In the context of resistance training, periodisation refers to the manipulation of training variables in order to reach a peak level of endurance, strength, speed or power. It is well established that a periodised program will always be superior to non-periodised training. The manipulations of frequency, intensity, volume and rest in a periodised manner can enhance various facets of performance and help avoid injury and overtraining.
As can be imagined, like most things in the fitness industry there is great debate over the most effective manipulation of variables for strength. When we consider the factors such as the training age of the individual, gender, performance goal, time available, genetic potential, facilities, and even nutrient availability, we begin to realise that it isn’t quite as clear cut as one may think. There are numerous approaches to periodisation for strength enhancement. For the purpose of this blog we will examine two of the most common.
Two of the main methods of periodisation are linear and undulating. Both modalities utilise microcycles, mesocycles and macrocycles however the progressions are different. Linear periodisation generally is ignited with high volumes of training and low intensity – as the program progresses, the individual systematically increases intensity as volume decreases. Whereas undulating periodisation is characterised by more frequent variations of volume and intensity. These variations can occur daily, weekly or bi-weekly and are said to provide a greater stimulus for change, especially when considering strength development.
Recently Callister et al., (2015) carried out a meta analysis examining the two approaches to periodisation. The study was well conducted and involved examining 17 previous studies directly comparing linear and undulating periodisation. Here are the key points established from the meta analysis:
- Most studies found no difference between the two models of periodisation
- Most studies use short term protocols lasting 12 weeks (suggesting that each model of periodisation isn’t significantly tested over longer time frames)
- Both periodisation models resulted in significant strength gains for participants compared to placebo groups
- Upper or lower body exercises do not seem to favour any particular model of periodisation
Despite a lot of noise, in reality it appears that over 12 weeks of training neither model offers any significant advantage, yet both are superior compared to non-periodisation. When we look at rationale that exceeds 12 weeks it stands to reason that undulating models of periodisation may be superior. One fine example of this would be the conjugate method in which combinations of strength, speed, power, rate of force development etc are trained simultaneously during the microcycle.
One particularly successful format of undulating periodisation revolves around a 4 session per week cycle as below:
- Day 1: Speed, Power, Rate of Force development Lower Body (40-60% 1RM)
- Day 2: Absolute Strength Upper Body (75-90% 1RM)
- Day 3: Rest
- Day 4: Speed, Power, Rate of Force development Upper Body (40-60% 1RM)
- Day 5: Absolute Strength Lower Body (75-90% 1RM)
- Day 6: Rest
- Day 7: Rest
The rationale behind this is that individual components of strength such as rate or force development, or starting strength etc are trained in harmony, allowing longer rest periods between components etc.
In summary, in the short term (12 weeks) either model will work as effectively, however it may seem appropriate to suggest that longer term training may be more favoured to undulating periodisation although this is not confirmed entirely by research.