The Theory and Methodology of Periodization

The Theory and Methodology of Periodization of Strength

Training
Matt Cole
University of Victoria
August 1998

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

Introduction
Many strength-training specialists subscribe to
various periodization models for the long-term development
of their athletes (Balyi, 1991; Bompa, 1994; Poliquin,
1992; Verhoshansky, 1992; Wilks, 1994).

That is, through

specific manipulations of training variables increases in

performance from year to year may be systematically
orchestrated through the enhancement of sport specific
strength (Bompa, 1993).

Periodization protocols are

thought to optimize the development of sport specific

strength over the long term for two reasons: (1)
strategically coordinated regeneration or unloading periods
allow cumulative fatigue to dissipate thereby reducing the
potential for overtraining and fostering super-compensation
(Banister & Calvert, 1981; Fry, Morton, & Keast, 1992b),
and (2) the variation in training stimulus associated with
periodization will yield greater and faster gains than
training at the constant relative intensity associated with
progressive overload training (Kukushkin, 1983; Poliquin,
1997; Sleamaker, 1989).
It should be noted, however, that periodization
methodology is largely based on the beliefs of training
theorists and the empirical observations of the specialists
in the field, while much has yet to be scientifically
validated.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the

theory, methodology, physiological basis, and scientific

validation of periodization designs and identify areas
warranting further investigation.
Terminology
Due to a lack of consistency regarding the definitions
and use of overtraining and periodization terminology in

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

the literature, the following definitions will be applied

to this discussion:
Stress: A host of non-specific physiological responses of
an organism induced by exposure to one or more diverse
stressors.
Stressor: One of many distinct agents that will elicit
stress when exposed to an organism.
Overreaching: The practice and symptoms of the short-term
use of excessive training loads.

Decline in performance

may or may not be accompanied by displaced physiological

variables and/or psychological symptoms.

Recovery will

occur within 1-2 weeks of active rest.

Overtraining: The practice and symptoms of continuous use
of excessive training loads.

Decline in performance may or

may not be accompanied by displaced physiological variables

and/or psychological symptoms.

Recovery will demand a

number of weeks to months of active rest.

The Annual Plan:

The periodization scheme encompassing the

annual 12-month cycle.

Macrocycle: A period of the annual plan, generally 6-32
weeks1 in length, dedicated to a particular strength goal.
These objectives may reflect the development of sport
specific strength, prerequisites, and/or their maintenance.
Mesocycle: A period of 2-6 weeks of overload training,
usually followed by an unloading microcycl.

These cycles

are repeated across the macrocycle to facilitate supercompensation.

A 32-week competitive phase represents a long competitive

season as in hockey, whereas the general preparatory, precompetitive and transition macrocycles can be quite short. The
length of the specific preparatory phase is inversely related to
the length of the competitive phase.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

Microcycle: A one-week block of training comprised of one

or more training sessions.
Physiological Basis of Periodization
The aspect of periodization believed to reduce the
risk of overtraining is based on Hans Selyes general
adaptation syndrome (Stone et al., 1991; Wathen, 1994).
Selye (1976) demonstrated that an organism would react to a
variety of diverse stressors, including muscular work, with
a number of non-specific responses (stress).

However, that

is not to say that the stressors themselves would not

induce specific responses as well.

In fact, Selye states

that these specific responses invariably modify the stress

response, as do endogenous (i.e. athlete's genetics) and
exogenous (i.e. hormone treatment) conditioning factors.
The general adaptation syndrome (GAS) may manifest in
three stages (Selye, 1976).

The first stage, referred to

as the alarm reaction, is characterized by the discharge of

catecholamines from the adrenal cortex, depleting its
storage of secretory granules.

Moreover, at the

hypothalamus nervous stimuli induce the emission of

corticotropic hormone releasing factor (CRF).

CRF then

elicits the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)

at the anterior pituitary, which in turn induces the
secretion of glucocorticoids, including cortisol, at the
adrenal cortex (Selye).

The discharge of sympathetic

neurons and secretion of catecholamines is the more

immediate response; the release of cortisol follows in
later part of the alarm stage and may act to dampen the
acute response (Standford & Salmon, 1993).
However, because the alarm state cannot be maintained
indefinitely, a stage of resistance follows in which
adaptation occurs and the organism re-establishes

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

physiological homeostasis (Selye, 1976).

Anabolism and an

enlarged adrenal cortex rich in secretory granules

characterize this stage.

During this stage if continued

exposure to the stressor is of relatively smaller amounts,

resistance/adaptation will continue and the organs will
return to normal (Selye).

Yet, if the exposure to the

stressor continues at the same high level over a prolonged

period, the adaptation incurred will deteriorate after
several months and symptoms of the alarm reaction stage
will reappear (Standford & Salmon, 1993).

This is the

stage of exhaustion in which symptoms may become

irreversible leading to pathology and even death of the
organism (Selye).
Overtraining
While the overtraining syndrome is generally not
considered fatal or its symptoms irreversible, it is a
stress response consistent to Selyes general adaptation
syndrome (Kraemer, Bradley, & Nindl, 1998; Kuipers &
Keizer, 1988; Stone et al., 1991).

Moreover, muscular

exercise should not be considered one type of stressor, but

several.

That is, overtraining symptoms will vary between

aerobic endurance training and anaerobic training, and with

respect to anaerobic training, periods of high volume
training will produce different symptoms from those
associated with high intensity training (Fry, 1998).
Recall that the specific effects of the stressor are
superimposed upon and invariably modify the non-specific
stress response.

Consequently when two different stressors

are imposed upon an organism simultaneously their specific

effects may interact upon the systemic stress response of
the organism.

Therefore, since strength-training sessions

are comprised of both doses of volume and intensity (figure

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

E1) their specific effects can be expected to interact in

varying degree (Fry, 1998; Kraemer et al., 1998).

Figure E1.

The relationship between relative training intensity

(%1RM) and training volume (sets X repetitions = total

repetitions) as they relate to resistance training overtraining
(Fry, 1998).

While the specific and non-specific physiological and

psychological consequences of overtraining stressors are
beyond the scope of this paper2, it is suffice to say that
the imbalance between training and recovery results in
neuroendocrine dysfunction localized at the hypothalamic
level.

This in turn can result in the compromise of the

immune system, cardiovascular system, nervous system, the

balance between anabolic and catabolic function,
carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, as well as induce
2

For a detailed review the reader is referred to Keider, Fry, &

OToole, 1998.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

chronic fatigue (Budgett, 1998; Keider et al., 1998;

Kuipers & Keizer, 1988; Stone et al., 1991).
These medical consequences coupled with prolonged
deterioration of performance may interrupt a competitive
season, sacrifice an upcoming season, or worse, cause the
premature termination of the athletes career (Fry et al.,
1992b; Keider et al., 1998).

Therefore, it is the design

of periodization methodology to repeatedly cycle the

athlete through the first two stages of the GAS, while
avoiding the onset of the third (overtraining).
Consequently, training sessions of overload training act as
the initial stimulus (stressor) for adaptation while
periods of rest or unloading facilitate restoration and
adaptation, termed super-compensation in sport science
literature (Banister & Calvert, 1981; Fry, Morton, & Keast,
1992b; Gambetta, 1991).
Periodization Methodology
The annual plan (figure E2) for most athletic events
is divided into three phases or macrocycles: the
preparatory phase, the competitive phase, and the
transition phase (Wilks, 1995).

The preparatory phase is

often further subdivided into the general preparatory phase

and the specific preparatory phase, while the competitive
phase is occasionally similarly subdivided into the precompetitive phase and the main competitive phase (Bompa,
1994; Verhoshansky, 1992).
The Macrocycle
The preparatory phase marks the beginning of the
annual plan.

The role of the general preparatory phase is

to establish a base or foundation of strength on which to

build sport specific strength (Charnigra et al., 1994a;
Matveyev, 1992).

The focus should be on strengthening the

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

connective tissue and the core stabilizer muscles as well

as those of the limbs (Bompa, 1993).

With the specific

preparatory phase there is a shift toward the development

of prerequisites for sport specific strength and sport
specific strength itself (Bompa, 1994; Matveyev, 1992).
The competitive phase encompasses the annual
competition calendar and, depending upon the nature of the
sport, will either serve to forge a performance peak during
the most important competitions or maintain the sport
specific strength developed during the preparatory phase
(Charnigra et al., 1994b).

The pre-competitive phase is

utilized when the event allows for exhibition competitions

prior to main competitions (Bompa, 1994).

In essence it is

an extension to the specific preparatory phase in which the

development of sport specific strength may be evaluated in
a competition setting.

The exact length of the competitive

and preparatory phases are primarily determined by the

competition schedule which, of course, is in turn
determined by the event and the level of the athlete(s)
(Bompa, 1993; Verhoshansky, 1992).
The transition phase follows the competitive phase and
is a macrocycle of active rest (Charnigra et al., 1994a).
That is, it is the role of the transition phase to allow
recovery from fatigue that may have culminated over the
preparatory and competitive phases as well as necessitate
any biological regeneration from micro trauma that may have
occurred (Charnigra et al., 1994b).

Typically, both volume

and intensity are dramatically reduced as well as any sport

specific training, if not entirely eliminated.

Active rest

is characterized by low volume (moderate intensity) general

conditioning work and recreational physical activity
(Charnigra et al.).

Theory and Methodology of Periodization

Another objective of the transition phase, beyond the

recovery from fatigue, is to have the athlete start off the
forthcoming annual plan at a higher level of performance
than the previous year (Charnigra et al., 1994a;
Verhoshansky, 1992).

Therefore, to avoid a stagnant type

pattern in performance from year to year, the transition

phase is much shorter than the preparatory and competitive
macrocycles, typically lasting only 4 to 8 weeks.

This

time frame is thought to optimize recovery, while

minimizing ay loss of the accumulated strength gains,
ensuring observable performance enhancement from year to
year (Bompa, 1993).

Figure E2. Training Phases of the Annual Plan (Modified from

Bompa, 1994).

The Mesocycle
The mesocycle is a period of 2-6 weeks in which a
number of microcycles of overload training are followed by
an unloading microcycle in which both volume and intensity,
and possibly frequency as well, are reduced (Bompa, 19933;
Banister & Calvert, 1981; Charnigra, 1993; Fry et al.
1992b; Matveyev, 1992).

The theory being that the overload

training provided by the sessions within the initial

3

Banister and Calvert, as well as Bompa, have used the term

macrocycle to describe what has been identified here as a
mesocyle.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 10

microcycles provide a powerful stimulus for adaptation,

while the unloading microcycle facilitates the adaptive
process (Wenger et al., 1996) by providing an interval in
which the stress provided by the training is dramatically
reduced.

The mesocycle is then repeated over the length of

the macrocycle to develop a particular strength quality.

Table E1 reveals how a typical 4-week mesocycle might be
structured.

Table E1.
A 4-Week Mesocycle Designed for Strength Development
Microcycle

8RM

6RM

4RM

10RM

Sets/Muscle Group

Frequency

144

108

72

30

Intensity

Volume

Note. Volume is total repetitions for the microcycle (sets x

repetitions x frequency).

Intensity is progressively increased

across the first three microcyles.

The unloading microcycle is

characterized by a reduction in intensity, volume, and frequency.

Beyond regeneration considerations and the goals and

length of the macrocycles, another factor which will
contribute to the form and sequencing of the mesocycles is
the use of a particular periodization model.

These schemes

can be categorized as either linear or non-linear.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 11

The Linear Model

Matveyevs original model of the annual training plan,
what has since become to be known as the linear model, was
first developed in the early 1960s (Wilks, 1995).

The

approach of the linear model is that of an initial onset of

high volume training in the preparatory phase is followed
by a progressive increase in intensity with sharper
decrements in volume into the latter preparatory and
competitive phases, working toward an eventual peak in
intensity and performance (Wilks).
Matveyevs model has since been adapted specifically
for the strength and power athlete (Stone, OBryant, &
Garhammer, 1981).
model.

Figure E3 reveals the Stone et al.

What has been labeled the first transition may be

likened to the specific preparatory and pre-competitive

macrocycles.

The technique-training curve indicates sport

specific training.

Figure E3. A Hypothetical Model for Strength Training

(Stone et al., 1981).

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 12

Table E2.
Macrocycles Associated with Stone et al (1981) Model

Macrocycle
Volume

General
Preparatory
Hypertrophy
High

Specific
Preparatory Competitive
Transition
Strength
Power
Peaking
Active
Rest
Mod-Low
Low
Low
Lowest

Sets

3-5

3-5

3-5

1-3

0-1

Intensity

Low

High

High

High

Moderate

8-12

2-6

2-3

1-3

8-12

Low

Low-

High

High

Low/

Reps
Specific
Work

Moderate

Note. Volume refers to total reps, not sets.

Nil

Set recommendations

are per muscle group per training session.

The authors proposed four specific blocks or

macrocycles of training contributing to the development of
sport specific strength occurring across the preparatory
and competitive phases: hypertrophy, strength, power, and
peaking (table E2).

Hypertrophy is the first block of

mesocycles followed by the strength and power macrocycles.

The hypertrophy macrocycle is positioned first because it
is believed that hypertrophied muscle has a greater
potential to increase strength and power than nonhypertrophied muscle (Bompa, 1993; Stone et al., 1981).
The objective of the strength phase is to develop the
athletes maximum or 1RM strength which is believed to be a
prerequisite in the development of sport specific strength
and power (Bompa, 1993).

The power macrocycle follows in

which the velocity and specificity of the exercises are

increased and the raw ingredients, now developed, are
transformed into sport specific forms of power (Willoughby,
1991).

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 13

The peaking block takes up the competitive phase

(table E2) in which volume is further reduced in favor of
intensity and specificity, building towards an eventual
performance peak in the latter half of the competitive
phase (Stone et al., 1981).
Both maximum strength and power training are thought
act as a stimulus for adaptations to neural drive (Bompa,
1993; Fleck & Kraemer, 1997; Poliquin, 1997).

Therefore,

the theory is that the initial high volume training will

stimulate the desired muscle hypertrophy and the later high
intensity training will act as stimulus for neural
adaptations4 (Baker, 1993).
Like Stone et al. (1981), Bompa (1993) endorses
similar block type training.

However, Bompa has taken into

consideration that not all events allow for hypertrophy.

With weight class events the objective is to maximize sport
specific strength and power without substantial lean tissue
accretion, unless the athlete intends to move up a weight
class.

Therefore, the hypertrophy block is only inserted

into the annual plan if it is warranted.

However, all

annual plans start off with a macrocycle5 block Bompa refers

to as anatomical adaptation.
The anatomical adaptation macrocycle and the
hypertrophy macrocycle differ in several respects.

The

anatomical adaptation phase occurs during the early

preparatory phase and is designed to lay the foundation on
which future strength training can build (Bompa, 1994).

See Sale(1988) for a review of these mechanisms.

Bompa has used the term macrocycle to describe what has been
identified here as a mesocyle in this paper.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 14

The scope of this macrocycle then is to involve most, if

not all the muscles groups, by utilizing a large amount of
exercises (Bompa, 1993).

The focus is to strengthen core

muscles groups and develop joint and connective tissue

strength as well as ideal muscle strength ratios between
muscle groups.
When the hypertrophy block is included, focus is on
enlarging the prime movers, thus fewer exercises are
prescribed.

However, there are exceptions to this.

Bodybuilders, shot putters, and offensive and defensive

linemen will benefit from more broad hypertrophy (Bompa,
1993).

Figure E4 reveals annual plans with and without a

hypertrophy block.

Figure E4. The Annual Plan With and Without a Hypertrophy Block.

Criticism of the monocyclic linear model and the

impracticality of peaking once a year for many events led
to the implementation of bi-cyclic (figure E5) and tricyclic annual plans (Wilks, 1995; Fleck & Kraemer, 1997).
These models repeat the original linear model two or three
times within the annual plan by shortening the length of

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 15

each of the macrocycles6 (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997).

For

example a 100-meter sprinter who peaks in the summer for

his event may which to peak as well during the winter to
compete in the 60-meter sprint during the indoor season.
These bi-cycle and tri-cycle models have shown a trend
to produce greater gains than the monocycle (Balyi, 1995;
Bompa, 1993).

Therefore, athletes competing in one-peak or

competitive phase events have adopted them as well.

Fleck

and Kraemer (1997) have proposed that the superiority of

these designs may be due to their variation of training
stimulus believed to be essential for optimal and
continuous gains (Poliquin, 1997).
Moreover, these models provide for more individual and
sport specific training for elite athletes who will not
benefit from a prolonged general preparatory phase at the
beginning of each annual cycle (Balyi, 1991; Balyi &
Hamilton, 1996).

Fleck and Kraemer has used the term macrocycle to describe the
annual plan and the term mesocycle to describe what this author
has defined as a macrocycle.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 16

Figure E5. A Typical Bi-Cyclic Annual Plan (Balyi and Hamilton,

1996).
Note. GPP = general preparatory phase; SPP = specific preparatory
phase; PCP = Pre-competitive phase; CP = Competitive phase; TP =
transition phase.

Note the very short transition phase

separating the two cycles and that the second preparatory phase
is entirely specific in nature.

As a general rule with bi-cycle and tri-cycle designs

the first preparatory phase is the longest and therefore
typifies the highest volume of training (Bompa, 1994).
Furthermore, subsequent preparatory phases should be solely
of a specific nature (figure E5) for experienced athletes
since they already possess a foundation of physical
conditioning optimized during the initial general
preparatory phase (Balyi & Hamilton, 1996).
With multiple competitive phases, it is common that
the first peak is a lesser peak and occurs during the least
important competitive phase (Bompa, 1994).
Non-Linear Models
Non-linear or undulating designs are characterized by
short periods of high volume training alternated with

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 17

shorts periods of high intensity training (Baker, 1993).

This type of periodized loading is thought to optimize
strength gains by regularly employing training protocols
thought to favor both hypertophic adaptations (high volume
training) and neural activation (high intensity training)
enhancement (Baker, 1995; Poliquin, 1992).

The specific

manipulations of intensity and volume of the non-linear

model can vary widely and in its various forms has been
referred to as undulating, wave like, accumulationintensification, and multiple periodization (Baker, 1993,
Balyi, 1991; Poliquin, 1992).

The reader should, however,

not let these terms confuse the issue here.

These schemes

are all essentially the same thing: non-linear designs that

alternate between periods of high volume and high
intensity.

If they differ, it is only in how the periods

of high volume and high intensity training are manipulated.

The most common non-linear variations alternate
periods of high volume and high intensity training within
the mesocycle or between mesocycles.

Poliquin (1992) has

successfully applied a 2:1 ratio of high volume microcycles

to high intensity microcycle, while 3:3 and 4:4 ratios have
also been reported by Baker (1993).

Depending upon the

phase of training, volume may be highest in the first

microcycle and decline across the mesocycle as intensity
increases or vice versa.

Moreover, volume or intensity may

peak in the middle of the mesocycle or volume may increase

while intensity is held constant across the mesocycle
(Baker).

These manipulations coupled with a possibility of

sequencing mesocycles varying in length from 2-6 weeks

allows for tremendous variation and flexibility to suit the
needs of numerous competition schedules.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 18

Figure E6 reveals an 18-week undulating model designed

by Poliquin (1992) for hammer thrower, Judson Logan who
thereafter set an indoor world record.

3-week mesocycles

are employed with a 2:1 ratio of accumulation (high volume)

microcycles to intensification (high intensity)
microcycles.

Intensity is increased linearly over the 3-

week cycle while volume is decreased, substantially (by 3040%) in the third microcycle.

Figure E6. Undulating Model Developed for Hammer Thrower, Judson

Logan (Poliquin, 1992).

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 19

It should also be noted that Poliquins design (1992)

periodized exercise selection, rest intervals, and
contraction velocity or tempo as well as intensity and
volume.

During the general preparatory phase contraction

tempo was slow to moderate; the specific preparatory placed

an emphasis on quick contraction velocities.

And during

the final weeks leading up to the major competition

contraction tempo was gradually increased as volume was
tapered.
Bompa (1993) has advocated the use of the 3:3
accumulation-intensification microcycle ratio during long
preparatory phases and for power dominant events.

Figure

E7.a shows 3-week hypertrophy cycles been alternated with

3-week maximum strength cycles following larger blocks of
hypertrophy and maximum strength training during a lengthy
preparatory phase.

Figure E7.b reveals alternating 3-week

cycles of maximum strength with power training.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 20

E7.a

E7.b

Figure E7. 3:3 Undulating Models for the Long Preparatory Phase
and Power Development (Bompa, 1993).
Note. Subscript numbers in the upper right corner of each
mesocycle refer to the number of microcycles within it.

AA =

anatomical adaptation; MxS = maximum strength; P = power; Hyp =

hypertrophy; Comp = compensation training or active rest.

The noteworthy distinction with undulating mesocycles

is that that volume and intensity are not simultaneously
unloaded.

With respect to Selyes GAS, one stressor is

traded off for another.

Thus, while the specific effects

of one stressor are removed, the athlete would still

theoretically be experiencing systemic stress.

One could

speculate that loading muscle in such a manner over the

long term would lead to overtraining.
More aggressive undulating approaches has also been
structured within the microcycle sequencing heavy and light
days (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997) and even within the daily
training session incorporating high intensity low volume

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 21

sets and moderate intensity high volume sets (Wilks, 1995).

Table E3 presents an undulating microcycle in which a high
intensity day is centered within the week, with high volume
days positioned on Monday and Friday, the Friday being of
higher volume and lesser intensity.

Table E3. An Undulating Microcycle (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997)

Monday

Wednesday

Friday

Intensity (RM)

8-10 RM

3-5RM

12-15RM

Sets

3-4

4-5

3-4

Rest Interval

2 min

3-4 min

1 min

While periodization designs as a whole are believed to

be superior to non-periodized prescriptions in developing
strength and power gains (Baker, 1993; Poliquin, 1997),
undulating models are thought to be superior to the linear
model.

The rationale being that prolonged high intensity

periods within the linear model may contribute to neural

fatigue (Baker, 1993; Bompa, 1993).
Maintenance vs. Peaking
For events with many competitions within the
competitive phase, a maintenance program will be utilized
rather than working toward a performance peak (Charnigra et
al., 1994b).

Fleck and Kraemer (1997) have therefore

deemed the undulating model appropriate for events in which

the athlete will be competing on a weekly or bi-weekly
basis while the linear model is appropriate for peaking
once or several times a year.

However, the bi-cycle should

also be considered a viable alternative for team sports

with a long preparatory phase (Bompa, 1993).

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 22

A further distinction can be made between events with

shorter competitive phases and weekly competitions, such as
football, and those events with longer competitive phases
and multiple weekly competitions (Charnigra et al., 1994b).
While the latter eventscompetitive phases will exclusively
include maintenance and restorative mesocycles, events with
shorter competitive phases and weekly competitions may
allow for more intense training earlier in the week
(Charnigra et al, 1994b).
Events focused on peaking will select a limited number
of competitions to peak for and train through the minor
competitions (Charnigra et al, 1994b).

Moreover, in the

weeks preceding a major competition the mesocycles should

be shorter, competition specific, and include a taper to
maximize the distance between performance and fatigue
(Bansiter & Calvert, 1981; Balyi & Hamilton, 1996;
Charnigra et al, 1994b).

The taper differs from unloading

in that only volume is reduced while intensity is

maintained (Bansiter, 1981).

However, in specific

reference to strength training, a complete cessation of 510 days prior to the major competition has been prescribed
(Bompa, 1993; Ruisz, 1987).
Scientific Support
While the body of experimental research into the
periodization as a whole is extremely small, the majority
of these investigations have focused on the linear model
(Herrick & Stone, 1996; Stone, OBryant, & Garhammer, 1981;
Kraemer, 1997; Willoughby, 1992, 1993).

Stone et al.

(1981) investigated the effects of both a linear and nonperiodized (3 X 6RM) design among 20 college-aged males.
The experiment was 6 weeks long in which both groups
trained three days a week.

Monday and Friday exercises

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 23

included squats, bench press, and one set of leg curls.

Wednesdays exercises were made up of pulls (mid thigh),
pulls (floor), and behind the neck press.

The linear group

performed 5 X 10RM for the first three weeks, 5 X 5RM in

the fourth week, 3 X 3RM in the fifth week, 3 X 2RM in the
sixth week.

Measures of 1RM strength, power, and body

composition were taken at weeks 0, 4, and 6.

Results

showed significant differences in power, 1RM strength and

relative strength favoring the linear group.

Overall body

weight did not change, however LBM was up and %F was down
with the linear group and significantly different from the
non-linear group at T2 and T3.
Further observation by Stone et al. (1981) noted
greater 1RM and relative strength gains over 5.5 months
among Olympic lifters using a linear design compared with
those using a non-linear high intensity (2-3RM) model.
Similarly, in a 12 week study with high school football
players greater gains in 1RM squat, bench press, power
clean and power were associated with the linear model over
those resulting from a non-periodized (3 X 6RM) design
(Stone et al.).

However, with all these experiments the

subjects utilizing the linear model were subject to greater

volume in terms of total repetitions.

Therefore, it is

difficult to conclude if the superior gains are

attributable to the greater volume or the design itself, or
both.
In a 12 week study using trained college aged males
Willoughby (1992) reported significantly superior 1RM
strength gains in both the squat and bench press with the
use of a linear program over two non-periodized models (3 X
10 RM & 3 X 6-8RM).

However, like Stone et al. (1981) the

subjects within the linear group were subject to a greater

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 24

volume of training, in this case 3-4 times a greater

volume.
In two separate studies Kraemer (1997), using NCAA
division III football players as subjects, investigated a
linear variation and an undulating design along with single
set circuit training protocols of lesser volume.

Both

periodization models produced superior gains in vertical

jump, anaerobic power, and 1RM strength compared to the
single set circuit training programs.

Although, it is

difficult to extract any sound knowledge regarding

periodization design from these studies since volume, as
well as exercise type, rest interval, and in one case,
frequency were not controlled for.
Herrick et al (1996) trained 22 untrained college aged
females for 15 weeks complying with either a non-periodized
(3 X 6RM) or linear model.

The linear model was

characterized by hypertrophy (3 X 10RM) training during the

first 8 weeks followed by strength training (3 X 4RM) for 2
weeks and a peaking/maximum strength phase (3 X 2RM) in the
final 2 weeks. And following each phase, before the
commencement of the next phase, was a microcycle of active
rest (low intensity aerobic training).

Volume was not

equated, however similar in terms of total reps per

exercise: linear = 552 reps, non-periodized = 540 reps.
Results showed no significant difference between the
two groups regarding 1RM strength in both the bench press
and the squat.

However, the authors did note a consistent

improvement in performance with the periodized group during

the last 9 weeks of the study, while the non-periodized
group appeared to be plateauing near the end of the study.
In a review by Baker (1993) it was concluded that when
intensity was equated higher volume training would yield

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 25

greater gains and when volume was equated higher intensity

would yield greater gains.

However, Willoughby (1993) in a

16 week study utilizing 92 trained males showed greater

gains in 1RM strength (squat & bench press) with a linear
design of reduced volume in the last 8 weeks.

The study

equated volume for the first 8 weeks among two nonperiodized groups (5 X 10RM & 6 X 8RM) and a linear
periodized group.

The periodized group was subject to 4

weeks of training according to each of the following

protocols: 5 X 10RM, 6 X 8RM, 3 X 6 RM, and 3 X 4RM.

At

weeks 8, 12, and 16 the periodized group differed

significantly from the other groups in the squat.

At weeks

4, 8, and 12, the periodized group and the 6 X 8RM nonperiodized group differed from the 5 X 10RM non-periodized
group and the control group regarding 1RM strength on the
bench press.

At week 16 the periodized 1RM bench press

strength differed significantly from all other groups.

It should be noted that Willoughbys (1993) method of
equating volume was not in terms of total repetitions, but
total mass lifted per week.

It was calculated as reps per

set x number of sets per session x mass lifted per set x

sessions per week.

Nonetheless, in terms of total

repetitions per exercise the volume was similar between the

three groups during the first 8 weeks: non-periodized (5 x
10RM) = 1200, non-periodized (6 x 8RM) = 1152, and linear
periodized = 1176.

Volume for the non-periodized groups

was identical in the second 8 weeks of training while the

linear groups volume was reduced to a total of 360
repetitions per exercise.
The non-linear design has been the focus of few
investigations (Baker, Wilson, & Carlyon, 1994; Baker,
1995; Kraemer, 1997).

Baker (1995) investigated an

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 26

undulating variation in a 9-week study utilizing 5 trained

males as subjects.

Microcycles were either predominately

high volume or high intensity arranged in a 2:1 fashion

respectively.

However, manipulation of volume and

intensity also occurred within the microcycle with heavy

days on the first and third training days and day 2
characterized by more moderate intensity.

Results showed a

significant increase in both squat and bench press 1RM

strength as well as an increase in body mass attributed to
an increase in LBM.
Unfortunately, this study offered no other
experimental or control group e.g. linear or non-periodized
in which a comparison of effectiveness could be made.

Any

program of sufficient volume and intensity will induce

strength gains over the short term.

The goal of

periodization research is to unearth the most effective

design for a particular sport specific strength or
prerequisite, which may be applied to the long-term
development of the athlete.
Perhaps the best-designed study to date is Baker et
al. (1994), in which a linear, undulating, and nonperiodized models were studied over a 12-week period.

Both

volume and intensity were equated in terms of total reps

per exercise and RM respectively.

IEMG, 1RM strength

(bench press & squat), %F, and body mass were all recorded
at regular intervals.

Results indicated that all three

groups increased their vertical jump, LBM, bench press and

squat 1RM similarly.

IEMG and %F remained unchanged.

Thus, in considering the limited experimental

research, it appears that when both volume and intensity
are equated, enhancement of strength and power in the first
12 to 15 weeks of training will be similar despite program

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 27

design.

However, there is some indication that strength

and power gains maybe enhanced by periodized designs beyond

15 weeks (Herrick et al., 1996; Willoughby, 1993).
Sequencing of Training Sessions
The sequencing of training sessions within the
microcycle to optimize super-compensation is an aspect of
periodization in which not all sport scientists agree, and
of which the knowledge base is largely theory.
Super-compensation
Figure E8 reveals the classic model of supercompensation.

Following a series of training impulses over

a training session physiological homeostasis is disrupted

and fatigued is induced.

During a period of recovery

homeostasis is re-established and regeneration is such that

over compensation occurs resulting in enhanced performance
(Bompa, 1994).

However, if subsequent training impulses

are not administered the acquired adaptation and enhanced

performance will eventually degrade.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 28

Figure E8.

The Super-Compensation Model (Modified from Bompa,

1994).

Banister and Calvert (1981) theorized that a training

session would induce twice as much fatigue as it does
fitness (the training effect).

Although, the length of the

residual effect of fatigue, termed the time constant, is

much shorter than that of the training effect7 (figure E9).
Therefore, appropriately timed subsequent training sessions
will build upon the residual training effect, yet not that
of fatigue.

On the contrary, subsequent training sessions

imposed too soon will contribute to cumulative fatigue

(Wenger, McFadyen, & McFadyen, 1996) and overreaching (Fry,
Mortan, & Keast, 1992a) and eventually overtraining and a
decline in performance (Banister & Calvert, 1981).
Conversely, training sessions imposed too far apart will
not optimally build upon the strength residue because some
detraining has been allowed to occur (Bompa, 1994;
Kukushkin, 1983).

In fact if the training sessions are far

enough apart no apparent performance gain will be observed

at all.

Depending on the training protocol, the training effect may be

hypertrophy, neural activation, or some combination of the two.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 29

Figure E9.

The growth and decay of the residual effects of

fatigue and fitness (i.e strength) (Bansiter & Calvert, 1981).

The question then arises, what is the time constant

for fatigue/recovery following a strength training session?
And what then is the number of training sessions that can
be scheduled across the microcycle for the same muscle
groups?

In the past a period of 48 hours of recovery has

been prescribed (Atha, 1981; Bompa, 1993) and adopted as

the standard.

However, this may be inadequate and a 72-

hour recovery period may be more appropriate (Fleck &

Kraemer, 1997; Poliquin, 1997; Wilson, 1996).
Logan and Abernethy (1995) measured urinary 3methylhisidine8 (3MH), IEMG, 1RM strength (leg press) among
19 trained males following an intensive training session.
The training protocol included five sets of both the squat
and leg press exercises with intensities ranging from 2-6RM
(2X6RM, 2X4RM, & 1X2RM).
8

Three sets (1x8RM + 2X6RM) of leg

3MH is a metabolite primarily produced from the catabolism of actin

and myosin, which is not re-utilized and excreted in the urine.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 30

extensions were also employed.

Thirteen sets in all with

intensities ranging from 2-8RM constitutes a high volume

and reasonably high intensity training session and the
authors found full recovery occurred within 72 hours.
Eccentric training on the other hand appears to
require a lengthier recovery.

Clarkson, Nosaka, & Braun

(1992) presented data on 109 subjects (up to five days

after) and 15 subjects (up to 10 days after) following an
eccentric resistance training session.

The loading

protocol included two sets of 35 maximal eccentric

repetitions.

One repetition was performed every 15 seconds

and there was a five-minute rest interval between sets.

Maximal isometric force was impaired greater than 50%
immediately afterward and gradually recovered yet was still
depressed after 10 days.

Serum creatine kinase had a

delayed rise (48 hours) and did not peak until four days
afterward.

Both muscle soreness and swelling

(circumference) were reported to be still evident 8-10 days

afterward.

Fry (1998) notes, however, that excessive

eccentric loading, which the above protocol might be

considered, can cause considerable muscle damage.

Overreaching
It has been suggested by some (Harre, 1982; Kukushkin,
1983; Sleamaker, 1989) that complete recovery between
training sessions and microcycles is not necessary within
the mesocycle.

In fact these authors (Councilman, 1968;

Kukushkin, 1983; Sleamaker, 1989) have suggested that

incomplete recovery between training sessions provides a
more powerful stimulus for adaptation by progressively
increasing the degree to which homeostasis is displaced
(Councilman, 1968), while still allowing partial recovery.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 31

The key point advocated by these theorists is that the

subsequent mesocycle is not commenced until supercompensation and full recovery has been demonstrated and
therefore overtraining is averted (Bompa, 1994; Harre,
1982; Kukushkin, 1983).
The extreme of this type of training is the
intentional use of overreaching to precipitate a training
effect has been reported elsewhere (Kraemer et al., 1998;
Stone & Fry, 1998; Stone et al., 1991) and has been
suggested to induce a delayed performance gain several
weeks after returning to normal training loads (Stone &
Fry).

One way this is done is to superload the microcyle

immediately preceding the unloading microcyle (Wenger et

al., 1996).

Such microcycles have been referred to in the

literature as shock or crash microcyles and can be

characterized by sharp increases the volume and/or
intensity of training (Councilman, 1968; Harre, 1982;
Kukushkin, 1983; Sleamaker, 1989).
The superior gains achieved through the use of
periodic overreaching, however, is speculation and not an
opinion shared by all.

Wilson (1996) recommends complete

recovery between training sessions and therefore

microcycles, contending that incomplete recovery between
sessions will lead to reduced performance gains.
Furthermore, large increments in training loads should be
avoided (Bompa, 1994).

More gradual progressions and

variation will increase the stability of the pituitaryadrenocortical system and therefore elevate the training
level at which abnormal adrenocortical activity would occur
(Kuipers & Keizer, 1988).
Unquestionably, the use of overreaching protocols
within the mesocycle is a controversal methodology that

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 32

must be either validated or discredited since their

employment will initially impair performance regardless of
what later gains are or not achieved.

Future studies might

examine the effectiveness of mesocycles utilizing such

protocols by comparison to those with a more conservative,
yet equated9, distribution of training loads.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Periodization methodology should not be viewed as
rigid training architecture, but rather a flexible
framework that may be adapted for the development of sport
specific performance attributes for any event.

Factors to

consider when designing and implementing a periodization

scheme for a particular athlete or group of athletes
include: the training age of the athletes, the specific
demands of the event in terms of sport specific performance
attributes sought, the length and competition frequency of
the competitive phase, and the adoption of a particular
periodization model.
Clearly, however, there is an immense need for equated
investigations between linear, non-linear, and nonperiodized designs 15 weeks or more in length.

For when

training volume is equated, there appears to be no

superiority to either linear or undulating designs over a
non-periodized approach when training is confined to a 12week period (Baker et al., 1994).

However, at 15-16 weeks

periodization designs have shown significantly superior

gains (Willoughby, 1993) or a trend for greater gains
(Herrick et al., 1996).
9

Equating training loads is an essential control in periodization

research in order to differentiate between the effect of the mesocycle
structure and greater training loads alone. Several methods have been
suggested (Baker et al., 1994; Willoghby, 1993) however the method
described by Baker et al. is preferable because it equates volume and
intensity separately.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 33

The use of periodic unloading microcycles appears

theoretically sound and in line with Selye's general
adaptation syndrome and accordingly may effectively curb
overtaining by providing regular interval periods in which
the athlete is not under continuous demand to adapt.
However, long-term studies (>15 weeks) are required to test
their effectiveness compared to non-periodized regimes and
undulating mesocycles which do not simultaneously unload
volume and intensity.

In addition, such studies would be

complemented by further investigations of resistance

training induced overtraining (volume vs. intensity) and
identification of appropriate physiological markers.
What should also be of particular interest for
researchers is the length of the mesocycle, or rather the
frequency of unloading.

The literature indicates that a

common length of the mesocycle is 4 weeks (Bompa, 1993;

Mateveyev, 1992; Wenger et al., 1996).

However, as

indicated earlier, the mesocycle length can vary from 2-6

weeks (Bompa, 1994; Fry et al., 1992a; Wilks, 1995).

And

while the total number of weeks allocated to a particular

macrocycle can partially determine the length of its
mesocyles, the length of the mesocycle is still largely
dictated by the intuition of the coach or trainer.
Therefore, a series of well-controlled studies is warranted
in determining the optimal length of the mesocycle or
unloading frequency with respect to different prescriptions
of volume and intensity of training.
Not all sport scientists agree on what the optimal
strategy is for the sequencing of strength training
sessions.

Some propose that complete neuromuscular

recovery between training sessions would be best (Banister

& Calvert, 1981; Wilson, 1996), while others (Harre, 1982;

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 34

Kukushkin, 1983; Slemaker, 1989) have theorized that

partial, yet incomplete neuromuscular recovery acts as a
greater stimulus for adaptation by progressively displacing
homeostatsis over a number of training sessions
(Councilman, 1968) within the microcycle and mesocycle.
Overtraining is thought to be prevented because full
neuromuscular recovery occurs during the unloading
microcycle.

Hence, no cumulative fatigue is carried over

into the next mesocycle and therefore not allowed to build

over the macrocycle10 (Bompa, 1994; Harre, 1982; Kukushkin,
1983).
The standard recovery time prescribed between strength
training sessions for the same muscle groups has been 48
hours (Atha, 1981; Bompa, 1993) yet the time course for
complete muscular recovery following a resistance training
session appears to be 72 hours (Logan & Abernathy, 1995).
However, this time course can be increased considerably
with the inclusion of eccentric resistance training
(Clarkson et al., 1992).

Therefore, before researchers can

investigate whether complete neuromuscular recovery or

partial, yet incomplete neuromuscular recovery is optimal
within the microcycle and mesocycle, the time course for
complete neuromuscular recovery must be documented for a
variety of interacting prescriptions of volume and
intensity (RM) as well as exercise type i.e. conventional
resistance training, plyometrics, submaximal and subramaximal eccentric resistance training.
Nevertheless, It should be noted that even if complete
recovery were to take place between training sessions and
microcycles, the periodic unloading of the mesocycle
10

Bompa has used the term macrocycle to describe what has been
identified here as a mesocyle in this paper.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 35

structure would still be theoretically sound and in line

with Selyes general adaptation syndrome.

Recall that even

though an organism has demonstrated adaptation to a

stressor, if exposure to that stressor is continued to the
same degree over a prolonged period, the adaptive energy
of that organism will become exhausted and adaptation that
has occurred will begin to deteriorate (Selye, 1976).
Unloading microcycles, provide regular interval periods in
which the athlete is not continuously challenged to adapt.
The idea that short-term overreaching protocols may
induce a banked accumulation effect positively benefiting
performance (Kraemer et al., 1998, Stone & Fry, 1998) is
intriguing, however, it may be misguided and more
conservatively distributed, yet equated, training loads
within the mesocycle may induce superior gains.
Overreaching protocols may only appear to induce great
gains because they diminish performance initially.

Direct

comparisons between equated mesocycles are required to

validate or discredit these protocols.

This may be done be

equating the volume of two mesocycles of the same length,

yet varying their distribution of training volume so that
one mesocyle represents an overreaching approach while the
other has the training volume more uniformly dispersed
across the length of the mesocycle.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 36

References
Atha, J. (1984). Strengthening muscle. Exercise and Sport
Sciences Reviews, 9, 1-73.
Baker, D. (1993). Periodization of strength training for
sports: A review. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 1,
15-21.
Baker, D. (1995). The effect of a wave-like periodised
strength training cycle on maximal strength and lean
body mass. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 3, 11-16.
Baker, D., Wilson, G., & Carlyon, R. (1994). Periodization:
The effect on strength of manipulating volume and
intensity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 8, 235-242.
Balyi, I. (1991). Quadrenial and double quadrenial planning
of athletic training. Sport Specific, 3, 2-4.
Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (1996). Planning for training and
performance the training to compete phase. Strength
and Conditioning Coach, 4, 3-9.
Balyi, I., & Way, R. (1995). Long term athletic
development: The training to train phase. B.C. Coach,
4, 1-8.
Bompa, T. (1993). Periodization of strength.
Vertas Publishing.

Toronto, ON:

Bompa, T. (1994). Theory and methodology of training.

Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Banister, E., & Calvert, T.W. (1981). Planning for future
performance: Implications for long term training.
Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 5, 170-176.
Budgett, R. (1998). Fatigue and underperformance in
athletes: The overtraining syndrome. British Journal
of Sports Medicine, 32, 107-110.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 37

Charnigra, A., Gambetta, V., Kraemer, W.J., Newton, H.,

OBryant, H.S., Palmieri, G., Pedemonte, J., Ptaff,
D., & Stone, M.H. (1993a). Classic roundtable:
Periodization part I. National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 15, 57-67.
Charnigra, A., Gambetta, V., Kraemer, W.J., Newton, H.,
OBryant, H.S., Palmieri, G., Pedemonte, J., Ptaff,
D., & Stone, M.H. (1993b). Classic roundtable:
Periodization part II. National Strength and
Conditioning Association Journal, 15, 69-76.
Clarkson, P.M., Nosaka, K., & Braun, B. (1992). Muscle
function after exercise-induced muscle damge and rapid
adaptation. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 24, 512-520.
Councilman, J.E. (1968). The science of swimming. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J. (1997). Designing resistance
training programs (2nd ed.). Champaign, Ill: Human
Kinetics.
Fry, A.C. (1998). The role of training intensity in
resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. In
R.B. Kreider, A.C. Fry, & M.L. Otoole (Eds.),
Overtraining in sport (pp. 107-127). Champaign: Human
Kinetics.
Fry, R.W., Morton, A.R., & Keast, D. (1992a). Periodisation
of training stress: A review. Canadian Journal of
Sport Sciences, 17, 234-240.
Fry, R.W., Morton, A.R., & Keast, D. (1992b). Periodisation
and the prevention of overtraining. Canadian Journal
of Sport Sciences, 17, 241-248.
Gambetta, V. (1991). Concept and application of
periodization.
National Strength and Conditioning
Association Journal, 13, 64-66.
Harre, D. (1982). Principles of sports training:
Introduction to theory and methods of training.
Berlin: Sportverlag.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 38

Herrick, A.B., & Stone, W.J. (1996). The effects of

periodization versus progressive resistance exercise
on upper and lower body strength in women. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 10, 72-76.
Kraemer, W.J. (1997). A series of studies the
physiological basis for strength training in american
football: Fact over philosophy. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 11, 131-142.
Kraemer, W.J., Bradley, C., & Nindl, M.S. (1998). Factors
involved with overtraining for strength and power. In
R.B. Kreider, A.C. Fry, & M.L. Otoole (Eds.),
Overtraining in sport (pp. 69-86). Champaign: Human
Kinetics.
Kreider, R.B., Fry, A.C. & Otoole, M.L. (Eds.) (1998).
Overtraining in sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Kuipers, H., & Keizer, H.A. (1988). Overtraining in elite
athletes: Review and directions for the future. Sports
Medicine, 6, 79-92.
Kukushkin, G. (1983). The system of physical education in
the U.S.S.R. Moscow: Radugi Publishers.
Logan, P.A., & Abernathy, P.J. (1995). Time course changes
in strength and indices of acute fatigue following
heavy resistance exercise. In H. Bruce (Ed.)
Australian Conference of Science and Medicine in Sport
(pp.238-239). Canberra: Sports Medicine.
Matveyev L.P. (1992). Modern procedures for the
construction of macrocycles. Modern Athlete and Coach,
30, 32-34.
Poliquin, C. (1992). Applied strength training: Part one
short term periodization. Sports Coach, 15, 25-28.
Poliquin, C. (1997). The poliquin principles: Successful
methods for strength and mass development. Napa, CA:
Dayton Writers Group.
Ruisz, E. (1987) Soviet sprint training. National Strength
and Conditioning Association Journal, 9, 34-35

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 39

Sale, D.G. (1988). Neural adaptation to resistance

training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
20 (suppl.), 135-145.
Selye, H. (1976). Stress in health and disease. Boston, MA:
Butterworth Group.
Sleamaker, R. (1989). Serious training for serious
athletes. Champaign, Ill: Leisure Press.
Standford, S.C., & Salmon, P. (1993). Stress: From synapse
to syndrome. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stone, M.H., Fry, A.C. (1998). Increased training volume in
strength/power athletes. In R.B. Kreider, A.C. Fry, &
M.L. Otoole (Eds.), Overtraining in sport (pp. 87105). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Stone, M.H., Keith, R.E., Kearney, J.T., Fleck, S.J.,
Wilson, G.D., & Triplett, N.T. (1991). Overtraining: A
review of the signs, symptoms and possible causes.
Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 5, 35-50.
Stone, M.H., OBryant, H.S., & Garhammer, J. (1981). A
hypothetical model for strength training. Journal of
Sports Medicine, 21, 342-351.
Verhoshansky, Y. (1992). Principles of the organization of
training for high performance athletes. Modern Athlete
and Coach, 31, 3-7.
Wathen, D. (1994). Periodization: Concepts and
applications. In T.P. Baechle (Ed.), Essentials of
strength training and conditioning (pp. 459-471).
Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.
Wenger, H.A., McFadyen, P.F., & McFadyen, R.A. (1996).
Physiological principles of conditioning. In
J.E. Zachazewski, D.J. Magee, & W.S. Quillen (Eds.),
Athletic injuries and rehabilitation (pp.189-205).
Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Group
Wilks, R. (1994). Periodization of training for
powerlifting: An applied model of maximal strength
training. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 2, 9-37.

Theory and Methodology of Periodization 40

Wilks, R. (1995). Training theory and strength training.

Strength and Conditioning coach, 3, 10-15.
Willoughby, D. (1991). Strength training involving
periodization. Texas Coach, 36, 35-37.
Willoughby, D. (1992). A comparison of 3 selected weight
training programs on upper and lower body strength of
trained males. Applied Research in Coaching and
Athletics Annual, 124-146.
Willoughby, D. (1993). The effects of mesocycle length
weight training programs involving periodization and
partially equated volumes on upper and lower body
strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 7, 2-8.
Wilson, G.J., (1996). Weight training program design:
Importance of muscular recovery and prevention of
overtraining. Network, 8, 30-32.