See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325248420

Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy; the forgotten

variables

Article · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 417

4 authors:

James Fisher James Steele

Southampton Solent University ukactive
74 PUBLICATIONS   465 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   624 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dave Smith Paulo Gentil

Manchester Metropolitan University Universidade Federal de Goiás
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,336 CITATIONS    123 PUBLICATIONS   889 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EFEITOS DE DIFERENTES VOLUMES DE TREINO E FREQUÊNCIAS SEMANAIS DE TREINAMENTO RESISTIDO EM MULHERES IDOSAS View
project

The Dynamic Spinal Posture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulo Gentil on 21 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Review

Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy;

the forgotten variables
James P. Fisher, James Steele, Dave Smith, Paulo Gentil
Objectives: A growing area of discourse within sports medicine and resistance training is that of periodization. This has been rep-
resented as variation in load and subsequently repetitions as well as volume, with a view to maximize strength and hypertrophy
adaptations. A number of recent review articles have attempted to draw overarching conclusions from the present body of liter-
ature in an effort to provide definitive guidelines. However, there are numerous variables within resistance training that are
often overlooked, and in the context of periodization, might significantly impact adaptation.
Design & Methods: Narrative Review
Results: The present piece confers need for clarity in terminology of effort rather than intensity, as well as discussing how variety
of load might impact volume-load, discomfort, muscle damage and recovery. Furthermore, this article discusses often over-
looked variables such as variety in exercise selection, detraining periods, and supervision, which are all evidenced to impact
strength and hypertrophy adaptations.
Conclusions: Our opinion is that without inclusion of these variables any guidelines surrounding periodization for strength or
hypertrophy are limited in application. We conclude by highlighting areas for future research, as well as practical recommenda-
tions within this field.
(Journal of Trainology 2018;7:10-15)
Key words: intensity  strength  hypertrophy  load  detraining  resistance training

INTRODUCTION consider literature that has manipulated or considered the

There has been a recent discussion about the use of peri- interaction between volume (sets), load (% 1-repetition maxi-
odization for resistance training adaptations (e.g. strength and mum; RM), volume-load (VOL-L; load x repetitions x sets)
hypertrophy).1-3 Although many interesting points have been frequency (number of days per week), and other such variables
raised, there appears a failure to adequately discuss certain as a product of periodization models. We suggest that further
resistance training variables such as effort, detraining periods, review of these variables herein falls within the discussion of
variability in load and exercise selection, and supervision. periodization and is worthwhile towards optimising desired
These are all variables known to influence adaptations irre- adaptations.
spective of periodized or non-periodized RT programs.4 In this Notably, periodization for the singular desirable adaptations
commentary we elucidate these issues and discuss their impor- of strength3 or hypertrophy1 might be thought of as more one-
tance in application to periodised resistance training as well as dimensional than for other sporting populations where a more
provide suggestions for future research. complex periodized model is necessary for the multiple physi-
It might first be worthwhile to discuss and differentiate ological demands. For example, in preparing for a single
between periodization and programming. Suchomel, et al.5 event, a figure model or bodybuilder will look to optimise
recently identified that whilst they appear similar, periodiza- muscle hypertrophy and muscular definition,6,7 and a power-
tion “relates to the organization and timing of fitness adapta- lifter/strongman will look to optimise strength8. However, their
tions” whilst “programming tactics ‘drive’ the appropriate respective training demands do not include other key elements
adaptation during training phases in order to achieve the such as team cohesion or technical skill training as is common
desired fitness characteristic” (page 769). The authors5 contin- in sports performance. In this sense, even the seemingly gross
ue “Programming includes exercise selection, sets and repeti- motor skill of Olympic weightlifting might require more com-
tions, rest periods, and load selection”. However, from these plex periodization strategies due to the technical elements of
descriptions it could be inferred that periodization is a refer- the Olympic lifts, compared to dominantly strength for a pow-
ence to the desired specific adaptations, whilst programming is erlifter or hypertrophy for a bodybuilder. Since the recent
the manipulation of training variables by which these adapta- reviews focused solely on strength3 and hypertrophy,1 the pres-
tions are incurred. The most recent review articles1,3 discuss ent discussion will also consider only these outcomes.
periodization for maximizing strength and hypertrophy and

Received March 7, 2018; accepted April 28, 2018

From the Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton, UK (J.P.F., J.S.), Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe, UK (D.S.),
and Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil (P.G.)
Communicated by Takashi Abe, PhD
Correspondence to Dr. James Fisher, Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton, UK. Email: James.Fisher@solent.ac.uk
Journal of Trainology 2018;7:10-15 ©2012 The Active Aging Research Center http://trainology.org/

10
 Fisher et al.  Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy 11

EFFORT for all sets and exercises, and thus it could be reasonable to
A key aim of periodization is to manage or reduce the risk of assume that they trained to the same intensity of effort
overtraining through modification of variables over time 2. throughout the intervention. As such, perhaps the most poi-
However, whilst fatigue and recovery are usually discussed, it gnant variation between groups was the week’s active rest
is interesting that effort is not referred to. For example, (aerobic exercise on a cycle ergometer using a low resistance)
Williams, et al.3 repeatedly discussed training intensity in ref- for the PER group. The authors reported no significant
erence to the load (% 1-repetition maximum; RM) being used. between-group differences for strength increases for bench
It has been suggested that intensity might best be thought of as press and parallel squat 1RM. However, they speculated that
the effort applied, rather than the load used9 and further that the slope of improvement for the PRE group might be indica-
intensity actually refers to a measure of something and as such tive of overtraining toward the end of the intervention, and that
requires clarity (e.g., intensity of effort) when used, or should this might have been avoided in the PER group due to the peri-
be dropped from the lexicon when discussing RT10. The use of ods of active rest.
the term intensity in reference to load is a relatively common Other studies have reported similar decreases in progression
error in RT publications, however as Leo Tolstoy stated; throughout the duration of a continuous RT intervention when
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share compared to groups performing non-continuous training. For
in it”.11 The maximal number of repetitions performed at the example, Ogasawara, et al.18 divided participants in to continu-
same relative load (% 1RM) shows considerable heterogeneity ous- (CTR) or non-continuous- training groups (RTR) for a
across the population, as well as variation between exercis- 15-week RT intervention. The CTR group trained for 15 weeks
es.12-14 Therefore, the effort required by an individual to com- without interval whilst the RTR group trained for 6 weeks,
plete a set number of repetitions at a particular relative load then rested for a 3-week detraining period, and then retrained
can differ between and even within individuals. As such, it has for a further 6-weeks. The authors reported greater increases in
been argued that, not only should the term intensity be avoided the CTR group for the first 6-weeks compared to the final
and instead load or effort simply used,10 but that effort should 6-weeks, whereas the RTR showed similar increases through
be considered with respect to proximity to momentary failure both 6-week phases. Both CTR and RTR groups showed simi-
and controlled by appropriate definition and applications of set lar increases in both strength (bench press 1RM) and muscle
endpoints15. It is worth noting, that, as Williams, et al.3 identify size of the triceps brachii (TB) and pectoralis major (PM) fol-
in the limitations of their meta-analysis, training to momentary lowing the 15-week intervention. In a later study Ogasawara,
failure versus non-failure might affect the adaptive response. If et al.19 repeated a similar research design across 24 weeks. The
this is the case then it seems folly to attempt to interpret the CTR group trained continuously for 24 weeks (3 sets of 10
impact of periodized RT approaches compared to non-peri- repetitions @ 75% 1RM, 3 days per week), whilst the periodic
odized RT approaches, or even one form of periodization com- re-training (RTR) group performed 3 cycles of 6 weeks of RT,
pared to another, where set end points and thus effort has not with 3-week detraining periods between training cycles. Their
been controlled between groups or conditions. Any differences results were similar to the previous study; following signifi-
could be confounded by the effects of different degrees of cant increases in the first 6 weeks, the rate of increase in both
effort. This is particularly relevant when avoiding overtraining, strength and muscle cross sectional area (CSA) of the TB and
since RT leading to failure considerably increases the time PM for the CTR group decreased throughout the intervention.
needed for the recovery of neuromuscular function and meta- In contrast the RTR group showed sustained increases across
bolic and hormonal homeostasis, even when compared to work the 3-week detraining/6-week retraining phases, ultimately
matched training not to failure.16 resulting in both groups showing similar increases in strength
and muscle CSA at the conclusion of the 24-week intervention.
DETRAINING PERIOD Additionally, Gentil et al.20 compared strength gains following
In the recent meta-analysis Williams, et al.3 stated “However, 20 sessions of continuous and periodic resistance training pro-
extended periods of training at a high intensity can greatly grams in 60 young women. One group performed two sessions
increase the risk of stagnation or overtraining”, citing Herrick per week for 10 weeks continuously, while the other trained
and Stone. 17 Herrick and Stone 17 compared previously for 5 weeks, detrained for 2 weeks and resumed training for 5
untrained females divided into one of two groups; either pro- weeks. According to the results, there was no significant dif-
gressive resistance exercise (PRE; 3 sets of 6RM for 15 ference on knee extensors and elbow flexors peak torque gain
weeks) or periodized resistance exercise (PER; 8 weeks of 3 between groups.
sets using 10RM, 2 weeks of 3 sets using 4RM and 2 weeks of It is noteworthy that none of this research considering
3 sets using 2RM, with 1 week of active rest between each detraining periods18-20 was included in the meta-analysis by
cycle). Both groups performed the bench press, lat pulls, Williams, et al.3 or discussed the systematic review by Grgic,
behind-the-neck seated press, parallel squat, leg curl, and leg et al.1 In this sense, it appears that authors have defined peri-
extension. Herrick and Stone17 reported that both groups had odized training by its variation purely in load and repetitions,
their loads “prescribed and adjusted to ensure that the princi- rather than considering training/detraining/retraining periods.
ples of PRE and PER were being followed” (page 73), and also Since this appears to be the variable that determines a sus-
that the Borg’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale was tained increase throughout an intervention, and the reason why
used to record ‘intensity’. Notably, both groups trained to RM Herrick and Stone17 reported a change in the slope of adapta-
12 Journal of Trainology 2018;7:10-15

tion, it seems that this might be an important variable for con- are similar irrespective of load and VOL-L. It may be that the
sideration. It should be noted that, though there were differenc- relatively low frequency of training (twice per week) in this
es between the continuous and non-continuous groups in slope study meant that the potentially negative effects of greater
of improvements at different time points in the aforementioned VOL-L from training with lighter loads was inconsequential.
studies,17-20 it is naïve to assume that the rate of improvement As such, we should be cautious to prescribe increased volumes
over these short periods is in anyway indicative of what the and/or frequencies in combination with reductions in training
slopes of improvement may look like over a longer period of loads to a high degree of effort (e.g. to momentary failure), in
time. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not know the an effort to decrease training-related stress and reduce the risk
degree to which the continued manipulation in any RT variable of overtraining. The evidence suggests that reduction in load
over extended periods of time might affect slope of change for may serve to increase VOL-L and catalyze undesirable (and in
any outcome variable. fact, opposing) physiological responses (i.e., increasing BLa
The consideration of detraining periods is likely complex and cortisol). Again though, we would point out the lack of
and dependent upon interindividual responses to RT. However, long term data suggesting this is indeed the case i.e. that adap-
the evidence presented suggests that short-term (e.g. ≤ tations to training will differ over longer periods of time in
3-weeks) detraining periods might present a useful opportunity response to the manipulation of either load, repetitions, or fre-
to allow recovery from training stress without a fear of losing quency.
strength and muscle mass that cannot be recovered. Indeed, The general belief is that periodization would be beneficial
over the time course of an intervention (e.g. 10-24 weeks), the because the alternation between periods of intensive training
data suggests that strength and hypertrophy increases are simi- with recovery would promote supercompensation, leading to
lar irrespective of detraining periods. increased results. Based on this, it is usually hypothesized that
larger performance increments would be observed after reduc-
VARIATION IN LOAD ing training stress in those who experienced overreaching
Since variations in load and/or repetitions seem to be the compared with those who did not.24 However, the efficiency of
defining characteristics of periodization (see above), at least in this practice has been challenged in a recent study. Aubry et
most authors minds, it is worth discussing the practicality of al.24 reported that triathletes that showed symptoms of over-
reducing the load used in a RT programme. This might serve to training did not show signs of supercompensation during a
increase the number of repetitions possible; however, in doing taper period; moreover, increases in performance were more
so a personal trainer or strength coach has not guaranteed a evident in people that consistently reported positive results in
reduction in effort as this is primarily determined by proximity comparison to those with signs of overreaching. This brings
to momentary failure14. And in fact, he or she might have into question if it is necessary to alternate cycles of stress and
increased the relative discomfort, possible muscle damage, and recovery or simply train with an optimal combination of inten-
required recovery time. Our recent article21 comparing heavy- sity, volume and recovery. In agreement with this, some stud-
(HL) and light-load (LL) RT showed similar increases in iso- ies have shown that periodization showed inferior25 or similar26
metric strength where effort was matched through training to results to approaches involving constant training planned to
momentary failure (confirmed by assessment of RPE). increase specific performance without inducing excessive
However, greater values were reported for measures of dis- fatigue and overreaching. Therefore, discussing the effects of
comfort for LL compared to HL. In this sense, whilst reducing periodization without considering the adequacy of the training
the load during a training programme might be performed with regimens (i.e. its potential to induce overtraining/overreach-
the intention of reducing the effort and/or risk of overtraining, ing) might be misleading.
this might not be achieved, and in fact as a product of the like- In consideration of maximal strength, Mattocks, et al.27
ly greater number of repetitions might produce conflicting recently demonstrated that performing low-volume single
results. maximal efforts (5 repetitions), described as “practicing the
Lower loads inherently result in greater volume-loads (e.g. test”, produced similar increases in maximal strength to a more
load x repetitions x sets; VOL-L) being performed when they traditional (hypertrophy) resistance training programme (4 sets
are continued to momentary failure. Genner and Weston 22 of 8-12RM to volitional failure). Whilst the hypertrophy group
assessed VOL-L and physiological responses to decreasing showed greater increases in muscle hypertrophy, and the study
training loads (55%, 70% and 85% 1RM). They reported considered untrained participants – which would show greater
increasing VOL-L as well as BLa and cortisol with decreasing increases in strength for both groups compared to trained per-
training loads. In a further study, Steele, et al.23 reported larger sons, it suggests that a low-volume, skill specific approach to
weekly VOL-L for a light-load group performing 2 sets of RT can be efficacious for maximal strength increases. Indeed,
12-15RM to momentary failure compared to a heavy-load other authors have also recently highlighted the importance of
group performing 3 sets of 4-6RM to momentary failure (LL = specificity in maximal strength development as a result of load
1142.4 ± 341.8 kg, HL = 696.4 ± 216.5 kg). Both groups and skill acquisition.28,29 As such, whilst RT at submaximal
trained twice per week for 9 weeks and analyses revealed simi- loads might be useful for strength and hypertrophic adapta-
lar increases in maximal strength (bench press 1RM) and abso- tions, it seems reasonable to suggest that in preparation for a
lute muscular endurance (number of repetitions @ 70% 1RM single event (e.g. a powerlifting competition) a person should
for bench press). These studies suggest that strength increases be optimising specific adaptation. For muscular hypertrophy,
 Fisher et al.  Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy 13

differing recommendations might exist. For example, research ceased training altogether.37 From a practical perspective, the
has suggested that muscle growth is similar when training with benefits of supervision for RT adaptations are evident. As
heavier and lighter loads,28,30 however, if metabolic stress is such, powerlifters and/or bodybuilders looking to optimise
truly a driving force in muscle hypertrophy31 then periods of strength or hypertrophic responses to RT should consider the
lighter-load resistance training to momentary failure might be potential advantages of being coached/supervised throughout
purposeful if performed using appropriate frequencies or in their program. Indeed, the addition of a training partner might
coordination with successive detraining periods to allow serve the same role with similar benefits and future research
recovery and avoid overtraining. should consider this possibility.

VARIATION IN EXERCISE SELECTION CONCLUSION

An often overlooked variable in the academic literature con- Whilst the concept of periodization might be rooted in an
sidering periodization is that of exercise variation. Whilst it intuitive and seemingly logical approach to apply variation in
might be argued that exercise variation does not constitute an effort to reduce the risk of overtraining, there remains little
periodization, we believe that variety might play a key role in evidence to empirically support the variation of load and/or
preventing stagnation, and in stimulating continued and com- repetitions, or indeed frequency, for specific strength or hyper-
prehensive adaptations. For example, Fonseca, et al.32 com- trophic adaptations. As suggested by Nunes, et al.,29 strength
pared 4 groups of participants training using constant load and adaptation appears to be specific. As such, the skill acquisition
constant exercise (CICE), varied load and constant exercise of practicing a given exercise with a heavier load might serve
(VICE), constant load and varied exercise (CIVE) and varied to develop the motor schema. This explains why a variety of
load and varied exercise (VIVE). All groups showed signifi- loads produce similar strength increases, where intensity of
cant increases in squat 1RM and whole muscle quadriceps effort is similar (e.g., training to momentary failure) and when
CSA following 12 weeks of RT. However, the authors reported tested by impartial means.28 Indeed, another recent review of
more favourable adaptations for hypertrophy of the quadriceps the area concluded that the seemingly favourable adaptations
muscle heads (vastus lateralis, medialis and intermedialis and produced by periodized training approaches for strength may
rectus femoris; VL, VM, VI and RF) for the varied exercise be explained almost entirely by the specificity of strength out-
groups, and indeed the constant exercise groups did not dis- comes.2
play hypertrophy in the VM or RF. Furthermore, the CIVE Any review article considering periodization is notably diffi-
group showed greater strength increases than the other groups, cult because of the inferred differences between periodization
and the group with the largest training variation (VIVE) was and programming within RT, as discussed in the introduction.
more efficient in increasing maximum strength than the group Furthermore, meta-analyses of the topic of periodization are
with no variation (CICE). particularly challenging since, by the nature of periodized RT,
they attempt to include studies with considerable heterogeneity
SUPERVISION in the research design and variables considered. Indeed, this is
A further comment regarding the recent review articles is the an issue for meta-analyses in RT in general,4 let alone those
inclusion of studies comparing supervised versus unsupervised examining periodization. However, within the meta-analysis
RT programs. The study by Storer, et al.33 which was included by Williams, et al.3 there was also considerable disparity in the
in the Williams, et al.3 meta-analysis, did not solely compare population samples (e.g., collegiate football- and tennis- play-
periodized versus non-periodized RT, but in fact compared a ers, older adults, adolescents, and overweight men), which
group supervised by a personal trainer (PTr) versus a group serves only to further add uncertainty and thus lessen the value
training independently (SELF). It is not a surprise that the PTr of any conclusions. Perhaps the most valuable part of the dis-
group showed greater increases in lean body mass, maximal cussion surrounding periodized RT might be that of stagnation.
strength, peak power, and maximal oxygen uptake since previ- Certainly, from a practical perspective the old adage “a change
ous evidence supports favourable adaptations for supervised is as good as a rest”, inferring change can be physically and
compared to unsupervised RT. For example, Mazzetti, et al.34 mentally restorative, seems rational. However, we should con-
reported that supervised- compared to non-supervised RT pro- sider in what format that variety is expressed. Deliberate varia-
duced greater adaptations, whilst other authors have shown tion in loading schemes and repetition ranges might produce
that a favourable supervision ratio (i.e., fewer participants to sufficient variation to overcome stagnation, whilst not produc-
trainers) also produces superior increases in strength.35,36 ing more favourable physiological adaptation, however, as dis-
Williams, et al.3 failed to mention this variable in the context cussed, this might constitute programming rather than peri-
of the Storer, et al.33 article, or discuss supervision at all within odization. Indeed, variety in exercise and even periods of
their article which could certainly confound the meta-analyti- detraining seem more beneficial in producing favourable and
cal outcome. Indeed, it has been argued that the greater adapta- continued strength and hypertrophy adaptations. Yet as noted,
tions produced from supervised training is likely a result of whether it is even possible to produce continued long-term
trainees achieving a higher effort.35 We have recently shown in improvements and overcome so called ‘stagnation’ is not
an older population that, after an initial 6 month progressively something with sufficient empirical evidence in our opinion.
higher effort RT intervention, those who continued training Recent reviews have noted that hypertrophic adaptations do
unsupervised had similar decreases in outcomes as those who not occur ad infinitum38 and there is no reason to believe that
14 Journal of Trainology 2018;7:10-15

strength or any other outcome can adapt as such either. In fact, modality during additional “high-intensity interval training” on aerobic
fitness and strength in powerlifting and strongman athletes. J Strength
the effects of variation in RT variables upon strength may
Cond Res 2018; 32: 450-457.
merely be due to the specificity of strength outcomes. There
9. Fisher J, Smith D. Attempting to better define ‘‘intensity’’ for muscular
may be other benefits to training variation such as increased performance: is it all wasted effort? Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 4183-
engagement and thus adherence over the long-term, but this 4185.
requires further research. 10. Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within
resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? Br J Sports
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Med 2014; 48: 1586-1588.
11. Tolstoy L. A confession. New York: WW Norton & Company Inc, 1983.
The reality of periodization is that many strength and condi-
12. Hoeger WW, Barette SL, Hale DF, et al. Relationship between repetitions
tioning and personal training practitioners likely already pro-
and selected percentages of one-repetition maximum. J Appl Sport Sci Res
vide variety in their trainee’s routines. However, there is cer- 1987; 1: 11-13.
tainly scope for future research to consider perceptual attitudes 13. Hoeger WW, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, et al. Relationship between
towards detraining periods and variation within RT protocols. repetitions and selected percentages of one-repetition maximum: a
Furthermore, there are opportunities to consider the effects of comparison between untrained and trained males and females. J Strength
programming variety in training in different personality types, Cond Res 1990; 4: 46-54.
14. Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, et al. Relationship between the
and the interaction of variety and supervision upon long term
number of repetitions and selected percentages of one-repetition maximum
adaptations within a periodized model (e.g. phases of super-
in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond Res
vised vs. unsupervised training to impact intensity of effort 2006; 20: 819-823.
and physiological adaptations). 15. Steele J, Fisher J, Giessing J, et al. Clarity in reporting terminology and
Where so many variables must be managed and are open to definitions of set end points in resistance training. Muscle Nerve 2017;
manipulation within strength and conditioning practices, a 56(3):368-374.
definitive evidence-based solution might be impossible to 16. Morán-Navarro R, Perez CE, Mora-Rodriguez R, et al. Time course of
recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. Eur J Appl
draw. However, practitioners should monitor strength and
Physiol 2017; 117: 2387-2399.
hypertrophy, as well as desirable physical and psychological
17. Herrick AB, Stone WJ. The effects of periodization versus progressive
performance, and adapt training routines appropriately, consid- resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. J Strength
ering specifically; effort, variety of load and exercise, supervi- Cond Res 1996; 10: 72-76.
sion, and the inclusion of detraining periods which are all evi- 18. Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Sakamaki M, et al. Effects of periodic and
denced to impact adaptations. continued resistance training on muscle CSA and strength in previously
untrained men. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2011; 31: 399-404.
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS 19. Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Ishii N, et al. Comparison of muscle hypertrophy
following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training. Eur J Appl
Funding Physiol 2013; 113: 975-985.
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation 20. Gentil P, Ferreira-Junior JB, Soares SR, et al. Effects of periodic and
of this article. continuous resistance training on muscle strength in detrained women.
Percept Mot Skills 2015; 121: 810-821.
Conflicts of Interest 21. Fisher JP, Ironside M, Steele, J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training
James Fisher, James Steele, Dave Smith, and Paulo Gentil to momentary failure produce similar increases in strength with differing
degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve 2017; 56: 797-803.
declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the
22. Genner KM, Weston M. A comparison of workload quantification methods
content of this article.
in relation to physiological responses to resistance exercise. J Strength
Cond Res 2014; 28: 2621-2627.
REFERENCES 23. Steele J, Fisher JP, Assunção AR, et al. The role of volume-load in strength
1. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic, P, et al. Should resistance training programs and absolute endurance adaptations in adolescent’s performing high- or
aimed at muscular hypertrophy be periodized? A systematic review of low-load resistance training. Appl Phys Nutr Metab 2014; 42: 193-201.
periodized versus non-periodized approaches. Sci Sports 2017 (in press). 24. Aubry A, Hausswirth C, Louis J, et al. Functional overreaching: the key to
2. Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ, Buckner SL, et al. Periodization: What is it good peak performance during the taper? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014; 46: 1769-
for? J Trainol 2016; 5: 6-12. 1777.
3. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, et al. Comparison of periodized 25. Loturco I, Nakamura FY, Kobal R, et al. Traditional Periodization versus
and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: a meta- Optimum Training Load Applied to Soccer Players: Effects on
analysis. Sports Med 2017; 47: 2083-2100. Neuromuscular Abilities. Int J Sports Med 2016; 37: 1051-1059.
4. Gentil P, Arruda A, Souza D, et al. Is there any practical application of 26. Loturco I, Ugrinowitisch C, Roschel H, et al. Training at the optimum
meta-analytical results in strength training? Front Physiol 2017; 8: 1. power zone produces similar performance improvements to traditional
5. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, et al. The importance of muscular strength training. J Sports Sci Med 2013; 12: 109-115.
strength: training considerations. Sports Med 2018; 48: 765-785. 27. Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, et al. Practicing the test produces
6. Kistler BM, Fitschen PJ, Ranadive SM, et al. Case study: Natural strength equivalent to higher volume training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2017;
bodybuilding contest preparation. Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2014; 24; 694- 49: 1945-1954.
700. 28. Fisher J, Steele J, Smith D. High- and Low-Load Resistance Training:
7. Rossow LM, Fukuda DH, Fahs CA, et al. Natural bodybuilding Interpretation and Practical Application of Current Research Findings.
competition preparation and recovery: A 12-month case study. Int J Sports Sports Med 2017; 47: 393-400.
Physiol Perform 2013; 8: 582-592. 29. Nunes JP, Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Comment on ‘‘Comparison of
8. Androulakis-Korakakis P, Langdown L, Lewis A, et al. Effects of exercise periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: a
 Fisher et al.  Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy 15

meta-analysis’’. Sports Med 2018; 48: 491-494. 34. Mazzetti SA, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, et al. The influence of direct
30. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, et al. Strength and hypertrophy supervision of resistance training on strength performance. Med Sci Sports
adaptations between low- versus high-load resistance training: A Exerc 2000; 32:1175-1184.
Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 3508- 35. Gentil P, Bottaro M. Influence of supervision ratio on muscle adaptations
3523. to resistance training in non-trained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 2010;
31. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their 24: 639-643.
application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 2857- 36. Coutts AJ, Murphy AJ, Dascombe, BJ. Effect of direct supervision of a
2872. strength coach on measures of muscular strength and power in young
32. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, et al. Changes in exercises are more rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 316-323.
effective than in loading schemes to improve muscular strength. J Strength 37. Steele J., Raubold K., Kemmler W, et al. The effects of 6 months of
Cond Res 2014; 28: 3085-3092. progressive high effort resistance training methods on strength, body
33. Storer TW, Dolezal BA, Berenc MN, et al. Effect of supervised, periodized composition, function, and wellbeing of elderly adults. Biomed Res Int
exercise training vs. self-directed training on lean body mass and other 2017; 2017: 2541090.
fitness variables in health club members. J Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 38. Counts BR, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, et al. Muscle growth: To infinity and
1995-2006. beyond? Muscle Nerve 2017; 56: 1022-1030.

View publication stats