Frequencyis the number of times per week that welift. Peaking is related to a composite ag-gregation of all conditioning stimuli andsports practice that result in optimal orrecord performance in the sport for theathlete at a specific point in time. Thepeaking phase in a resistance-trainingprogram is the contributing factor tototal conditioning for optimizing a per-formance at a specific point in time.Overreaching (OR) is where one in-creases the training stimuli in order tocreate a decrease in performance but onethat has a “supercompensation” re-sponse or a rebound with increased per-formance at some point in time after theOR phase is completed (16, 25). Typi-cally this would occur in the following 1to 2 weeks. In our recent work, we havediscovered that a training rebound pro-gram was possible after a high-volumephase (25). In this study, before initia-tion of the 4-week OR program, eachparticipant underwent 4 weeks of baseresistance training. This ensured thateach subject began the study in a trainedstate. Base training consisted of 5 exer-cises per workout (squat, bench press,lat pull-down, leg press, and shoulderpress) for 3 sets of 8 to 10 repetitionswith 1 to 3 minutes of rest in betweensets performed for 2 days per week. SeeTable 1 for the OR protocol used in thestudy. Multiple-set, periodized resis-tance training was performed on 4 con-secutive days with a total-body program.Because of time limitation constraintswith the subjects, the OR program uti-lized training each muscle group on con-secutive days, thereby limiting recovery.The first 2 weeks consisted of a highervolume, moderate intensity of resistanceexercise, whereas the last 2 weeks con-sisted of a higher intensity with a lowervolume of resistance exercise. All setswere performed with RM loads suchthat all sets were performed either to ornear muscular exhaustion. When each

51February 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal

subject was able to complete the desirednumber of repetitions with the currentload, weight was added to subsequentsets or during the next workout. Allworkouts were supervised by a certifiedstrength and conditioning specialistwho also monitored the training loads.After the 4-week experimental period,

each participant underwent a 2-week re-duced-volume and -frequency resis-tance-training phase. The program usedduring this phase was identical to thebase resistance-training program usedbefore initiation of the 4-week OR pro-tocol (i.e., 5 exercises per workout, 8 to10 repetitions, and 2 days per week).

Our conclusion was that the initialhigh-volume, moderate-intensity phaseof OR followed by a higher intensity,moderate-volume phase appears to bevery effective for enhancing a reboundin muscle strength in resistance-trainedmen (25). In addition, branch chainamino acids were also helpful in alleviat-

52 February 2004 • Strength and Conditioning Journal

Table 1Resistance Overreaching Training Program Used in Study (26)

Week 1

Monday, WednesdayBack squat 3 × 10–12*Bench press 3 × 10–12*Lat pull-down 3 × 10–12** Lunge 3 × 10–12**Seated shoulder press 3 × 10–12**Dumbbell curl 3 × 10–12** Lying triceps extension 3 × 10–12**Leg raise 3 × 20***

Tuesday, ThursdayLeg press 3 × 10–12* Incline bench press 3 × 10–12*Bent-over row 3 × 10–12**Stiff-leg deadlift 3 × 10–12**Upright row 3 × 10–12**Barbell curl 3 × 10–12**Dips 3 × 10–12**Sit-ups 3 × 20***

Friday1RM squat1RM bench press

Week 2

Monday, WednesdayBack squat 3 × 8–10*Bench press 3 × 8–10*Lat pull-down 3 × 8–10**Lunge 3 × 8–10**Seated shoulder press 3 × 8–10**Dumbbell curl 3 × 8–10**Lying triceps extension 3 × 8–10**Leg raise 3 × 20***

Tuesday, ThursdayLeg press 3 × 8–10*Incline bench press 3 × 8–10*Bent-over row 3 × 8–10**Stiff-leg deadlift 3 × 8–10**Upright row 3 × 8–10**Barbell curl 3 × 8–10**Dips 3 × 8–10**Sit-ups 3 × 20***

Friday1RM squat1RM bench pressJump squatsBallistic bench press

Week 3

Monday, WednesdayBack squat 5 × 5* Bench press 5 × 5*Deadlift 5 × 5** Lat pull-down 5 × 5** Seated shoulder press 5 × 5**

Tuesday, ThursdayLeg press 5 × 5*Incline bench press 5 × 5*High pull 5 × 5**Bent-over row 5 × 5**Close-grip bench press 5 × 5**

Friday1RM squat1RM bench press

Week 4

Monday, WednesdayBack squat 5 × 3* Bench press 5 × 3* Deadlift 5 × 3** Lat pull-down 5 × 3**Seated shoulder press 5 × 3**

Tuesday, ThursdayLeg press 5 × 3*Incline bench press 5 × 3* High pull 5 × 3**Bent-over row 5 × 3**Close-grip bench press 5 × 3**

Friday1RM squat1RM bench pressJump squatsBallistic bench press

Note: * indicates 3 minutes of rest between sets; **, 2 minutes of rest between sets; ***, 1 minute of rest between sets; RM, repetition maximum.

ing performance decrements in thealarm phase as well. Thus, training canbe composited in different cycles to cre-ate the needed effect for a specific pointin time and periodized training in whichcycles used for OR are a natural part ofthis training concept and technology. This might be thought of as true OR be-cause of its positive performance out-come. Acute overtraining (OT) mightbe defined by the lack of this reboundtraining effect. Real OT is a chronic syn-drome not easily observed and oftenconfused with acute OT where perfor-mance is not restored within a few weeksof recovery. Thus, true OT is a long-term chronic decrease in performancecapabilities that is a threat to an athlete’scareer.

O’Bryant:• Periodization may be defined as a

cyclical approach to training whereperiodic changes in training parame-ters (volume, intensity, loading, ex-ercise selection, etc) are planned inorder for the athlete to achieve opti-mal performance at the appropriatetime.

• Macrocycle is generally thought tobe a yearlong program typically be-ginning with high-volume, low-in-tensity exercise of the preparatoryphase and ending with low-volume,high-intensity exercise of the peak-ing phase. However, some Olympicathletes are known to make use ofmore long-range planning character-ized by a 4- to 8-year cycle with apeak in performance during a specif-ic Olympic year.

• Mesocycles are shorter cyclical divi-sions within a macrocycle usuallylasting only a few months.

• Microcycles are usually very short,lasting only a few weeks with slightto moderate variations in training ona weekly or daily basis.

• Transition phase, sometimes termed“active rest,” provides a shift in train-ing emphasis. Some have used this torecover from end-of-season stresswhere the athlete trains at a recre-

ational level before preparation ofthe next competitive cycle. Others(6) have also used this phase (termedfirst transition) to link very high-volume, low-intensity training tovery high-intensity, low-volumetraining.

• Volume is the total work performed(per exercise, session, week, month,etc). Weight-training volume can beestimated per exercise by volume load(repetitions multiplied by weight).Because of the cumulative effect, vol-ume of training can be a potent pre-cursor to physiological stress.

• Intensity is the quality of effort dur-ing training or power output (forcemultiplied by velocity). A qualitativemeasure of weight training can be es-timated by the average weight beingused and can be expressed as absolute(amount of weight lifted) or relative(percentage of maximum for an exer-cise). Speed of movement can be a de-termining factor when similarweights and repetitions are com-pared.

• Restoration is necessary because thephysiological and psychologicalstress of training can lower work ca-pacity. Proper rest and recuperationcan renew the athlete’s abilities totrain. This can occur acutely (set-to-set) or over time (work session-to-session). Structured restoration canprovide for training-induced recov-ery and supercompensation for in-creased rates of improvement in per-formance and higher levels offunctional capacity.

• Frequency is the number of trainingsessions per day, week, etc.

• Peaking is maximizing performanceat the appropriate time. In mostsports (football, basketball, track,etc), a “true” peak is generally re-served for end-of-season champi-onships and may last only about 3weeks. Smaller peaks with shorterdurations can also be planned for se-lective in-season competitions. Thedesign of periodized training pro-grams should consider the frequen-

cy, timing, and duration of peakingto optimize overall performance.

• OT, in general, may be defined as aplateauing or a decrease in perfor-mance resulting from the inability totolerate or adapt to the training load.More specifically, there can be OTfrom “monotonous training pro-grams” caused by consistent, unvary-ing use of the same type of trainingexercise. Another cause of OT is“chronic overload,” or when over-work is sustained too long or repeat-ed too frequently and the athlete canno longer adapt in a positive way. Re-covery from this type of OT can re-quire several weeks if not months (3).

• OR is a type of periodization whereshort-term (1 to 2 weeks) increasesin volume or intensity are followedby a return to normal training. Thisbrief phase can result in a delayedperformance increase approximately2 to 5 weeks after return to normaltraining (2, 5).

Pendlay:• Macrocycle is a training period con-

taining at least 1 preparatory, 1 com-petitive, and 1 transition mesocycle.It can be as short as 2 or 3 monthsbut is not usually longer than 1 year.

• Mesocycle is a period within amacrocycle where a specific goal ispursued. It usually lasts 1 or 2months but can be shorter or longer.

• Microcycle is a division of the meso-cycle, which usually lasts 1 week. Di-viding the mesocycle into several mi-crocycles formalizes the process ofvarying the training stress within themesocycle.

• Transition phase is a period wherethe athlete recuperates after stressfulcompetition or training to be able torespond optimally to further train-ing. This phase is most oftenthought of as a period of active restafter competition and before a subse-quent preparatory period.

• Volume is the amount of work donewithin a time period such as 1 train-ing day, a microcycle, or a mesocycle.


• Intensity is the difficulty of thetraining done relative to the maxi-mum that the athlete is capable of.

• Restoration is the process of returningto normal or elevated functional ca-pacity after training-induced fatigue.

• Frequency is how often a trainingstimulus is applied.

• Peaking is attempting to achievemaximum performance at a specifictime, usually a major competition.

• OT is an imbalance between thetraining means and the recuperativeability of the athlete, resulting in asignificant and long-term decrease inperformance.

• OR is an imbalance between the train-ing means and the recuperative abili-ties of the athlete, resulting in a short-term decrease in performance, lastingfrom 2 to 3 days to 2 to 3 weeks.

Plisk:• Periodization is the planned distrib-

ution or variation in training means(content) and methods (load) on acyclic basis. Macro-, meso-, and mi-crocycles are the long-, intermedi-ate-, and short-term units, respec-tively, that periodized trainingprograms are structured into.

• Volume refers to training quantity,usually expressed in terms of repeti-tions and sets performed.

• Intensity refers to training quality,usually expressed in terms of impulseor power output during task execu-tion. In practice, because of the fluc-tuating emphasis on these factors (vol-ume and intensity), the concept ofvolume-load (mass lifted multipliedby repetitions performed) is more use-ful as an indicator of training stressthan either one independently.

• Frequency is an indicator of trainingdensity over a given period and istherefore associated with other (vol-ume) parameters.

• Restoration is a multi-pronged strat-egy to enhance an athlete’s recoveryfrom—and adaptation to—training.It should include rational programdesign, nutritional strategies, sleep,

and application of therapeutic andregenerative techniques by a sportsmedicine professional.

• Peaking is one of the basic goals ofperiodized training: to exploit com-plementary training effects and min-imize fatigue at optimal times. Thisis usually achieved by systematicallyreducing volume loads at the end ofa mesocycle through tactics such asrestitution microcycles or other “ta-pering” methods. This term is oftenused as a verb as well (e.g., to de-scribe these strategies).

• OR is an advanced training strategywhere volume loads are increased for2 to 3 weeks and then reduced tonormal levels to enhance adaptationand performance 2 to 5 weeks laterby virtue of a “rebound” (supercom-pensation) effect. It requires carefulplanning and understanding of cu-mulative and delayed training ef-fects. OT is a maladaptation syn-drome resulting when OR-typeworkloads are applied inappropri-ately, for example, over prolongedperiods or without adequate recov-ery or regard for the additive effectsof other stressors. Long-term perfor-mance decrements and fatigue seemto be the universal indicators of OTand may or may not be accompaniedby other symptoms.

Stone: Periodization as a term was ap-parently coined around the turn of the20th century and referred to the photoperiods of the sun; several coaches andsports scientists of the day noted thatathletes usually were able to train andperform better during the summermonths when days were longer, warmer,etc. Later, it was also believed that morefresh vegetables and produce were avail-able during the summer and early au-tumn, and this influenced performance.During the 1920s and 1930s, periodiza-tion became more of a term applied totraining methods. One of the first sportsscientists to attempt to systematicallystudy the concept of periodization in re-lation to sports training was L. Nadori

of Hungary in the 1940s and 1950s. Ap-parently, Nadori was a large part ofHungary’s success in sports during the1950s and early 1960s (personal com-munication, I. Balyi and J. Tihanyi).Later, Yakolev, Matveyev, Verkoshansky,Bondurchuk, Tchiene, Haare, and manyother sports scientists worked to refinethe concept. To my knowledge, it wasnot until the 1960s and 1970s thatAmericans began to seriously considerperiodization as a concept, much of itwas discussed in Track News and TrackTechnique in articles written or edited byFred Wilt and Vern Gambetta. Duringthe late 1970s, my colleagues and Ibegan a series of studies, which havecontinued until today. These studies pri-marily have dealt with the use of the pe-riodization concept in a strength-powertraining paradigm. Harold O’Bryant is apioneer in these early strength-powerstudies, and his dissertation should be amust read for anyone interested in theconcept. Although the concept of peri-odization has a long history, the basicfocus in the development of the concepthas been achieving appropriate varia-tion, which includes alterations in train-ing variables as well as “built in” recov-ery and restoration. Thus, conceptually,periodization is directly concerned withthe “training process.” Today, periodiza-tion can be defined as a logical phasicmethod of varying training volume, in-tensity factors, and exercises in order tooptimize training progress. Thus, peri-odization is a nonlinear method forplanning the training process.

The primary goals of periodization are(a) the avoidance of OT and (b) per-forming at peak or optimum levels at theright time (8). Although the periodiza-tion concept is most associated with cli-mactic sports (i.e., peaking), this plan-ning process can be modified andadapted for seasonal sports (14, 15). Thetime frame for periodization can be di-vided into several different levels—animportant consideration is that eachlevel can provide additional variation(14, 15):


• Period is the total length of thetraining plans; for example, it can bea 4-year cycle for Olympic sports.

• Macrocycle (long-length cycle) typ-ically the macrocycle lasts about ayear. Over this time period, themacrocycle typically provides forinitial high-volume training (prepa-ration) moving to high-intensitytechnique-oriented training.

• Mesocycle (middle-length cycle),typically 2 to 3 months, can mimic amacrocycle in terms of volume andintensity alterations, or it can be pri-marily devoted to 1 phase (i.e., gen-eral preparation [GP], special prepa-ration [SP], competition).

• Microcycle (short length), typically1 week, can vary from week to weekand day to day.

• Summated microcycles are blocks ofmicrocycles (usually 3 to 6 weeks) inwhich each block presents a specificpattern of volume and intensityloading. The blocks can then be re-peated throughout a mesocycle suchthat specific stimuli are “re-present-ed” in a cyclical fashion. Generally, ablock consists of 4 weeks. A typicalblock, used for enhancing strength,would be one in which intensity andtypically volume load (i.e., overload)are increased for 3 weeks followed byan “unload” week creating a 3/1block (15, 20); the block can then berepeated again offering a similarstimulus (Figure 1). In the example(Figure 1), sets and repetitions areheld constant—volume load increas-es or decreases as a result of loading(training intensity [TI]) alterations.Note in Figure 1 that as the volumeload is increased across the first 3weeks that accumulated fatigue canalso increase, thus the need for anunload week (week 4). This type ofsummated microcycle system is notoptimal for power or speed develop-ment because of the persistent in-crease in accumulated fatigue acrossthe first 3 weeks of each block. Asummated microcycle system inwhich the greatest volume load is

placed in the first week, followed bydecreases in volume load and in-creases in exercise intensity (EI) (i.e.,power output) from weeks 2 to 4 al-lowing fatigue to dissipate, favorsdevelopment of power and speed.

• Peaking is a specific phase of a cli-mactic sport usually at the end of amesocycle devoted to bring perfor-mance up to maximum levels. This isusually achieved by lowering the vol-ume of training and raising either TIor EI in line with the performancerequirements.

• Frequency is how often a specificstimulus is applied (per day, perweek, etc).

• Intensity is related to a work rate orpower output. From a coachingstandpoint, here are 2 types of inten-sity which are important in this con-text (14, 15):

(a) TI is equal to the average load (vol-ume load and repetitions) and is anestimate of the work rate across atraining session. It may be calculat-ed as an average daily, weekly,monthly, etc, function. TI may alsobe expressed in relation to maxi-mum ability; the relative intensity isexpressed as a percentage of a 1RM

for a specific exercise or a group ofrelated exercises.

(b) EI is the actual power output of anexercise. EI can be expressed as theaverage or peak power outputachieved during a single movementor the average power over a series(set) of movements.

• OT is a maladaptation to training as aresult of the accumulation of stressors(either induced by the additive effectof the physical and emotional stress ofthe training itself or the additive ef-fect of accumulative daily stressors).The maladaptation can manifest itselfas a plateau or reduction in perfor-mance potentially accompanied by anumber of stress markers (4). OTmay manifest as sympathetic charac-teristics (most often occurring amongstrength-power athletes) or parasym-pathetic characteristics (observed insome endurance athletes or as a resultof exhaustion after prolonged sympa-thetic manifestation). SympatheticOT is characterized by chronic fa-tigue and many other signs and symp-toms mimicking stimulation of thesympathetic nervous system. Para-sympathetic OT is characterized byphlegmatic behavior, the inability to


Figure 1. Paradigm emphasizing strength gains.VL = volume load.

“rise to the occasion,” and other signsand symptoms mimicking parasym-pathetic stimulation. OT is a seriouscondition and requires prolonged re-covery. Associated with OT is monot-onous training (MT) in which perfor-mance may plateau or declinesomewhat without fatigue or overtOT symptoms. MT may be a result ofsimply making exactly the samemovements repeatedly, resulting inlack of necessary variation for the ner-vous system. MT can be easily reme-died by making changes in the move-ment pattern (i.e., exercise selection).

• OR is a condition produced mostoften by sudden increases in trainingvolume. OR may produce some ofthe signs and symptoms of OT butnot as severe. A reduction in trainingvolume or intensity and return tonormal training can produce an in-creased performance several weeksafter the OR. Sometimes a super-compensation effect will occurboosting performance to new levels.Thus, OR (12) can be planned (care-fully) into the periodized program(usually 1 to 2 weeks of increasedvolume) and may result in a perfor-mance boost.

Question 2:What are the VariousPhases of a Periodized TrainingProgram? In Your Explanation,Please Define the Goals of the Individual Phases of a Periodized Training Program.

Kraemer: This is a complex questionand one that is highly related to the typeof periodized model that you use. Wehave written about this at length (3, 4,16). In general, one talks about a num-ber of phases, from the GP phase (wherethe athlete builds the necessary generalfitness needed to move to a periodizedtraining program) to the transitionphases (for the training needed beforeanother cycle) or the recovery phases(where rest is the most important factorin preventing OT, both from a psycho-logical and physiological perspective).

Dr Fleck and I have written about this indetail (3, 4). The American form or peri-odization most often thought of was es-sentially developed in 1981, when Stoneand colleagues (28) in the United Statesdeveloped a hypothetical model forstrength and power sports of the moreclassic periodization program that hadbeen used by Eastern Europeanweightlifters. The model broke down atraining program into 5 mesocycles. Theresulting periodization program wascharacterized by initiating the trainingwith a high volume of exercise (i.e.,more sets and repetitions) and using lowintensity (i.e., low resistance) as hasbeen depicted in many citations over theyears (28). During each of the followingmesocycles, the volume of exercise is de-creased, and the intensity or resistance isincreased. In this model, the initialphase of training is termed the hypertro-phy phase, characterized by high-vol-ume and low-resistance exercise. Themajor goal of this phase is to increasetoleration to resistance exercise and tostimulate initial needed increase musclemass. The major goal of the strength andpower phases is to bring about increasesin maximal strength and power, respec-tively. The goal of the peaking phase isto peak strength and power for a partic-ular competition. The decrease in vol-ume helps compensate for the increas-ingly heavier resistances (increasedintensity), which must be used to pro-mote maximal strength and power in-creases. The active rest phase consists ofeither low-volume, low-intensity resis-tance training or some other light physi-cal activity. The goal of this phase is toallow the body to recover from the previ-ous training, both physically and psy-chologically. In fact, this aspect of peri-odized training may be the mostimportant, as highly motivated athleteswill many times not want to take theneeded rest that their bodies require foroptimal adaptations. By not planningfor periods of rest and recovery within atraining program, the possibility of stal-eness or OT is increased. The goal of theentire training cycle is to achieve the

highest strength and power level possi-ble in the time allowed for the wholetraining cycle and peak strength andpower for a major competition. Time forthe active rest mesocycle is then allowed,and the entire macrocycle is repeated.Periodization was originally used topeak for 1 major competition a year,such as the world championships. So,each of the mesocycles was 2 to 3months long. The greater gains instrength and power are probably relatedto the basic concept of periodization inthat variation in training is needed toachieve optimal gains, and multipletraining cycles provide more variation intraining.

O’Bryant: When looking at a peri-odized training program, we can breakdown the overall training into 4 compo-nents: (a) preparation, (b) transition 1,(c) competition, and (d) transition 2(active rest).• Preparation. Early preparation be-

gins with an emphasis on general fit-ness with high-volume, low-intensi-ty work. Additional preparationfollows with more high-volume,low-intensity exercise but withmovements that have somewhathigher specificity to the sport. Thegoal of this phase is to stimulate pos-itive body composition changes (in-crease in lean body mass, etc) andimprove short-term endurance andwork capacity.

• Transition 1. This provides a shift tolower volume exercise while intensi-ty progressively increases with bothresistive (weight) and temporal(speed) loading. Exercise selectionbecomes even more biomechanicallyspecific to the sport with an empha-sis on development of strength andpower in response to decreasingworkloads.

• Competition. The objective here isto stabilize or improve techniquewhile improving performance vari-ables specific to the sport. Power andstrength can be brought to a peak bymore volume reductions coupled


with increases in intensity. Powerathletes need more emphasis onspeed of movement, reactive training(plyometrics), and technique work.A maintenance program can also beassociated with this phase and is es-sential for sports with prolongedcompetitive seasons. The mainte-nance of reasonable levels of physio-logical conditioning requires suffi-cient volume, intensity, andfrequency. This total work, in com-bination with sport skill practice,should be carefully balanced to avoidoverwork and subsequent decre-ments in performance.

• Transition 2 (active rest). If hardtraining is attempted immediatelyafter peaking or prolonged season,long-term progress will be dimin-ished. Active rest is characterized bylow workloads and intensities andmay involve recreational activitywith complementary movement pat-terns and motor skills.

• Note that the duration of each phaseis dependant upon the athlete’s ma-turity, level of conditioning, sport,and timing relative to season.

Pendlay: There are 3 main phases of aperiodized training program: preparato-ry, competitive, and transition. Thegoals of the preparatory phase should beto establish higher levels of basic physi-cal capacities such as strength and speedand to improve any weak points thatwere apparent during the last competi-tion. The goal of the competitive phaseshould be to obtain maximum perfor-mance at the planned competition. Tothis end, training in the competitionphase is generally more specific to thepracticed sport, more intense, and oflesser volume than in the preparatoryperiod. The goal of the transition phaseis to maintain as much of the generalconditioning as possible while allowingthe athlete to rest; to recuperate fromthe previous competitive period, bothphysically and mentally; and to becomeready to withstand the subsequentpreparatory period. Training is usually

of a different means than the main sporttraining and of a lower volume and in-tensity.

Plisk: The “phase” approach to peri-odization is just one of at least threestrategies. In my opinion and experi-ence, it is most applicable for noviceathletes. I should qualify that by statingthat such strategies may be the mostvaluable of all because of their broad ap-plicability. There are many more noviceathletes in the early stages of develop-ment (for whom advanced tactics are in-appropriate) than there are elite athletesin later stages.

The phases associated with steplikeWestern periodization models are usual-ly referred to as strength endurance,strength and power, peaking (mainte-nance), and active recovery (transition).Note that the term “strength endurance”is chosen instead of “hypertrophy,” be-cause it more accurately reflects themain objective of this period: increasedwork capacity. Body-compositionchanges, though important, are sec-ondary. This strategy can be viable fornovice athletes who are learning newmovement techniques or are unaccus-tomed to high intensities. It is potential-ly problematic, however, when relativelyflat workloads are prescribed over a peri-od of several weeks. Consecutive weeksspent within such narrow workloadranges can effectively amount to lessthan 1 week of novel stimulus followedby 2 to 3 weeks of monotonic stress, in-creasing the likelihood of accommoda-tion and stagnation problems. Theseshortcomings may be prevented byusing zig-zag progressions where volumeloads are varied within reasonableranges.

Intermediate periodization strategies arecharacterized by greater levels of varia-tion within—as well as between—re-spective cycles. Although a beginner’sprogram may consist of simple progres-sion on a macrocyclic basis, tactical de-cisions are now directed toward meso-

and microcyclic variables (e.g., the de-gree of workload contrast betweenmesocycles, microcycles, or individualtraining sessions as well as within ses-sions). Summated microcycles are onesuch strategy (refer to Figure 1). Theyusually involve 4-week mesocycles withan extensive to intensive workload pro-gression and a brief restitution period.Training-method distribution is the keydifference from the basic approach de-scribed above. Specifically, a microcyclerather than mesocycle is allocated forstrength endurance, strength and power,peaking, and recovery. This pattern ofloading, where 3 weeks of increasingvolume or intensity is followed by anunloading week and the progression isthen repeated at higher intensities, al-lows complementary stimuli to be rein-troduced in a regular cyclic fashion suchthat their effects do not decay signifi-cantly. Discretion should be used withthis approach because the greatest work-loads occur in week 3, by which time cu-mulative fatigue may hinder speed-strength expression, hence the need forunloading in week 4 to reduce OT po-tential and promote adaptation.

A summated microcycles strategy seemsto have dual benefits: As a form of in-tramesocycle variation, they increase theprobability of converging training ef-fects while minimizing the likelihood ofoverstress or accommodation and invo-lution problems. Furthermore, they addan aspect of intermesocycle contrast thatcan be advantageous as an adaptive stim-ulus. Other strategies (e.g., plannedOR) may be more effective for advancedathletes.

Advanced periodization strategies arecharacterized by extensive, systematicvariation in both content and workloadat multiple levels of the program (i.e.,between and within respective micro-,meso-, and macrocycles). “Conjugate se-quence” training is one such system. It isan intermesocycle variation strategy thatinvolves periods of accumulation or in-tentional OR followed by restitution


during which supernormal responses canbe exploited (refer to Figures 2 and 3).This is achieved through a series of “con-centrated blocks” that are usually 4weeks in duration. During the firstblock, the athlete performs high-volumeloads of work with one primary emphasis(e.g., strength and power) and minimal-volume loads—presumably maintenancetype—allocated to other abilities. Theobjective is to saturate the system withone type of stress over a period of severalweeks, during which temporary decre-ments in certain performance capabili-ties can be expected because of residualfatigue. Emphasis is essentially reversedduring the subsequent restitution block:Strength-training volume load ismarkedly reduced, whereas the volumeload of work allocated to another quality(e.g., speed and technique) is increasedmoderately. If implemented skillfully,the athlete’s performance capabilities re-bound by virtue of a delayed training-ef-fect phenomenon, allowing new levels ofmovement speed and technical executionto be achieved. The athlete can then pro-ceed to the next sequence of blocks withprogressively stronger stimuli.

In contrast to the concurrent approachused in many basic and intermediateprograms, sequenced training is a signifi-cant departure (i.e., developing various

qualities over successive mesocycles suchthat one potentiates another while mini-mizing residual fatigue and compatibili-ty problems). Proponents of this strategycite several advantages: First, it providesthe potent training stressors needed tobring advanced athletes to a new func-tional state that otherwise cannot beachieved through traditional methods.Second, it circumvents the cumulativefatigue problems associated with parallelor concurrent training of multiple quali-ties. Third, it allows long-term work vol-umes to be reduced. This comes with aprice over the short term, however. Dur-ing each accumulation block, athletesmust be able to tolerate high-volumeloads for several consecutive weeks. Thiscan be particularly problematic withoutthe systematic application of restorativeand regenerative measures.

In all cases, convergence of training ef-fects, management of fatigue, and pre-vention of stagnation or OT should bethe bottom-line goals of periodizedtraining. Simply put, the respectivephases should potentiate the effects ofothers, in much the same way that sportcoaches use a play or scheme to “set up”another. The consensus arising from theliterature is to organize training pro-grams into 4-week periods, which seemto be an optimal biological window for

integrating responses. These can bestructured in at least two different ways:as a mesocycle to be subdivided intomultiple microcycles and objectives (forbasic and intermediate applications) oras a “block” with essentially 1 objectivearranged as part of a series (for advancedapplications).

In terms of long-term developmentalobjectives, here are some commonanalogies that seem to be useful:• Beginner or novice: “train to train”;

emphasis on GP.• Intermediate: “train to compete”;

balance of GP and SP.• Advanced: “train to win”; emphasis

on SP.

Stone: When considering a periodizedtraining model, the typical phases wouldbe:

• GP: This phase occurs when a highvolume of less specialized work isperformed. It typically lasts 1 to 3months but may be repeated duringa macrocycle; the purpose is to raisethe levels of “fitness” specific to asport. Often the GP or part of theGP is used as a unidirectional con-centrated loading block. It should benoted that the GP phase is not neces-sarily general (i.e., exercises speci-ficity) but rather less specific.

• SP: This is a relatively high-volumephase in which the exercises selec-tion becomes more specific to thesport performance. As with the GP,this phase can be used to aid the ath-lete in raising work capacity but in amore specific manner.

• Competition: This is a lower volume,higher intensity phase associated withvery specific exercise selections. Theathlete can stabilize or improve tech-nique while improving performancevariables specific to the sport, for ex-ample, raising strength or power lev-els for sprinting or basketball. A spe-cial aspect of the competition phase ispeaking (for climatic sports), duringwhich a taper allows sports perfor-


Figure 2. Model I (1977). CL = concentrated loading;T = testosterone;T:C = testos-terone: cortisol ratio.

mance attributes to increase to peaklevels (likely as a result of fitness ver-sus fatigue phenomena).

The length of time spent in each phasedepends upon the (a) level and age of theathlete, (b) previous training history, (c)type of sport, and (d) length of the peri-od. It is important to understand thatthese phases can be manipulated in amanner to fit most sports situations, in-cluding seasonal sports.

Using these basic concepts, my col-leagues and I developed several modelsfor periodization programs dealing withstrength-power training. The first ofthese models was developed and usedwith athletes in late 1977 and early 1978by Harold O’Bryant, who describes thismodel (and others) in his doctoral dis-sertation, and a first paper was subse-quently published (13) describing thevery rudiments of this model on a meso-cycle level (several weeks). This modelwas based on several factors, includingarguments made by Tchinene, Haare,Matveyev, and Verkoshansky. Essential-ly (on a mesocycle level) there are 4phases involved (Figure 2):

• Concentrated loading (strength-en-durance) phase. This phase usuallylasts 4 weeks. Originally we termedthis a hypertrophy phase; however,the purpose as described then andnow was to make positive alterationsin body composition and, more im-portantly, to alter the athlete’s high-intensity exercise endurance—essen-tially, to get the athlete into shape.We observed (as did Verkoshansky)that this phase resulted in the im-provement of certain attributes (i.e.,body composition and strength en-durance). However, maximumstrength, particularly power andspeed, did not always improve andoften decreased among power ath-letes. We further noted that after afew weeks of normal training, bothmaximum strength and particularlypower and speed often increased

markedly. This phase is largely uni-directional (mostly resistance train-ing is performed) and is usually partof a GP.

• Basic strength phase. This phaseusually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and is ofmoderate volume typically charac-terized by repetitions of 3 to 5 perset. The primary purpose of thisphase was to raise maximumstrength levels, particularly in com-plex multi-joint movements.

• Strength-power phase. This phaseusually lasts 4 weeks. Volume is low-ered and is typically characterized by1 to 3 repetitions per set. The typesof exercises can become morepower–speed oriented if power andspeed are a primary goal. If themesocycle ended just before an im-portant contest, then a peakingphase or taper was added in whichthe volume was lowered and eitherthe TI or the EI was raised in accor-dance with the demands of the sport.In theory, the peaking phase takesadvantages of the fatigue-fitness re-lationship (see question 3).

• Active rest. This phase usually lasts 1week and allows the athlete to recov-er physiologically and psychological-ly. This can be low-volume, moder-ate-intensity resistance training;some other activity or a combina-tion.

Thus, this model starts with a high vol-ume and moves to a lower volume in astepwise fashion (not linear) offsettingincreases in TI. Although day-to-dayvariation is not as necessary with ab-solute beginners, the use of this modelwith athletes has always included heavyand light days, thus volume load “undu-lates” across a week and throughout theentire mesocycle (7). It is still my opin-ion that this model is the superior train-ing method for novice strength-powerathletes. We used this basic model in thedevelopment of several national and in-ternational level athletes, including JoeMajacyzk (20-m + shotput) and MikeDavis (silver-medal winner in the 1983Pan Games, Olympic Games 1984, 100-kg weightlifting). Kyle Pierce (U.S.Weightlifting Development Center,Louisiana State University, Shreveport)still uses this basic model in the develop-ment of young weightlifters. Shortlyafter this model was developed (1977and 1978), it became quite apparent tous that greater variation in training wasnecessary for advanced athletes, particu-larly strength-power athletes.

Between 1995 and 1997, we developed amodel of training that we still use withadvanced athletes today. This modeluses the concepts of concentrated load-ing and planned OR (Figure 3). Briefly,


Figure 3. Model 3 (1995). * = 4 week concentrated loading phase; ** = 1 week over-reaching phase;T = testosterone;T:C = testosterone: cortisol ratio.

planned OR deals with sudden andmarked increases in loading. Typicallythis loading lasts one week and may betermed concentrated loading. Power andspeed are often decreased significantlyduring periods of concentrated loading.However, after a few weeks of normaltraining performance can significantlyrebound. If a taper is added to the end ofthe mesocycle, then performance mayincrease even further. This model is di-vided into several 4-week blocks (sum-mated microcycles). The first block be-gins with a concentrated load (sets of10), again to ensure the athlete is inshape to train. The athlete then returnsto normal training (4 weeks) with astrength-emphasis block. In the next 2blocks, a planned OR paradigm is used.The concept is to periodically try toboost performance through supercom-pensation (stimulus, fatigue, recovery,adaptation) through the use of the ORphase and return to normal training anda taper (12). In consideration of the typeof sport, exercise selection can varythrough each block depending upon theparameters of the sport (i.e., strengthemphasis or power emphasis). We haveused variations of this method in thetraining of several national and interna-tional sprinters, jumpers, throwers, andweightlifters, both in the United Statesand Great Britain. For example, MegStone used a variation of this method indeveloping the strength-power trainingprogram for Jonathan Edwards (gold-medal winner, triple jump) leading up tothe 2000 Sydney Olympic Games.

Question 3: What is the Physio-logical Basis Behind the Con-cept of Periodization?

Kraemer: In general, the physiologicalbasis for periodization historically ap-pears to be based on the classic findingsof Hans Selye, a Canadian endocrinolo-gist who studied various types of biolog-ical stressors to organisms and coinedthe concept of the “general adaptationsyndrome” (GAS; see Figure 4) (26, 27).Ultimately, subsequent studies testing

his theory have shown that stress is notgeneral but very specific in its patternand responses. These new findings fur-ther support the training principle ofspecificity, indicating that stimuli arenot a general phenomenon either. Nev-ertheless, Selye’s GAS provided a theo-retical framework for the need of varia-tion in training and, more importantly,the need for the withdrawal of the stres-sor at some point in time to allow the or-ganism to survive. This was an impor-tant concept in the evolution of thetraining principle of “progressive over-load” developed in part by the work ofThomas DeLorme (who just recentlypassed away at age of 85) during thepost–World War II years, focusing onthe physical rehabilitation of woundedsoldiers (2). Thus, GAS has been writtenabout extensively and is in almost everytextbook on resistance training. It startswith the introduction of the stimulusthat is novel, and this results in a reduc-tion in performance during what has

been termed the alarm reaction. If theorganism survives, a period of adapta-tion to the stimulus follows for a dura-tion, leading to a plateau effect. One hasa limited time on this plateau of adapta-tion to the timulus if it is above the pres-timuli level. Then, if the stimulus is notremoved or reduced dramatically, a dra-matic fall-off can occur, caused by theorganism’s inability to continue to toler-ate the level of stress experienced. Inhuman terms, this means that if thestress of training is not altered or re-duced, or if active rest is not allowed,then the athlete can become sick, in-jured, experience acute OT, or worse.This was based on the potential biologi-cal backdrop for the concept of peri-odization in that there is an alarm phasefollowed by an adaptation to a stimulus,followed by a plateau of performanceand then staleness or sickness if rest isnot provided. The programmed restphase then allows one to recover and getready to undertake a new cycle of train-


Figure 4. The classic model for periodization using concepts of the Selye’s GeneralAdaptation Syndrome applied to training technology and theory.The exer-cise stress is introduced and is followed by an alarm reaction, a period ofadaptation, a performance plateau, and then a need for rest before the nextcycle of training starting at a higher level of function.

ing but from a higher level of adaptationthan in the previous cycle. A new cycle isstarted, and the same series of events un-fold, but ultimately higher and higherplateaus of performance and adaptationare achieved leading up to one’s geneticpotential for a particular variable. Key tothis principle were again a number offactors, including a certain period ofadaptation (e.g., 6 to 8 weeks), a plateau(e.g., 1 to 2 weeks), and exhaustion ordeath of the organism if the stimuluswas not removed because of the inabilityto continue to adapt to the stress. Thus,the withdrawal of the stimulus wasneeded and to provide relief. The con-cept of planned cycles with rest and vari-ation in the exercise-training stimulusare key to the concept of periodization(29, 31).

In addition, we have found that the ex-tension of “size principle” of motor-unitrecruitment is also important to under-standing the biology of periodization(4). The basis of this is related to thevariation of loading resulting in differ-ent recruitment patterns of muscle. Notall motor units are used for every “set,rep, resistance” in a workout. The varia-tion in the recruitment of motor units isvital for providing variation in the stim-ulus to the muscle-mass recruitment.Thus, on a light day, one will not be re-cruiting the same motor units as on aheavy day, thereby allowing such highermotor units active recovery. Althoughthis relates to the physiological disposi-tion of the individual, the concept ap-plies. In Figure 5 you can see a graphicrepresentation of the size principle asapplied to recruitment of motor units.Each circle represents a group of musclefibers recruited by a motor neuron. Onthe basis of size principle, many sizingfactors can come into play: the size ofthe electrical threshold, the size of themotor unit, the size of the fibers, etc. Ingeneral, motor units are small and large,and as one ramps up to maximal forceproduction, more and more motor unitsare recruited to meet the demands of theexternal load. In addition, specialized

patterns of motor units may mediatehigh-power outputs that require bothforce and velocity adjustments. Thereare even cases of exception to size princi-ple to augment the speed of recruitmentof the high-threshold motor units by in-hibition of the lower threshold motorunits. Variation in the resistances used,the volume of exercise, and the metabol-ic demands will create different patternsof motor unit recruitment supportingthe concept of variation in training.Higher motor units do not like to be re-peatedly activated, leading to varioustypes of motor unit recruitment patternsin lower threshold motor units (e.g.,asynchronous recruitment patterns).Not all motor units have all the ranges ofcapability, as this total spectrum unitportrayed in Figure 5. For example,higher threshold motor units may belost with aging. With some athletes suchas cross-country runners, more type 1motor units may exist in a locomotionmuscle, and only a very small percentageof type 2 motor units would be present if

at all; thus, speed and power activitiesare accomplished by some level of use ofhigher threshold type 1 motor units.

In other words, each motor unit has agiven number of muscle fibers associat-ed with it. This ranges from slow motorunits with low thresholds and few fibersat the lower end of a spectrum to high-threshold motor units with many largetype 2 fibers at the upper end of thespectrum and mixes in between. Thesefibers contain either type 1 or type 2muscle fibers and are of various sizes andrecruitment thresholds. Recruitmentstarts with the lower motor units andgoes to higher and higher electrochemi-cal threshold as motor units are recruit-ed to meet the demands. Not all individ-uals have the same number of motorunits, owing to the differences in forceand power production capabilities wesee in different muscles and human be-ings. With periodization, the goals ofusing different motor unit recruitmentpatterns is vital, as muscle-mass recruit-


Figure 5. A generic total spectrum is represented in this graphic representation of atheoretical motor unit that has a full array of motor units. RM=repetitionmaximum.

ed and total work done has dramatic im-plications on a host of physiologicalsupport systems and adaptations thattake place outside the muscle tissue it-self. Such recruitment patterns dictatecardiovascular stress, endocrine respons-es, immune responses and repair, andconnective tissue responses, to mentiona few major systems. Remember, allphysiological responses to resistancetraining start with the workout resis-tances and muscle mass used to performthe exercises (16). This leads to a veryspecific pattern of physiological re-sponse to a workout and training pro-gram. Variation is a key to the progres-sion of resistance training.

Finally, periodization is the needed con-cept, as it relates to the principle of train-ing variation and further defines the prin-ciple and method of progressive overloadwith long-term training (13, 16).

O’Bryant:• Physiological fatigue can act as a

stimulus. When this stimulus is fol-lowed by adequate recovery, physio-logical adaptations occur (biochemi-cal, cellular structure, etc) whichmay include increases in muscle hy-pertrophy, energy reserves, and otherchanges, both muscular and neuro-logical. Repeated over time, the cu-mulative effect can lead to enhancedphysical performance. However, in-adequate recovery leads to accumu-lated fatigue and can be counterpro-ductive. Periodized training isdesigned to properly manage fatigueand recovery to maximize the benefi-cial effects of supercompensationwhile reducing the potential for OT.

• Sequenced training can lead to im-proved physical performance. Pro-gression from one type of trainingmay enhance the benefits obtainedfrom subsequent training of a differ-ent type. Training protocols thatpromote basic strength followed byprotocols that focus more on powerwill tend to increase the potential forimprovements in power. Likewise,

periods of training that promotepower followed by periods of train-ing that emphasize speed of move-ment will tend to increase the poten-tial for improvements in speed.

Pendlay: Hans Selye described the GASas consisting of an alarm stage, a resis-tance-development stage, and an ex-haustion stage (5). If the same trainingstimulus is presented again and again, itwill eventually either fail to elicit analarm or will lead to exhaustion. In a pe-riodized program, training stress is var-ied over time to continue to reach the re-sistance-development stage but not toreach the exhaustion stage.

Plisk: Selye’s GAS concept seems to bethe prevailing theory upon which peri-odization is based. The fitness-fatiguemodel is another important theory withimportant implications for programplanning and management. I will limitmy comments to some practical consid-erations, as I am not as qualified to ad-dress these issues as are Drs Kraemer,O’Bryant, and Stone.

From a chronic programming stand-point, we should appreciate that theGAS becomes more of a specific adapta-tion syndrome as each athlete’s develop-ment advances (in keeping with the saidprinciple). In novices, however, basic ornonspecific training methods can yieldrelatively broad improvements in per-formance. This has important ramifica-tions when interpreting the research be-cause many studies involve previouslyuntrained athletes, and thus results can-not be generalized to advanced popula-tions (fortunately, the body of evidenceexamining intermediate and advancedsubjects is steadily growing). It alsomeans that training methods used by ad-vanced athletes are not necessarily thebest way for beginners to become ad-vanced. Some coaches and athletes donot believe or understand that.

This issue has important implicationswhen planning advanced training pro-

grams as well. It can be easy to get intoa specificity trap with elite athletes byexcluding many viable GP methods. Inprinciple, it is true that such methodsplay a limited role for qualified ath-letes. In practice, however, we run therisk of monotony and stagnation prob-lems if we do not prescribe enoughstimulus variation. In my experience,this is where training tactics based on“acute after-effect” phenomena (e.g.,postactivation potentiation) are mostuseful. Examples of these include com-bination and hybrid exercises, complextraining, wave loading, and so on,where one type of stimulus is used toenhance impulse or power output inanother. In this way, movements thatare not mechanically specific to an ath-lete’s sport can still be used to augmentthe effects of those that are.

Stone: There are several underlyingmechanistic concepts and theories thatcan be discussed in this context.

• Selye’s GAS. Although GAS was notoriginally created to deal directlywith sports, many of its tenants dohelp explain some of the observedphenomena associated with physicaltraining. Although we know nowthat the GAS does not explain all re-actions to stress (reactions to stressare not necessarily that general),GAS can serve as a model to help un-derstand the need for variation insports training. This concept basical-ly deals with the idea that stress (insmall amounts) can cause beneficialadaptation but can also become ac-cumulative, and that if total stressorsbecome too great the normal adap-tive systems no longer operate effi-ciently and breakdown eventuallyoccurs. Thus, to survive and adapt,an organism needs periodic breaksfor stressors. The breakdown processfor athletes is believed to progressthrough various stages such as accu-mulative fatigue, OR, and OT, witheach stage having more serious con-sequences and taking longer for re-


covery. Thus, relief (i.e., variation)from constant or overwhelmingstress is paramount. Garhammer (5)has presented an excellent descrip-tion of the adaptation of GAS tosports training.

• Stimulus-fatigue-recovery-adap-tation. This mechanistic theorydeals with the concept of supercom-pensation, which is basically anadaptation to an appropriate stimu-lus. Basically, an organism is exposedto a stimulus that, while causing fa-tigue, sets in motion underlyingphysiological mechanisms (i.e., bio-chemical, hormonal), which, duringthe recovery process, cause adapta-tions allowing the organisms to “per-form” at a higher level. These poten-tial supercompensations couldinclude increases in energy stores,hypertrophy, neuromuscular adapta-tions, or hormonal alterations.These physiological adaptationswould then lead to enhanced perfor-mance. This concept is not limitedto a single exercise-stimulus responsebut may be viewed on a longer basisproducing training adaptations. Forexample, Verkoshansky (17, 18)noted that a concentrated load ofstrength or strength-endurancetraining for several weeks could re-sult in a diminished speed-strength(power) capability among track-and-field athletes. Upon returning tonormal training, increased powerperformance can often be observed,sometimes beyond baseline values.Similar results have been observedamong young weight-lifters after aplanned high-volume OR phase (3,12) and may be linked to alterationsin anabolic and catabolic hormones.

• Fitness-fatigue relationship. Ac-cording to this theory, sport pre-paredness is defined as the summa-tion of 2 after-effects of trainingstress: fatigue and fitness (20). Incontrast to the supercompensationtheory based on a cause-and-effectrelationship between these factors(i.e., adaptation), the fitness-fa-

tigue model proposes that theyhave opposing and antagonistic ef-fects. This has an important impli-cation: Performance is optimizedresulting from a training processthat minimizes the fatigue respons-es to training and exercise stimuliwhile maximizing the fitness re-sponses. It should also be notedthat this theory is the basis of ataper effect.

• Sequenced potentiation. Associatedwith the concentrated loading theo-ry is the concept of sequenced train-ing and one training phase potenti-ating the subsequent phase. Forexample, Wilson et al. (19) demon-strated that among heavy weight-trained subjects with reasonablemaximum strength levels, switchingto high-power training (squats) im-proved a variety of performance vari-ables beyond those of continuedheavy weight training. Similar obser-vations have been made among eliteweightlifters (9) and American colle-giate football players (6). This sug-gests that for increasing power andspeed, a training and periodized/variation sequence emphasizingstrength, power, and speed may pro-duce superior results.

Question 4: Periodization isOften Suggested to Allow forthe Avoidance of OT. What is theMechanism Within the Peri-odized Training Model That Al-lows for the Avoidance of OT?How Should Training Variablesbe Altered in the Event that OTDoes Occur?

Kraemer: With one of the contribu-tors to this roundtable and a formermember of my laboratory group, An-drew Fry and I have done many studieson acute OT in my laboratory over theyears, and the key factor in these studieshas been the use of complete rest toeliminate or reduce the impact of a per-formance decrement being observed(5–10, 19). Periodization plans rest pe-

riods that are vital for recovery andrestoration of physiological mechanismsand body structures (e.g., musclefibers). Another key is the variation inloading and intensity over time. Wehave found that if you provide completedays of rest even with very heavy lifting(multiple 1RMs) or even high-volumetraining, OT can be avoided (6). Othersmay have their impressions, but it is assimple to me as rest at the right time ofthe training cycle. one have written ex-tensively on how one can make mistakesin program design by allowing the rateof progression to move up too quickly inits stress level (19). Beyond making dra-matic mistakes in designing the workoutprotocol, rest is the key.

Again, operationally one can recoverfrom acute OT that may not show a re-bound in performance and might betermed staleness. But such stalenessmay well be the precursor to chronicOT if not addressed. The key is to pro-vide rest and the removal of the OTstimuli in the workout program. Be-cause OT has many different faces relat-ed to its etiology, the coach must care-fully view the athlete on holistic terms.In addition, we often focus so much onthe weight room that we forget to real-ize that the sport coach can do moredamage to quality workouts and createOT in arising from their practice de-mands and supplemental training.Thus, in the case of true OT the key isto start a rest and restoration phase inyour training cycle while you furtheranalyze the situation and plan the pro-gression back to a baseline of expectedimprovement or maintenance. Sportpractice and demands play a big role inthe total stress on an athlete. Althoughbeyond the scope of this roundtable,psychological factors, coping skills,school learning skills, and nutrition alsoaffect the total OT phenomenon.

O’Bryant:Within an appropriately planned train-ing cycle, small day-to-day adjustmentscan be made to carefully manage fatigue


and recovery, maximizing the beneficialeffects (see response to previous ques-tion 3) while reducing the potential forOT.

A more prolonged intervention is usu-ally necessary when “true” OT has oc-curred (see response to question 1). Adrastic reduction in training volumeor intensity, if not total rest for severaltraining sessions (up to several weeksif not months), can be required. Thisshould be followed with a gradual in-crease in training volume or intensityover several training sessions beforenormal training levels can be re-sumed.

Pendlay: The variation of trainingstress and the variation of trainingmeans present within a periodizedprogram should help avoid OT. Agood coach should also be mindful ofhow the athlete responded to the lasttraining period. For example, if thepreparatory period before the lastcompetition was successful, a coachmight plan a slightly higher volumefor the present preparatory period. Or,if a coach has an athlete coming out ofa preparatory period who is showingsigns of impending OT, he or shemight lower the volume of this com-petitive period as compared with thelast one to allow for regeneration andplan a longer than usual transition pe-riod after the competition. In theevent of OT, volume and intensityshould be lowered, and the means oftraining should be changed. The goalof training should be the same as atransition period: to preserve generalconditioning while allowing rest andrecuperation.

Stone: See the answers to question 3.Training variables are altered in a man-ner consistent with the cycle level (i.e.,macro, meso, etc)—the primary por-tion of a periodized training scheme,which minimizes the OT potential, isat the microcycle level (i.e., day-to-dayvariation). If true OT does occur, im-

mediate rest for several weeks followedby slowly moving back to normal train-ing is a necessity (all done using carefulmonitoring for the signs and symp-toms of OT).

Question 5: There is a lot of De-bate in the Current Literatureabout Nonlinear and Linear Periodization. Can you Com-ment About These SuggestedPermutations of Periodizationand How They May be Utilizedin the Preparation of Athletes?

Kraemer: My laboratory group andcollaborators over the years have usedthis concept out of necessity because ofits suitability for academic sports train-ing situations and ease in administra-tion in multi-competition sports withlong seasons (4, 12, 17, 20). The termi-nology and support that the idea thatwe are periodizing the training programare vital, but the so-called nonlinear ap-proach is just a way that appears to bemore dramatic in its temporal variationduring a microcycle than are the stan-dard classical methods. We have hadmuch success here at the University ofConnecticut over the past couple ofyears in our research and with sportteams using this general approach. Ourstrength coach, Andrea Hudy, has usedthe undulating format design of train-ing with our women’s basketball pro-gram and has had a great deal of successthat we hope to quantify in the near fu-ture in research and journal articles. Ilike to think that this type of periodiza-tion model evolved in the academic cal-endars with student athletes and sportsthat were not a so-called single-compe-tition peaking sport. Nevertheless, thevariation in the 7- to 10-day cycle is ei-ther planned or can be reactive to thechanging terrain of the athlete’s health,schedule, practice demands, etc. For ex-ample, if the coach has a hard practice, aplanned power day may not be optimal,so one can switch in the session to alight day for local muscular endurance.This gives a great deal of flexibility to

the program. As scientists, we have care-fully tried to quantify this in both spe-cific and general models as being moreoptimal than other forms of trainingprogressions. We have tried to get be-yond the level of opinion and providesome data to work with. This is key tomy approach in training-program de-velopment. Such data seem to supportthe use of very dramatically differenttraining days, ranging from a base of 3different training days, for example, tomany more with completely differenttarget goals for that training session andvery little cross-over of another style oftraining during that session to allowmotor units to be very selectively re-cruited. Thus, when we are training ona heavy day, for example, with a 3 to5RM zone for our exercises, there arenot a lot of light repetitions performedexcept for needed warm-up. On lightdays, one never gets into the restingheavy and power recruitment patterns,thus providing a very different physio-logical experience for the workout thatday.

Here is an example of a nonlinear peri-odized training program that has beendeveloped to maintain variation in thetraining stimulus. The nonlinear pro-gram allows for variation in the intensi-ty and volume within each week overthe course of the training programmesocycle (e.g., 16 weeks). The changein the intensity and volume of trainingwill vary within the 7- to 14-day rota-tion periods. An example of a nonlinearperiodized training program over a 16-week mesocycle would be:

Monday4 sets of 12 to 15RM

Wednesday4 sets of 8 to 10RM

Friday3 to 4 sets of 4 to 6RM

Monday4 to 5 sets of 1 to 3RM


This protocol uses a 4-day rotation with1 day of rest between workouts.

The variation in training is much greaterwithin the week. One can easily see thatintensity spans over a maximum of a14RM range (possible 1RM sets versus15RM sets in the week cycle). This spanin training variation appears to be as ef-fective as linear programs. One can alsoadd a “power” training day where loadsmay be from 30 to 45% of 1RM and re-lease of the mass is allowed if no deceler-ation exists with the movement of thejoint or joints. In fact, we have a wholecontinuum of choice for the nonlinearworkout possibilities that can be cycledthough over a 14-day microcycle, de-pending upon the goals of the athlete(Table 2).

Different from the linear programs isthe practice that one trains the differentcomponents of muscle size and strengthwithin the same week. Different fromthe linear methods, nonlinear programsattempt to train different adaptationalaspects of the neuromuscular systemwithin the same microcycle. Thus, oneis working at different physiologicaladaptations together within the same 7-to 14-day period of the 16-week meso-cycle. A rest or restoration cycle thenfollows this training cycle. This appearspossible and may be more conducive tomany individuals’ schedules, especiallywhen competitions, travel or otherschedule conflicts, practice demands,sickness, etc, can make the traditionallinear method structures difficult to ad-here to and train large groups of ath-letes.

In this program, one just rotatesthrough the different protocols. Theworkout rotates between very heavy,heavy, moderate, and light training ses-sions. If one misses the Monday work-out, the rotation order is pushed for-ward, meaning one performs the rotatedworkout scheduled. For example, if thelight 12 to 15 workout was scheduledfor Monday and you miss it, you per-

form it on Wednesday and continuewith the rotation sequence. In this way,no workout stimulus is missed in thetraining program. One can also say thata mesocycle will be completed when acertain number of workouts are com-pleted (e.g., 48) and do not use trainingweeks to set the program length.

Again, the primary exercises are typical-ly periodized, but one can also use a 2-cycle program to vary the small-musclegroup exercises. For example, in the “tri-ceps push-down” one could rotate be-tween the moderate (8 to 10RM) andthe heavy (4 to 6RM) cycle intensities.This would provide the hypertrophyneeded for such isolated muscles of ajoint but also provide the strength need-ed to support heavier workouts of thelarge-muscle groups.

O’Bryant: Some have described linearperiodization as variation of the TI overseveral weeks of training with nonlin-ear periodization as variation of the TIand volume over a week with differ-ences from day to day (1). However, bydefinition, any periodization should beconsidered nonlinear. Although thegeneral loading process (with respect toinitial training levels) overtime may beconsidered linear, variations in volume

and intensity that occur within a mi-crocycle—also represented by microcy-cles in a mesocycle and mesocycles in amacrocycle—exhibit a nonlinear pat-tern. Therefore, all periodization ischaracterized by periods of high inten-sity or volume alternating with periodsof lower intensity or volume to facili-tate recovery and to maximize perfor-mance (6).

Pendlay: Periodization is, by nature,nonlinear. A particular periodizedtraining program appears linear only ifit is viewed in too small a timeframe.Periodized programs can have vastlydifferent frequencies of undulation:One may appear nonlinear whenviewed for only a month, whereas an-other may appear linear unless viewedfor more than a year. For example,Chandler (2) noted that the programpresented by Stone (6) had been de-scribed as linear but would appearnonlinear if one were to view repetitiveapplications of the program. Poloquin(4) asserts that linear overloading ishardly advisable for the athlete and of-fers an undulating approach, yet hisprogram could be termed linear ifviewed for only 4 weeks. Althoughthere are data that show periodizedprograms, which both undulate (3)


Table 2Example Training Day Continuum for Strength and Power Loadings for a Nonlinear Periodized Training Program. Any 3-Repetition Range Can

Be Used and is Specific to the Type of Exercise and EquipmentBeing Used in a Training Program

Training zone (RM) Intensity of training day

1–34–67–910–1213–15>15

Very, very heavy to very heavyVery heavy to heavyHeavy to moderateModerate to lightLight to very lightVery light to very, very light

Power Day Training Day: Plyo’s, medicine ball exercises, high velocity, and lightpercentage using 3–6 repetition limits for attaining peak velocities and maximumaccelerations in the workout. RM indicates repetition maximum.

and do not undulate (7) within the ex-perimental time frame, are superior tononperiodized programs, the optimalfrequency of undulation for a peri-odized program is likely to be specificto the athlete.

Plisk: The term linear periodizationhas been used to describe training cy-cles involving gradual, progressive in-creases in intensity and was originallyadopted by Baker et al. (1) from a dis-cussion of problems with linear intensi-fication strategies by Poliquin (2). Thisterm is simplistic and misleading. Itwould be more appropriate to refer totraditional or nontraditional periodiza-tion models because, by definition, pe-riodization involves nonlinear varia-tions in training parameters. This issueis addressed in more detail in letters tothe editor by Stone and O’Bryant (3)and Stone and Wathen (4).

Responses to question 2 offer someideas on permutations and their appli-cation. I would add a few general guide-lines:

• As mentioned above, all athletesshould begin at a basic level andthen progress through an intermedi-ate developmental process, whereasfew achieve what would be consid-ered the “sport mastery” stage by in-ternational standards. It is a seriousmistake to perceive the first 2 ap-proaches as being inferior or in-significant and to attempt advancedtactics too early in an athlete’s long-term preparation.

• Stressors should be applied strategi-cally, regarding integration ratherthan isolation of responses to stimuli.

• A periodized plan should reflect anincreasing level of micromanagementas the athlete’s development pro-gresses. This does not mean that alldecisions should be deferred to thecoach; instead, more sophisticatedvariation should be applied on multi-ple fronts (i.e., training methods andmeans, within and between cycles).

Stone: By definition, linear periodiza-tion is not possible. Therefore, linear pe-riodization cannot be used in any popu-lation because it is not possible toachieve (16). Part of the confusion as toterminology stems from 2 common er-rors:

The first is equating volume of trainingwith repetitions. Although repetitionsdo influence volume, repetitions are nota reasonable measure of training vol-ume. The volume of strength training ismore accurately estimated using volumeload (repetitions multiplied by mass lift-ed). The volume load can be associatedwith energy expenditure and perfor-mance outcomes; repetitions usuallycannot be associated with these vari-ables. Although, simplistically, usingrepetitions to describe a periodizationmodel as linear appears to fit (i.e., 10 to5 to 3 repetitions), closer inspection ofthe volume load and TI (average load)and EI (power output) typically showsconsiderable variation (7).

The second error, and perhaps more se-rious, is that the term linear is oftenmisconstrued to encompass long-termperiodization rather then the mesocy-cle-length model for which the termwas originally (and erroneously) ap-plied. Even considering repetitionsalone, if one repeated the model for an-other mesocycle, undulation would beapparent over a long term.

There is little doubt that variation is akey training principle and is a basic tentof periodization; if one considers undu-lation to be a function of variation involume, intensity factors, and exerciseselection, then:

• All periodized models undulate;otherwise, the definition of periodiza-tion must be altered.• The degree of undulation dependsupon how these training variables aremanipulated over time.• The degree of undulation dependsupon how many time levels are being

manipulated (i.e., macro, meso, micro,daily, summated microcycles).• The degree of undulation dependsupon the type of sport (i.e., seasonal, cli-matic, etc).• The degree of undulation dependsupon the level of athlete with the degreeof undulation increasing with the ad-vancement of the athlete. ♦

ReferencesKraemer

1. Campos G.E., T.J. Luecke, H.K. Wen-deln, K. Toma, F.C. Hagerman, T.F.Murray, K.E. Ragg, N.A. Ratamess,W.J. Kraemer, and R.S. Staron. Mus-cular adaptations in response to threedifferent resistance-training regimens:Specificity of repetition maximumtraining zones. Eur. J. Appl. Physio.88(1–2):50–60. 2002.

2. DeLorme, T.L., and A.L. Watkins.Techniques of progressive resistanceexercise. Arch. Phys. Med. 29:263–273.1948.

3. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Peri-odization Breakthrough. Ronkonkoma,NY: Advanced Research Press, 1996.

4. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Design-ing Resistance Training Programs (3rded.). Champaign, IL: Human KineticsPublishers, 2004. pp. 209–239.

5. Fry, A.C., and W.J. Kraemer. Resis-tance exercise overtraining and over-reaching, Sports Med. 23(2):106–129.1997.

6. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, J.M. Lynch,N.T. Triplett, and L.P. Koziris. Doesshort-term near maximal intensity ma-chine resistance training induce over-training? J. Strength Cond. Res.8(3):188–191. 1994.

7. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, M.H. Stone,B.J. Warren, S.J. Fleck, J.T. Kearney,and S.E. Gordon. Endocrine responsesto over-reaching before and after 1 yearof weightlifting training. Can. J. Appl.Physiol. 19(4):400–410. 1994.

8. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, F. van Borse-len, J.M. Lynch, J.L. Marsit, E.P. Roy,N.T. Triplett, and H.G. Knuttgen.Performance decrements with high-intensity resistance exercise overtrain-


ing. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26(9):1165–1173. 1994.

9. Fry, A.C, W.J. Kraemer, F. van Borse-len, J.M. Lynch, J.L. Marsit, N.T.Triplett, and L.P. Koziris. Cate-cholamine responses to short-term,high intensity resistance exercise over-training. J. Appl. Physiol. 77(2):941–946. 1994.

10. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, C.A. Wese-man, B.P. Conroy, S.E. Gordon, J.R.Hoffman, and C. M. Maresh. The ef-fects of an off-season strength and con-ditioning program on starters andnon-starters in women’s intercollegiatevolleyball. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res.5(4):174–181. 1991.

11. Häkkinen, K., W.J. Kraemer, A.Pakarinen, T. Triplett-McBride, J.M.McBride, A. Häkkinen, M. Alen,M.R. McGuigan, R. Bronks, andR.U. Newton. Effects of heavy resis-tance/power training on maximalstrength, muscle morphology, andhormonal response patterns in 60-to 75-year-old men and women.Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 27(3):213–231. 2002.

12. Hoffman, J.R., W.J. Kraemer, A.C.Fry, M. Deschenes, and M. Kemp.The effects of self-selection for fre-quency of training in a winter condi-tioning program for football. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 4(3):76–82.1990.

13. Kraemer, W.J., K. Adams, E. Cafarel-li, G.A. Dudley, C. Dooly, M.S.Feigenbaum, S.J. Fleck, B. Franklin,A.C. Fry, J.R. Hoffman, R.U. New-ton, J. Potteiger, M.H. Stone, N.A.Ratamess, and T. Triplett-McBride.American College of Sports Medicine.American College of Sports Medicineposition stand. Progression models inresistance training for healthy adults.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34(2):364–380.2002.

14. Kraemer, W.J., and S.J. Fleck. StrengthTraining for Young Athletes. Cham-paign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers,1993.

15. Kraemer, W.J., A.C. Fry, P.N. Fryk-man, B. Conroy, and J. Hoffman. Re-

sistance training and youth. Pediatr.Exerc. Sci. 1:336–350. 1989.

16. Kraemer, W.J., and K. Häkkinen.Strength training for sport. In: Inter-national Olympic Committee Hand-book in Sports Medicine. W.J. Krae-mer, K. Häkkinen, eds. Oxford,U.K.: Blackwell Scientific Publishers,2002.

17. Kraemer, W.J., K. Häkkinen, N.T.Triplett-Mcbride, A.C. Fry, L.P.Koziris, N.A. Ratamess, J.E. Bauer,J.S. Volek, T. McConnell, R.U.Newton, S.E. Gordon, D. Cum-mings, J. Hauth, F. Pullo, J.M.Lynch, S.A. Mazzetti, S.J. Fleck, andH.G. Knuttgen. Physiologicalchanges with periodized resistancetraining in women tennis players.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35(1):157–68.2003.

18. Kraemer, W.J., and R.U. Newton.Training for muscular power. Phys.Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am.11(2):341–368, vii. 2000.

19. Kraemer, W.J., and B.A. Nindl. Fac-tors involved with overtraining forstrength and power. In: Overtrainingin Athletic Conditioning. W.J. Krae-mer, B.A. Nindl, eds. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics Publisher, 1998. pp69–86.

20. Kraemer, W.J., N. Ratamess, A.C.Fry, T. Triplett-McBride, L.P. Koziris,J.A. Bauer, J.M. Lynch, and S.J.Fleck. Influence of resistance trainingvolume and periodization on physio-logical and performance adaptationsin collegiate women tennis players.Am. J. Sports Med. 28(5):626–633.2000.

21. Marx, J.O., N.A. Ratamess, B.C.Nindl, L.A. Gotshalk, J.S. Volek, K.Dohi, J.A. Bush, A.L. Gómez, S.A.Mazzetti, S.J. Fleck, K. Häkkinen,R.U. Newton, and W.J. Kraemer. Lowvolume circuit versus high volume pe-riodized resistance training in women.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33(4): 635–643.2001.

22. Mateyev, L. Periodisierang des Spro-tichen Training. Berlin, Germany:Berles and Wernitz, 1972.

23. Medvedyev, A. Serval basics on the me-thodics of training. Soviet Sports Rev.22(4):203–206. 1988.

24. Newton, R.U., W.J. Kraemer, and K.Häkkinen. Effects of ballistic trainingon preseason preparation of elite vol-leyball players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.31(2):323–330. 1999.

25. Ratamess, N.A., W.J. Kraemer, J.S.Volek, M.R. Rubin, A.L. Gómez,D.N. French, M.J. Sharman, M.M.McGuigan, T. Scheet, K. Häkkinen,R.U. Newton, and F. Dioguardi. Theeffects of amino acid supplementationon muscular performance during resis-tance training overreaching. J. StrengthCond. Res. 17(2):250–258. 2003.

26. Selye, H. Forty years of stress research:Principal remaining problems and mis-conceptions. Can. Med. Assoc. J.115(1):53–56. 1976.

27. Selye, H. A syndrome produced by di-verse nocuous agents. 1936. J. Neu-ropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 10(2):230–231. 1998.

28. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, and J.Garhammer. A hypothetical model forstrength training. J. Sports Med.21:342–351. 1981.

29. Stowers, T., J. McMillan, D. Scala, V.Davis, D. Wilson, and M. Stone. Theshort term effects of three differentstrength-power training methods.Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J.5(3):24–27. 1983.

30. Volek, J.S., N.D. Duncan, S.A.Mazzetti, R.S. Staron, M. Putukian,A.L. Gomez, D.R. Pearson, W.J. Fink,and W.J. Kraemer. Performance andmuscle fiber adaptations to creatinesupplementation and heavy resistancetraining. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.31(8):1147–1156. 1999.

31. Willoughby, D. The effects of mesocy-cle-length weight training programsinvolving periodization and partiallyequated volumes on upper and lowerbody strength. J. Strength Cond. Res.7:2–8. 1993.

O’Bryant1. Pearson, D., A. Faigenbaum, M. Con-

ley, and W.J. Kraemer. The National


Strength and Conditioning Associa-tion’s basic guidelines for the resistancetraining of athletes. Strength Cond. J.22(4):14–27. 2000.

2. Stone, M.H., and A.C. Fry. Responsesto increased resistance training vol-ume. In: Overtraining and Overreach-ing in Sport. R. Kreider, A.L. Fry, M.O’Toole, eds. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics, 1997. pp. 87–106.

3. Stone, M.H., R.E. Keith, J.T. Kear-ney, S.J. Fleck, G.D. Wilson, and N.T.Triplet. Overtraining: A review of thesigns, symptoms and possible causes.J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 5(1):35–50.1991.

4. Stone, M.H., and H.S. O’Bryant.Weight Training: A Scientific Approach(2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: BurgessInternational, 1987. pp. 121–136.

5. Stone, M.H., H.S. O’Bryant, B.K.Schilling, R.L. Johnson, K.C. Pierce,G.G. Haff, A.J. Koch, and M. Stone.Periodization: Effects of manipulatingvolume and intensity—Part 2. StrengthCond. J. 21(3):54–60. 1999.

6. Stone, M.H., and D. Wathen. Letterto the editor. Strength Cond. J.23(5):7–9. 2001.

Pendlay1. Bompa, T. Periodization: Theory and

Methodology of Training. (4th ed.)Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Pub-lishers, 1999.

2. Chandler, J. T. Letter to the editor.Strength Cond. J. 14(5):7–9. 2001

3. Kramer, J.B., M.H. Stone, H.O’Bryant, M.S. Conley, R.L. Johnson,D.C. Nieman, D.R. Honeycutt, andT.P. Hoke. Effects of a single vs. multi-ple sets of weight training: Impact ofvolume, intensity, and variation. J.Strength Cond. Res. 11(3):143–147.1997.

4. Poloquin, C. Five steps to increasingthe effectiveness of your strength train-ing program. Strength Cond. J.10(3):34–39. 1988.

5. Selye, H. A syndrome produced by di-verse nocuous agents. 1936. J. Neu-ropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 10(2):230–231. 1998.

6. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, and J.Garhammer. A hypothetical model forstrength training. J. Sports Med. 21:342–350. 1981.

7. Stowers, T., J. McMillan, D. Scala, V.Davis, D. Wilson, and M. Stone. Theshort-term effects of three differentstrength-power training methods.Natl. Strength Cond. J. 5(3):24–27.1983.

Plisk1. Baker, D., G. Wilson, and R. Carlyon,

Periodization: The effect on strength ofmanipulating volume and intensity. J.Strength Cond. Res. 8(4):235–242.1994.

2. Poliquin, C. Five steps to increasingthe effectiveness of your strength train-ing program. Natl. Strength Cond.Assoc. J. 10(3):34–39. 1988.

3. Stone, M.H., and H.S. O’Bryant. Let-ter to the editor. J. Strength Cond. Res.9(2):125–127. 1995.

4. Stone, M.H., and D. Wathen. Letterto the editor. Natl. Strength Cond.Assoc. J. 23(5):7–9. 2001.

Stone1. Byrd, R., K. Pierce, L. Rielly, and J.

Brady. Young weight-lifters’ perfor-mance across time. Sports Biomech.2(1):133–140. 2003.

2. Caine, D.J., K.J. Lindner, B.R. Man-delbaum, and W.A. Sands. Gymnas-tics. In: Epidemiology of Sports Injuries.D.J. Caine, C.G. Caine, K.J. Lindner,eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,1996. pp. 213–246.

3. Fry, A.C., W.J. Kraemer, M.H. Stone,L.P. Koziris, J.T. Thrush, and S.J.Fleck. Relationships between serumtestosterone, cortisol and weightliftingperformance. J. Strength Cond. Res.14:338–343. 2000.

4. Fry, R.W., A.R. Morton, and D. Keast.Periodisation of training stress: A re-view. Can. J. Sports Sci. 17:234–240.1992.

5. Garhammer, J. Periodization ofstrength tra ining for athletes .Track Technique. 73:2398–2399,1979.

6. Harris, G.R., M.H. Stone, H.S.O’Bryant, C.M. Proulx, and R.L.Johnson. Short-term performance ef-fects of high speed, high force orcombined weight training. J.Strength Cond. Res. 14:14–20. 1999.

7. Kramer, J.B., M.H. Stone, H.S.O’Bryant, M.S. Conley, R.L. John-son, D.C. Nieman, D.R. Honeycutt,and T.P. Hoke. Effects of single ver-sus multiple sets of weight trainingexercises on body composition andmaximum leg and hip strength. J.Strength Cond. Res. 11(3):143–147.1997.

8. Matveyev, L. P. Fundamentals of SportsTraining. Moscow, Russia: ProgressPublishers, 1981.

9. Medvedev, A.S., V.F. Rodionov, V.N.Rogozkin, and A.E. Gulyants. Trainingcontent of weightlifters during thepreparation period. Yessis, M., trans.Teoriya I Praktika Fizicheskoi Kultury.12:5–7. 1981.

10. Sands, W.A. Olympic preparationcamps 2000 physical abilities test-ing. Technique. 20(10):6–19. 2000.

11. Sands, W.A., R.C. Irvin, and J.A.Major. Women’s gymnastics: The tiecourse of fitness acquisition. A 1-yearstudy. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9(2):110–115. 1995.

12. Stone, M.H., and A.C. Fry. Increasedtraining volume in strength\power ath-letes. In: Overtraining in Sport. R.B.Kreider, A.C. Fry, M.L. O’Toole, eds.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,1997. pp. 87–106.

13. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, and J . Garhammer. A hypothet ica lmodel for s trength tra ining. J .Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 21:342–351. 1981.

14. Stone, M.H., H.S. O’Bryant, K.C.Pierce, G.G. Haff, A.J. Kock, B.K.Schilling, and R.L. Johnson. Peri-odization: Effects of manipulatingvolume and intensity—Part 1.Strength Cond. J. 21(2):56–62.1999a.

15. Stone, M.H., H.S. O’Bryant, K.C.Pierce, G.G. Haff, A.J. Kock, B.K.


Schilling, and R.L. Johnson. Peri-odization: Effects of manipulatingvolume and intensity—Part 2.Strength Cond. J. 21(3):54–60.1999b.

16. Stone, M.H., and D. Wathen. Letterto the editor. Strength Cond. J.23(5):7–9. 2001.

17. Verkhoshansky, Y. Principles of plan-ning speed/strength training programin track athletes. Legaya Athleticka.8:8–10. 1979.

18. Verkhoshansky, Y. How to set up atraining program in speed-strengthevents. Yessis, M., trans. Soviet SportsRev. 16:123–126. 1981.

19. Wilson, G., R.U. Newton, A.J. Mur-phy, and B.J. Humphries. The opti-mal training load for the developmentof dynamic athletic performance.Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 25:1279–1286.1993.

20. Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science & Practice OfStrength Training. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics, 1995.

William J. Kraemer, PhD, is currently afull professor in the Human PerformanceLaboratory in Department of Kinesiologywith a joint appointment as a full profes-sor in the Department of Physiology andNeurobiology at the University of Con-necticut, Storrs, CT.

Harold O’Bryant, PhD, is currently theExercise Science Program Director andalso directs the Biomechanics Laboratoryat Appalachian State University, Boone,NC.

Glenn Pendlay, MS, is the head coach forthe Wichita Falls Weightlifting Teambased in Wichita Falls,TX.

Steven Plisk, MS, CSCS, *D, is the SportsPerformance Director at Velocity SportsPerformance in Norwalk, CT.

Michael H. Stone, PhD, is currently theHead of Sports Physiology for theUSOC. Previously he was Chair of Sportat Edinburgh University, Edinburgh,Scotland.


roundtable discussion: periodization of training— … · periodization of training ... sports...

Documents