Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis
- 1.8k Downloads
Periodization is a logical method of organizing training into sequential phases and cyclical time periods in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for overtraining. Periodized resistance training plans are proposed to be superior to non-periodized training plans for enhancing maximal strength.
The primary aim of this study was to examine the previous literature comparing periodized resistance training plans to non-periodized resistance training plans and determine a quantitative estimate of effect on maximal strength.
All studies included in the meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria: (1) peer-reviewed publication; (2) published in English; (3) comparison of a periodized resistance training group to a non-periodized resistance training group; (4) maximal strength measured by 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, bench press, or leg press. Data were extracted and independently coded by two authors. Random-effects models were used to aggregate a mean effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and potential moderators.
The cumulative results of 81 effects gathered from 18 studies published between 1988 and 2015 indicated that the magnitude of improvement in 1RM following periodized resistance training was greater than non-periodized resistance training (ES = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27–0.58; P < 0.001). Periodization model (β = 0.51; P = 0.0010), training status (β = −0.59; P = 0.0305), study length (β = 0.03; P = 0.0067), and training frequency (β = 0.46; P = 0.0123) were associated with a change in 1RM. These results indicate that undulating programs were more favorable for strength gains. Improvements in 1RM were greater among untrained participants. Additionally, higher training frequency and longer study length were associated with larger improvements in 1RM.
These results suggest that periodized resistance training plans have a moderate effect on 1RM compared to non-periodized training plans. Variation in training stimuli appears to be vital for increasing maximal strength, and longer periods of higher training frequency may be preferred.
KeywordsResistance Training Maximal Strength Training Volume Bench Press Untrained Individual
TDW conceptualized and designed the study, coded and analyzed effects, carried out the initial analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. DVT coded and analyzed effects, reviewed and revised the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. MVF analyzed effects, reviewed and revised the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. MRE reviewed and revised the initial manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Conflict of interest
Tyler Williams, Danilo Tolusso, Michael Fedewa, and Michael Esco declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.
- 1.Kenney WL, Wilmore JH, Costill DL. Physiology of sport and exercise. 5th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2011.Google Scholar
- 3.Siff MC. Supertraining. Denver: Supertraining Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
- 4.Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2008.Google Scholar
- 5.Baker D, Nance S. The relation between strength and power in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13(3):224–9.Google Scholar
- 17.Herrick AB, Stone WJ. The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. J Strength Cond Res. 1996;10(2):72–6.Google Scholar
- 18.Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, Schilling BK, et al. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part 1. Strength Cond J. 2000;49(2):56–62.Google Scholar
- 19.DeWeese B, Gray H, Sams M, et al. Revising the definition of periodization: merging historical principles with modern concern. Olympic Coach. 2013;24:5–19.Google Scholar
- 20.DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, et al. The training process: planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 1: theoretical aspects. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(4):308–17.Google Scholar
- 22.Stone MH, Stone M, Sands WA, et al. Principles and practice of resistance training. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2007.Google Scholar
- 23.DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, et al. The training process: planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(4):318–24.Google Scholar
- 26.Issurin V. Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2008;48(1):65.Google Scholar
- 27.Haff GG, Triplett NT. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 4th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2015.Google Scholar
- 31.Bradley-Popovich GE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models. Strength Cond J. 2001;23(1):42.Google Scholar
- 32.Stone MH, O’Bryant HS. Letter to the editor. J Strength Cond Res. 1995;9(2):125–6.Google Scholar
- 33.O’Bryant HS, Byrd R, Stone MH. Cycle ergometer performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight-training. J Strength Cond Res. 1988;2(2):27–30.Google Scholar
- 34.Stone MH, Potteiger JA, Pierce KC, et al. Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(3):332–7.Google Scholar
- 35.Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, et al. Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(3):143–7.Google Scholar
- 36.Willoughby DS. A comparison of three selected weight training programs on the upper and lower body of strength trained males. Appl Res Coaching Athletics. 1992;1:124–46.Google Scholar
- 44.Pacobahyba N, de Souza Vale RG, de Souza SLP, et al. Muscle strength, serum basal levels of testosterone and urea in soccer athletes submitted to non-linear periodization program. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2012;18(2):130–3.Google Scholar
- 50.McGee D, Jessee TC, Stone MH, et al. Leg and hip endurance adaptations to three weight-training programs. J Strength Cond Res. 1992;6(2):92–5.Google Scholar
- 51.Stowers T, McMillan J, Scala D, et al. The short-term effects of three different strength-power training methods. NSCA J. 1983;5(3):24–7.Google Scholar
- 52.Willoughby DS. The effects of mesocycle length weight training programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. J Strength Cond Res. 1993;7:2–8.Google Scholar
- 54.Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic; 1985.Google Scholar
- 58.Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.Google Scholar
- 60.Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2010.Google Scholar
- 63.Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R. Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res. 1994;8(4):235–42.Google Scholar
- 64.Schiotz MK, Potteiger JA, Huntsinger PG, et al. The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. J Strength Cond Res. 1998;12(3):173–8.Google Scholar
- 67.Hoeger WW, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, et al. Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum: a comparison between untrained and trained males and females. J Strength Cond Res. 1990;4(2):47–54.Google Scholar
- 70.Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance/Comparaison entre des programmes d‘entrainement periodises, quotidiens et lineaires avec des intensites et des volumes egaux pour l‘endurance musculaire locale. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):82–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 76.Stone M, O’Bryant H, Schilling B, et al. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part 2. Strength Cond J. 1999;21(3):54.Google Scholar
- 78.Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, et al. Volume-equated high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(999):1–7.Google Scholar
- 80.Moritani T. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;58(3):115–30.Google Scholar
- 81.Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Fukuda DH, et al. Improving muscle strength and size: the importance of training volume, intensity, and status. Kineziologija. 2015;47(2):131–8.Google Scholar
- 83.Stone MH, Plisk SS, Stone ME, et al. Athletic performance development: volume load −1 set vs. multiple sets, training velocity and training variation. Strength Cond J. 1998;20(6):22–31.Google Scholar
- 84.Fleck SJ. Periodized strength training: a critical review. J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13(1):82–9.Google Scholar
- 87.McLester JR, Bishop E, Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(3):273–81.Google Scholar
- 89.Raastad T, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, et al., editors. Powerlifters improved strength and muscular adaptations to a greater extent when equal total training volume was divided into 6 compared to 3 training sessions per week. In: 17th annual conference of the European College of Sport Science: Bruges; 2012.Google Scholar
- 91.Newell A, Rosenbloom PS. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1981. p. 1–55.Google Scholar
- 96.Haff GG. Quantifying workloads in resistance training: a brief review. Strength Cond J. 2010;10:31–40.Google Scholar