The Periodization Problem

Bigger Stronger Leaner Powerlifting & Strength Sports
1

Lately, whether its on this site or elitefts, there’s been talk about periodization models: conjugate periodization, conjugate sequence, undulating, accumulation/intensification, and etc. There has also been the big debate between movement splits, total body, and body part splits.

Conjugate Periodization: simultaneously developing several qualities over the same period of time.

Conjugate Sequence System: the order of specific blocks which are designed for a strong cumulative effect.

Accumulation/intensification: Accumulate Fatigue, and allow intensification phase for restoration and strength development.

Undulating: mixing up the rep/set ranges.

So how does this involve the different types of splits??

Well to me, the split you use is somewhat dependent on the periodization or “phases” you incorporate.

OK, the article of western periodization some what bothers me, because I don’t feel like its a good approach, even when you have a longer periods of training.

No matter what field you are in, the basic goals of every athlete are:

  1. Strength
  2. Size
  3. Explosion

This is why I think Christians periodization is best. Essentially his block system entails 3 different types of blocks:

  1. Accumulation Phase: Focus of muscle mass while maintaining strength and explosion
  2. Intensification Phase: Focus of strength while maintaining size and explosion
  3. Explosion Block: Focus of explosion while maintaining strength and size

This system is all of what is mentioned early: conjugate periodization, conjugate sequence system, accumulation/intensification and undulating.

Like I said before, the goals of training styles of an individual can easily be adapted to this “template”

Athlete:
Accumulation Phase: Focus on total body splits (undulating)

Intensification Phase: Upper/Lower split

Explosion: Olympic Program

  • A bodybuilder might go with HSS-100 for an intensification block.

How you design your program is really up to you. As long as you devote the appropriate amount of work volume to the specific quality of that specific block.

E.G:
Accumulation Block:
50% Total Volume goes to Hypertrophy
25% Strength
25% Explosion

Hopefully this will stir up some discussion regarding Periodization

2

Personally I think some people get too caught up in the macro-level of periodization when it’s not THAT important.

“Train the athlete’s present needs in respect to the future.”

I too like block training- go in steps and try to have them feed into one another.

hypertrophy → strength → power… and loop

We all need those phases, I guess the issue of periodization is how long the phase should be. For some, complex training where all are done every workout might be best. For others, not even close.

Again, I think focusing on the micro-level of periodization (how you lay out a training week) is the way to go. What quality do you want to increase and by how much? Do you need a big increase in that quality while accepting a slight decline in others? Or is a small increase while maintaining all other qualities the way to go?

It’s very individual, which IMO, is the reason why the broad-scale, sweeping linear periodization doesn’t work- you might be “plugging in” an athlete at the wrong point in the loop and basically waste weeks or months of training- ie, sticking a power-starved athlete in the hypertrophy phase and having him/her spend 18 weeks until they get to power work.

3

I’d like to pick your minds on this since you seem to have a very deep understanding of multiple systems. I set up an undulating full body routine that changes up every 6 weeks or so whenever gains get stale. I think that it would have resulted in pretty good gains except I’ve had to take a full month off twice this year to nurse injurys(strains, pulls,etc). I’ll see if by using massage, stretching, etc I can avoid it and keep the gains coming.

Now what I mean by undulating is on Mon my chest exercise may be 5x3 and than weds would be 3x8 and so on. I don’t go to failure though I may bump up agaist postive failure on the last set, and should mention I use straight sets. I’ve been thinking that maybe I should go to failure once and a while because of the results I had on max-ot.

Now I’m not saying max-ot is great or anything but I’m annoyed that I still don’t have some of the same poundages that I achieved on that system in 8 short weeks which was training to failure all the time, which resulted in my body crashing. So I’m looking forward to that roundtable.

At any rate I have 1 years worth of logs on excel of my design that I could send by US mail if you felt like telling me why you think I haven’t got the maximum results yet. I don’t do Olympic movements cause I need a coach to learn them properly since I don’t want injurys to slow me down.

4

I agree with you. Many are looking to far ahead rather than taking care of the needs of the present.

I’m glad you agree with the block system approach. But when I posted the blocks, similar to your Hypertrophy-Strength-Power, Each block is not solely dedicated to that quality. It is merely emphasized while others are maintained.

The problem comes from distributing the total work volume appropriately. For example, in the accumulation phase where hypertrophy is emphasized and strength/power maintained, how would you devote 50% of your work to size with the other 50% to strength and power? (This depends on you split)

I think with the accumulation phase, you can go 4 weeks and deload. For a strength phase you may wish to employ a concentration block with 2 sessions of maximal effort a day. (2 weeks and deload)

Ill go one step forward and say that you should focus on a mesocycle vs microcycle. But then again, if you wanted to emphasize strength, you would need to plan out a microcycle which entails the proper distribution of work volume.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Personally I think some people get too caught up in the macro-level of periodization when it’s not THAT important.

“Train the athlete’s present needs in respect to the future.”

I too like block training- go in steps and try to have them feed into one another.

hypertrophy → strength → power… and loop

We all need those phases, I guess the issue of periodization is how long the phase should be. For some, complex training where all are done every workout might be best. For others, not even close.

Again, I think focusing on the micro-level of periodization (how you lay out a training week) is the way to go. What quality do you want to increase and by how much? Do you need a big increase in that quality while accepting a slight decline in others? Or is a small increase while maintaining all other qualities the way to go?

It’s very individual, which IMO, is the reason why the broad-scale, sweeping linear periodization doesn’t work- you might be “plugging in” an athlete at the wrong point in the loop and basically waste weeks or months of training- ie, sticking a power-starved athlete in the hypertrophy phase and having him/her spend 18 weeks until they get to power work.[/quote]

5

For Undulating periodization and a fullbody approach. I would go with DUP. Change your rep ranges from workout to workout.

E.G
Workout 1: 10-12
Workout 2: 6-8
Workout 3: 8-10

Maybe you are stagnating because you aren’t changing your exercise selection. If you do chest monday with 5x3, go with incline or dips with 3x8.

[quote]Shaggs wrote:
I’d like to pick your minds on this since you seem to have a very deep understanding of multiple systems. I set up an undulating full body routine that changes up every 6 weeks or so whenever gains get stale. I think that it would have resulted in pretty good gains except I’ve had to take a full month off twice this year to nurse injurys(strains, pulls,etc). I’ll see if by using massage, stretching, etc I can avoid it and keep the gains coming.

Now what I mean by undulating is on Mon my chest exercise may be 5x3 and than weds would be 3x8 and so on. I don’t go to failure though I may bump up agaist postive failure on the last set, and should mention I use straight sets. I’ve been thinking that maybe I should go to failure once and a while because of the results I had on max-ot.

Now I’m not saying max-ot is great or anything but I’m annoyed that I still don’t have some of the same poundages that I achieved on that system in 8 short weeks which was training to failure all the time, which resulted in my body crashing. So I’m looking forward to that roundtable.

At any rate I have 1 years worth of logs on excel of my design that I could send by US mail if you felt like telling me why you think I haven’t got the maximum results yet. I don’t do Olympic movements cause I need a coach to learn them properly since I don’t want injurys to slow me down.[/quote]

6

[quote]thetruth24 wrote:
I agree with you. Many are looking to far ahead rather than taking care of the needs of the present.

I’m glad you agree with the block system approach. But when I posted the blocks, similar to your Hypertrophy-Strength-Power, Each block is not solely dedicated to that quality. It is merely emphasized while others are maintained.

The problem comes from distributing the total work volume appropriately. For example, in the accumulation phase where hypertrophy is emphasized and strength/power maintained, how would you devote 50% of your work to size with the other 50% to strength and power? (This depends on you split)

I think with the accumulation phase, you can go 4 weeks and deload. For a strength phase you may wish to employ a concentration block with 2 sessions of maximal effort a day. (2 weeks and deload)

Ill go one step forward and say that you should focus on a mesocycle vs microcycle. But then again, if you wanted to emphasize strength, you would need to plan out a microcycle which entails the proper distribution of work volume.
[/quote]

When I think of planning a cycle, on whatever scale it is, I try to think of things on a sliding scale.

You look at a lot of high school kids, and they’re just weak as shit- they pretty much need nothing but ME and RE work every session for a couple of months. Other athletes might need a more balanced approach. Some you can probably plan a whole year in advance while others maybe three weeks at a time.

For your example, an “accumulation” sort of phase where hypertrophy is emphasized, I’d probably go with something like:

Day 1. Pull
Day 2. Legs
Day 3. Push
Day 4. Rest

and repeat on a 4-day scale. The details of the session would determine what you need. To steal the Inno-Sport terminology, you’d have a main session of DUR An-1 and An-2 work (ME and SE or lower-rep RE to use the Russian terms) and a companion session (when you repeat the 4-day scale) of An-3 (higher-rep RE). After say, two main sessions and two companion sessions, you would do one session focused on power, ie., plyometrics, speed work, etc. etc. Movement efficiency and low-force speed stuff can be done in the restorative warmup and cooldowns before and after sessions or in seperate low-intensity sessions.

All in all, I think it makes more sense to approach things from the nervous system/physiological standpoint then from the end results of that.

I mean, hypertrophy is just the result of muscular overload and eating enough. A “hypertrophy” block for an anerobic power athlete is not really a hypertrophy block, it’s a block where you’re building general strength endurance in a higher work bracket with the plan that it will transfer to better pinnacle performance. A small thing, but I think it makes more sense when planning. To me, ME/SE/RE/DE makes more sense as terminology for a weightlifter/powerlifter than other athletes.

7

J,

Again, I agree many high school kids who have no background of strength training, lack the proper foundation which is required to progress on a block system which is much more advanced.

Lets just discuss hypothetically. That the block system for an intermediate/advanced individual. Most definitely that individual would respond best to these focused blocks. Now one must not get confused between these blocks, and the pure conjugate sequence system. Chrisitian explained awhile back, that conjugate sequence system, in its purest form, has many flaws. This is when he recommended blocks which focused on a specific quality while maintaining others. I will try to dig up those posts.

Not to go against you or anything, but I feel that more atheletes will benefit from a higher frequency. Total body approaches (Chad Waterbury). Here you can use an undulating approach and still preserve your strength gains. I’m not sure how you will fit explosion into a hypertrophy block though.

Would you mind explaining the gist of inno sport. I never understood their training philosophy much less, their jargon.

“All in all, I think it makes more sense to approach things from the nervous system/physiological standpoint then from the end results of that.”

Would you mind explaining? Thanks!

Well yes, I agree with your hypertrophy statement. However, it can get much more detailed. There are certain techniques and rep/set schemes which causes more hypertrophy than others.

I think ME/SE/RE/DE can very well be applied to atheletes. But so can concentric/eccentric/isometric, movement patterns, and etc.

8

[quote]thetruth24 wrote:
Not to go against you or anything, but I feel that more atheletes will benefit from a higher frequency. Total body approaches (Chad Waterbury). Here you can use an undulating approach and still preserve your strength gains. I’m not sure how you will fit explosion into a hypertrophy block though.[/quote]

It’s one way to do it. I would say that I generally like (and utilize most of the time) two full-body training sessions per week, along with one or two supplemental/ancillary training sessions for all the ticky-tack stuff (grip work, mobility/flexibility, shoulder/cuff work, etc. etc.)

[quote]
Would you mind explaining the gist of inno sport. I never understood their training philosophy much less, their jargon.[/quote]

There honestly have been a ton of posts on that and those threads tend to quickly get derailed off-topic. If you’re interested in learning more about it, read this article by Kelly Baggett:

http://inno-sport.net/Training%20Basics.htm

[quote]
“All in all, I think it makes more sense to approach things from the nervous system/physiological standpoint then from the end results of that.”

Would you mind explaining? Thanks![/quote]

What I mean is trying to “treat the cause, rather than the symptom.” ie, “Strength” is a result of a lot of different processes (muscular cross-section, co-ordination for given movement, motor unit recruitment, etc. etc.), not just something in and of itself. A “Strength block” is often too general, IMO. What is preventing the athlete from having more strength? Is it lack of muscle-mass? Inability to hold onto tension long enough to complete the lift? Poor firing patterns? etc. etc.

[quote]
Well yes, I agree with your hypertrophy statement. However, it can get much more detailed. There are certain techniques and rep/set schemes which causes more hypertrophy than others. [/quote]

Yeah, but are those methods optimal for most athlete? Maybe, maybe not. Generally I’m more inclined to see athletic training for MOST athletes as something where the primary goal is to train the CNS, and let the muscular chips fall where they may, so to speak.

I agree, terminology doesn’t really matter (only for ability to transfer information) and often seems to confuse.

Application is what matters.

9

I actually do but in hindsight didn’t explain it very cleary. I change my program(exercise selections) every 6-8 weeks. During each program each main body part/regio is hit 3 times a week. So for chest:
Monday
weighted dips 5 x 3

Weds
db bench 3 x 8

Fri
close grip inclines 3 x 12

So I’m thinking that exercise selection changes frequently. Any other suggestions? Do you go to failure?

10

Shaggs,
Maybe Kelly Baggett’s article called Performance Strategies for Intermediate and Advanced athletes could help you.

Wu Gong Heng

11

Thanks for the reference site.

Personally, I would probably go with a 3 day total body approach. Maybe something like Chad Waterbury’s Waterbury Method or something.

You stated:
“Strength” is a result of a lot of different processes (muscular cross-section, co-ordination for given movement, motor unit recruitment, etc. etc.), not just something in and of itself. A “Strength block” is often too general, IMO. What is preventing the athlete from having more strength? Is it lack of muscle-mass? Inability to hold onto tension long enough to complete the lift? Poor firing patterns? etc. etc."

In an accumulation phase, ideally you are working on muscular cross section and coordination. Thats why the weights are not too heavy. (<80%) In a strength block, you are utilizing more weights that are over 80%. In this, clusters and etc. Again, in an accumulation phase, you will build up the muscle needed for a gain in strength. This reminds me of Christian’s athlete protocol. (1 day for isometric, 1 day for concentric, 1 day for eccentric)

Again I agree, some of these techniques may not best fit athletes. But they will need to find a way to build more muscle. You can only get so much stronger per lb. Maybe you would use bodybuilding techniques, but you must employ some kind of hypertrophy oriented stimulus.

Having that said. If you were design an accumulation phase (3-6 weeks long). With an emphasis for size while maintaining strength and power. How would you distribute your workload? (split, total work volume, frequency, etc)

I know I mentioned the Waterbury Method, but I do not see any place for explosive work.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
thetruth24 wrote:
Not to go against you or anything, but I feel that more atheletes will benefit from a higher frequency. Total body approaches (Chad Waterbury). Here you can use an undulating approach and still preserve your strength gains. I’m not sure how you will fit explosion into a hypertrophy block though.

It’s one way to do it. I would say that I generally like (and utilize most of the time) two full-body training sessions per week, along with one or two supplemental/ancillary training sessions for all the ticky-tack stuff (grip work, mobility/flexibility, shoulder/cuff work, etc. etc.)

Would you mind explaining the gist of inno sport. I never understood their training philosophy much less, their jargon.

There honestly have been a ton of posts on that and those threads tend to quickly get derailed off-topic. If you’re interested in learning more about it, read this article by Kelly Baggett:

http://inno-sport.net/Training%20Basics.htm

“All in all, I think it makes more sense to approach things from the nervous system/physiological standpoint then from the end results of that.”

Would you mind explaining? Thanks!

What I mean is trying to “treat the cause, rather than the symptom.” ie, “Strength” is a result of a lot of different processes (muscular cross-section, co-ordination for given movement, motor unit recruitment, etc. etc.), not just something in and of itself. A “Strength block” is often too general, IMO. What is preventing the athlete from having more strength? Is it lack of muscle-mass? Inability to hold onto tension long enough to complete the lift? Poor firing patterns? etc. etc.

Well yes, I agree with your hypertrophy statement. However, it can get much more detailed. There are certain techniques and rep/set schemes which causes more hypertrophy than others.

Yeah, but are those methods optimal for most athlete? Maybe, maybe not. Generally I’m more inclined to see athletic training for MOST athletes as something where the primary goal is to train the CNS, and let the muscular chips fall where they may, so to speak.

I think ME/SE/RE/DE can very well be applied to atheletes. But so can concentric/eccentric/isometric, movement patterns, and etc.

I agree, terminology doesn’t really matter (only for ability to transfer information) and often seems to confuse.

Application is what matters.

[/quote]

12

I would go ahead and change the program every 3-4 weeks. Also, don’t be afraid to stray from the undulating method. Try Westside for bodybuilders or the Westside Mass template.

[quote]Shaggs wrote:
I actually do but in hindsight didn’t explain it very cleary. I change my program(exercise selections) every 6-8 weeks. During each program each main body part/regio is hit 3 times a week. So for chest:
Monday
weighted dips 5 x 3

Weds
db bench 3 x 8

Fri
close grip inclines 3 x 12

So I’m thinking that exercise selection changes frequently. Any other suggestions? Do you go to failure?
[/quote]

13

My point is that you can’t just make an “accumulation block” or an “intensification block” that fits everybody.

I think of one of the problems with periodization is that people wind up compromising things so that it can fit neatly into a “plan” or a “system.”

Just think about where the athlete needs to be (long terms goals), what they need to do to get closer to that (present deficiencies, aka short term goals), and then address those things in your training.

I honestly think periodization is as simple as that. The Russian guys have written tons of practical stuff on what has worked and the best ways to combine certain blocks, but when it comes down to it, you still have to analyze from an individual standpoint to see where one fits into that.

14

I would think that a newbie would see great increases in athletic ability from using a conjugate approach… developing RFD and maximal str. at the same time. As the athlete becomes more advanced, the more specialized blocks the athlete would need to see supercompensation.

Now for each block, there are ways to keep the other motor abilities that aren’t being trained.

Ex 1 - Hypertrophy Block… do near maximal single rep sets before doing the exercise designed for hypertrophy. You’ll gain a potentiation effect which will help in the set being done for size. Use light plyometric exercises for warmup.

Ex 2 - Str. Block… well doing multiple sets of str. will keep the size gained. Again, use light plyometric exercises as warmups.

Ex 3 - Explosive Power… if your training for str-spd, use a heavy set before the explosive set to potentiate your force production. If your training spd-str, use EMS to maintain your str. levels (might even see a little gain).

15

J,

I completely agree. Training is highly individual and subjective to change.

For the sake of discussion, I was speaking hypothetically.

If one were to design an accumulation-intensification-explosion block, there must be SOME guidelines for the distribution of loading.

Accumulation phase: total body split
Intensification phase: upper/lower split
Explosion: total body split

For the targeted percentages per block, how would you go about the distribution?

16

[quote]thetruth24 wrote:
For the targeted percentages per block, how would you go about the distribution?[/quote]

That’s the thing, it’s individual…

To re-use my example from earlier

“To steal the Inno-Sport terminology, you’d have a main session of DUR An-1 and An-2 work (ME and SE or lower-rep RE to use the Russian terms) and a companion session (when you repeat the 4-day scale) of An-3 (higher-rep RE)”

So that would be one way to do a hypertrophy sort of block. Maybe for another guy who has phenomenal CNS-output and great relative strength, he needs nothing but RE work to grow.

Maybe one guy’s “explosion” block is pairing a max-strength session with a strength-speed session, and maybe another’s is pairing low-force speed work with speed-strength or strength-speed work.

That’s why I say, “look at the root factors (ability to gain and release tension, motor unit recruitment, work capacity, etc. etc.), rather than the products (strength, speed, power, etc.) of them.”

So maybe for some a strength block would be 50% ME, 20% SE, 30% RE, while another would be 50% ME, 20% RE, 30% DE, etc. etc.

You see what I’m trying to get at?

17

hmm the inno-sport system…

Well in it’s basic it’s a conjugate approach that jtrin posted

hypertrophy->strength->power

Length of blocks and number of blocks in each phase etc… depends on goals and deficiencies

you have a 2-4 week block geared towards the goal

example explosive

day 1 DE Squat/Dead
Day 2 sprints/plyos/quick feet drills

strength
day 1 ME Squat/Dead
day 2 RE squat, glute ham, abs

hypertrophy
day 1 RE squat/dead 6-8 reps
day 2 RE single leg squat, glute ham, abs 14-16 reps

how do they handle the “maintenance” work?

either add in some work for neglected qualities in the warm up or follow your block with a 1 week cycle focusing on neglected qualities

how do they handle volume?

it’s autoregulated

the beauty of it is that it helps you learn your breakthrough factor as dave tate calls it. people get hung up in 50%strength, 30%hypertrophy, 20%power

in thier system your body tells you what you need

dont worry so much about the %'s and just be sure to do a little work for maintenance qualities, and design the block around the focus and you’re there.

so in a strength block throw in 2 sets of dot drills and 2-3 sets of vertical jumps in the warm up and you’ll have a fine conjugated inno-sport cycle

18

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
the beauty of it is that it helps you learn your breakthrough factor as dave tate calls it. people get hung up in 50%strength, 30%hypertrophy, 20%power
…

dont worry so much about the %'s and just be sure to do a little work for maintenance qualities, and design the block around the focus and you’re there.[/quote]

[Edit: Dunno what happened, must’ve messed up submitting the post.]

These two segments are something I’ve really learned lately. Focus on the quality of the block and use the warmup and cooldown portions of the workouts (or you could do an easy extra workout) to prepare yourself for the next block.

ie, if you are in a maximal strength block, and plan on doing some force absorbtion work in the next block, then do a few depth drops off a low box as part of your warmup.

19

J,

You make alot of sense. I’m sorry though, that I am not very familiar with InnoSport, so I am unable to fully understand or comment on your example.

Yes, it is highly individual. I like your examples of the different case scenarios.

Lets say that the athlete your training has great CNS output and great relative strength. Yes he could grow off just RE work. But what we are discussing is in the bigger picture. A hypertrophy block is not merely JUST to gain muscle mass. Its an emphasis, but there should be a maintenance for strength and power. No doubt he can grow off just RE work, but he needs to put in some ME/SE/DE.

I am speaking for a hypothetical standpoint. The percentages from individual to individual will vary. But if someone knew how to appropriately distribute the emphasis, then an individual can adjust it to their needs.

20

This is the way I understand it: Suppose you have a power athlete wanting to improve by x amount in their event as a goal. Then you have to ask:

  1. Does the athlete have the structure (tendons, muscles) in place to allow the forces required to reach their goal?
  2. Does the athlete have the ability to generate the large forces required to reach their goal?
  3. Does the athlete have the ability to generate that force quickly enough to reach their goal?

Basically, anytime you answer no, focus on that quality for a few weeks until it is no longer holding you back. Once you answer yes to number 3, go and get a higher goal.

As for maintaining other strength qualities during each block, what you can do is “practice” the other training methods during your warm-up/cooldowns. I’m thinking that going from power->strength->duration would probably be best.

For example, in a hypertrophy block, you might do some low altitude drop jumps followed by 1-2 sets of heavy squats followed by your main workout consisting of high-rep squats.

Then, in a strength block you’ll do your drop jumps, followed by your main workout consisting of heavy squats, then maybe 1-2 sets of repetitive squats in the cool-down.

Finally, in the power block you start with your drop jumps, and do the squats in your cool-down. The nice thing about this is that each time you start a new block, you won’t “waste” 1-2 sessions just getting your technique right, instead you’re pretty much doing the exact same workout just with things arranged in different proportions.