Challenges Applyingthe Research onPeriodizationJohn Cissik, MBA, MS,1 Allen Hedrick, MA,2 and Michael Barnes, MEd31Texas Womans University, Denton, Texas; 2National Strength and Conditioning Association, Colorado Springs,Colorado; 3Infinity Personal Training, Colorado Springs, Colorado

S U M M A R Y

THE PRINCIPLES OF PERIODIZA-TION ARE COMMONLY USED INTHE DESIGN OF STRENGTH ANDCONDITIONING REGIMENS FORATHLETES. RESEARCHERSEXAMINING ITS EFFECTIVENESSHAVE FOUND IT TO BE MOREEFFECTIVE THAN NONPERIODIZEDAPPROACHES TO TRAINING.HOWEVER, RESEARCH ONPERIODIZATION IS SURPRISINGLYLIMITED IN SCOPE AND THISMAKES ITS APPLICATIONCHALLENGING. BY BROADENINGSUBJECT SELECTION,INCORPORATING LONGER TERMSTUDIES, INCORPORATINGMULTIPLE MODES OF EXERCISE,AND BY CONDUCTINGOBSERVATIONAL AND SURVEYSTUDIES, THE RESEARCH CAN BEMADE MORE APPLICABLE TOREAL-WORLD COACHING.

The principles of periodizationare the foundation of manyathletic strength and condition-

ing programs. Surprisingly little issupported by research despite the factthat it is widely used and widelywritten about, despite the numerouspresentations on this topic, and despitethe fact that it apparently works basedon practical observation. As this articlediscusses, what is supported by re-search about periodization presents

challenges when that knowledge isapplied to athletics.

The purpose of this article is to suggestthat, while periodization is an effectivemethod to use when designing trainingprograms, the science supporting theapplication of periodization is inade-quate in scope. The limitations ofperiodizations research are under-standable. Much of the sport scienceresearch in the West is being done inuniversities, which can limit both sub-ject selection and the length of thestudies. It is difficult to get coaches andathletes to participate in this type ofpotentially disruptive research. This isalso due to the misconception that thisresearch has been done, or is beingdone, by someone else.

The limitations to the research onperiodization that this article discussesare problematic because they affect theapplicationofperiodizationby theprac-titioner. If the majority of the researchthat has been done is short term innature (i.e., roughly an academic se-mester in length), uses nonathleticcollege populations, and primarily usesstrength training, then it is difficult toapply this research to other popula-tions, over periods of years, usingmultiple modes of exercise.

This article discusses the acceptance ofthe practice of periodization andlimitations of research supporting itsuse and concludes by discussing thechallenges that the limitations of theresearch create for the practitioner.

PERIODIZATION AND ITSACCEPTANCEWith periodization, each individualtraining cycle is characterized by peri-odical adjustments in the objectives,tasks, and content with the ultimateobjective being to assist the athletes inreaching a peak level of performancefor the main competition(s) of the year(5,9). Classically in the weight room,this is done through a shift from high-volume and low-intensity training dur-ing the early season (preparation phase)to an emphasis on high intensity butlow volume (competition phase) duringthe late season (4). Additionally, sportstechnical training also typically in-creases as the weight-training volumedecreases. The competition phase isfollowed by a period of active restduring which the volume and intensityare low and the athlete trains at analmost recreational level. The classicEastern European writings on period-ization assume a long-term outlook onan athletes development as a result ofperiodization (4,27,32). This approachis not limited to weight training, it isalso taken with endurance training.Traditionally, endurance training peri-odization begins the year with a focuson building an aerobic base throughhigh-volume/low-intensity training,gradually shifting toward lower volume

KEYWORDS :

periodization; programming; overload;diminishing returns

! National Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 45

and higher intensity training as the yearprogresses (26). Typically enduranceathletes will cut back on volume as thecompetition gets closer to peak for thecompetition (20,26,29,30).

There is widespread acceptance ofperiodization by those involved in thestrength and conditioning profession(13,14,33). For example, Rhea et al. (33)stated that while the strength-trainingcommunity has yet to agree on theoptimal program design for strengthdevelopment, strength-training expertsgenerally agree that some form of peri-odization must be a major part of anyprogram to optimize strength gains.

Similarly, Fleck and Kraemer (14) statethat periodization is effective and thatits use is supported by multiple sportscience studies, using Stone et al. (38)and Willoughby (44) as examples.Several survey-type research studiesobserving the practices of strength andconditioning professionals working inMajor League baseball (12), the Na-tional Basketball Association (37), theNational Hockey League (11), and theNational Football League (10) also con-firm the majority of coaches in each ofthose professional sports leagues usesome type of periodization in thedesign of their strength and condition-ing programs.

It is important to point out that periodi-zation works and is used by strengthand conditioning professionals; how-ever, there appears to be a lack ofresearch supporting its use and appli-cation. For example, Stone et al. (39)note that although periodization hasbecome a household word in recentyears among athletes, coaches, andsports scientists, actual research con-cerning periodized strength trainingis minimal. In 1999. Stone et al. (39)pointed out that most of the informa-tion concerning periodization is theresult of observational evidence, anec-dotal data, inference from relatedstudies (such as overtraining research),and a few mesocycle-length periodizedstudies. This situation has not changeddramatically in the period of time sincethat article was published. As evidenceof that, the periodization article by

Plisk and Stone (32) published in 2003introduced the subject matter by stat-ing that although an effort was madeto present relevant research findingswhere appropriate, most of the con-cepts discussed in the article are in-tuitive or anecdotal in nature. It doesneed to be pointed out that two studiesby Kraemer et al. (24,25) using col-legiate women tennis players de-monstrated that periodized resistancetraining did provide an advantage overnonperiodized resistance training ina variety of performance parameters.

Further, Fleck (13) points out thatwhile the athletic community has beenusing periodization for at least 40 years,few published projects have investiga-ted the efficacy of periodized strengthtraining. In fact, Flecks 1999 reviewcovered eight studies. Fry et al. (17)note that while periodization is widelyused for designing training programs,which has led to a significant numberof articles on the topic, most of theinformation contained in the literatureis conjectural and not supported byresearch.

Siff (36) lends further support fortaking a cautious approach to the un-questioning support of periodizationby noting that this may create theimpression that it should be regardedas the pre-eminent and most appro-priate method of organizing long-termtraining. However, even among SovietUnion practitioners, researchers, andscientists, this approach to traininghas attracted some fierce criticism(6,7,42,43). The fact that there is debateamong Soviet researchers and scien-tists is of note because the foundationof modern training and periodizationwas partially laid in the Soviet Union.

As suggested by Siff (36), some of thiscriticism by Soviet authorities is war-ranted. For example, the belief that peri-odization is an exact science in whichtraining programs can be designedbased on exact calculations of inten-sity and volume of every training sessionfor the entire mesocycle is not valid.

Several critics of periodization ques-tion the validity and awkwardness of

labeling the various microcycles andmesocycles in the form of an exactnumber of days or weeks, as well as theprocess of designing arbitrary buildingblocks of intuitively chosen exercises(31,36,42,43). For example, many co-aches will group training into 4-weekblocks, believe that the general prep-aration phase should last a specificamount of the entire preparation phaseof training (for example, two-thirds),will prioritize hypertrophy during thegeneral preparation phase, and willprioritize maximal strength only duringthe special preparation phase.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONSResearch investigating the effective-ness of periodization has been evolvingover the past 25 years since Stone et al.(38) published their groundbreakingpaper in 1981 that dealt with strengthtraining. However, a number of chal-lenges exist when attempting to applythe results of periodization researchto athletics. Most published researchpapers are short-term studies focusedon the development of strength andpower. In addition, athletes are rarelyused as subjects and the volume andintensity of training are problematic.

RESEARCH IS PRIMARILYAPPLICABLE TO STRENGTH/POWER SPORTSAs suggested by Fleck (13), a limita-tion of periodization research is thatthe majority of the studies examiningits effectiveness in terms of strengthtraining have focused on increases instrength/power and the manipulationof training volume and intensity. As aresult, these studies are primarily appli-cable to improving strength/powerand not directly related to improvingmuscular endurance. McGee et al.(28) and Rhea et al. (34) stand out asexceptions.

McGee et al. (28) demonstrated thatvolume is important for increases inmuscular endurance. Subjects wereevaluated on squatting endurance bysquatting 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

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 200846

Periodization Research

7 weeks; one group performed a singleset of 812 reps until failure, one groupdid a program of increasing intensity(i.e., resistance) and decreasing volume(i.e., sets and reps) throughout the7 weeks, and the last group did a pro-gram of 3 sets of 10 repetitions for theentire study. All 3 groups made gainsfrom the training program. The single-set group improved their total repeti-tions during the squat endurance testby 46%, the last group (3 sets of 10 reps)improved by 74%, with the middlegroup improving total repetitions by71%. All 3 groups also improved thevolume load (repetitions 3 mass) thatthey handled in the squat endurancetest. The single-set group improved by51%, the last group (3 sets of 10 reps) by84%, with the middle group improvingby 87%. The results from this studyseem to suggest that volume in weighttraining (i.e., 3 sets versus 1 set) maybe important in improving muscularendurance.

Rhea et al. (34) had subjects work outon leg extensions 2 days per week for15 weeks. Subjects were divided intowhat the authors termed linear periodi-zation (progress from high volume/low intensity to lower volume/higherintensity during the study), reverselinear periodization (progress fromlower volume/higher intensity to highervolume/lower intensity during thestudy), and daily undulating periodiza-tion (progress from higher volume/lower intensity to higher intensity/lower volume over the course of 3sessions) groups. At the end of 15weeks, all groups increased their mus-cular endurance on leg extensions.The linear and daily undulating groupsboth increased by approximately 55%,while the reverse linear group im-proved by almost 73%. The authorsconcluded that gradual increases involume and decreases in intensity mayresult in greater gains in muscularendurance.

While there are many studies lookingat the effects of strength training onaerobic endurance performance (forexample, strength training and its ef-fect on 5-km run times), few use

periodization in their strength-trainingprotocols. While this may be seen as alimitation of the studies, it should bepointed out that many of the subjectsin these studies possess a relativelyuntrained status (strength training-wise); therefore, periodization maynot be necessary to elicit adaptations.

Surprisingly, increasingmaximal strengthmay improve different types of endur-ance. For example, Stone et al. (40) intheir review indicated that there isa correlation between maximal stren-gth and high-intensity exercise endur-ance (i.e., force restoration duringstrength training and strength/powersports). This suggested that improvingstrength and power would improveat least certain types of muscularendurance.

RESEARCH RARELY USESATHLETES AS SUBJECTSThe training background of subjectscan make comparing the effectivenessof training programs difficult. In un-trained individuals, during the firstseveral weeks of a training program, in-creases in strength/power occur quiterapidly, primarily as a result of neuralfactors (18). As a result, a significantdifference in increases in strength/power between training groups maybe difficult to achieve because mosttraining programs will result in in-creases in strength and power in un-trained subjects. If a superiority instrength/power is shown in short-termstudies, it may simply show that oneprogram better stimulates when neuralgains occur as compared to the otherprogram. This may be especially true ifchanges in lean body mass betweentraining programs are not significant(13). Clearly neural adaptations occurwith the training of experienced ath-letes (23); however, these are not occur-ring as a result of a learning effect frominitial exposure to strength training.

It should be noted that some studiesattempted to control for this learningeffect by either providing a familiariza-tion period (21), screening potentialsubjects for a base level of strength(44), or by recruiting subjects who self-

report a specific amount ofweight train-ing experience (2,33,34). While none ofthese are foolproof ways, they can helpcontrol for the initial learning effect.

Furthermore, the ability to apply theresults of studies using untrained sub-jects is limited when working with thetraining programs of athletes or trainedsubjects. Strength gains occur at aslower rate as training status increases(e.g., highly trained versus moderatelytrained or untrained subjects). Thismay be partly the result of the neuralfactors mentioned previously. In addi-tion, higher caliber athletes may expe-rience training differently than lowercaliber athletes (40). As an example,both Alen et al. (1) and Fry et al. (16)have shown that elite weightlifterseither do not demonstrate much of ahormonal effect from training or ex-perience training very differently thannonelite weightlifters. Presumably thisallows them to tolerate greater trainingloads. This should serve to reinforcethe fact that different-caliber athleteshave different training needs.

Some studies do focus on athletes.Both Kraemer et al. (24) and Hoffmanet al. (22) studied athletes. Kraemeret al. (24) investigated whether non-linear periodization resulted in addi-tional adaptations over a 9-monthtraining program in female collegiatetennis players when compared to aprogram that did not vary intensity orvolume. Over the course of the study,they equated the volume and the int-ensity for both groups. After the 9-month training program, they foundthat both groups made statisticallysignificant increases in fat-free mass,statistically significant decreases in thepercentage of body fat, and statisticallysignificant increases in anaerobic power,upper/lower body strength, and coun-termovement jump heights. The au-thors reported greater improvement inthe periodized group at months 4 and 6,but less improvement at month 9.

The fact that the periodized group wasmaking better gains on many measureson months 4 and 6 but not 9 is aninteresting result. Kramer et al. (24)attributed these results to the fact that

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 47

the last 3 months of the study werein conjunction with the competitiveseason.

Kraemer et al. (24) also looked atseveral sport-specific performancemeasures. They examined ball velocitychanges over the course of the studyusing the tennis serve, forehand stroke,and backhand stroke. On all three ofthe performance measures, the perio-dized group made statistically signifi-cant gains when compared to thenonperiodized group. This study in-dicates that periodization has a positiveeffect on the performance of college-age female tennis athletes; however,after a period of time, even periodizedtraining may result in diminished gainsif variation is not applied to more thanjust volume and intensity.

Hoffman et al. (22) examined theeffects of what they called linear versusnonlinear periodization models duringan in-season maintenance phase ofcollege, Division III football players.Both groups trained twice per weekwith the linear group training at 80% of1RM throughout the study and thenonlinear group training at 70% on day1 and 90% on day 2 of the week. After12 weeks, the nonlinear group hada nonsignificant trend toward losingstrength, while the linear group gaineda statistically significant amount ofstrength on the squat and a nonsignif-icant amount of strength on the benchpress. The authors concluded thatduring a maintenance phase of trainingthat involves low volumes, mani-pulating exercise intensity may not berelevant. In fact, a consistent high-intensity stimulus may be necessaryfor generating increases in strength.

The Hoffman et al. (22) study suggeststhat a threshold intensity level mightexist to allow in-season football playersto maintain strength levels. Trainingbelow a certain intensity level mayresult in strength loss during in-seasontraining. However, this threshold levelmay not be true in every circumstance.For example, Harris et al. (19), exam-ined collegiate football players andfound that combining training intensi-ties improved a greater number and

wider range of performance tests thanonly high-force (80% of 1RM) or high-power (30 % of 1RM) training. Theauthors reported that the combinedgroup made statistically significantimprovements on eight measurements(1RM squat, one-quarter squat, mid-thigh pull, vertical jump, averagevertical jump power, peak vertical jumppower, stair climb power test, and 10-yard sprint), whereas other groups didnot improve on as many measure-ments. It should be noted that thisstudy did not examine football playersin-season, so it is difficult to comparethe results directly to the Hoffmanet al. (22) study.

USE OF VOLUME AND INTENSITYIS CONTENTIOUSComparing a periodized training pro-gram to a single-set program or to acontinuous set and repetition program(e.g., 4 3 8 for the duration of the pro-gram) results in differences in trainingvolume between the programs thatmay account for the differences ingains between groups.

Early studies examining the effective-ness of periodizedversus nonperiodizedprograms typically had the periodizedgroups perform greater total volumes oftraining, at a greater intensity, or both(38,44). As a result any difference in theresults of the trainingprograms couldbeattributed to the disparity in trainingvolume or intensity (2,35).

Previous periodization studies haveequated volume so that both theperiodization and control groups per-formed equal amounts of work (repe-titions, weight lifted, etc.) over theduration of the study. This has led toambiguous results (2,3335). Initiallythese ambiguous results might soundlogical, but it is important to rememberthat the periodized model might pro-duce superior results as a result of thehigher overall volume made possibleby the variations in volume and in-tensity (41). Thus, equating the vol-umes would counteract the advantageof the periodized model. It should alsobe recognized that equating the vol-ume defeats the purpose if it takes the

study participant outside the optimalrepetition range to achieve the desiredeffects (for example, 3 sets of 8 versus 8sets of 3 using equal loads).

RESEARCH IS RARELY LONGENOUGH TO ELICIT LONG-TERMTRAINING EFFECTSTypically, periodization studies lastan academic semester (1215 weeks).This is because researchers typicallywork in university settings and recruitstudents enrolled in academic classes.It is also done because student com-pliance with the study may be difficultif it lasts longer than a semester.

The difficulty with these short-termstudies is that the training gains thatindividuals make decreases over timeas a result of the same training stimulus,the overload principle is a fundamen-tal principle of exercise. Unlike mostshort-term study participants, athletesdo not just train for 1215 weeks. Ath-letes often train over a period of years.This is one of the main reasons forusing periodization, to vary training sothat athletes can continue makinggains in their performance over time.

If the gains from training diminish overa period of 8 weeks to 9 months, imag-ine the effects over a period of years. Astudy that only lasts a few months isnot appropriate to make conclusionsabout how to train over a long periodof time.

To summarize, periodization researchhas primarily been performed focusingon strength and power, with someexceptions (28,34). It should also beclear that the majority of subjects usedin interventional training studies arenonathlete college students. There aretwo reasons for this. First, as previouslymentioned, many of the researchersare in a university setting, resulting inthe lengths of the studies being tiedto the academic semester. Second,coaches and athletes are understand-ably reluctant to change their trainingprogram, which makes recruiting ath-letes difficult. This limitation makes itdifficult to apply results observed innonathletes to athletes. Periodizationapproaches to training seem to be

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 200848

Periodization Research

effective due to higher volume and/ortraining intensity; however, controllingfor that seems to produce ambiguousresults, which further confound re-searching periodization. This couldbe further confounded if subjects misstraining sessions or perform additionalwork outside the confines of the study.Finally, due to the constraints imposedon many researchers, periodization re-search is rarely performed long enoughto produce long-term training effects. Itis very difficult to apply the results ofmany of these studies to the long-termtraining of athletes, something thatperiodization is meant to address.

It should be noted that many of thechallenges described above are notunique to strength and power training.In his review, Berg (3) notes severalsimilar limitations in the research ofrunners, two of which included a lackof long-term longitudinal studies andan inadequate description of the train-ing status of the study participants. Thelack of longitudinal studies is problem-atic because it affects our understand-ing of how physiological changesevolve over years, our understandingof the volume of training needed tooptimize performance, and our un-derstanding of which training compo-nents should be emphasized during thevarious stages of training. Failing tocontrol training status makes it difficultto determine whether the study pro-duced training gains.

CHALLENGES TO THEPRACTITIONERThe majority of periodization studiesfocus only on strength training. This isproblematic because most athletestrain to improve speed, agility, flexibil-ity, and sport-specific skills.

There is limited information on idealvolumes and intensity for speed train-ing, agility training, core training, andmobility training among others. Thereis limited information on ideal vol-umes and intensities when combiningvarious types of training modes forboth long- and short-term trainingprograms. For example, how doesweight training fit into a program with

sprint training? Do the volume andintensity of one affect the volume andintensity of the other? How? Whatabout plyometrics? The list goes on. Inaddition, how should this informationchange as the season changes? Howshould it change as the athlete pro-gresses developmentally? As can beseen, there are still many unansweredquestions.

Finally, there is no information abouthow all the above-cited changes varywith different levels of athletes. Forexample, should high school athletessquat and sprint on the same day?What about elite athletes?

Cissik (8) discussed several solutions tothese challenges with regards to trackand field athletes. These included de-termining which types of exercise hadthe best relationship with improve-ments in the athletes performance,determining which volumes/intensities of those exercises had thebest relationship with improvement inthe athletes performance, and deter-mining whether the timing of thevarious exercises (i.e., when they areused during the year) had a relationshipwith improvement in performance.Most of these suggestions are notapplicable to other sports due to theinherent quantifiability of track andfield. However, as he suggests, obser-vational and survey data could begathered to overcome the understand-able reluctance of coaches and athletesto have their training modified toinvestigate the results of those mod-ifications. This approach, while notwithout limitations, would provideextremely valuable information aboutlong-term training and especially eliteathletes, the interaction of differenttraining modes, and the effects of thedifferent parts of the training year.

Kurz et al. (26) provide an example ofhow this type of data could becollected and used in periodizationresearch. They surveyed the trainingpractices of 30 Division I cross-countryteams, 14 of which qualified for NCAAnationals and 16 of which did not. Forthe purpose of the study, they dividedthe year into a transition phase (May to

August), a competition phase (Augustto November), and a peaking phase(November). The NCAA Division Ichampionships were held in Novem-ber. The results of this study allowedKurz et al. (26) to determine correla-tions between training methods duringeach phase of the year and teamtime/placement at nationals. For ex-ample, Kurz et al. (26) determined thatinterval and fartlek training during thetransition and competition phases wasassociated with slower team times,which would be important for across-country coach to know.

This type of information (i.e., fromsurveys) would be valuable to a cross-country coach, but collecting andapplying it are not without limitations.First, surveys have to be completed andreturned. Second, as Kurz et al. (26)noted, a coach may not reveal his orher exact coaching methods, whichmay affect the outcome. Finally, it isnot clear whether the athletes on eachteam actually reached their peak per-formance at the national meet (26).

Much of periodization is governed bytheory and opinion. As practitioners,we accept and apply this theory andopinion based on the name or theperceived reputation of the individualauthor or the perceived value of thestudy protocol. As practitioners, theauthors of this article believe thatcoaching theory is important; in fact,coaching theory is often ahead of andsometimes drives the research. In anexcellent article, William Freeman (15)addresses this issue in referring to theart of coaching. In his article, Free-man states: Athletes improve becausetheir training evolvesit changes asthey improve. If it does not evolve, theywill cease to improve. We must try newideas, new approaches. Most of thesewill come from unsubstantiated the-ory. However, as Freeman also pointsout, the laws of nature govern allperformance, so research is also veryimportant for performance.

There are large gaps in our knowledgeof periodization and in our ability toapply that knowledge to the training ofathletes. Part of these gaps are due to

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 49

the inherent limitations imposed bywhere the majority of the strength andconditioning research is being con-ducted (i.e., universities) and the re-luctance of coaches and athletes toparticipate in interventional trainingstudies. It is also due to the understand-able assumption that it has either beendone or is being done by someone else.

These gaps in our knowledge are beingcompounded by the fact that thestrength and conditioning field hasbeen evolving steadily over the past30 years. Over the past 30 years, prac-titioners in the field have debated issuessuch as squats and the knees, whetherweightlifting exercises and their varia-tions have merit, core training, the roleof flexibility training, periodization, andhigh-intensity training. The strengthand conditioning field has evolved tothe point where a strength and condi-tioning coach has a number of toolsthat he or she is expected to employ.These include traditional strength-training exercises (Olympic-style liftsand other weight room exercises), coretraining, mobility/dynamic flexibilitytraining, speed training, agility training,sport-specific movements, and balancetraining. Research on periodization isnot keeping pace with the tools thata strength and conditioning profes-sional must employ.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONSAs practitioners and consumers of re-search, the authors are concernedabout the assumptions, gaps, and con-sumption of marketing when it comesto this important topic. The authorsare not suggesting that periodizationbe scrapped, but are cautioning thatwe must become informed consumersof research and suggest calling forexpanded research efforts. Beyondsimply consuming research, we believethat it is the practitioners responsibilityto contribute to those research efforts.The lack of adequate research onperiodization that this article has de-scribed will not disappear without theparticipation of coaches and athletes.

The authors believe that more researchis needed in the areas of multimode

training, program design for athletes ofvarying ability, and short- and long-term program design. Without thisinformation, the strength and condi-tioning field is going to continue to beplagued by things that sound goodbut may or may not be based onscience or even experience. j

John Cissik is theDirector of Fitness andRecreation at TexasWomans University.

Allen Hedrick isResident Head Strengthand Conditioning Coachat the National Strengthand ConditioningAssociation, ColoradoSprings, Colorado.

Michael Barnes is theOwner of InfinityPersonal Training.

REFERENCES1. 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 trainingsystem, part II. Track Technique 103:32863288, 1988.

8. Cissik, JM. Is periodization dead or just verysick? Track Coach 170: 54225427,2005.

9. Dick, FW. Sports Training Principles (4thed). London: A&C Black, 295301. 2002.

10. Ebben,WP and Blackard, DO. Strength andconditioning practices of National FootballLeague strength and conditioning coaches.J Strength Cond Res 15: 4858, 2001.

11. Ebben, WP, Carroll, RM, and Simenz, CJ.Strength and conditioning practices ofNational Hockey League strength andconditioning coaches. J Strength CondRes 18: 889897, 2004.

12. Ebben, WP, Hintz, MJ, and Simenz, CJ.Strength and conditioning practices ofmajor league baseball strength andconditioning coaches. J Strength CondRes 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. PeriodizationBreakthrough! New York: AdvancedResearch Press, 1996.

15. Freeman, W. Coaching, periodization, andthe battle of artist versus scientist. TrackTechnique 127: 40544057, 1994.

16. Fry, AC, Kraemer, WJ, Stone, MH, Koziris,LP, Thrush, JT and Fleck, SJ. Relationshipsbetween serum testosterone, cortisol, andweightlifting performance. J Strength CondRes 14: 338343, 2000.

17. Fry, RW, Morton, AR, and Kreast, D.Periodization of training stress. Can JSports Sci 17: 234240, 1992.

18. Hakkinen, K. Factors influencing trainabilityof muscular strength during short term andprolonged term training. NSCA J 7(2):3237, 1985.

19. Harris, GR, Stone, MH, OBryant, HS,Proulx, CM, and Johnson, RL. Short-termperformance effects of high power, highforce, or combined weight-trainingmethods. J Strength Cond Res 14:1420, 2000.

20. Hellard, P, Avalos, M, Millet, G, Lacoste, L,Barale, F, and Chatard, J-C. Modeling theresidual effects and threshold saturation oftraining: a case study of Olympicswimmers. J Strength Cond Res 19:6775, 2005.

21. Herrick, AB and Stone, WJ. The effects ofperiodization versus progressive resistanceexercise on upper and lower body strength

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 200850

Periodization Research

in women. J Strength Cond Res 10:7276, 1996.

22. Hoffman, JR, Wendell, M, Cooper, J, andKang, J. Comparison between linear andnonlinear in-season training programs infreshman football players. J Strength CondRes 17: 561565, 2003.

23. Judge, LW,Moreau, C, and Burke, JR. Neuraladaptations with sport-specific resistancetraining in highly skilled athletes. J Sports Sci21: 419427, 2003.

24. Kraemer, WJ, Haekkinen, K, TriplettMcBride, 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 periodizedresistance training in women tennisplayers. 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 ofresistance training volume andperiodization on physiological andperformance adaptations in collegiatewomen tennis players. Am J Sports Med28: 626633, 2000.

26. Kurz, MJ, Berg, K, Latin, R, and DeGraw,W.The relationship of training methods inNCAA Division I cross-country runners and10,000-meter performance. J StrengthCond Res 14: 196201, 2000.

27. Matveyev, L. Fundamentals of SportsTraining. Moscow: Progress Publishers,1981. pp 6084.

28. McGee, D, Jessee, TC, Stone, MH, andBlessing, D. Leg and hip enduranceadaptations to three weight-trainingprograms. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6(2):9295, 1992.

29. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Scientific basesfor precompetition tapering strategies.Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 11821187,2003.

30. Neary, JP, Martin, TP, and Quinney, HA.Effects of taper on endurance cyclingcapacity and single muscle fiber properties.

Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 18751883,2003.

31. Pedemonte, J. Foundations of trainingperiodization. Part I: historical outline.NSCA J 8: 6265, 1986.

32. Plisk, S and Stone, M. Periodizationstrategies. Strength Cond J 25: 1937,2003.

33. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, andBurkett, LN. A comparison of linear anddaily undulating periodized programswith equated volume and intensity forstrength. J Strength Cond Res 16:250255, 2002.

34. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN,Stone, WJ, Ball, SD, Alvar, BA, andThomas, AB. A comparison of linear anddaily undulating periodized programs withequated volume and intensity for localmuscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res17: 8287, 2003.

35. Schiotz, MK, Ptteiger, JA, Huntsinger, PG,and Denmark, DC. The short-term effectsof periodized and constant-intensitytraining on body composition, strength, andperformance. 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 ofNational Basketball Association strengthand conditioning coaches. J StrengthCond Res 19: 495504, 2005.

38. Stone, MH, OBryant, H, and Garhammer, J.A hypothetical model for strength training.J Sports Med Physical Fitness 21:342351, 1981.

39. Stone, MH, Pierce, KC, Haff, GG, Koch, AJ,and Stone, M. Periodization: effects ofmanipulating volume and intensity. Part 1.Strength Cond J 21: 5662, 1999.

40. Stone, MH, Sands, WA, and Stone, ME.The downfall of sports science in theUnited States. Strength Cond J 26:7275, 2004.

41. Tan, B. Manipulating resistance trainingprogram variables to optimize maximum

strength in men: a review. J Strength Cond

Res 13: 289304. 1999.

42. Verkoshansky, Y. Main features of a modern

scientific sports training theory. New

Studies Athletics 13: 920, 1998.

43. Verkoshansky, Y. The end of periodization

of training in top-class sport. New Studies

Athletics 14: 4755, 1999.

44. Willoughby, DS. The effects of

mesocycle-length weight training

programs involving periodization and

partially equated volumes on upper and

lower body strength. J Strength Cond

Res 7: 28, 1993.

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 51