A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND BLOCK

PERIODIZED STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAMS

TRAINED ATHLETES
SANDRO BARTOLOMEI,1 JAY R. HOFFMAN,2 FRANCO MERNI,1

AND

IN

JEFFREY R. STOUT2

School of Pharmacy, Biotechnology and Motor Science, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; and 2Sport and Exercise Science,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Bartolomei, S, Hoffman, JR, Merni, F, and Stout, JR. A comparison

of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 990997, 2014
The purpose of this study was to compare 2 different periodization
models in strength and power athletes. Twenty-four experienced
resistance trained men were randomly assigned to either a block
periodization training program (BP; age = 24.2 6 3.1 years, body
mass = 78.5 6 11.0 kg, height = 177.6 6 4.9 cm) or to a traditional periodization program (TP; age = 26.2 6 6.0 years, body
mass = 80.5 6 13.3 kg, height = 179.2 6 4.6). Participants in
both training programs performed 4 training sessions per week.
Each training program consisted of the same exercises and same
volume of training (total resistance lifted per session). The difference between the groups was in the manipulation of training intensity within each training phase. Strength and power testing
occurred before training (PRE) and after 15 weeks (POST) of
training. Magnitude-based inferences were used to compare
strength and power performance between the groups. Participants
in BP were more likely (79.8%) to increase the area under the
force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated
a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in the load corresponding to
maximal power at the bench press compared with TP group, and
a possible improvement (;60%) in maximal strength and power in
the bench press. No significant changes were noted between
groups in lower-body strength or jump power performance after
the 15-week training period. Results of this study indicate that BP
may enhance upper-body power expression to a greater extent
than TP with equal volume; however, no differences were detected
for lower-body performance and body composition measures.

KEY WORDS program design, power development, resistance

training, 1 repetition maximum
Address correspondence to Sandro Bartolomei, sandro.bartolomei@
unibo.it.
28(4)/990997
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association

990

the

eriodized training programs have been used in the

training of elite athletes over the past several decades. Training periodization is a planned distribution of workload to avoid stagnation in
performance improvement and to optimize peak performance for the most important competitions of the year
(29). Sport scientists and strength coaches working with
strength/power sports were among the first to adopt
a planned distribution of training loads to help athletes reach
peak performance at the most important competitions (6).
The concept of periodization, its variants, and its subsequent
developments are now applied at almost all high-level
strength training programs. Although there are many books
and scientific articles promoting the importance of training
program periodization, there are only a limited number of
experimental studies that compare 2 of the more commonly
used periodization models: the traditional periodization (TP)
and the block periodization (BP).
The traditional model, proposed by the Russian professor
Lev Matveev at the end of 1950s, has been used for a number
of years by many elite and amateur level athletes (26). In this
periodization model, the macrocycle (e.g., the training year)
workload fluctuates from a high volume and low-intensity
training toward low volume and high-intensity training (19
22). This inverse relationship between training volume and
exercise intensity is also observed within each mesocycle
(23). This traditional model of periodization has often been
referred to as linear periodization in the Western literature
(1,4,28). Although Matveevs initial description of volume
and intensity alterations in his periodization model was
not clear (1921), later publications demonstrated a nonlinear
workload distribution using an undulating wave-like model
(22,23).
Block periodization is based on the original idea of
workload distribution that provides a concentrated training
stimulus focused on a specific aspect of performance (35,36).
This model was proposed by Verchosanskij (33,34,37), who
adopted the concept of step periodization that was first
introduced by the Vorojeb in 1974 (32,3840). Verchosanskij
attempted to contradict Matveevs vision and to adjust the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

training paradigm to meet the changing needs of athletes in
the 1980s (15). Interestingly, Stone et al. (30) published a theoretical model for strength training in 1981 that was similar
to the proposed BP that was being published in Eastern
Europe. The block model of periodization is made up of
several mesocycles, each with a unique training goal. The
progression of training blocks is performed in a logical order,
which prepares the athletes for the next training block
(13,29). Block periodization is first characterized by an accumulation mesocycle that demands a high volume of work
performed at relative low intensity followed by a transformation and realization blocks (25,26). In the North American
literature, each mesocycle is generally referred to by their
training goals (5,7,12).
The accumulation phase focuses on muscle hypertrophy,
where the transformation phase focuses on maximal
strength and the realization phase focuses on power and
explosive strength. The realization block uses the cumulative
and residual muscular adaptations of the previous 2 phases
(15). The BP model is often referred to as the classic linear
periodization model (12,13), or block with linear increase
(3) because in the first 2 phases (hypertrophy and maximal
strength) there is a constant increase in intensity with
a decrease in training volume. The benefits of this training
system are thought to be attributable to a conjugated
sequencing model (26,29,33). That is, the adaptations from

| www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Exercises for both block and traditional

periodization resistance training programs.
Monday
Tuesday
Bench press
Prone barbell row
Dumbbell bench press
Lat machine
Dips
Pull-up
Skull crushers
Dumbbell row
Triceps pull-down
Standing barbell curl
Preacher curl
Thursday
Friday
Squat
Inclined bench press
Leg press
Low row
Leg extension/leg curl
Prone lateral lifts
Military press
Incline dumbbell curl
Upright row
Preacher curl
Lateral lift

each cycle are contributing to the gains made in the subsequent training cycles.
To date, there have been only a limited number of studies
comparing different periodization models in competitive
strength/power athletes (12,13,18). Several of these studies
and others have compared linear or BP model to an undulating or nonlinear model (9,24,27,28), but only a few were

Figure 1. Training volume (sets x repetitions) and intensity (in % of 1RM) during the 15 weeks provided in TP group.

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 |

991

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Traditional versus Block Periodization Comparisons

sition) before and after the
training program. Subjects
were not permitted to perform
any additional training or participate in any competition
during the duration of the
study.
Subjects

Participants of the experimental groups were experienced

strength trained men who were
strength trained at least 3 times
per week for more than 3 years.
All participants were strength
and power athletes competing
in track and field throwing events
or in Rugby and American
football in the Italian Leagues.
Subjects were randomly assigned
to 1 of the following 2 groups:
Group 1 (mean 6 SD; n = 14;
age = 24.2 6 3.1 years; body
mass = 78.5 6 11.0 kg;
height = 177.6 6 4.9 cm) used
the BP program and group 2
Figure 2. Training volume (sets x repetitions) and intensity (in % of 1RM) during the 15 weeks provided in BP
group.
(mean 6 SD; n = 10; age =
26.2 6 6.0 years; body mass =
80.5 6 13.3 kg; height = 179.2 6
4.6 cm) used the TP program. All participants signed an
able to determine the superiority of 1 periodization model
informal consent document, and the study was approved
over the other. However, the nonlinear model generally emby the University of Bologna bioethics committee.
ployed in these studies used a training design that altered the
training volume and intensity by each workout, and by
Resistance Training Protocols
weekly progression as suggested in the TP model. ConsidThe 15-week resistance training program for each group can
ering the lack of study comparing traditional to BP models, it
be seen in Table 1. All participants exercised 4 days per
is the purpose of this study to compare the effect of the
week, and the exercises performed were the same for each
traditional vs. BP on maximal strength and power in highly
group. The groups differed only in the intensity (% of RM)
trained subjects.
and volume (number of repetitions 3 sets) used. Subjects
were encouraged to increase the resistance used per
METHODS
workout if they performed the maximum number of repetitions required for 2 consecutive exercise sessions. ParExperimental Approach to the Problem
ticipants recorded all workouts in a logbook, which was
Participants experienced in resistance training (minimum of
collected by one of the investigators after each workout.
3 years of training) were randomly divided into 2 experiFeedback was provided in regard to changes in loading of
mental groups and provided a 15-week training program.
the exercises.
The first group performed a TP training program that
The TP program consisted of three 5-week mesocycle
included an undulating model within each mesocycle,
with decreasing training volume and increasing intensity.
whereas the second group performed a BP program that
Each mesocycle progressed from hypertrophy to strength to
maintained volume and intensity of training throughout each
a power focus. Because the participant progressed from 1
mesocycle.
mesocycle to the next, the initial starting point was higher
All participants were assessed for strength (maximal
(i.e., increased intensity, lower volume) than the previous
isometric strength in the half-squat position, 1 repetition
mesocycle (Figure 1). In the first week of each mesocycle,
maximum [1RM] bench press), lower-body power (squat
athletes had to perform 5 sets of 810 repetitions at 6575%
jump [SJ] and countermovement jumps [CMJs]), upperof 1RM with ,2 minutes of recovery between sets. In the
body power (peak bench press power and force/power
second week, participants performed 5 sets of 56 repetitions
curve), and anthropometrics (body mass and body compo-

992

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 2. PRE to POST group comparisons in strength and power measures.*

BP group mean 6 SD TP group mean 6 SD
Bench press 1RM (kg)

PRE
POST
Max power bench press (W)
PRE
POST
AUC power
PRE
POST
Bench press maximum power load (% of 1RM) PRE
POST
Squat maximum isometric strength (kg)
PRE
POST
Squat jump (cm)
PRE
POST
CMJ (cm)
PRE
POST

Bench press 1RM (kg)

Bench press maximum power load (% of 1RM)

Squat jump (cm)

CMJ (cm)

99.0
101.0
431.9
445.6
21,633.5
22,159.5
56.3
61.3
125.6
135.4
42.6
43.3
47.1
48.4

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

22.8
24.7
111.2
105.5
5,641.1
4,867.5
11.0
12.7
47.7
42.9
8.1
8.0
7.9
8.3

766

266

0.058

4.18

44 6 96

14 6 42

0.312

22.22

526 6 1,983 0.123

939.08

2,527 6 3,551

Threshold

24 6 13

567

0.069

1.88

768

9 6 15

0.647

7.34

263

163

0.352

1.26

1.17 6 2.93

1.35 6 3.95

0.9

1.41

Positive

Percent trivial

Negative

62.7

37.24

0.07

60.5

35.18

79.8

Mean effect

Inference

5 6 4.3

Possibly positive

4.3

30 6 50

Possibly positive

18.79

1.4

2,000 6 2,100

Likely positive

92.76

5.70

1.54

29 6 8.1

Likely positive

2.44

85.87

11.69

22 6 7.6

Likely trivial

40.36

57.49

2.15

1 6 1.8

13.6

66.7

19.7

20.18 6 2.4

Possibly trivial
Unclear

*BP = block periodization; TP = traditional periodization; AUC = area under the curve; CMJ = countermovement jump; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

TM

993

| www.nsca.com

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 |

Squat maximum isometric strength (kg)

20.1
19.2
114.2
78.2 w
4,120.0
2,537.8
6.9
8.3
30.7
34.1
5.2
5.4
6.3
6.0

the

AUC power

PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

DTP group

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Max power bench press (W)

102.2
110.0
455.0
498.9
21,661.8
24,188.9
57.6
53.91
134.4
140.9
40.6
42.3
44.1
45.23

DBP group

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Traditional versus Block Periodization Comparisons

Figure 3. Force-power curve in BP (A) and in TP (B) groups before and after the training period.

at 7585% of 1RM. During the third week of training, participants performed 5 sets of 34 repetitions at 8595% of
1RM with 3 minutes of recovery between sets. During the
fourth week of training, power became the focus with the
load dropping to 5060% of 1RM and complete recovery
between sets. The last week of each mesocycle was dedicated to recovery and assessments with only 2 light load
workouts.
The BP group also consisted of three 5-week mesocycles with the first block characterized by a high
training volume and low training intensity, which established the accumulation phase and focused on muscle
hypertrophy. In the subsequent mesocycles, the focus
transitioned to maximal strength and maximal power

994

the

(realization phase; Figure 2). During the first training

phase, participants used workloads ranging between
65 and 75% of 1RM (610 RM). During the strength
mesocycle, subjects used 8095% of 1RM loads with
low repetitions (16 RM). In the power mesocycle, loads
dropped to 5065% of 1RM with complete recovery and
maximal contraction speed.
Performance Assessments

All participants were assessed for strength, power, and

anthropometry at baseline before initiating the training
program (PRE) and after the 15 weeks of training (POST).
All strength assessments were required to be performed
before the power assessments.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Strength and Power Measures. During each testing session,
participants performed a maximal effort isometric half-squat
using an isometric dynamometer (Globus Iso Control;
Globus, Inc., Treviso, Italy). The isometric half-squat test
was conducted using a Smith machine with a fixed barbell
and knee flexion angle of 908 between the femur and the
tibia. In addition, maximal strength of the upper body was
assessed by a 1RM bench press using a Smith machine.
Bench press testing was performed in the standard supine
position. The participant lowered the bar to mid-chest and
then pressed the weight until his arms were fully extended.
The 1RM test was performed using an incremental method
beginning from a baseline of 30 kg and continued until failure in 10 kg increments. Participants were required to perform a single repetition with each load. During each
repetition, the power produced was measured and after
attainment of the 1RM a force-power curve was constructed.
Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using a standard
trapezoidal technique. An optical encoder (Globus Real
Power; Globus, Inc.) was used for power assessment. The
peak power and the percentage of 1RM that revealed maximum power were also calculated. Intraclass coefficients
were 0.95 (SEM, 4.66 au) for the 1RM bench press and
0.95 (SEM, 7.90 au) for the 1RM squat exercise.
The SJ and the CMJ were used to assess lower-body
power. All jump measures were performed on a contact mat
(Globus Ergo Jump; Globus, Inc.). For the SJ, each participant began from a squat position with his hands on his hips.
Before jumping, each participant was instructed to maximize
the height of each jump while minimizing the contact time
with the contact mat. On a verbal signal, the participant
performed a vertical jump. Jump height was calculated based
on flight time recorded by the computer. For the CMJ, the
methodology was similar with the exception that the
participant began from an erect position and moved to
a semisquat position before jumping. Each participant
performed 3 jumps for both the SJ and CMJ. Intraclass
coefficients were 0.87 (SEM, 2.20 au) for the SJ and 0.89
(SEM, 2.34 au) for the CMJ.
Anthropometry. Anthropometric assessments included height,
body mass, and body fat composition. Body mass was
measured to the nearest 0.1 kg. Body fat percentage was
estimated from skinfold caliper measures using the method
of Jackson and Pollock (16). The same investigators performed all of the skinfold analysis assessments during each
assessment period.
Statistical Analyses

A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test the normal

distribution of the data. Data were statistically analyzed
using a group (TP 3 BP) by time (pre 3 post) repeatedmeasures analysis of variance. Significance was set at p #
0.05. In addition, data were analyzed using magnitude-based
inferences, calculated from 90% confidence intervals, using

| www.nsca.com

a published spreadsheet (14). All data are reported as mean 6

SD. Where appropriate, percent change was calculated as
follows: (posttest mean 2 pretest mean)/(pretest mean) 3
100. Qualitative inferences based on quantitative changes
were assessed as: ,1% almost certainly not, 15% very
unlike, 525% unlikely, 2575% possibly, 7595% likely,
and .99% almost certainly (14).

RESULTS
Comparison of strength and power changes between BP and
TP is depicted in Table 2. There were no significant main
effects across time or group, and no significant interactions
were noted for power and strength of upper- and lowerbody measures. Magnitude-based analysis indicated that
changes in 1RM bench press and maximal power output
in bench press exercise were possibly positive (62.7 and
60.5%, respectively) for BP compared with TP. The percent
of 1RM corresponding to maximal power output decreased
for BP, whereas increased for TP. These differences between
the groups were likely positive (92.8%). In addition,
magnitude-based inferences comparing AUC for maximal
power performance between 40 and 100% of maximal bench
press performance also indicated a likely positive (79.8%)
effects for improvements in BP compared with TP
(Figures 3A, B). The change in AUC value in BP group
suggests that an upward shift of the force-power curve
occurred and that is likely because of the training program.
Magnitude-based inferences for maximal isometric strength
in the squat exercise revealed a likely trivial (85.9%) difference in the athletes of BP and TP groups from pretest to
posttest, a possible trivial relation between groups for SJ
(57.5%) and an unclear difference for CMJ (66.7%).
No changes in body composition were seen from PRE
(9.83 and 11.88%) to POST (9.24 and 10.88%) in either BP or
TP. In addition, there were no significant interactions for fat
free mass and for fat mass percentage between groups after
the 15 weeks of training.

DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicated that a 15-week resistance
training program using a BP model promoted a greater
increase in strength and power expression in bench press
exercise compared with using the TP model. However, no
differences were detected for lower-body performance and
body composition measures. Both periodization models
incorporated the same total load lifted, thus the differences
observed for upper-body strength and power were likely
associated with the manipulation of training intensity during
the different mesocycles.
Relation between strength and power is a fundamental
component in many strength/power sports (15), and an
increase in this parameter can lead to an improvement in
specific sport performance by the athlete. A wide variety of
neuromuscular factors have been reported to contribute to
high power production (17,31), including motor unit
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 |

995

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Traditional versus Block Periodization Comparisons

recruitment, rate coding, and synchronization. Relative temporal proximity between power training and maximal
strength or hypertrophy sessions in TP may have decreased
the ability of the athletes to optimize power training due to
fatigue. This could have potentially influenced the limited
increase in power observed in TP.
Several studies have suggested that the optimal load for
power expression for the bench press exercise is between
4070% of 1RM (2,17). In this study, both BP group and TP
group showed a value between 50 and 61% of 1RM. During
the 15-week training program, a reduction in the percentage
of 1RM that corresponded to maximal power in the bench
press occurred in the BP group, but not in the TP group.
This is consistent with research by Baker (2) who found that
stronger subjects produced the maximal power at lower percentage of maximum load than did weaker subjects in bench
press throw and SJ. Although this may be influenced by the
type of exercise, strength level of the athletes, and training
phase, a reduction in the load that produces maximal power
could mean a quicker muscle contraction and an early
recruitment of high threshold motor unit. This effect may
enhance improvements in the rate of force development.
This is supported by Baker (2), who suggested that optimal
loads can shift toward a lower percentage of 1RM during
phases with emphasizing speed-oriented training. This
would be consistent with coaches designing yearly training
programs that incorporate sprint and plyometric training
programs during the power phase of training. The last phase
of training during the BP model was completely dedicated to
power, and intensity was lowered to accommodate maximum power generation, with workloads ranging between
50 and 65% of 1RM. In the TP group, this was distributed
at the end of each of the 3 mesocycles and produced lower
results. The single week of lower intensity training at the end
of each mesocycle in TP may not be of sufficient duration to
stimulate specific neurological adaptation in comparison to
a concentrated 5-week training phase seen during BP. This
study supports the idea that BP can emphasize specific adaptation leading to the use of lower loads more than a TP
program.
Limited improvements in both squat and jump performances were likely related to the lack of plyometric drills in
the training routines of both programs and the inclusion of
lower-body strength training only 1 day per week. This is
consistent with the previous research that has suggested that
training improvements in experienced, resistance trained
athletes are dependent on training frequency and the
inclusion of assistance exercises (10). In addition, strength
assessments for the lower body were performed using an
isometric measure and dynamic jumps. The lack of lowerbody strength improvements reported may also be a reflection of lack of specificity between exercises used during the
training program and those used for assessment. Previous
studies have indicated that evaluating strength performance

996

the

in a mode of training not specific to what was trained will

not reflect the magnitude of strength improvements (8,25).
No changes were noted in body composition in either
training model. Considering that the body composition of
these athletes was lean before the onset of the study, the lack
of any significant change is not unexpected. This is
consistent with previous studies examining 15-week periodized training programs in strength/power athletes (11,12).

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study indicate that a BP model may be
more beneficial to the TP model during a 15-week training
program in eliciting upper-body strength and power improvements in experienced resistance trained athletes. In the
context of this study, no clear advantage was demonstrated
in either training model in regard to lower-body strength
and power improvements. The BP model appears to cause
an upward shift to the force velocity curve and resulting in
greater power outputs at the lower intensity of the athletes
1RM bench press. This training model may be superior for
the training of athletes participating sports characterized by
very quick muscular contractions, like javelin and discus
throw of track and field events.

REFERENCES
1. Apel, JM, Lacey, RM, and Kell, R. A comparison of traditional and
weekly undulating periodized strength training programs with total
volume and intensity equated. J Strength Cond Res 25: 694703,
2011.
2. Baker, D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between
professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res 15: 3035, 2001.
3. Baker, D. Cycle-length variants in periodized strength/power
training. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 29: 1017, 2007.
4. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8:
235242, 1994.
5. Bompa, TO and Carrera, MC. Periodization Training for Sports.
Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
6. Cissik, J, Hedrick, A, and Barnes, M. Challenges applying the
research on periodization. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 30: 4551,
2008.
7. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ, The Ultimate Training System.
Periodization Breakthrough! New York, NY: Advanced Research Press
Inc, 1996.
8. Fry, AC, Kraemer, WJ, Weseman, CA, Conroy, BP, Gordon, SE,
Hoffman, JR, and Maresh, CM. The effects of an off-season strength
and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in womens
intercollegiate volleyball. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 174181, 1991.
9. Harris, GR, Stone, MH, O Bryant, 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.
10. Hoffman, JR, Fry, AC, Deschenes, M, Kemp, M, and Kraemer, WJ.
The effects of self-selection for frequency of training in a winter
conditioning program for football. J Appl Sport Sci Res 4: 7682,
1990.
11. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Cooper, JJ, Kang, J, Chilakos, A, and
Faigenbaum, A. The addition of eccentrically loaded and unloaded
jump squat training on strength/power performance in college
football players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 810815, 2005.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

12. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Klatt, M, Faigenbaum, AD, Ross, RE,
Tranchina, NM, McCurley, RC, Kang, J, and Kraemer, WJ.
Comparison between different off-season resistance training
programs in Division III American college football players.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 1119, 2009.
13. Hoffman, JR, Wendell, M, Cooper, J, and Kang, J. Comparison
between linear and nonlinear in season training program in
freshmen training program. J Strength Cond Res 17: 561565, 2003.
14. Hopkins, WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval,
mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value.
Sportscience 11: 1620, 2007.
15. Issurin, VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of
training periodization. Sports Med 40: 189206, 2010.
16. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497504, 1978.
17. Kawamori, N and Haff, G. The optimal training for the development
of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 18: 675684, 2004.
18. Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, 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.
19. Matveev, LP. Sport training periodization [in Russian]. Teor Pratk
Fiz Kult 1958.
20. Matveev, LP. The Problem of Training Periodization in Sports [in
Russian]. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers, 1965.
21. Matveev, LP. Periodization of Athletic Training [German]. Berlin,
Germany: Bartels & Wernitz, 1972.
22. Matveev, L. Fundamentals of Sport Training. Moscow, Russia:
Fizkultura I Sport, 1977. (Translated from Russian by A. P.
Zdornykh. Moscow, Russia: 1981).
23. Matveev, L. Training and Its Organization [Italian]. School of Sport
Magazine of Physical Culture 18: 36, 1990.

| www.nsca.com

26. Plisk, SS and Stone, MH. Periodization strategies. Natl Strength Cond
Assoc J 25: 1937, 2003.
27. Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, De Lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D, De
Cassia Marqueti, R, Figueira, A Jr, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison
between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to
increase strength. J Strength Cond Res 23: 24372442, 2009.
28. 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.
29. Siff, MC. Supertraining (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute,
2003.
30. Stone, M, OBryant, H, and Garhammer, J. A hypothetical model for
strength training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 21: 342351, 1981.
31. Stone, MH, OBryant, HS, McCoy, L, Coglianese, R, Lehmkuhl, and
Shilling, B. Power and maximum strength relationships during
performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J Strength Cond
Res 17: 140147, 2003.
32. Tschiene, P. Annual Cycle of Training [Italian]. School of Sport
Magazine of Physical Culture 2: 1421, 1985.
33. Verchosanskij, JV. Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sport.
Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport, 1977 (Translated from A. C.
Charniga. Livonia, Michigan: Sportivny Press, 1986).
34. Verchosanskij, JV. Principles for the Construction of Training Program in
Track and Field Strength Specialties [in Russian]. Moscow, Russia:
Liogkaja atletika, 1979.
35. Verchosanskij, JV, Mironenko, V, Antonova, B, Chacatrian, V,
Nikitin, D, and Levcenko, S. The development of a model of the
dynamics of the power state of athletes in the annual cycle and it
importance for training [German]. Competitive Sports 5: 1982.
36. Verchosanskij, JV. The modern programming training sports. Roma,
Italy: Scuola dello Sport, 2001. (Translated from Russsian by O.
Jourtchennko).
37. Verchosanskij, JV. Special Strength Training: A Practical Manual for
Coaches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2006.

24. Painter, KB, Haff, GG, Ramsey, MW, McBride, J, Triplett, T,

Sands, WA, Lamont, HS, Stone, ME, and Stone, MH. Strength
gains: Block versus daily undulating periodization weight training
among track and field athletes. Intl J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 161
169, 2012.

39. Vorobjev, A. A Textbook on Weightlifting. Budapest, Hungary: 1978.

25. Pipes, TV. Variable resistance versus constant resistance strength

training in adult males. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 39: 2735,
1978.

40. Vorobjeva, E and Vorobjev, A. Die Adaption in sportlichen Training

al seine der Formen der biologischen Anpassung des Organismus an
Umwelt- und Entwicklungsbedingungen. Leinstungssport 2: 1978.

38. Vorobjev, A. Some problems in training theory. Teor Pratk Fiz Kult
10: 1974.

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2014 |

997

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.