smallman88
New Member
Anybody of you read this?
Anybody came up with a solution?
Linear periodization
Perhaps the most common (at least the most well known) model for periodization is the simple linear periodization model (usually being accredited to a Russian scientist named Matveyev). This model starts from a fairly high volume of low intensity activity and moves gradually towards a lower volume of high intensity activity (the model is actually a bit more complicated than that and I'd suggest anyone who is truly interested in the topic pick up Mel Siff's "Supertraining" book for a more detailed discussion). So an Olympic or powerlifter would move from fairly high volumes with a low intensity (intensity being defined here as % of 1 rep maximum) to a low volume of high intensity activity. So the powerlifter might move, over the span of 16 weeks, from a rep count of 12-15 to 10-12 to 8-10 to 6-8 to 5 then to triples and doubles, finally peaking for the meet.
Bryan Haycock's HST program is essentially a linear periodized model moving from 2 weeks of 15 reps to 2 weeks of 10's to 2 weeks of 8's to 2 weeks of 5's to 1-2 weeks of negatives, then a week break after which they begin the process all over again. I should note that it is also periodized within a given 2 week cycle, moving from a submaximal weight to basically a repetition maximum (RM) load by the end of the 2 week cycle.
There are other linear approaches to periodization out there as well although they may be structured a little bit differently. Ironman magazine has long recommended that bodybuilders train in 8 week blocks, taking 2 weeks to ramp up the intensity (in this case defined as effort, taking each set to positive failure) and then working full bore for the next 6 weeks to make strength and size gains before backing off for 2 weeks and ramping up again.
Anyone familiar with the basic Hardgainer magazine approach should know that Stuart McRobert and the rest of the HG crew has generally recommended a similar approach; take several weeks to ramp up training and then work full bore for some period of time (some HG authors use cycles of 12-16 weeks while at least one recommends extending the cycle, adding weight to the bar, for as long as you can).
Tudor Bompa and Fred Koch (who seems to have stolen Bompa's approach pretty much verbatim) have both suggested a linear periodized scheme for bodybuilders that is more along the lines of bulking and then cutting. You start with a few weeks of anatomical adaptation (basically low intensity training to condition connective tissues), then move into hypertrophy training (generally a fairly high volume of work in the 75-85% 1RM range), then to maximal strength work (85% 1RM or less), and then to cutting (a strange program centered around 100-200 reps per exercise, something I find profoundly silly).
On and on it goes. As I said above, linear periodization is probably the most common approach to periodizing. But it has problems.
The problems with linear periodization
In recent years, linear periodization has come under fire from a number of different strength experts. Vladimir Zatsiorsky (author of "Science and Practice of Strength Training"
, Charles Poliquin and powerlifting guru Louie Simmons all jump to mind. The problem, they note is this: while you are training one biomotor capacity (i.e. muscular endurance, hypertrophy, maximal strength), the ones not being trained are going to hell (ok, not their exact words). But you end up detraining one capacity while you're developing another.
For example, a powerlifter working in the 10-12 rep range (more of a hypertrophy range) is going to be losing maximal strength capacity (and all of the adaptations that go along with that). An endurance athlete doing nothing but low intensity endurance training is detraining leg speed (for sprinting) and lactate threshold capacity (the highest intensity that they can maintain without accumulating too much lactic acid). Studies done years ago found that athletes moving into low rep ranges (for maximal strength) frequently lost muscle size. Adding back even one high rep set (remember this, it's important) frequently prevented the problem.
Anybody came up with a solution?
Linear periodization
Perhaps the most common (at least the most well known) model for periodization is the simple linear periodization model (usually being accredited to a Russian scientist named Matveyev). This model starts from a fairly high volume of low intensity activity and moves gradually towards a lower volume of high intensity activity (the model is actually a bit more complicated than that and I'd suggest anyone who is truly interested in the topic pick up Mel Siff's "Supertraining" book for a more detailed discussion). So an Olympic or powerlifter would move from fairly high volumes with a low intensity (intensity being defined here as % of 1 rep maximum) to a low volume of high intensity activity. So the powerlifter might move, over the span of 16 weeks, from a rep count of 12-15 to 10-12 to 8-10 to 6-8 to 5 then to triples and doubles, finally peaking for the meet.
Bryan Haycock's HST program is essentially a linear periodized model moving from 2 weeks of 15 reps to 2 weeks of 10's to 2 weeks of 8's to 2 weeks of 5's to 1-2 weeks of negatives, then a week break after which they begin the process all over again. I should note that it is also periodized within a given 2 week cycle, moving from a submaximal weight to basically a repetition maximum (RM) load by the end of the 2 week cycle.
There are other linear approaches to periodization out there as well although they may be structured a little bit differently. Ironman magazine has long recommended that bodybuilders train in 8 week blocks, taking 2 weeks to ramp up the intensity (in this case defined as effort, taking each set to positive failure) and then working full bore for the next 6 weeks to make strength and size gains before backing off for 2 weeks and ramping up again.
Anyone familiar with the basic Hardgainer magazine approach should know that Stuart McRobert and the rest of the HG crew has generally recommended a similar approach; take several weeks to ramp up training and then work full bore for some period of time (some HG authors use cycles of 12-16 weeks while at least one recommends extending the cycle, adding weight to the bar, for as long as you can).
Tudor Bompa and Fred Koch (who seems to have stolen Bompa's approach pretty much verbatim) have both suggested a linear periodized scheme for bodybuilders that is more along the lines of bulking and then cutting. You start with a few weeks of anatomical adaptation (basically low intensity training to condition connective tissues), then move into hypertrophy training (generally a fairly high volume of work in the 75-85% 1RM range), then to maximal strength work (85% 1RM or less), and then to cutting (a strange program centered around 100-200 reps per exercise, something I find profoundly silly).
On and on it goes. As I said above, linear periodization is probably the most common approach to periodizing. But it has problems.
The problems with linear periodization
In recent years, linear periodization has come under fire from a number of different strength experts. Vladimir Zatsiorsky (author of "Science and Practice of Strength Training"
, Charles Poliquin and powerlifting guru Louie Simmons all jump to mind. The problem, they note is this: while you are training one biomotor capacity (i.e. muscular endurance, hypertrophy, maximal strength), the ones not being trained are going to hell (ok, not their exact words). But you end up detraining one capacity while you're developing another.For example, a powerlifter working in the 10-12 rep range (more of a hypertrophy range) is going to be losing maximal strength capacity (and all of the adaptations that go along with that). An endurance athlete doing nothing but low intensity endurance training is detraining leg speed (for sprinting) and lactate threshold capacity (the highest intensity that they can maintain without accumulating too much lactic acid). Studies done years ago found that athletes moving into low rep ranges (for maximal strength) frequently lost muscle size. Adding back even one high rep set (remember this, it's important) frequently prevented the problem.
