Hi Steve,
As we are now in the off season I have this last month begun a strength programme. I weight train twice a week on my upper body and lower body. I am looking for some advice on how to periodize my training.
Up to now I have for example used Tuesdays for muscular strength, using six exercises for the upper body and 8 repetitions with 3 circuits. On Thursdays I do muscular endurance doing 10 exercises for the upper body, 18 repetitions with 3 circuits.
I have now reached a point where after 4 weeks I want to overload both strength and endurance. Would you recommend doing this by increasing reps or weight (or different for both strength/endurance)?
I have also read the article on periodizing strength training (Racer X Virtual Trainer website) and am contemplating acknowledging the last 4 weeks as my anatomical adaption period. This would mean November being my muscular transition period, December my Maximum strength, January my power endurance and February my strength maintenance period.
What would be the advantages/disadvantages of periodizing my programme this way instead of what i have been doing, that is combining what would be the muscular transition period and muscular power period in the same week?
Oh, one last thing, on the periodized weights programme on Virtual Trainer during the maximum strength period it recommends 8 repetitions x 3 sets. This is a contradiction to your article “Strength Without Size”, where you state this is good to improve hypertrophy but lower reps/more weight is better for strength. So, who’s right?
Many thanks for your time and effort,
Mat
Hey, Mat
Good to hear from you.
My advice is to ignore that article on periodization. You are intuitively on the right track. The material for that article was “borrowed” from Joel Friel who, in turn, stole his stuff from Tudor Bompa who, years ago, translated the work of Russian researcher Leonid Matveyev. Matveyev’s model, being based entirely on observation, is inherently flawed and has met with tremendous criticism in recent years. Here’s why…
Let’s say you spend 4 weeks working on “anatomical adaptation” moving to maximal strength for 4 weeks and, finally, to strength-endurance for 4 weeks before getting into strength maintenance as the article suggests. Forget the fact that 4 weeks is hardly enough time to seriously develop ANY single strength quality, what happens to those previously developed once you stop working on them? If you stray from one quality for too long (in most cases as little as two weeks), you will see a reduction in that ability. So, while you are training one, you are rapidly detraining another.
Most sports require a mix of strength qualities (e.g. maximal strength, strength endurance, etc.). As such, all qualities need to be trained in some capacity all the time. The only thing that changes is the amount of training time and/or volume (i.e. sets and reps) dedicated to each. This will vary according to the season and the needs of the athlete.
One mixed approach is the one that you have adopted. Formally known as “Daily Undulating Periodization”, it involves alternating the emphasis on a day-to-day basis. In your case you have one day for strength and one for strength-endurance. You can run this simple model for a long time before you have to get into anything more complicated.
So where do you go from here? I’d keep the same basic structure (alternating strength and strength-endurance days) but with more divergent set and rep schemes. In other words work to more weight, fewer reps, and more sets on your strength days and lighter weight and more reps on you strength-endurance days.
As for 8 reps being in the STRENGTH development range, perhaps for a relative newbie. A more experienced lifter will need to work in the 1-5 rep range if maximal strength is the goal.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Periodization as a whole is a flawed system. What people who follow eastern bloc periodization methodologies don’t know is that the Russians and most of the eastern bloc countries, pre-selected (the ones who showed the greatest potential for that sport) their athletes at a very young age, sent them to special training facilities where they trained, ate the proper foods and were administered performance enhancing drugs. This is the true secret of the periodization methodology, unfortunately many coaches, athletes and now even fitness enthusiasts are following some form of periodization.
Now I’m all for cycling of exercise demands and for optimal results you must cycle those demands, but using a pure periodization method will not bring any magical results, rather its the drug use and incredible genetics of these athletes that makes them elite.
The periodization debate has been going on for a long long time, and it certainly is a ripe one.
Periodization is just a term, which basically tells us that we need to “change” the training stimulus.
You stated that you are all for cycling exercise demands. In reality, this is periodization. I think you may be getting to hung up on the semantics of it. I don’t think that claiming to have a periodized program means that you are, in any way, trying to emmulate russian sports science. To me, it just means that you have a program, with an end goal in mind, and there are mini-goals broken down along the way, that help you achieve that end goal. Those mini-goals represent different exercise demands – maybe work capacity, strength and power (or whatever it is you are trying to achieve).
Just because one does not do drugs or have incredible genetics, does not mean that they should not use periodization. If nothing else, charting your training and knowing when you are working hard, and then when you are backing off, will help to prevent you from getting injured – as those who just randomly go about training, have no idea how much stress they have placed on their body in a given time period.
Patrick
Not sure why you’re afraid to post your name but I’ll entertain your statement anyway.
Perodization is not a single system but a term used to describe any systematic organization of training. As such, there exist many forms – linear, block, and daily undulating just to name a few. Some originated under the former Soviet state while others have their origin in the west. To state that the sporting success of the “east” was due largely to government-run training and state-supported drug use is readily apparent. Thank you Captain Obvious! But, to deny that the way they set up their training had nothing to do with it is naive.
You say you cycle exercise demands. Do you do so with any forethought or just haphazardly? Do you incorporate periods of lower volume and/or intensity (i.e. deloading)? Do you try to peak for an event or multiple events? If so, then you are using periodization my friend.
If you would like to continue this discussion, man-up and state your name.
Well said Patrick.
Hello Steve and Patrick, first I understand that in essence I am using a sort of periodization program because exercise demands are cycled, the difference is that my program is adjusted and finely tuned to my goals and doesn’t exactly use pre structured phases e.g power phase, speed phase, strength phase…etc… Also to note, when my strength increases, my power automatically increases as does my speed for the exercises in which I practice, however I have never noticed an enhanced sports performance in speed (e.g kicking the soccer ball from doing fast low pulley cable kicks) or any other weight training movement. The only thing that got my speed up in kicking a soccer ball was continously kicking a soccer ball.
After many years of training I’m very in tuned with how my body reacts and so I am able to know when it’s time to downshift a gear or two. I followed many structured pre-defined periodization methods throughout the years and I have noticed no real differences then just training on how I feel on a training day, yes of course I do set up a few blocks throughout the year where I do train with more intensity but the block ends when my body starts to show the inital signs of overtraining( excessive soreness, bad sleep, rapid morning resting heart rate) not when the program date is suppose to end. That could be e.g 3 weeks or two months.
As for the training programs, well then I must be naive,
because those individuals would have succeeded on any program so long as they practiced and practiced their sport( this was my point)
and I have seen it first hand after years and years of being in the gym.
What made them great was genetics and drugs coupled with a training program periodized or not.
Drugs and genetics in sports plays a bigger role than you believe and has more to do with winning than following a periodization program. Those athletes would have excelled no matter what program they followed whether following periodization or not. There are many examples in past sports…remember Brady Anderson, became a slugger for one year when on drugs but then became useless again off them, and that’s just one example.
As for with holding my name, because, well I don’t want to place my name online, it’s just a preference, there is no other reason. Not sure what the big deal about that was.
I also do not understand why I got ripped for stating something, I’m not here to start a feud but merely stating my opinions on the subject and I never meant to offend anyone, as that is the impression I’m getting from you guys, and if I offended anyone then I definitely apologize as this was not my intention.
Either way this will be my last post on this site. Good luck with your training programs.
You make a disparaging, matter-of-fact post – anonymously no less – and wonder why you got the response that you did? Come on, you strike me as someone smarter than that.
What you describe in your own training has been coined ‘cybernetic’ periodization – a more free-flowing structure to be sure but structure nonetheless. Such a program depends heavily on feedback – both objective and subjective – and requires a high level of intuition. This can take years to master as you well know. Most of the athletes that I work with do not have the knowledge or experience to pull this off and, thus, require a little pre-programming. If they work with me in person then I can make adjustments on the fly and not rely on hard-and-fast rule.
You continually bring up drug use but I work with drug-free athletes. With that out of the equation, who do you think will perform better? An athlete with a plan or an athlete without one?
Obviously, a more genetically gifted athlete can outperform his competition with little, crappy, or even no training. All things being equal, however, the athlete with the better plan will win more often than not. Wouldn’t you agree?
I hate to see you go as debate is healthy for everyone.