Take my hand and come with me back in time to 2008.
Iron Man was released in theatres, sparking a whole cinematic universe of crappy recycled hero's journeys that would last decades and ruin cinema forever. I do not know how many times people can watch all the good guys trying a little harder than last time to beat the newest seemingly indestructible villain. Luckily, the villain's only weakness is always the hero's trying a little harder than last time. Then the audience's last two brain cells bang together so they can sit there and drool for the next two and a half hours while the mutant ninja frogs fight all the robot Pokemons because Gandolf got all the stones for his Nintendo power glove or whatever the hell.
In all seriousness, I hate these movies because they are the linear periodization of popular media. Do a little more, try harder, and you will continue to progress and win forever! Who needs complex training methods when all you need to continue progressing is gumption and sticktoitiveness? I will not be subjected to this mainstream linear periodization propaganda!
There's a Problem in Your Exercise Science Class: Periodization Versus Common Sense
Thinking deeper into this, Tony Stark's suits get more efficient in their design and function, making him stronger. Thor keeps accumulating more powerful equipment from movie to movie. Captain America receives a dose of a curiously viscous glowing substance that magically makes him grow new muscles that he did not have before. I do not know why there are so many parallels to powerlifting here, but maybe these movies are not so bad. It's like watching our brave heroes go from the minor leagues of raw lifting to the more skillful big leagues of multiply.
Anyway, now that I have indeed managed to piss off 99 percent of the audience, it is 2008. A younger version of myself is sitting in some exercise science class, trying to talk me out of having a stroke in my chair because of a profound hangover. As my tongue grew drier and too large for my mouth and my head continued to split, the instructor pulled me back into consciousness, describing exercise progressions and how those progressions should flow week to week and month to month. Through the haze of the previous night's poor decisions, all I could think about was that if I had to train today, I would, at the very least, get no quality work done and, at the very most, flat-out die under a barbell.
This led me to a question I could not shake for years: Is the science behind periodization reliable once you take it out of the textbook and apply it to real life?
What is Periodization in the Real World?
One of the significant issues with periodization and its application is that there is no clear definition of what it is explicitly. Let's look at a couple of different knowledgeable authorities on this subject and see what their interpretations are:
The National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA)
The National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) defines periodization as "the logical and systematic process of sequencing and integrating training interventions in order to achieve peak performance at appropriate time points. (1)" The NSCA periodization model is suggested to be ubiquitously applied to every sport and involves breaking training cycles down into four periods:
- Preparatory Period: This is typically associated with the "off-season."
- First Transition Period: Strength and power are the focus of this preseason period.
- Competition Period: While in-season, goals shift between peaking or maintenance depending on the competition schedule.
- Second Transition Period: Recommended activities involve recreational sports and active rest during the postseason. (2)
Tudor Bompa
Tudor Bompa is a Romanian-born sports scientist who has written 19 sports preparation books, most of which are on periodization theories. A firm believer in yearly training plans, he summarizes this annual training process "...is to induce physiological adaptations and maximize performance at specific time points, usually during the main competitions of the year. To accomplish this goal, the athlete's preparedness must increase at the appropriate time, thus ensuring a greater potential for a high level of performance. The athlete's level of preparedness is a complex interaction of developing skills, biomotor abilities, psychological traits, and fatigue management. The best approach for accomplishing these goals is to use periodized training that is logically constructed and appropriately sequenced." The NSCA model is influenced heavily by Bompa's work, even though Bompa recommends only three periods of training throughout the year: Preparatory, Competitive, and Transition. (3)
Vladimir Issurin
While the models mentioned above could be considered a mixed or multi-targetted approach, training several trainable physical qualities simultaneously, Vladimir Issurin and his world-famous Block Periodization model take a much more focused approach when developing general and specific skills and physical qualities. He describes the purpose of training as "to provide a high concentration of sport-specific exercises and avoid conflicting responses of non-compatible training workloads." (4). "Blocks" of singularly focused, highly specialized training is employed to avoid undue fatigue and interference effects.
Louie Simmons
Louie, the owner of Westside Barbell and one of the most innovative and prolific strength coaches the world has ever known, believed in utilizing the Conjugate Sequence System (CSS) to organize his methods. CSS requires all essential, trainable physical qualities to be developed simultaneously. Louie accomplished this by training with lifting maximal weights, submaximal weights with maximal force, and what most would consider bodybuilding training year-round in revolving training cycles of Accumulation, Intensification, and Transformation phases. (5,6,7).
The Problem with Periodization? We Cannot Trust ANY Periodization Science
No peer-reviewed studies. No meta-analyses. And no case studies. None of it. The reasoning for this is a two-fold problem:
Periodization Problem #1: General Adaptation Syndrome - We Are Out of GAS
Anyone who has delved into periodization theory or has sat through an exercise science class has heard Hans Seyle's 1936 "General Adaptation Syndrome" or GAS. This is a pretty straightforward concept. Any person who engages in something that introduces physical stress goes through a three-stage process of alarm, adaptation, and exhaustion.
Alarm
First introduction of a new training concept, an increase in volume, an increase in intensity, starting a new program, etc. Initial responses could include more fatigue, a longer recovery time, muscle soreness, and even decreases in performance.
Adaptation
Chronic/rational exposure to the increasingly stressful demands of training grows muscle, gains strength, and improves technical proficiency in the exercise modalities you are working on.
Exhaustion
If intensity and volume are too much to handle and recovery is inadequate, the lifter can experience disturbances typically associated with overtraining, such as increased risk of injury and decreased performance. (8)
As technology and analytical testing procedures have advanced over almost 100 years, GAS has sustained much criticism for oversimplifying stress, being a poor tool for explaining chronic stress and assuming that all stress is created equally to stimulate a stress response in the body. (9)
In 1988, Sterling and Eyer coined the term "allostasis," the process of your internal homeostasis shifting and evolving based on your environment. When looked at through the lens of developing strength and sports preparation, we can consider GAS "stability through constancy" while allostasis is "stability through change." Stress is not a single input, especially concerning training. For example, we know athletes who experience higher levels of general life stress are more prone to injuries. We know non-training-related stress can alter immune function, motor coordination, cognition, mood, metabolism, hormone health, athletic performance, and recovery from training. Periodization models that follow the oversimplified GAS concept do not consider these factors. (10)
Why has GAS been rendered obsolete by the scientific community, but is it still the most fundamental consideration when building a periodized training program by organizations like the NSCA? Why is it still a constant talking point for experts in the field? Honestly, I have no idea.
Periodization Problem #2: The Research Just Sucks for a Bunch of Reasons
Individual Variation in Response
A billion programs exist to choose from because they all worked for someone at some point. Advocates for these programs swear they found the magic bullet and the perfect combinations of training variables to blow through your plateau and get peaked for the meet. The issue is that individual responses to different training stimuli vary widely among people, a fact ignored in periodization research. Magnitude in scientific research tells us how meaningful or impactful an observed effect is in the real world. Magnitude is a critical component of a study on periodization to see the individual impact of training. Over half of the existing studies do not report magnitude. (11)
Study Duration
Only about five percent of periodization research involves a training intervention that lasts longer than 24 weeks, none are longer than nine months, and the vast majority of them fall between four and 12 weeks. I have worn the same pair of underwear for longer durations than most periodization studies. These time frames tell us nothing. (11)
Huge Conceptual Issues
If periodization has a sound scientific basis, why do none of these researchers test the predictive outcomes of strength training programs? Why don't we know that doing a particular program will yield a certain amount of weight gained on the squat, bench, deadlift, or whatever else they are testing? Why is this seemingly important conclusion of every other scientific process wholly ignored in this field of study, along with other concepts like the direction, timing, and magnitude of individual training responses? I am genuinely asking because I have had these questions for years and have yet to find a good explanation.
The Variation Problem
There is a lot to unpack here, but most periodization research, especially research comparing linear versus nonlinear models and periodized versus non-periodized programs, uses the terms "periodization" and "variation" interchangeably. This slight deviation in verbiage opens up a whole slew of issues. For example, within any given periodization model where training is progressing, you can have infinite variation in sets, reps, weights, and exercise selection.
Most would agree that you have to have that variation to progress. If you do not, you essentially have a program that leads to constant (i.e. not progressive) training with the same weights, sets, reps, and exercises performed forever. On the flip side, non-periodized training can also be varied. You do not need a structured plan to walk into a gym and just lift a bunch of shit. I would argue this might be ideal for some lifters, but it could be its own entirely different article. Substituting "variation" for "periodization" in scientific literature is muddying up the waters. (11)
The Real-Life Problem
Over 95 percent of all periodization research only looks at the physical factors involved in training. Sleep hygiene, supplementation, medications, nutrition, real-life stress, etc., can all have a dramatic positive or negative impact on performance. Parsing out sleep and taking a look at it by itself, we have seen evidence that you can take a bunch of athletes eating the same food, playing the same sport, doing the same training program, and by simply improving their sleep, athletes score significantly better on metrics of strength and power versus those who had crappier sleep schedules. This point alone nullifies almost all positive findings in periodization research. (11, 12)
Ok, Periodization Science Has Been Ruined, What Do We Do Now?
Do not get me wrong. I love science. I am a tremendous nerd. However, studies and meta-analyses in this field cannot be treated as the end-all or all of the information like in other fields of study. Anecdotal experience and successful practical application in the real world must be considered when designing real-world programs. Go down whatever rabbit holes of information you can find about the coaches I mentioned above. Read everything they have ever written. Read everything their athletes and training partners have ever written. Drive, fly, or call and talk to them in real life. Annoy the hell out of anyone and everyone stronger than you with training theory questions. A great coach or athlete in this sport will have a healthy mix of institutional knowledge and a considerable amount of experience with the real-life application aspects of training.
Once you have found a set of training principles and methods to follow that you can tailor year in and year out to adjust to you as a changing and growing person dealing with things outside of training, then your training will reach a level that resonates with my favorite Captain America quote: "To infinity, and beyond!"
References
- Central Concepts Related to Periodization
- Essentials of Strength and Conditioning
- Periodization Theory and Training Methodology. -Tudor Bompa
- An Interview with Vladimir Issurin
- Periodization: The Pendulum Wave
- Periodization of Training
- When Will You Learn
- General Adaptation Syndrome in Fitness Explained
- Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotions, and Behavior. -Academic Press
- Periodization Theory: Confronting an Inconvenient Truth
- Is Empirical Research on Periodization Trustworthy? A Comprehensive Review of Conceptual and Methodological Issues
- Can sleep hygiene interventions affect strength and power outcomes for female athletes?
BIO:
Mike Hedlesky has competed in over 50 meets in his 20-year powerlifting career. His best lifts include a 667 raw squat, over a dozen 800+ pound deadlifts in competition, and a bench press that's stayed about the same for 20 years. Currently, Mike is in charge of marketing, outreach, fundraising, and donor relations. He manages the 100+ member on-site fitness center for a significant nonprofit that offers programs and resources for seniors on the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. He is also an adjunct Health and Human Performance professor at Salisbury University.
Mike holds a master's degree in Applied Health Physiology with a concentration in Applied Strength and Conditioning. He has a whole slew of certifications, including his CSCS, USAW/USAPL/CrossFit Level 1 Coaching Certifications, Westside Barbell Special Strengths, and numerous certifications for training people in special populations. In his free time, he likes to read, write, perpetually argue with strangers on the internet, play too many video games, drink too much bourbon, and spend time with his wife, newborn daughter, dogs, cat, pigs, chickens, snake, wrigglers, and bees.
