Skip to main content
Topic: Periodisation (Read 177 times) previous topic - next topic

Periodisation


For those looking to build strength, science has shown consistently  in a range of studies, periodisation for strength training out performs the gains from a non periodised strength training program.  There is still debate as to which style of periodisation works best  depending on a heap of different factors, but they all work better than not periodising.

The same cannot be said for those looking to train for hypertrophy, where the science is roughly a 50/50 split between periodised/non periodised training.

If there is an interest in a template for writing an annual plan let me know and I will upload an excel file.

Re: Periodisation

Reply #1
Interesting. Curious to learn whether there's an actual difference between strength and hypertrophy regarding periodization or if strength training research is just further along. Time will tell, I guess.

Re: Periodisation

Reply #2
Interesting. Curious to learn whether there's an actual difference between strength and hypertrophy regarding periodization or if strength training research is just further along. Time will tell, I guess.

The studies for hypertrophy and periodisation around half have come back as no difference and half in favour of periodisation. It could be that strength relies on a mix of hypertrophy and neural adaptation rather than all hypertrophy. It is well known that a lot of bodybuilders look strong with a lot of muscle mass but often they are not particularly strong.

Re: Periodisation

Reply #3
Huh, th
It could be that strength relies on a mix of hypertrophy and neural adaptation rather than all hypertrophy
That should be true based on what we know about the body but I would've expected that athletes training for maximum strength in the specific lifts they compete in would get the best neural adaptation for that through training exactly that while balanced hypertrophy might require a bit more variety but it's exactly the opposite. Goes to show how little I know!

 

Re: Periodisation

Reply #4
Since I am currently working in hypertrophic realm, I’ve looked for articles and recommendations in that direction. I found this article’ https://cleanhealth.edu.au/blog/other/the-most-effective-periodisation-model-for-hypertrophy/

I’d be interested in hearing comments from those (likely most on this board) more knowledgeable on the topic & the recommendations in the article.

Re: Periodisation

Reply #5
Since I am currently working in hypertrophic realm, I’ve looked for articles and recommendations in that direction. I found this article’ https://cleanhealth.edu.au/blog/other/the-most-effective-periodisation-model-for-hypertrophy/

I’d be interested in hearing comments from those (likely most on this board) more knowledgeable on the topic & the recommendations in the article.

The best model depends on multiple factors the biggest is experience, beginners do best with the traditional periodisation model after which moving on to Block or Multi Targeted Block. DUP or Conjugate works ok for experienced people who can no longer achieve gains in other ways. Competitive bodybuilders and strength athletes would also have the number of competitions influence the model used including hybrid models.

For example I just submitted an annual periodisation for an assessment based on a block periodisation model combined with the conjugate model for a strength athlete competing 3 times in the year divided into 3 macrocycles.

The traditional model is often referred to as linear, however when you dig into the design principles there are a LOT of rules to follow and it looks like a series of ever increasing waves of intensity and volume followed by a longish transition period before the next macrocycle begins.

I will upload a partially filled excel template for traditional periodisation we were using in class at Uni for a sample athlete while learning all the rules for that model, Look in the media tab for the file.