The Essence of Periodization

The book On Writing Well is a treasure.

Before I read it, I ironically thought that it would teach me how to write well by making my writing fancy. I thought that being a good writer meant doing a lot of fluff work. That wrestling with difficult material meant making comprehending the writing difficult as well. Basically, you needed to sound smart. But, that is not what the book taught me.

I learned a different lesson instead. Simply, say what you are trying to say, in a way that people can understand. Your writing is only as useful as its ability to communicate its message. Nested inside that lesson, I also learned that my need to sound smart came from a place of insecurity. Subconsciously, I thought that if my writing had to be meticulously unpacked by my audience, then I was doing something right.

Wrong.

Fortunately, I read On Writing Well, and those pretentious underlying desires have been replaced with the simple intention of getting my message across in an engaging way. If I can do that, then I can pass my torch of knowledge on to the next person and extend the conversation further, without that person being burdened by the weight of my torch.

Yes, some subject matter is innately more difficult to comprehend than others. A passage written on neuroscience will be more difficult to understand than a passage detailing how to fold your clothes correctly (although my wife would disagree because I’m a terrible folder). The point is, there is no practical reason to make literature more enigmatic than the respective subject matter necessitates.

Enter periodization literature.

Periodization, at its core, is a simple concept. Although simple in nature, there is a seemingly infinite amount of literature on it. That’s awesome, in that you don’t have to search hard to find information on periodization. However, it seems like egos have become more important than progress, and ideologies have become more important than new ideas. This has made periodization a difficult concept to grasp. This is not because of the subject matter, but because of what I mentioned in the opening paragraphs. Periodization is suffering from the weight of some pretty heavy torches.

Now there are countless ways to periodize training. That’s pretty cool. It means people have thought long and hard about ways to get better in a physical domain. Unfortunately, accompanying this is some serious dogma. Instead of accepting there is more than one way to skin a cat, the dogma in strength and conditioning makes you think there can only be one way. And if you skin a cat any other way than “the right way”, then you have no idea you are doing.

I have attended more than one conference where elite coaches contradict each other on this subject. And…they still all get results. Some of them coach professional athletes. How is it that they all produce if they all skin the cat differently? The dogma indicates only those doing it the “right way” should get results. And yes, I think that such a strong distinction between periodization strategies exists. Not because they are actually that different from each other, but because of the dogma surrounding them. At these same conferences, I have heard “professionals” even undermine and belittle other coaches because they do one thing differently than they do.

What I want to do is talk periodization…that’s it. I don’t want to get into advanced concepts. I want to talk about what periodization is at its core. I want to strip it down to its bare bones, and in doing so, remain neutral to any ideology. I want to share my journey of the subject and be honest about the difficulties I have had trying to make sense of everything. By working through this, I hope to illuminate the dogma and why there is no justifiable reason for it, and give you more confidence in the way that you do things. I believe that in doing this, we as practitioners and coaches will realize that we are much more similar than we are different.

A good place to start is the etymology of the word periodization itself.

The Essence of Periodization

It would be rational to think that the word periodization was created by sport science. Personally, this is the only context that I have seen the word periodization being used. Surprisingly, this is not the case. Periodization, simply refers to periods of time (1).

This is important because time is the critical element that distinguishes periodization from programming. Periodization is the macro-management of training based upon time, and the specific periods of time that exist in a competitive schedule. Programming is the micro-management of training. It is the manipulation of training variables, like exercise selection and intensity, so that the outcome of the programming fits into the larger periodization scheme.

This existence of this dichotomy between periodization and programming is logically justified because all of sport and competition occur on a schedule. Every team sport has its own season, characterized by its own length, number of games, and offseason. These things do not waiver in regards to their location throughout a calendar year. Sure, competitions like strength sports do not have a timeline like team sports, but these competitions also do not pop up at random and force their participants to compete on a whim. Competitors like powerlifters have the opportunity to choose when they want to compete, and manifest this sort of schedule for themselves.

If this wasn’t the case, and sport and competition had no timeline, then periodization would lose its practical application. You could still program your training, but there would be way to organize the programming elements into a larger structure because you would have no reference for their organization. That reference again being time.

However sport and competition are scheduled. This gives us the foundation through which we can logically organize programing into something that would better prepare us for sport and competition. Programming alone is good, but programming that is periodized creates peak performances. This is the essence of periodization.

Let’s take a look at a few definitions from various sources of literature and see if we can extrapolate this essence.

"A logical phasic method of manipulating training variables in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals” (2).

“The purposeful sequencing of different training units (long duration, medium duration and short-term training cycles and sessions) so that athletes could attain the desired state and planned results” (3).

“Periodization may be defined as a training plan, whereby peak performance is brought about through the potentiation of biomotors and the management of fatigue and accommodation” (4).

“The systematic planning and structuring of training variables throughout designated training timeframes aimed at maximizing performance gains and minimizing the potential for overtraining or decrements in performance” (5).

“The logical and systematic sequencing of training factors in an integrative fashion in order to optimize specific training outcomes at pre-determined time points” (6).

There is no ubiquitously accepted definition of periodization. Chances are every piece of literature you have read on the subject has put its own flavor on the definition. Some of them do a better job than others in capturing periodization in its essence. Some are more to the point, which is good, and some mask the essence with unnecessary language or the bias of the author towards advanced periodization theories.

I want to take my own stab at defining periodization, but only defining it enough to simply capture its essence. Here goes.

“The optimal combination of programming elements implemented through a logical and systematic fashion in order to manifest the highest potential for the respective biomotor attributes found in various sports and disciplines.”

Just kidding hehe.

"The logical organization of programming elements over time so that peak performances can be achieved”.

That is a simple definition. Simplicity can offer unbridled wisdom when it is used as a foundation because it doesn’t restrain critical thinking. It allows for more concepts and theories to be built on top of it because the liberty of thought isn’t constrained by a rigid ideology.

To bring my point together, I am not saying that any of these definitions or some of the advanced theory they allude to are wrong. My point is that periodization should be defined through its essence. This keeps things very clear. When we use unnecessary wordplay and either consciously or subconsciously integrate advanced theory into the definition of periodization, we create dogma. This is partly how coaches can be so polarized from each other, even though what they fundamentally believe in is very much the same thing. If one coach believes that one advanced theory, like block periodization, is embedded within the essence of periodization, then it makes sense from his perspective as to how other coaches who do things differently are so blatantly wrong. From his point of view, they don’t understand the basics of periodization.

When in reality, they do. Both of them understand the fundaments, they are just organizing the smaller elements differently.

This cycle of dogma will continue to permeate strength and conditioning culture until we recognize that we are all much more similar than we are different. The predominant reason why we believe there are such discrepancies is the ego attached to the scheme. There isn’t evidence to show that one periodization method is better than the other. Let’s take a look at the research.

The State of the Research

I was surprised at what I found when I initially dug into the research. What I expected was for the research to clearly support one periodization scheme over the other. Sort of like in The Lord of the Rings, how there is “one ring to rule them all”…I expected that one periodization scheme would be more powerful than all the others. That’s not what I found.

Before moving forward, let’s start with something positive that is clear from the research.

Periodization works. Periodizing your training while following sound principles will produce good results. More importantly, a periodized program is better than a nonperiodized program (5,7). A program that is periodized will outperform a program that is not periodized.

However, it isn’t clear that we can extrapolate much else from the research. The barrier stopping the research from being generalizable is created by a host of flaws and errors. Now, a periodization study is a logistical nightmare, and periodization is potentially “experimentally impenetrable” (8). A study of such a magnitude is like an onion, layers upon layers. Once you peel one back, you realize there is another thing you have to attend to. So, circumventing problems associated with the population, nutrition, sleep, psychology, and time frame will never be entirely possible. Although the creation of a blueprint where these things are controlled would be easy, researchers have to operate within the confines of reality. Untrained college-aged males are the most readily available population, nutrition and sleep are difficult to control and accurately record, life stress will always be a confounding factor, and a two year-long study is hard to fund.

But, there are fundamental problems within the research that could be circumvented. Issues such as these most likely originate from the lack of a unified understanding of the essence of periodization. There are several issues like there are plenty of sources that explain them better than I ever could (7,8,9,10,11,12,13). I do want to discuss one issue in particular though. One I feel sheds light on the state of confusion.

All of periodization is planned to some degree. I make this specific comment because of the relatively new emergence of flexible periodization schemes. Emerging strategies, fluid periodization, and agile periodization are newer concepts whose perspective is oriented from the bottom-up, instead of the traditional top-down approach. Although newer strategies have much less immediate planning, all periodization has planning.

A big part of planning is planned variation. Hopefully this doesn’t venture to far outside of the scope of this post, but a critical balance of consistency and variation must be maintained throughout a well periodized plan. Consistency is needed so that the training stimulus is large and direct enough to actually drive adaptation. Variation is sort of like a buffer from the consistency. If consistency isn’t met with some degree of variation, then stagnation occurs. Keep in mind the magnitude of importance this balance plays in periodization and that my goal with this quick summary is to stay relevant to the discussion here. Entire posts could be written about consistency and variation.

The paper Is Empirical Research on Periodization Trustworthy selected 42 empirical papers on periodization for data analysis (11). You can read the paper for the full critique of things analyzed. What is important to our discussion here is best shown through a direct excerpt from the paper, “Data showed that the concepts of periodization and variation were being used as synonyms, as all papers equated periodized programs with pre-arranged varied programs, while non-periodized programs were equated with constant (i.e., non-varied) programs” (11). To the extent that this is true partly reveals the extent of the confusion of what periodization is and what is isn’t.

Variation and periodization are not interchangeable with each other. Variation is an integral part of periodization, but it does not directly define periodization. It is a principle associated with periodization, much like the principle of overload. This means that a program that is nonperiodized can also be varied, just not in the systematic way that a periodized program is varied. The variation must be random.

So, the comparison we think is being made is not actually being made. Periodized programs are being compared to programs that are better defined as “flat programs” or “invariable programs”, not nonperiodized programs. The results of these studies do provide useful information. It is useful to have concrete evidence that supports the efficacy of training variability. At the same time, this is innate human wisdom. That’s why the old adage “shake things up” makes sense to us in an ineffable way. If things get stale, try something new.

What we need is evidence to support the presupposition that periodized variability is better than random variability. More specifically, we need to be able to answer the question, how much should we mix things up? John Kiely has done an incredible job of thoroughly analyzing this in his paper, Periodizaiton Paradigms in the 21st Century (13), and the reader is referred there for a more detailed discussion on training variation.

Hopefully, the theme has not been lost in this small deluge into training variation. The point was not to detail that concept, but to highlight the confusion surrounding the essence of periodization, and further reveal the need for periodization to be defined by its true essence. Fundamental errors such as these have potentially leaked into the research because of dogma, bias, and the integration of advanced concepts into the essence of periodization. Under such rigid circumstances, it is easy to see how these conceptual flaws are manifesting themselves.

It is All Theory

I mentioned that I have personally struggled with periodization theory and creating my own path as a coach. My struggle lasted a long time because the ultimate destination of my journey was wrong from the start. I believe the dogma was predominantly responsible for the extended duration and incorrect location of my journey so far. I was led to believe there was a “perfect program”. Even worse, I thought a perfect program could only be manifested through a perfect ideology (in this context, a perfect periodization theory), because it seemed paradoxical that multiple roads could lead to perfection. This trap constrained my thinking, and I felt like I wasn’t growing as a coach and lifter.

But, as time progressed, things started to happen. As already mentioned, I became aware of the state of the research. I also gained invaluable anecdotal experience. This experience mostly came from coaching and periodizing for others, whether that be general weightlifting, powerlifting, or sport specific training. Fortunately, as I coached more and more people, I was experimenting with different periodization schemes. Even though I still had the wrong mindset, this search for a perfect program at least forced me to try every periodization scheme under the sun.

I also gained anecdotal experience through the medium of my own training. I made the most progress I have ever made after hiring a coach. Before hiring him, I was truly on the border of my capacity to think critically about periodization. I desperately wanted someone to show me new things. And so, I hired a coach whose unique approach did just that for me. He hasn’t reinvented the wheel. He prioritizes the foundational principles. But what he does do is challenge the systematic implementation of periodization. Instead of rigid, predetermined lengths of micro and mesocycles, he let my progress and adaptation dictate the rate at which we progress or change things. I would consider this unique, because this takes a lot of courage and effort to do.

Also, if you asked him, his venerable humility would dilute the magnitude of his uniqueness. So take it from me, he has been a huge influence for me.

Finally, I realized that some of the prominent figures that I look up to have had similar doubts and concerns. A lot of elite coaches are in the exact same boat. Some express their concerns in a much more subtle way. At the beginning of a lot of periodization papers you can find statements like, “Even though periodization is largely based on theory and observational evidence…”.Initially, I would just gloss over statements like these. But as my struggles advanced I would notice these subtle admissions more and more.

Others have been much more clear with their doubts and concerns, and have made no attempts of masking them. Mladen Janovic, John Keily, and Mike Tushcherer have been the three most influential coaches to me in this regard. I highly recommend reading their work, but only after you have spent some time developing a foundational understanding of periodization theory. Once you feel like you have a good grip on that, these guys will sweep the rug out from under you, and it’s a totally refreshing experience.

From this combination of experience I learned that the many faces of periodization are largely theoretical. Not only is there no evidence supporting one theory’s superiority over another, I have had success with every single one of them, whether that was my own training or me coaching someone else. Theorizing is necessary for creation and extending the boundaries of what is currently available, but the truth is when good periodization models are practically implemented then you will most likely get results.

I realized it was time for a paradigm shift, which manifested itself in the form of the proverbial fork in the road scenario.

Everything I have discussed in this post so far led me to this point. In my mind, there were to paths that I could take. I saw them clearly as two separate paths, knowing that they would not converge later as I progressed on either one. The path to the left was well the well-trodden one. It was straight. I could see the destination at the end as well. That end point being the creation of the “perfect program”.

But, because of my experiences up to this point, I had this underlying intuition that if I took that path it would be like walking on a treadmill. I could try all I wanted, but I would never gain any progress.

The path to the right was not well-trodden. This path was not straight. There didn’t seem to be a clear end point. That made choosing this path somewhat frightening. It felt like the first step would be the hardest. It would mean two things. The first would be the realization that my journey has been misguided from that start. The second would be the acceptance that no matter what, no matter how many books I read or people I trained, I would never be able to create a “perfect program” because such a thing could never exist. At least, such a thing could not be created by me.

I decided to take the path to the right.

So…What Now?

Ok…great. What does that even mean? That was a pretty lame cliffhanger, one might think. And you’d be thinking right. Although “The fork in the road” can be a hackneyed paradigm, its exactly how I felt. Taking my advice from the beginning, I want to leave you with a summary of exactly I am trying to say.

Read this as a footnote – This has taken me months to write, partly because of being lazy, and partly because I have rewritten this several times. I felt like my message wasn’t clear enough in previous attempts.

I am not challenging the efficacy of periodization. I’m all for it. Periodization of training works. Programs that are periodized will outperform programs that are non-periodized. This is especially true in that a well-periodized program creates a peaking effect, or performance above that of which is displayed during normal training. I love the process of the periodization of training, as well as learning about the advanced theories of periodization. They are all incredibly creative, logical, and useful.

However, here is what I have found to be confusing, frustrating, and challenging on my journey of learning about periodization.

· The messages being sent are not easily comprehended. The convolution of periodization literature is partly made up of intellectual egos getting in the way of a clear message.

· I think the dogma in strength and conditioning exists because we have mistaken the essence of periodization with advanced periodization theory. Because of this, there is no ubiquitously accepted definition of periodization, and often times what is described as a basic definition, actually contains the details of these advanced theories. And so, it becomes clear as to how two coaches who use different periodizational approaches can believe that the other has no idea what they are talking about.

· The research that we have is useful. It shows that periodization works. However, the large generalization of this research is wrong, and you cannot say that one periodization theory is better than another based on the research. This is especially true in the context of well-trained or elite populations.

· Advanced periodization theory is still…theory. Just as there is more than one way to effectively skin a cat, there is more than one way to effectively periodize a program.

· Truly thoughtful and honest coaches will admit to having doubts and concerns at some point in their career.

· There is no such thing as a perfect program.

· And finally, we are all bound more tightly together by our large similarities than we are separated by our smaller differences. These large similarities being the underpinning principles that a good program is built off of, and the smaller differences as manifested by the number of periodizational approaches we can choose to integrate, assimilate, or eliminate from our programs.

If there is one thing that I want to leave you with, it is this last point. I stole this idea from renowned strength coach, Ron Mckeefery, which he wrote about in his book CEO Strength Coach (14). All good programs prioritize the athletes and not the ideology and are much more similar than they are different.

Adopting this growth mindset will help guide you on your path of becoming a better coach by getting closer to reality and what really works instead of what you personally believe should work. Be open and have honest conversations and the dogma will subside.

References

1. Cunanan, Aaron J., et al. “The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization.” Sports Medicine, vol. 48, no. 4, 2018, pp. 787–797., doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0855-3.

2. Stone M. H., etal. “Periodization: The Effects of Manipulating Volume and Intensity. Part 1.” Strength and Conditioning Journal: April 1999 - Volume 21 - Issue 2 - p 56

3. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med. 2010 Mar 1;40(3):189-206. doi: 10.2165/11319770-000000000-00000. PMID: 20199119.Turner, Anthony MSc, CSCS The Science and Practice of Periodization: A Brief Review, Strength and Conditioning Journal: February 2011 - Volume 33 - Issue 1 - p 34-46 doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182079cdf

4. Harries, Simon & Lubans, David & Callister, Robin. (2014). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Linear and Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. 29. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712.

5. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(10):2083-2100. doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y

6. Bompa, Tudor O., and Carlo Buzzichelli. Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training. Human Kinetics, 2019.

7. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/periodization-data/

8. Kiely, J. Periodization Theory: Confronting an Inconvenient Truth. Sports Med 48, 753–764 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0823-y

9. Cissik, John MBA, MS1; Hedrick, Allen MA2; Barnes, Michael MEd3 Challenges Applying the Research on Periodization, Strength and Conditioning Journal: February 2008 - Volume 30 - Issue 1 - p 45-51 doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181637f83

10. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/periodization-history-theory/

11. Afonso J, Nikolaidis PT, Sousa P, Mesquita I. Is Empirical Research on Periodization Trustworthy? A Comprehensive Review of Conceptual and Methodological Issues. J Sports Sci Med. 2017 Mar 1;16(1):27-34. PMID: 28344448; PMCID: PMC5358028.Periodization Paradigms Kieley

12. Mattocks, Kevin & Dankel, Scott & Buckner, Samuel & Jessee, Matthew & Counts, Brittany & Mouser, J. & Laurentino, Gilberto & Loenneke, Jeremy. (2016). Periodization: What is it Good For?. Journal of Trainology. 5. 6-12. 10.17338/trainology.5.1_6.

13. Kiely J. Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or tradition-driven? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012 Sep;7(3):242-50. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.7.3.242. Epub 2012 Feb 16. PMID: 22356774.

14. McKeefery, Ron. CEO Strength Coach. Ron McKeefery, 2015.