Challenges Applying
the Research on
Periodization
John Cissik, MBA, MS,1 Allen Hedrick, MA,2 and Michael Barnes, MEd3
1
Texas Womans University, Denton, Texas; 2National Strength and Conditioning Association, Colorado Springs,
Colorado; 3Infinity Personal Training, Colorado Springs, Colorado
SUMMARY
THE PRINCIPLES OF PERIODIZA-
TION ARE COMMONLY USED IN
THE DESIGN OF STRENGTH AND
CONDITIONING REGIMENS FOR
ATHLETES. RESEARCHERS
EXAMINING ITS EFFECTIVENESS
HAVE FOUND IT TO BE MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN NONPERIODIZED
APPROACHES TO TRAINING.
HOWEVER, RESEARCH ON
PERIODIZATION IS SURPRISINGLY
LIMITED IN SCOPE AND THIS
MAKES ITS APPLICATION
CHALLENGING. BY BROADENING
SUBJECT SELECTION,
INCORPORATING LONGER TERM
STUDIES, INCORPORATING
MULTIPLE MODES OF EXERCISE,
AND BY CONDUCTING
OBSERVATIONAL AND SURVEY
STUDIES, THE RESEARCH CAN BE
MADE MORE APPLICABLE TO
REAL-WORLD COACHING.
he principles of periodization
T
are the foundation of many
athletic strength and condition-
ing programs. Surprisingly little is
supported by research despite the fact
that it is widely used and widely
written about, despite the numerous
presentations on this topic, and despite
the fact that it apparently works based
on practical observation. As this article
discusses, what is supported by re-
search about periodization presents
National Strength and Conditioning Association
challenges when that knowledge is PERIODIZATION AND ITS
applied to athletics. ACCEPTANCE
With periodization, each individual
The purpose of this article is to suggest
training cycle is characterized by peri-
that, while periodization is an effective
odical adjustments in the objectives,
method to use when designing training
tasks, and content with the ultimate
programs, the science supporting the
objective being to assist the athletes in
application of periodization is inade-
reaching a peak level of performance
quate in scope. The limitations of
for the main competition(s) of the year
periodizations research are under-
(5,9). Classically in the weight room,
standable. Much of the sport science
this is done through a shift from high-
research in the West is being done in
volume and low-intensity training dur-
universities, which can limit both sub-
ing the early season (preparation phase)
ject selection and the length of the
to an emphasis on high intensity but
studies. It is difficult to get coaches and
low volume (competition phase) during
athletes to participate in this type of
the late season (4). Additionally, sports
potentially disruptive research. This is
technical training also typically in-
also due to the misconception that this
research has been done, or is being creases as the weight-training volume
done, by someone else. decreases. The competition phase is
followed by a period of active rest
The limitations to the research on during which the volume and intensity
periodization that this article discusses are low and the athlete trains at an
are problematic because they affect the
almost recreational level. The classic
application of periodization by the prac- Eastern European writings on period-
titioner. If the majority of the research
ization assume a long-term outlook on
that has been done is short term in
an athletes development as a result of
nature (i.e., roughly an academic se-
periodization (4,27,32). This approach
mester in length), uses nonathletic
is not limited to weight training, it is
college populations, and primarily uses
also taken with endurance training.
strength training, then it is difficult to
Traditionally, endurance training peri-
apply this research to other popula-
tions, over periods of years, using odization begins the year with a focus
on building an aerobic base through
multiple modes of exercise.
high-volume/low-intensity training,
This article discusses the acceptance of gradually shifting toward lower volume
the practice of periodization and
limitations of research supporting its
KEYWORDS:
use and concludes by discussing the
challenges that the limitations of the periodization; programming; overload;
research create for the practitioner. diminishing returns
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 45
Periodization Research
and higher intensity training as the year
progresses (26). Typically endurance
athletes will cut back on volume as the
competition gets closer to peak for the
competition (20,26,29,30).
There is widespread acceptance of
periodization by those involved in the
strength and conditioning profession
(13,14,33). For example, Rhea et al. (33)
stated that while the strength-training
community has yet to agree on the
optimal program design for strength
development, strength-training experts
generally agree that some form of peri-
odization must be a major part of any
program to optimize strength gains.
Similarly, Fleck and Kraemer (14) state
that periodization is effective and that
its use is supported by multiple sport
science studies, using Stone et al. (38)
and Willoughby (44) as examples.
Several survey-type research studies
observing the practices of strength and
conditioning professionals working in
Major League baseball (12), the Na-
tional Basketball Association (37), the
National Hockey League (11), and the
National Football League (10) also con-
firm the majority of coaches in each of
those professional sports leagues use
some type of periodization in the
design of their strength and condition-
ing programs.
It is important to point out that periodi-
zation works and is used by strength
and conditioning professionals; how-
ever, there appears to be a lack of
research supporting its use and appli-
cation. For example, Stone et al. (39)
note that although periodization has
become a household word in recent
years among athletes, coaches, and
sports scientists, actual research con-
cerning periodized strength training
is minimal. In 1999. Stone et al. (39)
pointed out that most of the informa-
tion concerning periodization is the
result of observational evidence, anec-
dotal data, inference from related
studies (such as overtraining research),
and a few mesocycle-length periodized
studies. This situation has not changed
dramatically in the period of time since
that article was published. As evidence
of that, the periodization article by
46 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2008
Plisk and Stone (32) published in 2003
introduced the subject matter by stat-
ing that although an effort was made
to present relevant research findings
where appropriate, most of the con-
cepts discussed in the article are in-
tuitive or anecdotal in nature. It does
need to be pointed out that two studies
by Kraemer et al. (24,25) using col-
legiate women tennis players de-
monstrated that periodized resistance
training did provide an advantage over
nonperiodized resistance training in
a variety of performance parameters.
Further, Fleck (13) points out that
while the athletic community has been
using periodization for at least 40 years,
few published projects have investiga-
ted the efficacy of periodized strength
training. In fact, Flecks 1999 review
covered eight studies. Fry et al. (17)
note that while periodization is widely
used for designing training programs,
which has led to a significant number
of articles on the topic, most of the
information contained in the literature
is conjectural and not supported by
research.
Siff (36) lends further support for
taking a cautious approach to the un-
questioning support of periodization
by noting that this may create the
impression that it should be regarded
as the pre-eminent and most appro-
priate method of organizing long-term
training. However, even among Soviet
Union practitioners, researchers, and
scientists, this approach to training
has attracted some fierce criticism
(6,7,42,43). The fact that there is debate
among Soviet researchers and scien-
tists is of note because the foundation
of modern training and periodization
was partially laid in the Soviet Union.
As suggested by Siff (36), some of this
criticism by Soviet authorities is war-
ranted. For example, the belief that peri-
odization is an exact science in which
training programs can be designed
based on exact calculations of inten-
sity and volume of every training session
for the entire mesocycle is not valid.
Several critics of periodization ques-
tion the validity and awkwardness of
labeling the various microcycles and
mesocycles in the form of an exact
number of days or weeks, as well as the
process of designing arbitrary building
blocks of intuitively chosen exercises
(31,36,42,43). For example, many co-
aches will group training into 4-week
blocks, believe that the general prep-
aration phase should last a specific
amount of the entire preparation phase
of training (for example, two-thirds),
will prioritize hypertrophy during the
general preparation phase, and will
prioritize maximal strength only during
the special preparation phase.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
Research investigating the effective-
ness of periodization has been evolving
over the past 25 years since Stone et al.
(38) published their groundbreaking
paper in 1981 that dealt with strength
training. However, a number of chal-
lenges exist when attempting to apply
the results of periodization research
to athletics. Most published research
papers are short-term studies focused
on the development of strength and
power. In addition, athletes are rarely
used as subjects and the volume and
intensity of training are problematic.
RESEARCH IS PRIMARILY
APPLICABLE TO STRENGTH/
POWER SPORTS
As suggested by Fleck (13), a limita-
tion of periodization research is that
the majority of the studies examining
its effectiveness in terms of strength
training have focused on increases in
strength/power and the manipulation
of training volume and intensity. As a
result, these studies are primarily appli-
cable to improving strength/power
and not directly related to improving
muscular endurance. McGee et al.
(28) and Rhea et al. (34) stand out as
exceptions.
McGee et al. (28) demonstrated that
volume is important for increases in
muscular endurance. Subjects were
evaluated on squatting endurance by
squatting 60 kg once every 6 seconds.
Each minute the bar mass was in-
creased by 2.5 kg until exhaustion.
Subjects trained 3 times per week for
7 weeks; one group performed a single
set of 812 reps until failure, one group
did a program of increasing intensity
(i.e., resistance) and decreasing volume
(i.e., sets and reps) throughout the
7 weeks, and the last group did a pro-
gram of 3 sets of 10 repetitions for the
entire study. All 3 groups made gains
from the training program. The single-
set group improved their total repeti-
tions during the squat endurance test
by 46%, the last group (3 sets of 10 reps)
improved by 74%, with the middle
group improving total repetitions by
71%. All 3 groups also improved the
volume load (repetitions 3 mass) that
they handled in the squat endurance
test. The single-set group improved by
51%, the last group (3 sets of 10 reps) by
84%, with the middle group improving
by 87%. The results from this study
seem to suggest that volume in weight
training (i.e., 3 sets versus 1 set) may
be important in improving muscular
endurance.
Rhea et al. (34) had subjects work out
on leg extensions 2 days per week for
15 weeks. Subjects were divided into
what the authors termed linear periodi-
zation (progress from high volume/
low intensity to lower volume/higher
intensity during the study), reverse
linear periodization (progress from
lower volume/higher intensity to higher
volume/lower intensity during the
study), and daily undulating periodiza-
tion (progress from higher volume/
lower intensity to higher intensity/
lower volume over the course of 3
sessions) groups. At the end of 15
weeks, all groups increased their mus-
cular endurance on leg extensions.
The linear and daily undulating groups
both increased by approximately 55%,
while the reverse linear group im-
proved by almost 73%. The authors
concluded that gradual increases in
volume and decreases in intensity may
result in greater gains in muscular
endurance.
While there are many studies looking
at the effects of strength training on
aerobic endurance performance (for
example, strength training and its ef-
fect on 5-km run times), few use
periodization in their strength-training
protocols. While this may be seen as a
limitation of the studies, it should be
pointed out that many of the subjects
in these studies possess a relatively
untrained status (strength training-
wise); therefore, periodization may
not be necessary to elicit adaptations.
Surprisingly, increasing maximal strength
may improve different types of endur-
ance. For example, Stone et al. (40) in
their review indicated that there is
a correlation between maximal stren-
gth and high-intensity exercise endur-
ance (i.e., force restoration during
strength training and strength/power
sports). This suggested that improving
strength and power would improve
at least certain types of muscular
endurance.
RESEARCH RARELY USES
ATHLETES AS SUBJECTS
The training background of subjects
can make comparing the effectiveness
of training programs difficult. In un-
trained individuals, during the first
several weeks of a training program, in-
creases in strength/power occur quite
rapidly, primarily as a result of neural
factors (18). As a result, a significant
difference in increases in strength/
power between training groups may
be difficult to achieve because most
training programs will result in in-
creases in strength and power in un-
trained subjects. If a superiority in
strength/power is shown in short-term
studies, it may simply show that one
program better stimulates when neural
gains occur as compared to the other
program. This may be especially true if
changes in lean body mass between
training programs are not significant
(13). Clearly neural adaptations occur
with the training of experienced ath-
letes (23); however, these are not occur-
ring as a result of a learning effect from
initial exposure to strength training.
It should be noted that some studies
attempted to control for this learning
effect by either providing a familiariza-
tion period (21), screening potential
subjects for a base level of strength
(44), or by recruiting subjects who self-
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
report a specific amount of weight train-
ing experience (2,33,34). While none of
these are foolproof ways, they can help
control for the initial learning effect.
Furthermore, the ability to apply the
results of studies using untrained sub-
jects is limited when working with the
training programs of athletes or trained
subjects. Strength gains occur at a
slower rate as training status increases
(e.g., highly trained versus moderately
trained or untrained subjects). This
may be partly the result of the neural
factors mentioned previously. In addi-
tion, higher caliber athletes may expe-
rience training differently than lower
caliber athletes (40). As an example,
both Alen et al. (1) and Fry et al. (16)
have shown that elite weightlifters
either do not demonstrate much of a
hormonal effect from training or ex-
perience training very differently than
nonelite weightlifters. Presumably this
allows them to tolerate greater training
loads. This should serve to reinforce
the fact that different-caliber athletes
have different training needs.
Some studies do focus on athletes.
Both Kraemer et al. (24) and Hoffman
et al. (22) studied athletes. Kraemer
et al. (24) investigated whether non-
linear periodization resulted in addi-
tional adaptations over a 9-month
training program in female collegiate
tennis players when compared to a
program that did not vary intensity or
volume. Over the course of the study,
they equated the volume and the int-
ensity for both groups. After the 9-
month training program, they found
that both groups made statistically
significant increases in fat-free mass,
statistically significant decreases in the
percentage of body fat, and statistically
significant increases in anaerobic power,
upper/lower body strength, and coun-
termovement jump heights. The au-
thors reported greater improvement in
the periodized group at months 4 and 6,
but less improvement at month 9.
The fact that the periodized group was
making better gains on many measures
on months 4 and 6 but not 9 is an
interesting result. Kramer et al. (24)
attributed these results to the fact that
47
Periodization Research
the last 3 months of the study were
in conjunction with the competitive
season.
Kraemer et al. (24) also looked at
several sport-specific performance
measures. They examined ball velocity
changes over the course of the study
using the tennis serve, forehand stroke,
and backhand stroke. On all three of
the performance measures, the perio-
dized group made statistically signifi-
cant gains when compared to the
nonperiodized group. This study in-
dicates that periodization has a positive
effect on the performance of college-
age female tennis athletes; however,
after a period of time, even periodized
training may result in diminished gains
if variation is not applied to more than
just volume and intensity.
Hoffman et al. (22) examined the
effects of what they called linear versus
nonlinear periodization models during
an in-season maintenance phase of
college, Division III football players.
Both groups trained twice per week
with the linear group training at 80% of
1RM throughout the study and the
nonlinear group training at 70% on day
1 and 90% on day 2 of the week. After
12 weeks, the nonlinear group had
a nonsignificant trend toward losing
strength, while the linear group gained
a statistically significant amount of
strength on the squat and a nonsignif-
icant amount of strength on the bench
press. The authors concluded that
during a maintenance phase of training
that involves low volumes, mani-
pulating exercise intensity may not be
relevant. In fact, a consistent high-
intensity stimulus may be necessary
for generating increases in strength.
The Hoffman et al. (22) study suggests
that a threshold intensity level might
exist to allow in-season football players
to maintain strength levels. Training
below a certain intensity level may
result in strength loss during in-season
training. However, this threshold level
may not be true in every circumstance.
For example, Harris et al. (19), exam-
ined collegiate football players and
found that combining training intensi-
ties improved a greater number and
48 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2008
wider range of performance tests than
only high-force (80% of 1RM) or high-
power (30 % of 1RM) training. The
authors reported that the combined
group made statistically significant
improvements on eight measurements
(1RM squat, one-quarter squat, mid-
thigh pull, vertical jump, average
vertical jump power, peak vertical jump
power, stair climb power test, and 10-
yard sprint), whereas other groups did
not improve on as many measure-
ments. It should be noted that this
study did not examine football players
in-season, so it is difficult to compare
the results directly to the Hoffman
et al. (22) study.
USE OF VOLUME AND INTENSITY
IS CONTENTIOUS
Comparing a periodized training pro-
gram to a single-set program or to a
continuous set and repetition program
(e.g., 4 3 8 for the duration of the pro-
gram) results in differences in training
volume between the programs that
may account for the differences in
gains between groups.
Early studies examining the effective-
ness of periodized versus nonperiodized
programs typically had the periodized
groups perform greater total volumes of
training, at a greater intensity, or both
(38,44). As a result any difference in the
results of the training programs could be
attributed to the disparity in training
volume or intensity (2,35).
Previous periodization studies have
equated volume so that both the
periodization and control groups per-
formed equal amounts of work (repe-
titions, weight lifted, etc.) over the
duration of the study. This has led to
ambiguous results (2,3335). Initially
these ambiguous results might sound
logical, but it is important to remember
that the periodized model might pro-
duce superior results as a result of the
higher overall volume made possible
by the variations in volume and in-
tensity (41). Thus, equating the vol-
umes would counteract the advantage
of the periodized model. It should also
be recognized that equating the vol-
ume defeats the purpose if it takes the
study participant outside the optimal
repetition range to achieve the desired
effects (for example, 3 sets of 8 versus 8
sets of 3 using equal loads).
RESEARCH IS RARELY LONG
ENOUGH TO ELICIT LONG-TERM
TRAINING EFFECTS
Typically, periodization studies last
an academic semester (1215 weeks).
This is because researchers typically
work in university settings and recruit
students enrolled in academic classes.
It is also done because student com-
pliance with the study may be difficult
if it lasts longer than a semester.
The difficulty with these short-term
studies is that the training gains that
individuals make decreases over time
as a result of the same training stimulus,
the overload principle is a fundamen-
tal principle of exercise. Unlike most
short-term study participants, athletes
do not just train for 1215 weeks. Ath-
letes often train over a period of years.
This is one of the main reasons for
using periodization, to vary training so
that athletes can continue making
gains in their performance over time.
If the gains from training diminish over
a period of 8 weeks to 9 months, imag-
ine the effects over a period of years. A
study that only lasts a few months is
not appropriate to make conclusions
about how to train over a long period
of time.
To summarize, periodization research
has primarily been performed focusing
on strength and power, with some
exceptions (28,34). It should also be
clear that the majority of subjects used
in interventional training studies are
nonathlete college students. There are
two reasons for this. First, as previously
mentioned, many of the researchers
are in a university setting, resulting in
the lengths of the studies being tied
to the academic semester. Second,
coaches and athletes are understand-
ably reluctant to change their training
program, which makes recruiting ath-
letes difficult. This limitation makes it
difficult to apply results observed in
nonathletes to athletes. Periodization
approaches to training seem to be
effective due to higher volume and/or
training intensity; however, controlling
for that seems to produce ambiguous
results, which further confound re-
searching periodization. This could
be further confounded if subjects miss
training sessions or perform additional
work outside the confines of the study.
Finally, due to the constraints imposed
on many researchers, periodization re-
search is rarely performed long enough
to produce long-term training effects. It
is very difficult to apply the results of
many of these studies to the long-term
training of athletes, something that
periodization is meant to address.
It should be noted that many of the
challenges described above are not
unique to strength and power training.
In his review, Berg (3) notes several
similar limitations in the research of
runners, two of which included a lack
of long-term longitudinal studies and
an inadequate description of the train-
ing status of the study participants. The
lack of longitudinal studies is problem-
atic because it affects our understand-
ing of how physiological changes
evolve over years, our understanding
of the volume of training needed to
optimize performance, and our un-
derstanding of which training compo-
nents should be emphasized during the
various stages of training. Failing to
control training status makes it difficult
to determine whether the study pro-
duced training gains.
CHALLENGES TO THE
PRACTITIONER
The majority of periodization studies
focus only on strength training. This is
problematic because most athletes
train to improve speed, agility, flexibil-
ity, and sport-specific skills.
There is limited information on ideal
volumes and intensity for speed train-
ing, agility training, core training, and
mobility training among others. There
is limited information on ideal vol-
umes and intensities when combining
various types of training modes for
both long- and short-term training
programs. For example, how does
weight training fit into a program with
sprint training? Do the volume and
intensity of one affect the volume and
intensity of the other? How? What
about plyometrics? The list goes on. In
addition, how should this information
change as the season changes? How
should it change as the athlete pro-
gresses developmentally? As can be
seen, there are still many unanswered
questions.
Finally, there is no information about
how all the above-cited changes vary
with different levels of athletes. For
example, should high school athletes
squat and sprint on the same day?
What about elite athletes?
Cissik (8) discussed several solutions to
these challenges with regards to track
and field athletes. These included de-
termining which types of exercise had
the best relationship with improve-
ments in the athletes performance,
determining which volumes/
intensities of those exercises had the
best relationship with improvement in
the athletes performance, and deter-
mining whether the timing of the
various exercises (i.e., when they are
used during the year) had a relationship
with improvement in performance.
Most of these suggestions are not
applicable to other sports due to the
inherent quantifiability of track and
field. However, as he suggests, obser-
vational and survey data could be
gathered to overcome the understand-
able reluctance of coaches and athletes
to have their training modified to
investigate the results of those mod-
ifications. This approach, while not
without limitations, would provide
extremely valuable information about
long-term training and especially elite
athletes, the interaction of different
training modes, and the effects of the
different parts of the training year.
Kurz et al. (26) provide an example of
how this type of data could be
collected and used in periodization
research. They surveyed the training
practices of 30 Division I cross-country
teams, 14 of which qualified for NCAA
nationals and 16 of which did not. For
the purpose of the study, they divided
the year into a transition phase (May to
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
August), a competition phase (August
to November), and a peaking phase
(November). The NCAA Division I
championships were held in Novem-
ber. The results of this study allowed
Kurz et al. (26) to determine correla-
tions between training methods during
each phase of the year and team
time/placement at nationals. For ex-
ample, Kurz et al. (26) determined that
interval and fartlek training during the
transition and competition phases was
associated with slower team times,
which would be important for a
cross-country coach to know.
This type of information (i.e., from
surveys) would be valuable to a cross-
country coach, but collecting and
applying it are not without limitations.
First, surveys have to be completed and
returned. Second, as Kurz et al. (26)
noted, a coach may not reveal his or
her exact coaching methods, which
may affect the outcome. Finally, it is
not clear whether the athletes on each
team actually reached their peak per-
formance at the national meet (26).
Much of periodization is governed by
theory and opinion. As practitioners,
we accept and apply this theory and
opinion based on the name or the
perceived reputation of the individual
author or the perceived value of the
study protocol. As practitioners, the
authors of this article believe that
coaching theory is important; in fact,
coaching theory is often ahead of and
sometimes drives the research. In an
excellent article, William Freeman (15)
addresses this issue in referring to the
art of coaching. In his article, Free-
man states: Athletes improve because
their training evolvesit changes as
they improve. If it does not evolve, they
will cease to improve. We must try new
ideas, new approaches. Most of these
will come from unsubstantiated the-
ory. However, as Freeman also points
out, the laws of nature govern all
performance, so research is also very
important for performance.
There are large gaps in our knowledge
of periodization and in our ability to
apply that knowledge to the training of
athletes. Part of these gaps are due to
49
Periodization Research
the inherent limitations imposed by
where the majority of the strength and
conditioning research is being con-
ducted (i.e., universities) and the re-
luctance of coaches and athletes to
participate in interventional training
studies. It is also due to the understand-
able assumption that it has either been
done or is being done by someone else.
These gaps in our knowledge are being
compounded by the fact that the
strength and conditioning field has
been evolving steadily over the past
30 years. Over the past 30 years, prac-
titioners in the field have debated issues
such as squats and the knees, whether
weightlifting exercises and their varia-
tions have merit, core training, the role
of flexibility training, periodization, and
high-intensity training. The strength
and conditioning field has evolved to
the point where a strength and condi-
tioning coach has a number of tools
that he or she is expected to employ.
These include traditional strength-
training exercises (Olympic-style lifts
and other weight room exercises), core
training, mobility/dynamic flexibility
training, speed training, agility training,
sport-specific movements, and balance
training. Research on periodization is
not keeping pace with the tools that
a strength and conditioning profes-
sional must employ.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
As practitioners and consumers of re-
search, the authors are concerned
about the assumptions, gaps, and con-
sumption of marketing when it comes
to this important topic. The authors
are not suggesting that periodization
be scrapped, but are cautioning that
we must become informed consumers
of research and suggest calling for
expanded research efforts. Beyond
simply consuming research, we believe
that it is the practitioners responsibility
to contribute to those research efforts.
The lack of adequate research on
periodization that this article has de-
scribed will not disappear without the
participation of coaches and athletes.
The authors believe that more research
is needed in the areas of multimode
50 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2008
training, program design for athletes of
varying ability, and short- and long-
term program design. Without this
information, the strength and condi-
tioning field is going to continue to be
plagued by things that sound good
but may or may not be based on
science or even experience. j
John Cissik is the
Director of Fitness and
Recreation at Texas
Womans University.
Allen Hedrick is
Resident Head Strength
and Conditioning Coach
at the National Strength
and Conditioning
Association, Colorado
Springs, Colorado.
Michael Barnes is the
Owner of Infinity
Personal Training.
REFERENCES
1. Alen, M, Pakarinen, A, and Hakkinen, K.
Effects of prolonged training on serum
thyrotropin and thyroid hormones in elite
strength training athletes. J Sports Sci 11:
493497, 1993.
2. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R.
Periodization: The effect on strength of
manipulating volume and intensity.
J Strength Cond Res 8: 235242, 1994.
3. Berg, K. Endurance training and
performance in runners: Research
limitations and unanswered questions.
Sports Med 33: 5973, 2003.
4. Berger, J, Harre, D, and Ritter, I. Principles
of athletic training. In: Principles of Sports
Training, Harre D, ed. Berlin: Sportverlag,
7394. 1982.
5. Bompa, T. Periodization: Theory and
Methodology of Training (4th ed).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.
6. Bondarchuk, A. Constructing a training
system, part I. Track Technique 102:
32543259, 3268, 1988.
7. Bondarchuk, A. Constructing a training
system, part II. Track Technique 103:
32863288, 1988.
8. Cissik, JM. Is periodization dead or just very
sick? Track Coach 170: 54225427,
2005.
9. Dick, FW. Sports Training Principles (4th
ed). London: A&C Black, 295301. 2002.
10. Ebben, WP and Blackard, DO. Strength and
conditioning practices of National Football
League strength and conditioning coaches.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 4858, 2001.
11. Ebben, WP, Carroll, RM, and Simenz, CJ.
Strength and conditioning practices of
National Hockey League strength and
conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond
Res 18: 889897, 2004.
12. Ebben, WP, Hintz, MJ, and Simenz, CJ.
Strength and conditioning practices of
major league baseball strength and
conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond
Res 19: 538546. 2005.
13. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training:
a critical review. J Strength Cond Res 13:
8289, 1999.
14. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ. Periodization
Breakthrough! New York: Advanced
Research Press, 1996.
15. Freeman, W. Coaching, periodization, and
the battle of artist versus scientist. Track
Technique 127: 40544057, 1994.
16. Fry, AC, Kraemer, WJ, Stone, MH, Koziris,
LP, Thrush, JT and Fleck, SJ. Relationships
between serum testosterone, cortisol, and
weightlifting performance. J Strength Cond
Res 14: 338343, 2000.
17. Fry, RW, Morton, AR, and Kreast, D.
Periodization of training stress. Can J
Sports Sci 17: 234240, 1992.
18. Hakkinen, K. Factors influencing trainability
of muscular strength during short term and
prolonged term training. NSCA J 7(2):
3237, 1985.
19. Harris, GR, Stone, MH, OBryant, HS,
Proulx, CM, and Johnson, RL. Short-term
performance effects of high power, high
force, or combined weight-training
methods. J Strength Cond Res 14:
1420, 2000.
20. Hellard, P, Avalos, M, Millet, G, Lacoste, L,
Barale, F, and Chatard, J-C. Modeling the
residual effects and threshold saturation of
training: a case study of Olympic
swimmers. J Strength Cond Res 19:
6775, 2005.
21. Herrick, AB and Stone, WJ. The effects of
periodization versus progressive resistance
exercise on upper and lower body strength
 in women. J Strength Cond Res 10:
7276, 1996.
22. Hoffman, JR, Wendell, M, Cooper, J, and
Kang, J. Comparison between linear and
nonlinear in-season training programs in
freshman football players. J Strength Cond
Res 17: 561565, 2003.
23. Judge, LW, Moreau, C, and Burke, JR. Neural
adaptations with sport-specific resistance
training in highly skilled athletes. J Sports Sci
21: 419427, 2003.
24. Kraemer, WJ, Haekkinen, K, Triplett
McBride, NT, Fry, AC, Koziris, LP,
Ratamess, NA, Bauer, JE, Volek, JS,
McConnell, T, Newton, RU, Gordon, SE,
Cummings, D, Hauth, J, Pullo, F, Lynch, JM,
Mazzetti, SA, Knuttgen, HG, and Fleck, SJ.
Physiological changes with periodized
resistance training in women tennis
players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:
157168, 2003.
25. Kraemer, WJ, Ratamess, N, Fry, AC,
Triplett-McBride, T, Koziris, LP, Bauer, JE,
Lynch, JM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of
resistance training volume and
periodization on physiological and
performance adaptations in collegiate
women tennis players. Am J Sports Med
28: 626633, 2000.
26. Kurz, MJ, Berg, K, Latin, R, and DeGraw, W.
The relationship of training methods in
NCAA Division I cross-country runners and
10,000-meter performance. J Strength
Cond Res 14: 196201, 2000.
27. Matveyev, L. Fundamentals of Sports
Training. Moscow: Progress Publishers,
1981. pp 6084.
28. McGee, D, Jessee, TC, Stone, MH, and
Blessing, D. Leg and hip endurance
adaptations to three weight-training
programs. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6(2):
9295, 1992.
29. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Scientific bases
for precompetition tapering strategies.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 11821187,
2003.
30. Neary, JP, Martin, TP, and Quinney, HA.
Effects of taper on endurance cycling
capacity and single muscle fiber properties.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 18751883,
2003.
31. Pedemonte, J. Foundations of training
periodization. Part I: historical outline.
NSCA J 8: 6265, 1986.
32. Plisk, S and Stone, M. Periodization
strategies. Strength Cond J 25: 1937,
2003.
33. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and
Burkett, LN. A comparison of linear and
daily undulating periodized programs
with equated volume and intensity for
strength. J Strength Cond Res 16:
250255, 2002.
34. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN,
Stone, WJ, Ball, SD, Alvar, BA, and
Thomas, AB. A comparison of linear and
daily undulating periodized programs with
equated volume and intensity for local
muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res
17: 8287, 2003.
35. Schiotz, MK, Ptteiger, JA, Huntsinger, PG,
and Denmark, DC. The short-term effects
of periodized and constant-intensity
training on body composition, strength, and
performance. J Strength Cond Res 12:
173178, 1998.
36. Siff, M. Supertraining (4th ed). Denver, CO:
Supertraining Institute, 2000.
37. Simenz, CJ, Dugan, CA, and Ebben, WP.
Strength and conditioning practices of
National Basketball Association strength
and conditioning coaches. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 495504, 2005.
strength in men: a review. J Strength Cond
38. Stone, MH, OBryant, H, and Garhammer, J. Res 13: 289304. 1999.
A hypothetical model for strength training.
42. Verkoshansky, Y. Main features of a modern
J Sports Med Physical Fitness 21:
scientific sports training theory. New
342351, 1981.
Studies Athletics 13: 920, 1998.
39. Stone, MH, Pierce, KC, Haff, GG, Koch, AJ,
and Stone, M. Periodization: effects of 43. Verkoshansky, Y. The end of periodization
manipulating volume and intensity. Part 1. of training in top-class sport. New Studies
Strength Cond J 21: 5662, 1999. Athletics 14: 4755, 1999.
40. Stone, MH, Sands, WA, and Stone, ME. 44. Willoughby, DS. The effects of
The downfall of sports science in the mesocycle-length weight training
United States. Strength Cond J 26: programs involving periodization and
7275, 2004. partially equated volumes on upper and
41. Tan, B. Manipulating resistance training lower body strength. J Strength Cond
program variables to optimize maximum Res 7: 28, 1993.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 51