What Everyone Really Needs to Know About Periodization

I’ve stopped reading books on periodization in the last year or so. It’s not because the system, or term is useless (quite the contrary), but rather, because ideas on the topic are often more fit for a 200 level course than advanced mastery. Why?

Because at a certain point, that place where a coaches growing instincts begin to intersect and surpass the book knowledge they learned in that $100,000 exercise science degree, a fancy yearly training plan that someone put together as a theoretical example no longer finds itself incredibly useful. There is also a pretty severe lack of “outside the box” thinking with how we tend to approach yearly training models. Most of it is the same meal, just repackaged in a way that yields a novelty of the day, and something you might still be hungry for.

There is a big, fancy number, like 6.23 to the 50^th power, ways that coaches can arrange a training program. To simplify this soup-sandwich of arrangement, we tend (and many times need) to dilute programs down to their finest parts, and unintentionally it becomes a battle of (cue theatrical voice) “linear periodization”, vs. “undulating periodization,” vs. (get ready for a quote within a quote here) “”athlete based” periodization” models. (As if linear and undulating models are somehow based on something else?)

In reality though, most of these periodization models have more in common than they do apart, and all can have effective training results. Let’s just say, that most coaches training athletes can probably agree on the following things:

Training should always focus on improving the sport specific skills as top priority (whoops, I may have lost a few linear periodization die-hards here)
Training should be progressive in nature, saving the most potent training means for a period in the training cycle closer to the most relevant competition.
Training should be laid out in a manner that allows each piece to build on that which has been laid before it in a thoughtful manner. Also known as, “training should have a direction”.
Training should have at least some data based direction, rather than a coach just remarking on “how they know what they are doing”, or “it worked this way back in 1997”. This can be as simple as plotting some basic scores of pertinent sport skill results on a regular basis. I know the power of the subconscious brain is pretty awesome, but the intuitive brain still does like to see graphs and charts every now and then (in fact, it just reminded me of this yesterday).
Training sessions should generally leave athletes wanting more, excited for the next workout, rather than annihilated (unless your name is Vlad the impaler of athletes the coach).
Training of a similar nature should not drag on for an extended period of time to the point where the adaptation reserves of the athlete are now on life support. Know when to deload (or at least when to change the training stimulus) and how long to do it to keep those adaptation reserves fresh. This is true unless you are working on a system that hinges heavily on the long-term delayed training effect, and you only have one, possibly two primary performances in a large time frame that you care to be in top condition for. Coaches who do intend to use the LDTE should probably know how long it actually takes to rest for full recovery to peak performance, it’s usually longer than you think.
An athlete’s buy-in to whatever training system to are performing is paramount to overall success. You can have the world’s greatest program, secretly derived from the Germans, Russians, and Japanese, but if your athletes don’t believe it will work, you’ve just sealed your fate on your season.

Linear-Periodization Strengths and Weaknesses

For my next trick, I’ll talk about how linear-periodization is awesome, and also how it can really suck. Really though, can any type of training truly suck? If linear periodization was truly and utterly foolish, would any coach still be using it? (Maybe don’t answer that question) Well, in it’s extreme form (using only one type of training stimulus at a particular point in the year), it isn’t very good. The extreme form of linear periodization is typically the most hated-on style, and for good reason. An example of extreme linear periodization for a sprinting athlete would be, over a period of 6-8 months (this would be the emphasis of each phase, not the sole training means):

The thing is, there aren’t too many (professional) coaches who actually use this exact system anymore, not on the higher end level of competitors at least. Funny enough, I can actually tell you that this system isn’t terribly far off of one that yielded quite a few NCAA championship titles in division 3 (no speed training in the fall), but does that mean that it’s a good idea? Maybe…as we’ll see some pro’s and con’s of it here in a bit.

Pro’s of Linear Periodization:

Does a good job of continually keeping an athlete “wanting more” in the training process
Athletes will generally be less stressed out about where they are at physically earlier in the training year (especially if it is a long training year) due to a lack of specific performance data
Less early stress about pure results early in the training year can be an effective way to allow the subconscious mind to adapt the body in it’s desired direction, but it is important to be a part of a powerful team culture for this to really happen. Caring and forcing training results is a conscious mind activity, and it is the subconscious mind which causes the body to ultimately adapt.
The most potent training means are always saved for later in the training year, so they will have a guaranteed training effect that correlates to the highest competition
Can work well when a coach is pre-disposed to over-training athletes (at least you are overtraining qualities with a lower effect and transfer, so the adaptation rate to more specific bits will be higher when the time comes)
Can be a viable option for a coach in charge of too many athletes to effectively collect and assess data that might lead to a more optimal training route centered around juggling the adaptation rate of sport specific skill development
Can be a viable option for team sport athletes, in regards to their strength training means, as these athletes are already getting a steady diet of their sport specific skills in the variable and dynamically open package of competitive play. Despite this, a vertical integration style of traditional periodization would likely serve these athletes better.
Exposes every athlete to various training densities, which can allow a coach (if they are looking for it) to determine which density may be optimal for various athletes (again, assuming they are actually tracking some form of result or data).

Con’s of Linear Periodization

Does a poor job of finding how to optimize specific training for each athlete. Won’t produce many world champions, aside from a handful of freak athletes who ruin it for everybody when they talk about how they train.
Leaves a lot of athletes specifically undertrained, because it overtrains athletes in training means that are less transferrable, while leaving them undertrained in high intensity, specialized training.
In its’ purest form (non-vertical integration), it really isn’t a very good form of training, but most coaches these days don’t do it this way.

The majority of informed coaches who use linear periodization likely use a form of it closer to Charlie Francis’s “vertical integration” system, which ensures that every piece of the total training equation is present at all times of training, just in different quantities. This update to linear periodization (if you can still call it linear periodization at this point; I do) makes a lot more sense than the classic version. It also fixes a lot of the con’s of the system, particularly the case of leaving athletes undertrained as far as specific training is concerned. A simple vertical integration system in sprint training throughout the course of a year might look like this:

Of course, we so often look at strict linear periodization that is implemented in a team sport setting (where athletes are repeatedly being exposed to their specific sport skill year round anyways, so there really is no shortage of what is most important).

In a team sport training setting, it is extremely rare that the strength/performance coach is going to have a big say in how much specific practice preparation is happening throughout the course of the yearly time-table, so, the vertical integration system is usually more of a track and field ideal, although it can be used in other areas of team sport, such as the ratio of special strength to general strength work, as well as on the influence of the surplus conditioning settings that coach may be implementing on top of typical team practice.

Undulating-Periodization Strengths and Weaknesses

Undulating periodization is an interesting beast, and one that is not often talked about. Think of it as linear periodization, but rather than one cycle performed over a whole year, it is many cycles performed over periods of a few weeks or months each. For any sport other than track or swimming, where one or two big competitions a year are paramount, linear periodization has some serious shortcomings (although the vertical integration scheme is still quite awesome). Undulating periodization could be as simple as a daily undulating periodization performed throughout the entire training year. Think of it this way, but on a long-term scale:

Monday	Wednesday	Friday
Medium Rep Strength Training, Repeated Alactic Capacity Sprint Work	Low Rep Strength Training, Power Training, Plyometrics	High Rep Strength Training, Long

Many “linear periodization” programs actually use this type of programming within their yearly scale that progresses in exercise intensity and specificity (see how connected we all are?), and simply uses a version of this weekly template that matches each phase of the training year.

An undulating periodization program that unfolds in reality may look like this over the course of a month, keeping the same weekly format.

This type of cycle, in a true undulating periodization system, would be repeated with some small variations throughout the year. For team sports, particularly, the backbone of sport play is present, with the undulating system infusing a rotating general training stimulus that can keep the adaptation rate high for an extended period of time.

A “true” undulating periodization program would tend to keep the specificity and intensity a bit higher throughout the course of the training year, reflecting the need to be “sharper” throughout each season of play. This need to stay “sharp” is also complimented by the ability to make a periodization program “athlete centered” (a term that really makes other forms of periodization look like archaic torture formats of training). With that out of the way, lets get into some quick pro’s and con’s of undulating periodization.

Pro’s of Undulating Periodization

Helps to keep an athlete sharp over an extended period of time
The system is usually fairly simple, which is helpful to minimize the amount of mental willpower needed when creating or performing one’s own program
Due to a high repeatability, coaches can hone into an athlete’s individual response over a somewhat small rotation of exercises and intensities

Con’s of Undulating Periodization

Tends to use up many of the high-potency training means and methods early in yearly training, which can potentially lower the ceiling of maximal performance at most important competitions
Athletes may find themselves short on the work capacity on which to build high performance training, at particular points of the year
Without a proper direction and progression in terms of the total yearly training package, peak results will generally be limited.
May be (or maybe not) an inferior system when one sport skill in particular needs to be maxed out (such as a single track and field event). The rationale would be that the body has no time to truly adapt to a specific training stimulus.

Athlete-Centered-Periodization Strengths and Weaknesses

The summation of all of this would be the modern, technology driven, “Athlete-centered” training protocols. Although we would be lead to believe that monitoring systems are a required part of this protocol, they are not entirely. The main mission of an athletic centered periodization program is simply this: To create, on any given training day, a program that is optimal for an athletes state, and needs. In other words, each training day is altered to match what that athlete has to give, and adapt to, on that given day, especially in relation to their sport skill.

Athlete-Centered periodization plans are often based on some form of undulating periodization, that progress over the course of the season with the demands of the athlete in mind. A key tenant of the undulating periodization here is that of an auto-regulatory means, or basically, the athlete will only train when the coach feels he or she is ready for the next session, rather than implanting a fixed weekly training system. This type of periodization is almost always proficiency based, and can but put in the “short-to-long” bin. This is great when a dedicated coach (often equipped with some form of data tracking) is present, but it can get tricky if an athlete is constantly second-guessing themselves on whether or not they are ready to train.

This is an especially useful system if you aren’t planning on “kickin it old school” with the 1970’s Russians, i.e., going down to a 10% drop-off, and then hoping for a 1993 Buffalo Bills comeback leading into your big competitions.

Speaking of the Russians, the athlete centered training model is very much what Anatoli Bondarchuk focused on (careful selection of hammer weights, special strength exercises, and training days to adaptation, as well as individual adaptation rates and styles), although I can’t say he was a guy that pushed his athletes into large drop-offs over the course of the year, but I don’t know enough about his actual training to tell you much. Few do.

What we currently would classify “Athlete-Centered periodization” is largely focused on some of the following ideas:

Very specific training means and methods, performed year round. Usually no “dulling of the knife” the first few months of the year.
Emphasis on building the athlete’s capacity of specific training means. Doesn’t let athletes get under-trained as far as their basic sport movements are concerned. This usually yields a lower total training time and volume compared to other systems, which also means more time for recovery.
Daily drop-offs. Basically, once your performance in any given exercise (usually a specific, pertinent one) starts to drop off (i.e. you start running slower, jumping lower, or throwing shorter), then that portion of the workout has now ended. The extent of the rest of the workout will typically depend where in the season you are.
Tracking and assessing each athlete’s adaptation patterns to the training. The training model must be simple enough that this is possible. More than a handful of elements within the training muddy the waters, and make coaching much more “from the hip” than it ultimately needs to be.

Pro’s of Athlete Centered Training

An unbelievably awesome training system for working with “cats”, those genetically gifted athletes who become disinterested with excessive conditioning, and who need to nurture their natural strengths (but doesn’t everybody?)
A great system for monitoring the individual athletic response, particularly in single outcome sports, such as track and field, swimming, etc. where there are fewer loose variables.
Probably the best system of all for training athletes, so long as it can be monitored, controlled, and progressed correctly.
The best system for training elite athletes, as far as I know.

Con’s of Athlete Centered Training

Athletes will often either need a coach, or a smart, simple system to make the most of this if training on their own. Making too many intellectual daily training adjustments takes a good amount of conscious willpower and drive, which can lower the amount of drive the subconscious mind can direct towards training gainz.
Impossible to do with many team sport programs, as well as large track and other individual sport rosters
May be tough to sell to some athletes who are mentally wrapped around high volumes of conditioning work, not that you can’t alter the programming for the needs of these populations.

Special Announcement: We are releasing a brand new book based on simple, athlete-centered vertical jump, speed, and general explosive training in the next few weeks. The program has been tested with 20 athletes to some fantastic results! (5” vertical gain in trained athletes in 8 weeks, lifetime high-jump PR’s, etc.) We can’t wait to share it with you in the near future.

Conclusion:

Many periodization models have more in common than we think. There are very few training ideas out there today that truly fit the mold of only one periodization and planning scheme. While having an idea of training direction is important, know the points that we all can agree on:

Buy-in to the programming is extremely important, regardless of exactly what it is.
Always leave athletes wanting more in the next training session. Athletes should generally be excited for what a particular training day has in store.
Leave athletes wanting more with what the next block of training contains. This should be the case all the way until the competitive season is in full gear. Don’t use up all your ammunition in the first minute of combat.
Have a plan of how you want your season to unfold. Realize things probably won’t go exactly that way, but at least have an idea of what to do for plan B and plan C along the way.
Have an idea of how you’ll use early training cycles as diagnostics to understand how athletes are adapting to your training.
Training should be simple enough to assess and adjust effectively.
Selecting the proper specific, and intense exercises through the course of training is extremely important.
Training the positions the athlete will encounter in competition is extremely important.
Know how to deload correctly, and have an idea, in advance, of when this will happen.

If you are looking to infuse some great periodization into your own training, check out our online training services, and fill out an application today!

<img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-3368" src="https://2965911e.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/effective-training.jpg" alt="effective training" width="585" height="567"/>