The best models

for the training

periodiziation:
a systematical
Review.

Tullio Senatore
Torino 3/06/2020
‘‘Periodization is the overall concept of training and deals with subdividing the training
process into specific periods and phases—programming is the creation of the programs
inside of these periods—often it is difficult to separate these two aspects of the training
process’’(Stone, 2012)

1. Introduction
This review has the objective, through the reading and analysis of scientific research, to
demonstrate, if they existed, the differences between 4 different types of training
periodization:
I. Block Periodization (BP);
II. Linear or traditional periodization (TP);
III. Daily undulating periodization (DUP);
IV. Weekly undulating periodization (WUP).
The differents periodization models will be compared and defined, in order to better
understand the world of periodized sports training. The difference between the models will
be established by the literature, therefore, no experimental work will be carried out. The
reference parameter to determine the possible difference will be the force expressed by the
various reference samples, based on the test results they have undergone.

1.1 Introductory table

Is there a model of training periodization that can be considered more
efficient than others in increasing strength?

Δ F⃗ ? ? ? ?

F⃗

BP TP DUP WUP
2. Analysis of articles
2.1 New Horizons for the Methodology and
Physiology of Training Periodization (Issurin, 2010)

2.1.1 Abstract
The theory of training was established about five decades ago when knowledge of athletes’
preparation was far from complete and the biological background was based on a relatively small
amount of objective research findings. At that time, traditional ‘training periodization’, a division of
the entire seasonal programme into smaller periods and training units, was proposed and elucidated.
Since then, international sport and sport science have experienced tremendous changes, while the
traditional training periodization has remained at more or less the same level as the published
studies of the initial publications. As one of the most practically oriented components of theory,
training periodization is intended to offer coaches basic guidelines for structuring and planning
training. However, during recent decades contradictions between the traditional model of
periodization and the demands of high-performance sport practice have inevitably developed. The
main limitations of traditional periodization stemmed from: (i) conflicting physiological responses
produced by ‘mixed’ training directed at many athletic abilities; (ii) excessive fatigue elicited by
prolonged periods of multi-targeted training; (iii) insufficient training stimulation induced by
workloads of medium and low concentration typical of ‘mixed’ training; and (iv) the inability to
provide multi-peak performances over the season. The attempts to overcome these limitations led to
development of alternative periodization concepts. The recently developed block periodization
model offers an alternative revamped approach for planning the training of high-performance
athletes. Its general idea proposes the sequencing of specialized training cycles, i.e. blocks, which
contain highly concentrated workloads directed to a minimal number of targeted abilities. Unlike
the traditional model, in which the simultaneous development of many athletic abilities
predominates, block-periodized training presupposes the consecutive development of reasonably
selected target abilities. The content of block-periodized training is set down in its general
principles, a taxonomy of mesocycle blocks, and guidelines for compiling an annual plan. Sport
science is widely held to be the major contributor to progress in sport, and in particular to the
enhancement of athletic training. Its gen- eral theory sets out and summarizes the most meaningful
basic assumptions regarding the es- sence, terminology, major effects and scientific background for
training athletes. Training periodization is definitely one of the most practically oriented branches of
training theory. It was established in general in the 1960s and was initially based on the experience
of high- performance sport in the former USSR and physiological surveys published by prominent
Soviet scientists at that time.A little later, training periodization was conceptualized, re-published in
many countries and took on the status of a universal and monopolistic back- ground for training
planning and analysis. Certainly, the continued evolution of sport and sport science has contributed
to an enormous accumulation of knowledge, evidence and training technologies. Nonetheless, the
traditional model of periodization as established about five decades ago has not changed much since
then. During this time, and especially in recent years, alternative approaches to training design have
appeared, mostly in professional reports and coaches’ magazines, and have been subjected to little,
if any, serious scientific consideration. The purpose of this paper is to review training periodization
in the light of the outcomes of previous and recent studies of the traditional model and up- to-date
versions of training design (Issurin, 2010).

2.1.2 Comment and analysis

Vladimir Issurin can be considered the main proponent of block periodization, and in this article he
gives us an overview of the various periodization models:
Linear model, or traditional model, is the practice that involves a progressive increase in intensity.
Non-linear model, for example the corrugated model, provides for drastic changes in intensity in
the daily and weekly programs.
Block periodization, which has its origins in the Soviet world, is part of this discourse. Anatoly
Bondarchuk is an athletic trainer and former Ukrainian hammer who first proposed a periodization
divided into blocks. For Bondarchuk, the blocks were divided into a development block, a
competitive block and a restoration block. Gennady Touretski coach of the Olympic swimming
champion Alexander Popov, divided the year into several phases, where each of them was divided
into 3 blocks: General; Specific; Competitive. The block model that Issurin provides us is not
exactly like these just mentioned but is divided into an accumulation phase, a transformation phase
and an implementation phase, which are repeated several times during the sporting year and can
have a duration that varies 2 to 4 weeks. When periodizing in blocks it is necessary to take into
account 2 effects that if ignored would make this type of application vain:
Cumulative Principle, which determines the changes in physiological abilities and in the level of
physical / technical abilities deriving from a long-lasting athletic preparation.
Residual Training Effect, typical of block periodization, where the athletic trainer must periodise
without ever going through a de-training in some capacity or ability:
I. A longer training causes longer residuals.
II. The anaterobic and glycolytic anaerobic capacities have shorter residues.

If you want you can summarize the main points of the block model through 3 principles:

I. Principle High concentration of training workloads within a given block

II. Principle Minimization of the number of target skills within a single block.
III. Principle Consecutive development is the only possible approach for periodization a
blocks.

The table shows an example of

annual division into mesocycles
each consisting of 3 blocks, i
which have variable duration in
according to the period in which
they come applied.
2.2 Effect of block periodization on physical fitness
during a competitive soccer season (Mallo, 2012)

2.2.1 Abstract
This study examined the effect of block periodization on physical fitness in a professional soccer
team. Twenty two male players (21.9 ± 2.3 years) were followed in the course of the 2007-2008
season. The season was divided into five training stages which were further subdivided into three
consecutive blocks (Accumulation, Transmutation and Realization) where physical workloads
focused on a minimal number of capacities. To examine the training volume, time spent developing
physical capacities relevant for soccer’s match performance was compared within each block. To
study training intensity, heart rate was recorded during all training sessions and compared within
blocks. Measures of physical characteristics and physical fitness were assessed in every training
stage. Time spent performing high-intensity aerobic training was predominant (P<0.001) in
Accumulation in relation to Transmutation and Realization blocks. In addition, time devoted to
speed endurance training was higher (P<0.01) in Transmutation than in Accumulation and
Realization, whereas time spent developing speed was superior (P<0.05) in Realization in
comparison to Accumulation and Transmutation. Vertical jumping height and 10-m sprinting time
improved (P<0.01) in the last training stage in relation to the initial values. The players covered a
26-30% greater distance (P<0.001) in the yo-yo intermittent recovery level-1 test at the end than at
the beginning of the competitive period. These results suggest that block periodization can be an
alternative design for soccer training (Mallo 2012).

2.2.2 Comment, results and statistics

As can be seen from the abstract, this research recorded following a periodization of block training,
performance improvements in countermovement jumping (CMJ), countermovement jumping with
swinging arms (ASCMJ) and in the 10m sprint, below the measurements obtained with the relative
variations are reported, in each of the 5 "training stages" (TS).

Despite the limitations of this study - which was conducted during a competitive season, therefore it
was not possible to measure all the variables and, above all, there was no control group to test the
hypothesis - it was seen, through the sprint and the vertical jump, which the explosive force was
maintained and even increased during the 5 mesocycles, reaching a peak during the end of the
season. This study could be repeated in any other sport with such long competitive periods (the
overall duration of the season was 44 weeks, in which the team took part in 38 official games, made
254 training sessions and rested 59 days). Although an elite team competes in multiple competitions
and, in fact, there will be more than 38 official games, having recorded the peaks of performance in
all the tests towards the end of the season makes everything very interesting and attractive even for
those it competes at the highest levels, as it is precisely the period that "we play the whole
season" (NBA playoffs, final stages of the UEFA Champion League).

Here are 2 tables that summarize the time spent weekly (in minutes) for the different training
categories.
2.3 Effects of two different training periodization
models on physical and physiological aspects of
élite female team handball players (Manchado et
al., 2018)
2.3.1 Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare training-induced changes in selected physiological and
physical team handball performance factors after 2 training periodization models: traditional
periodization (TP) vs. block periodization (BP). Eleven female team handball players who played
over 2 consecutive seasons for a Spanish first league team were assessed twice per season during a
training cycle. On each occasion, participants completed anthropometric, maximal strength, and
lower-body power assessments. In addition, incremental tests to determine maximum oxygen
uptake (V_ O2max), sprint- and sport-specific throwing velocity tests were performed. Block
periodization group experienced significantly greater improvements than TP on squat jump (5.97%;
p , 0.001), countermovement jump (8.76%; p = 0.011), hand-grip strength (8.22%; p = 0.029),
bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (5.14%; p = 0.049), 10-m sprint (26.19%; p , 0.001), and
20-m sprint (2.95%; p = 0.008). Greater changes in BP group (p # 0.05) were also found for the
throwing velocities in sport-specific tests com- pared with the TP group. No significant difference
between the groups were detected for the half-squat 1RM (p = 0.15) and the V_ O2max (p = 0.44).
These findings suggest that BP may be more effective than TP for improving important
physiological and physical team handball performance factors in high level female handball players
(Manchado, 2018).

2.3.2 Comment, results and statistics

This research provides us with a total overview of the use of block periodization in a team sport, in
fact many other studies conducted on this type of periodization focused on individual sports, and
those that related to "team sports" focused mainly on strength training programs. This study was
conducted over two seasons, but the data were observed only from August to the end of November
(for a total of 17 weeks), since a part of the athletes examined was called up for the national team.
In the first year the periodization was traditional (PT), in the second, instead, in blocks (BP).
As can be seen from the previous table, improvements in body composition and physical
characteristics were found in both periodization models, however there are no statistically
significant differences between the improvements obtained in the 2 models. Supporting the
hypothesis that a BP approach could be more effective than TP to improve the physical performance
factors of handball players are the data relating to the launch speed which showed significant
differences between the 2 periodization models.

The table below shows us a summary of the training periodization structures used in this study.
2.4 The effect of block and traditional periodization
training models on jump and sprint performance
in collegiate basketball players (Pliauga et al.,
2018)
2.4.1 Abstract
This study investigated the effect of block periodization (BP) and traditional periodization (TP)
approaches on jumping and sprinting performance in collegiate basketball players during an 8-week
pre-season period. Ten collegiate male basketball players (mean±SD; age: 21.5±1.7 years; body
mass: 83.5±8.9 kg; stature: 192.5±5.4 cm) from the same team were equally assigned to a training
group (BP or TP). BP and TP were designed with different numbers of power sessions (BP=8;
TP=16) and recovery days (BP=14; TP=8). Counter-movement jump (CMJ) and 20-m sprint
performance was measured prior to training commencement (baseline) and every 2 weeks thereafter
(week 2, week 4, week 6 and week 8). Within-group, between-group and individual changes were
assessed using magnitude-based statistics. Substantially higher (likely positive) CMJ scores were
evident in week 8 compared to baseline, week 2 and week 4 with BP training. Substantially higher
CMJ values were only observed in week 2 (likely positive) compared to baseline, with TP training.
Sprint data showed likely negative differences in week 6 compared to baseline in both TP and BP,
with no substantial differences in week 8. The only performance difference between TP and BP
training was in CMJ in week 8 (very likely negative). Individual analysis showed that only three
athletes demonstrated a negative predicted score (i.e.lower sprinting time) in BP , while all players
following the TP model demonstrated positive predicted scores. BP training showed substantially
higher jumping performance compared to TP, while no improvement in sprinting performance was
observed in either training approach. Basketball coaches should consider using BP training rather
than TP to train players’ jumping abilities (Pliauga, 2018).

2.4.2 Comment, results and statistics

As well as the study seen above, which concerned the periodization in an elite women's handball
team, this study also aims to determine any differences between the traditional and block
periodization model. This study was performed during the pre-season, in which the players trained
1-2 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, the champion in question was made up of 10 players from the
same team that participated in the Lithuanian National Basketball League (NKL). The periodization
models of the training (TP vs BP) were the independent variables, while the vertical jump height
and the shutter speed were the dependent variables. Players were assigned to one of two
experimental groups (BP or TP) and data was collected during an 8-week pre-season period. The
assignment of the players to each group was carried out with the assistance of the technical staff so
that the skill level and positions on the field were equally matched between the groups, which
represents a new difference compared to the study on handball players , which were not divided into
groups but carried out the 2 different periodizations in 2 different seasons.

The table below shows the programming in the 2 different models, it is interesting to observe how
the BP model was characterized by fewer training sessions (i.e. 42 vs 48) and half the number of
power and endurance sessions (respectively 8 vs 16) compared to the TP model, where the first
block was designed as a pre-conditioning strategy for the following blocks, and the power and
endurance blocks incorporated basketball-specific aerobic stimuli such as active recovery sessions
and multiple days of rest within each microcycle . This approach was adopted as a recovery strategy
to reduce the risk of injury and overtraining syndrome (Boccolini et al., 2013).

The pre, during and post programming

results are shown in these 2 tables which
therefore show the progress in jumping
with countermovement (CMJ) and 20m
sprint, recorded following the 2 protocols.
The sprint time in the 20 m did not show
differences between the BP and TP groups.
A substantial increase in sprint
performance of 20 m was observed in both
groups in week 6 from baseline, however,
at the end of the period examined no
substantial differences emerged within the
group.

Some studies, for example, have not

documented any improvement for judo
athletes in vertical jump performance
(CMJ jump height) following a 13-week
BP approach that included specific judo
training (Marques et al., 2017) . In addition, a 10-week BP training program during the period pre-
season did not result in significant changes in the height of CMJ in elite basketball players (Moreira
et al., 2004). The conflicting results in existing literature could be explained by the use of jumping
exercises with a higher weekly frequency in this study than in previous investigations, in which
lower body strength training was performed only once or twice a Furthermore, the BP and TP
models used in this study were developed with specific exercises aimed at improving vertical
jumping ability, which is a fundamental component of basketball performance, while previous
studies lacked specificity between training exercises and protocol tests adopted. Individual analyzes
showed that only 3 players demonstrated a possible lower sprint time in the BP group, while all
players in the TP group demonstrated a possible decrease in sprint performance during the entire
preseason period.

We now report only a few examples of individual player responses to the proposed protocols.
2.5 Block periodization of strength and endurance
training is superior to traditional periodization in
ice hockey players (Rønnestad et al., 2019)
2.5.1 Abstract
Team sports like ice hockey require high levels of performance in numerous physical characteristics
such as strength, power, and endurance. As such, training is associated with a potential interference
effect. The present study randomized well-trained ice hockey players into a block periodization
group (BP; n = 8), focusing on the de- velopment of either strength and power or endurance on a
weekly, undulating basis, and a traditional group (TRAD; n = 8), performing a mixed training
model, with simultaneous focus of strength, power, and endurance training every week. During the
6-week intervention, the two groups performed equal volumes and intensities of both strength,
power, and endurance training. BP led to larger improvements than TRAD in knee extension peak
torque at 180° s−1 (6.6 ± 8.7 vs −4.2% ± 6.3%, respectively; P < 0.05) and maximal oxygen uptake
(5.1 ± 3.3 vs 1.1% ± 3.5%, respectively; P < 0.05). There was also a trend toward larger
improvements in BP than TRAD in peak torque in knee extension at 60° s−1 (2.1 ± 2.5 vs −0.1% ±
2.5%, respectively; P < 0.1, effect size = 0.83) and mean power output during a 30-s cycling sprint
(4.1 ± 2.5 vs −0.3% ± 5.9%, respectively; P < 0.1, effect size = 0.89). Overall, BP exhibited a
moderate to large effect size for all these variables compared to TRAD. The present study suggests
that block periodization of strength and endurance train- ing induces superior adaptations in both
strength and endurance capacities in well-trained ice hockey players compared to traditional mixed
organization, despite similar training volume and intensity (Rønnestad et al., 2019).

2.5.2 Comment, results and statistics

The present study investigates the effects of block periodization of strength, power and endurance
training, in which one intervention group is focusing on the alternate block development of these
variables, while the other group focuses on the simultaneous development of them , typical method
of traditional periodization. There are several physical abilities in which a high level of performance
is required for an ice hockey player and if we consider that during the whole competitive season, it
has been shown that the cross-sectional area of the muscle fibers decreases (Green et al. , 2010), the
work done pre and off-season becomes of fundamental importance. In this study the 2 periodization
models were developed for a total of 6 weeks. Previous studies have observed associations between
skating sprint performance and off-ice performance characteristics, such as vertical jumping
performance (Farlinger et al., 2007) and muscle strength (Felser et al., 2016), although this is the
subject of conflicting results when compared to other studies.
The training schedule for both protocols is shown in the table below.

The tests that were performed pre and post included measurements of:
I. vertical jump height (SJ);
II. maximum isokinetic extension of the knee at 60 and 180 °;
III.sprint of 30 seconds;
In addition to the parameters useful for our review, the maximum aerobic capacity was also
measured. The average power delivered during the 30 second sprint showed a trend towards a
greater improvement in BP than TP, while there were no differences in the changes in height SJ
between BP and TP. Due to the vast experience of strength training of ice hockey players, the short
intervention period and the lack of specificity of the maximum strength test protocol (isokinetic
extension of the knee), no drastic changes were expected for the variables related to the power.
Despite the favorable adaptations in the BP group in the ability to produce rapid force (maximum
isokinetic extension of the knee at 60 and 180 °), there was no significant difference between BP
and TP in changes in vertical jumping ability. This was somewhat surprising, as vertical jump
performance appears to be an accurate way of predicting the ability to produce energy in the
extensor muscles of the lower limb.

This graph, as well as the

following, shows the results
under discussion, highlighting
the differences recorded over
the 6 weeks, both individually
and collectively.
2.6 Block vs. Traditional Periodization of HIT: Two
Different Paths to Success for the World’s Best
Cross-Country Skier (Solli at al., 2019)

2.6.1 Abstract
In short-term studies, block periodization of high-intensity training (HIT) has been shown to be an
effective strategy that enhances performance and related physiological factors. However, long-term
studies and detailed investigations of macro, meso, and micro-periodization of HIT blocks in world-
class endurance athletes are currently lacking. In a recent study, we showed that the world’s most
successful cross-country (XC) skier used two different periodization models with success
throughout her career. One including extensive use of HIT blocks, namely BP, and one using a
traditional method namely TRAD. In this study, we compare BP with TRAD in two comparable
successful seasons and provide a detailed description of the annual use of HIT blocks in BP. The
participant is the most-decorated winter Olympian, with 8 Olympic gold medals, 18 world
championship titles, and 114 world cup victories. Training data was categorized by training form
(endurance, strength, and speed), intensity [low (LIT), moderate (MIT), and HIT], and mode
(running, cycling, and skiing/roller skiing). No significant difference was found in the total
endurance training load between BP and TRAD. However, training volume in BP was lower
compared to TRAD (15 ± 6 vs. 18 ± 7 h/wk, P = 0.001), mainly explained by less LIT (13 ± 5 vs. 15
± 5 h/wk, P = 0.004). Lower volume of MIT was also performed in BP compared to TRAD (13 vs.
38 sessions/year), whereas the amount of HIT was higher in BP (157 vs. 77 sessions/year). While
BP included high amounts of HIT already from the first preparation period, followed by a reduction
toward the competition period, TRAD had a progressive increase in HIT toward the competition
period. In BP, the athlete performed seven HIT blocks, varying from 7 to 11 days, each including 8–
13 HIT sessions. This study provides novel insights into successful utilization of two different
periodization models in the worlds best XC skier, and illustrates the macro, meso and micro-
periodization of HIT blocks to increase the overall amount of HIT (Solli at al., 2019).

2.6.2 Comment, results and statistics

Most studies that relate to BP, or that compare BP to other periodizations of training, only consider
a limited number of weeks (usually up to a maximum of 12). Therefore, there are no detailed
investigations on macro, meso- and micro-periodization using blocks and tests on how this model
differs from the traditional model based on the organization of programming along the entire annual
cycle for world-class athletes. In this study 2 different seasons are compared:
I. BP Season: 2005-2006
II. TRAD season: 2014–2015.
In both selected seasons the athlete has been the protagonist of successful performances by winning
both sprint and distance races, in addition, an equal resistance training load (ETL) based on the
training impulse (TRIMP) has been implemented, Finally, for both seasons there is detailed
information on the planning of training sessions. The BP training modules were distributed as 746 h
(94%) of endurance, 40 h (5%) of strength and 10 h (1%) of speed training compared to 836 h
(89%) of endurance, 86 h (9%) of strength and 15 hours (2%) of fast training in TRAD. This study
shows that block periodization of HIT has been successfully used in a world-class skier. In
particular, it should be stressed the importance of balanced micro-periodization during HIT blocks
using different training modes, careful control of intensity and reductions in training load and the
amount of HIT after each block. In addition, the periodization model must be appropriate to the
athlete's training status and the risk of overtraining and system stress must be considered
immunoassay. However, the participant also achieved substantial success using a traditional model,
which could be considered a "safer" model.

The graphs are related

to the distribution of
the total training
volume and the
resistance training load
(A) and the intensity
distribution (B) during
the 2 different seasons.
2.7 Comparison of block versus weekley undulating
periodization models on endocrine and strength
changes in male athletes (Bartolomei et al., 2016)

2.7.1 Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the hormonal and strength responses to different periodization
models of resistance training in male athletes. Eighteen experienced resistance trained males were
randomly assigned to either a block (BP; n=10; age: 23.7±2.9 yr; body mass: 78.5±11.3 kg; height:
1.77±0.05 m) or weekly undulating (WUP; n=8; age: 26.0±5.7 y; body mass: 78.9±12.4 kg; height:
1.79±0.05 m) periodized resistance training program. Both programs consisted of four-training
sessions per week for 15 weeks, and each was equated for training volume. Analysis of variance
was used to compare strength performance and changes in hormone response between groups.
Salivary samples were taken before and after the first and the last workout of each mesocycle of the
training program and assessed for testosterone (T) and cortisol (C). Maximal strength testing
occurred before and after the 15-week training program. A greater increase (p=.040) in bench press
strength was observed in BP compared to WUP, while no between group differences were noted for
lower body isometric strength (p=.168) and lean body mass (p=.344). Significant elevations in T
were seen in both groups following the power training phase, while no differences were noted
between BP and WUP during any other training cycle. Results indicated that BP stimulated greater
gains in upper body strength compared to WUP. In addition, the power phase of training may
provide a greater anabolic hormone response (Bartolomei et al., 2016).

2.7.2 Comment, results and statistics

Wrestling, rugby and athletics throwers participated in this study. All 18 participants at the time of
recruitment had carried out endurance training at least three times a week in the previous three
years. During the period in which this work was conducted, participants were not allowed to
participate in any other physical activity or competition. The assignment took place randomly to
one of the two groups. Both groups trained for 15 weeks. In addition to measuring the maximum
strength of the upper and lower body, testosterone and cortisol levels in salivary specimens were
also research investigation.

The training program was not differentiated into the 2 groups, the exercises divided over the various
days are shown in the table below.
The results of the present study showed that the BP model led to greater improvements in the
strength expressed by Bench Press's 1WD compared to the WUP program. No significant
difference, however, was observed between the 2 training models in the maximum isometric
strength of the lower body, however, both models led to significant increases. We can argue that
performing lower limb training once a week may not have been enough to notice differences
between different periodization patterns in trained men, as can be seen from the table.

In addition, changes in testosterone response were also observed in this study, which suggest the
potential anabolic response associated with the power mesocycle, performed during a periodic
resistance training program, in trained athletes. It therefore becomes of fundamental importance to
keep in mind that if you want to design optimal training programs for strength and power athletes
you must be aware that the introduction of sessions focused on muscle power can optimize the
adaptation of the body following the elevation of testosterone.
The table shows the differences in testosterone concentrations between PRE and POST per training
protocol. Where:
• HYP: hypertrophic protocol;
• MS: maximum force protocol;
• PT: power training protocol.
2.8 Block vs. Weekley undulating periodized
resistance training programs in Women
(Bartolomei et al., 2015)

2.8.1 Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training using block periodization
(BP) and weekly undulating (WUD) model on maximal strength and hypertrophy in recreationally
strength trained women. Seventeen recreation- ally trained women were randomly assigned to either
a BP group (n = 9; age = 24.7 ± 4.2 years; body mass = 62.1 ± 5.3 kg; height = 166.4 ± 6.0 cm) or a
WUD group (n = 8; age = 23.2 ± 2.2 years; body mass = 59.8 ± 11.9 kg; height = 160.1 ± 4.1 cm).
Participants of both groups trained 3 days a week for 10 weeks. The BP and WUD pro- grams used
the same exercises, and the difference between the 2 programs was in the distribution of the training
volume within each training phase. Anthropometric measures and strength testing were performed
before (PRE) and after 10 weeks (POST) of training. The results revealed that both BP and WUD
groups made significant increases in strength and power, but improvements in lower-body strength
were significantly (p = 0.039) greater in the WUD group (+27.7%) compared with the BP group
(+15.2%). Both groups significantly increased arm muscle hypertrophy (p , 0.001), whereas
improvements in thigh muscle size were significant in the WUD group only (+5.8%, p = 0.001).
Results of this study indicate that the WUD model is more effective than the BP model for
increasing maximal strength and muscle size in the lower body in women (Bartolomei et al., 2015).

2.8.2 Comment, results and statistics

17 women were selected for this study, which were then assessed based on strength and power of
the upper and lower body, before and after the training program. The participants were trained and
had regularly participated in endurance training (minimum 1 times a week in the last 2 years),
however these are not to be considered as high level athletes. To be included in the study, the
participants also had to lift at least 1.3 times their weight in a maximum 1-repetition squat (MRI).
The assignment to one of the 2 periodization groups took place randomly, and both took part in a
10-week program. The trainings took place 3 times a week. The exercises used were the same for
both groups. Obviously the volume x intensity ratios differed in the two groups, where precisely the
principles of that protocol were followed. Jumps (4 sets of 6 jump repetitions with
countermovement [CMJ]) were included in both BP and WUP programs after the squat exercise.

This table shows the training program followed in both protocols. The
graphs that follow, however, clearly show how the 2 periodization
models differ in the course of intensity and training volume.
The results of this study indicated that both WUP and BP strength training programs were effective
in stimulating performance improvement in mid-level participants. Significant increases were
observed in both deadlift and 1RM squat groups. However, the maximum increases in strength and
hypertrophy in the lower body were significantly greater in the WUD group. In particular, in the
WUD group 1RM increases were found in the squat of 27.7% on average, at the end of the 10
weeks; while the BP group had an average increase of 15.2%. The countermovement jump
performance showed significant gains only in the group that followed WUD.
It should be taken into consideration that it is completely normal to obtain different results if the
gender of the sample is different, as regards this study it is likely that the difference, compared to
men,
of testosterone values has determined this type of effects, therefore if you want to obtain optimal
gains in the maximum strength expressed by medium level women, you should consider the use of
the WUD method. Improvements and differences found between the groups are present in the latter
table.

2.9 The Effect of Block Versus Daily Undulating

Periodization on Strength and Performance in
Adolescent Football Players (Gavanda et
al.,2018)

2.9.1 Abstract
Purpose: Muscle mass, strength and power are important factors for performance. To improve these
characteristics, periodized resistance training is used. However, there is no consensus regarding the
most effective periodization model. Therefore the purpose of this study was to compare the effects
of block (BLOCK) versus daily undulating periodization (DUP) on body composition, hypertrophy,
strength, performance and power in adolescent American football players. Methods: Forty-seven
subjects participated in this study (M±SD age = 17±0.8 years; strength training experience =
0.93±0.99 years). Pre- and post-measurements consisted of body mass (BM), fat mass (FMkg),
body fat percentage (relFM), fat-free mass (FFM), muscle mass (MM) and muscle thickness of the
M. vastus lateralis (VL), M. rectus femoris (RF) and M. triceps brachii (TB), one repetition
maximum (1-RM) back squat (BS) and bench press (BP), countermovement jump (CMJ), estimated
peak power from vertical jump performance (Wpeak), medicine ball put (MBP) and 40 yd sprint.
Subjects were randomly assigned in either the BLOCK or DUP group prior to the 12 week
intervention period consisting of 3 full-body sessions per week. Results: Both groups displayed
significantly higher BM (p<0.001), relFM (p=0.005), FFM (p<0.001), MM (p<0.001), RF
(p<0.001), VL (p<0.001), TB (p<0.001), BS (p<0.001), BP (p<0.001), CMJ (p<0.001), Wpeak
(p<0.001) and significant lower sprint times (p<0.001) following twelve weeks of resistance
training with no difference between groups. Conclusions: Resistance training was effective to
increase muscle mass, strength, power and performance in adolescent athletes. BLOCK and DUP
affect anthropometric measures and physical performance equally (Gavanda et al.,2018).

2.9.2 Comment, results and statistics

The study was conducted between September and December, the off-season period for the German
football division. The use of 2 different BP and DUP periodization practices for 12 weeks showed
differences on structural and functional adaptations. The independent variables in this study
consisted of two different forms of training periodization (BP and DP) and 14 dependent variables.
Back squat (BS) and bench press (BP) maximum one repetition (1-RM), were the variables for
measuring strength; sprint times of 40 m were taken as speed test; the jump height with the
countermovement (CMJ), the peak power estimated by the vertical jump performance (Wpeak) and
the medicine ball distance (MBP) were recorded for the power evaluation. The subjects were 47
male adolescent volunteers who completed a questionnaire about their previous strength training
experience and medical history. Two subjects who did not meet the medical inclusion criteria were
excluded before the start of the study. Two weeks before the 12 o'clock training session, the
participants took part in a familiarization phase with the study, with the aim of eliminating any pre-
existing fatigue from the subjects' previous workouts, learning the training techniques and
becoming familiar with the tests required.

The table lists the exercises that have been divided into three full-body training sessions, performed
3 times a week on non-consecutive days. As can be seen, the selection and sequence of the exercise
were identical for both groups. Each exercise was performed with the maximum possible range of
motion. The volume and rest periods of the basic exercises have been changed based on the
assigned intervention group, as shown in this other table.
Before each workout, a standardized warm-up was performed, consisting of 5 minutes of low
intensity cardio on a treadmill, followed by 8 dynamic mobility exercises. The results obtained
proved that both periodization models proved effective in increasing muscle mass, strength, power
and performance in adolescent football players. The Strength and Power variables and their
respective increases are shown, and expressed in numbers in the table below.

Not having found a higher periodization model leads one to believe that depending on the history of
individual training, the variation of the selected periodization model could be a new stimulus and
therefore lead to greater adaptations. Therefore, the possibility of modifying the periodization
model applied to obtain further increases in strength and / or long-term muscle mass should be
considered. Furthermore, as far as DUP is concerned, it is not yet clear how to sequence training
objectives in order to maximize their effects.

2.10 A comparison of periodization models during

nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for
strength (Buford et al., 2007)
2.10.1 Abstract
The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if significant differences exist among 3
different periodization programs in eliciting changes in strength. Twenty-eight recreationally trained
college-aged volunteers (mean SD; 22.29 3.98) of both genders were tested for bench press, leg
press, body fat percentage, chest circumfer- ence, and thigh circumference during initial testing.
After initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups: (a) linear
periodization (n 9), (b) daily undulating pe- riodization (n 10), or (c) weekly undulating
periodization (n 9). The training regimen for each group consisted of a 9-week, 3-day-per-week
program. Training loads were assigned as heavy (90%, 4 repetition maximum [4RM]), medium
(85%, 6RM), or light (80%, 8RM) for bench press and leg press exercises. Subjects were
familiarized with the CR-10 rated perceived exertion scale and instructed to achieve an 8 or 9 on the
final repetition of each set for all other exercises. Subjects were then retested after 4 weeks of
training. Training loads were then adjusted according to the new 1RM. Subjects were then retested
after 5 more weeks of exercise. For all subjects, significant (p 0.05) increases in bench press and
leg press strength were demonstrated at all time points (T1–T3). No significant differences (p ︎ 0.05)
were observed between groups for bench press, leg press, body fat percentage, chest circumference,
or thigh circumference at all time points. These results indicate that no separation based on
periodization model is seen in early-phase training (Buford et al., 2007).

2.10.2 Comment, results and statistics

This is the first study to compare the protocols of linear periodization (LP), daily wavy
periodization (DUP) and weekly wavy periodization (WUP). A sample of twenty men and 10
women was selected who were recruited from the "Georgia Southern University" weight training
classes, these were randomly divided but maintaining an equivalent distribution of women in each
group.

The Borg CR-10 scale was used to monitor the intensity perceived by the subjects in each series of
exercises and training sessions. After each series of exercises and 30 minutes after these, subjects
were asked to provide an RPE for the difficulty of each series of exercises and training sessions. For
the bench and leg press, a percentage of 1RM of the most recent test session was calculated to
determine the resistance to be used for each training session. For all the other exercises (Lunges,
Preacher curls, Leg extension, Standing calves, Leg curls, Triceps extension, Knee raises), the
subjects were instructed to reach an RPE of 8 or 9 on the final repetition of each set.

Below is the exercise volume program per group.

Substantial improvements were observed in each of the groups, however no statistically significant
differences were produced to determine if one protocol was better than the others. Although
statistically irrelevant, the DUP group produced lower percentage changes in the bench press and
1RM leg press, as well as an increase in RPE over the 9 weeks. The sample of women observed in
this study is too small to determine a statistical analysis that determines significant differences
between the various protocols. However, it is likely that the difference not found between the
groups is due to the fact that 9 weeks is a short time when it comes to periodization, as we can see
in the following 2 graphs.
2.11 Comparison between Linear and Daily
Undulating Periodized resistance training to
increase strength (Prestes et al., 2009)
2.11.1 Abstract
To determine the most effective periodization model for strength and hypertrophy is an important
step for strength and conditioning professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of
linear (LP) and daily undulating periodized (DUP) resistance training on body composition and
maximal strength levels. Forty men aged 21.5 ± 8.3 and with a minimum 1-year strength training
experience were assigned to an LP (n = 20) or DUP group (n = 20). Subjects were tested for
maximal strength in bench press, leg press 45°, and arm curl (1 repetition maximum [RM]) at
baseline (T1), after 8 weeks (T2), and after 12 weeks of training (T3). Increases of 18.2 and 25.08%
in bench press 1 RM were observed for LP and DUP groups in T3 compared with T1, respectively
(p ≤ 0.05). In leg press 45°, LP group exhibited an increase of 24.71% and DUP of 40.61% at T3
compared with T1. Additionally, DUP showed an increase of 12.23% at T2 compared with T1 and
25.48% at T3 compared with T2. For the arm curl exercise, LP group increased 14.15% and DUP
23.53% at T3 when compared with T1. An increase of 20% was also found at T2 when compared
with T1, for DUP. Although the DUP group increased strength the most in all exercises, no
statistical differences were found between groups. In conclusion, undulating periodized strength
training induced higher increases in maximal strength than the linear model in strength-trained men.
For maximizing strength increases, daily intensity and volume variations were more effective than
weekly variations (Prestes et al., 2009).

2.11.2 Comment, results and statistics

The use of periodization is not exclusive for elite athletes, it has been, in fact, successfully applied
to champions with different levels of physical fitness
and training experience, as well as being used for
rehabilitation purposes (Fees et al. , 1998). In the
present study, the volume and intensity of both the
periodization programs have been equated, respecting
the linear and wavy trend. The study compared
strength gains between the DUP and LP programs,
where both protocols had 1-week microcycles.

The program included 4 weekly training sessions for

both groups. These varied their intensity and volume
loads in the way it is shown in the table alongside.
The exercises performed, however, are shown in the
next table.
The dependent variables in the present study were
body strength and composition, while the independent
variables were, as already noted, the 2 periodization models (LP and DUP). The American College
of Sports Medicine (ACSM) considered people who participated in this study to be "trained". The
study began in early August, coinciding with the start of university classes. All 1 MRI tests were
performed on the same day with a minimum rest interval of 10 minutes. The order followed was as
follows:
I. Bench Press;
II. Leg press 45 °;
III. Arm Curl.
Tests were
performed with
progressively
heavier weights
until 1 MRI was
determined. The
tests were carried
out before (T1),
during (T2) and
after (T3) the
training
programs. There was a statistically significant increase in strength in the Bench Press for both
groups over time T3 compared to T1. The linear periodization showed an increase of 15.16 kg,
equivalent to 18.2%, while, the daily wavy periodization showed an increase of 22.4 kg, equivalent
to 25.08%. As regards the maximum force expressed in the 45 ° Leg press, the LP group showed an
increase corresponding to 24.71%, in T3 compared to T1. Although positive, the results were lower
than in the DUP group, where a percentage increase greater than 40.61% was observed. Also in the
Arm Curl, the DUP group recorded higher increases than the LP group, respectively of 23.53% and
14.15%. The DUP group, therefore, showed a greater percentage increase in force in all measured
dependent variables, from T1 to T3, however, these cannot be considered statistically significant, to
determine with certainty whether one periodization is better than the other. What we can say with
certainty is that both programs have caused significant increases in the maximum strength of both
the upper and lower body in men with at least 1 year of experience in strength training. In
conclusion, the present study and previous studies indicate that DUP is an effective training
program to increase maximum strength in untrained and trained individuals. However, a statistically
significant difference between the groups has emerged: it can therefore be argued that the DUP
program can induce significantly greater increases in strength during the first weeks of training
compared to LP programs.
This table reports
all the results
that have been
discussed.
2.12 Influence of Linear and Undulating Strength
Periodization on Physical Fitness, Physiological,
and Performance responses to simulate Judo
Matches (Franchini et al., 2015)

2.12.1 Abstract
To determine the most effective strength periodization model is important to improve judo ath-
letes’ performance. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of linear and daily
undulating periodized resistance training on anthropometrical, strength, and judo-specific per-
formance. For this, 13 adult male judo athletes (LP = 6 and DUP = 7) completed a 8-week training
program concomitantly to a typical judo training program. Athletes were submitted to a physical
fitness test battery, before and after 8 weeks of training, consisting of: (a) maximal strength
evaluation: bench press, squat, and row exercises 1 repetition maximum (1RM) tests, and handgrip
maximal isometric strength; (b) power evaluation: standing long jump test; (c) strength endurance
evaluation: dynamic and isometric chin-up tests gripping the judogi; (d) anthropometry
measurements: body mass, height, skinfold thickness and circumferences; (e) judo-specific fitness:
perfor- mance during the Special Judo Fitness Test (SJFT); (f) match simulation: three 5-minute
judo match simulations separated by 15-minute passive recovery. Eight weeks of linear and undulat-
ing strength training protocols induced similar significant (P ≤ 0.05) decreases in skinfold
thicknesses (26.5%) and increases in flexed arm (2.0%) and forearm (1.8%) circumferences, max-
imal isometric handgrip strength (4.6% and 6.1% for right and left hands, respectively), isometric
strength endurance chin-up performance gripping the judogi (18.9%), maximal dynamic strength
for row (11.5%), bench press (11.6%) and squat exercises (7.1%), total weight lifted at 70% 1RM
for bench press (15.1%) and squat (9.6%) exercises, number of throws during sets B (3.1%) and C
(9.5%) of the SJFT (resulting in increased total number of throws, 5.5%), and decreased index in
this test, 24.2%). However, no changes were observed in the phys- iological, rating of perceived
exertion, or technical actions during 3 match simulations. Thus, it seems that the short-term
adaptations were not transferable to the match condition (Franchini et al., 2015).

2.12.2 Comment, results and statistics

A judo match can last from a few seconds up to 8-10 minutes, depending on the scores obtained by
the athletes. A judo match involves periods of 20-30 seconds of activity with interruptions from 5 to
10s, during periods of activity, the judokas spend most of the time (51 ± 11%) trying to perform a
hold, resulting in a high physiological question on the upper body. Therefore, judo athletes must
develop a wide range of strength skills to perform technical actions in order to score a
point.However, despite the importance of strength in many technical judo actions, few studies have
studied the influence of strength training regimes on performance related to this sport. The
hypothesis of this study was that wavy force periodization would have resulted in a better
transference for the specific fitness of judo and would have had a greater impact on the number of
technical actions and physiological responses during simulations of a match, compared to the
periodization of the linear force. This is because the force developed in a wavy way presents a
greater variation of stimuli,
which can result in multiple outcomes (maximum strength, muscle power and development of
strength endurance). The following diagram shows a schematic representation of the study.

The two groups of athletes were randomly trained and subjected to linear or wavy force
periodization in addition to normal judo training. The battery of tests, to which the judokas have
undergone, provided for the evaluation of the maximum strength, tests on bench press, squats and
rows of 1 maximum repetition (1RM); the maximum isometric force was measured with the hangrip
test; the evaluation of power, however, through jumping tests. The athletes selected were 20, all
male, and took part in this study after giving their signed consent. Both groups performed the same
judo sessions during the 8 weeks doing only their discipline and strength training protocols.
Strength training was conducted at times other than the judo training session with an interval of
8-12 hours. The training differences between the 2 protocols are observable in the table below.
No improvements were reported in any of the 2 standing jump strength training protocols. However,
it has been shown that 8 weeks of strength training through wavy or linear periodizations are
equally effective in increasing the performance of judo athletes. Maximum isometric and dynamic
force, and strength resistance have made improvements in both protocols, without however showing
a statistically significant difference between the two. and technical actions during the simulations of
the meetings, did not benefit from any of the 2 methods used, thus denying the hypothesis. The last
table numerically reports the pre and post results that were recorded in the tests.
3. Taxonomic table
CMJ = countermovement jump; ASCMJ = arm swing countermovement jum; SJ = squat jump.
4. Conclusion
What led to the development of this review was the desire to want to determine if there was a
periodization protocol to follow, which could be considered better than the others. In the case in
point, studies have been examined regarding linear or traditional periodization (TP); block
periodization (BP); and wavy periodization, which in turn was divided into weekly (WUP) and
daily (DUP) wavy. The periodization of the training was born in the 60s, and the first model to
spread was what we now call traditional, or linear. This provides for an increasing intensity and
volume of training, up to the competitive period where these 2 variables reach their peak. Vladimir
Issurin, one of the main proponents of block periodization, has repeatedly defined the traditional
model as obsolete. The limits of traditional periodization, according to Issurin, are mainly linked to
the impossibility of building multi-peak performances, since the simultaneous development of
different skills, typical of this approach, represent a performance limit. Another criticism of the
traditional model concerns the competitive period of modern sport, which is increasingly wide,
therefore a periodization of this kind could have been acceptable as long as the competitions were
extremely limited, but now that we compete more and more frequently, a new approach should be
used. Block periodization could be part of this discussion and provide an alternative to the
traditional model, since it can generate multi-peak performance. In order for this to be considered
effective, there are, however, some principles discussed in chapter 2, which the coach must always
keep in mind. In this macro discourse between block and linear periodization we insert what is
called wavy periodization. It is so called because the training loads follow, in fact, a wavy path,
varying in intensity and volume. The trend is weekly in the case of WUP. Instead, waving the
variables, which we discussed, daily is typical of the DUP model.
The studies examined provided important information on the various models, Manchado et al., For
example, in 2018 they conducted a study on 11 handball players, in 2 consecutive years, observing
how both the BP and TP models managed to register improvements in the expression of strength,
however for the TP model there were no improvements in the 10m sprint, contrary to what
happened in BP. The other studies conducted that compared BP and TP tended slightly in favor of
the first model, however, as shown by the study conducted by G.S Solli et al. of 2019, where 2
triumphant seasons of the skier Marit Bjørgen were taken as an example, both protocols can lead an
elite athlete to reach the maximum goals during a sports season. Studies comparing BP with WUP
have led to conflicting results, in fact S. Bartolomei et al. in 2016 they conducted a study on athletes
from the world of rugby, wrestling and athletics, observing how, although both approaches were
advantageous, the BP model produced significantly greater results in the Bench Press 1RM test. In
2016 always S. Bartolomei et al. Taking middle-class women as a sample obtained results that
showed how WUP had been more effective than BP. Block periodization was also compared with
DUP by S. Gavanda et al. in 2018. The 47 teenage American football players, taken as a champion,
achieved significant strength, power and performance improvements in both periodization models.
There is no shortage of studies that have compared corrugated models with TP. Here too the results
are not unanimous, T.W. Buford et al. in 2007 they compared the TP model with WUP and DUP, the
results that emerged from the tests submitted to the sample (men and women of medium level)
showed statistically insignificant improvements. However, it is interesting to observe how TP and
WUP showed results in similar percentages, while DUP recorded improvements in lower
percentages compared to the other approaches. Studies conducted, however, on men with at least 1
year of experience in strength training (Prestes et al., 2009) and judoka (Franchini et al., 2015) have
highlighted improvements in DUP. Although there has not been an increase expressed in cm in SLJ
in the judokas, these studies have shown the effectiveness of the 2 models in the expression of
strength and power, no statistically significant difference between the 2 has emerged. On the other
hand, the results obtained with DUP in the short term are significant, showing that this model is the
most suitable for generating positive results in the shortest time. In conclusion, the question asked at
the beginning cannot be answered, as the experience gained through these studies shows how
periodising is extremely difficult and full of variables to be taken into account, which make it
impossible to determine an effective periodization for each discipline and for each subject. It is wise
to say that the good coach, or trainer who is, must vary the models from season to season,
constantly updating himself and, above all, not believing that he knows the winning formula for
each situation.
References
Bartolomei, S., Hoffman, J. R., Stout, J. R., Zini, M., Stefanelli, C., & Merni, F. (2016).
Comparison of block versus weekly undulating periodization models on endocrine and strength
changes in male athletes. Kinesiology: International journal of fundamental and applied
kinesiology, 48(1), 71-78.

Bartolomei, S., Stout, J. R., Fukuda, D. H., Hoffman, J. R., & Merni, F. (2015). Block vs. weekly
undulating periodized resistance training programs in women. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 29(10), 2679-2687.

Boccolini G, Brazzit A, Bonfanti L, Alberti G. Using balance training to improve the performance
of youth basketball players. Sport Sci Health. 2013;9(2):37-42

Buford, T. W., Rossi, S. J., Smith, D. B., & Warren, A. J. (2007). A comparison of periodization
models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1245-1250.

Farlinger CM, Kruisselbrink LD, Fowles JR. Relationships to skating performance in competitive
hockey players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:915-922.

Fees, M, Decker, T, Snyder-Mackler, L, and Axe, MJ. Upper extremity weight-training

modifications for the injured athlete: a clinical perspective. Am J Sports Med 26: 732–742, 1998.

Felser S, Behrens M, Fischer S, et al. Relationship between strength qualities and short track speed
skating performance in young athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26:165-171

Franchini, E., Branco, B. M., Agostinho, M. F., Calmet, M., & Candau, R. (2015). Influence of
linear and undulating strength periodization on physical fitness, physiological, and performance
responses to simulated judo matches. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(2),
358-367.
Gavanda, S., Geisler, S., Quittmann, O. J., & Schiffer, T. (2019). The effect of block versus daily
undulating periodization on strength and performance in adolescent football players. International
journal of sports physiology and performance, 14(6), 814-821.

Green HJ, Batada A, Cole B, et al. Cellular responses in skele- tal muscle to a season of ice hockey.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2010;35:657-670.

Issurin, V. B. (2010). New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization.
Sports medicine, 40(3), 189-206..

Mallo, J. (2012). Effect of block periodization on physical fitness during a competitive soccer
season. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 12(1), 64-74.Issurin, V. B. (2010).
New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports medicine,
40(3), 189-206.

Manchado, C., Cortell-Tormo, J. M., & Tortosa-Martínez, J. (2018). Effects of two different training
periodization models on physical and physiological aspects of elite female team handball players.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(1), 280-287.

Marques L, Franchini E, Drago G, Aoki MS, Moreira A. Physiological and performance changes in
national and international judo athletes during block periodization training. Biol Sport. 2017; 34(2):
371-378.

Moreira A, Oliveira PRD, Okano AH, Souza MD, Arruda MD. Dynamics of the power measures
alterations and the posterior long-lasting training effect on basketball players submitted to the block
training system. Rev Bras Med Esporte 2004;10(4):243-249.
Pliauga, V., Lukonaitiene, I., Kamandulis, S., Skurvydas, A., Sakalauskas, R., Scanlan, A. T., ... &
Conte, D. (2018). The effect of block and traditional periodization training models on jump and
sprint performance in collegiate basketball players. Biology of sport, 35(4), 373.

Prestes, J., Frollini, A. B., de Lima, C., Donatto, F. F., Foschini, D., de Cássia Marqueti, R., ... &
Fleck, S. J. (2009). Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training
to increase strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2437-2442.

Rønnestad, B. R., Øfsteng, S. J., & Ellefsen, S. (2019). Block periodization of strength and
endurance training is superior to traditional periodization in ice hockey players. Scandinavian
journal of medicine & science in sports, 29(2), 180-188.

Solli, G. S., Tønnessen, E., & Sandbakk, Ø. (2019). Block versus Traditional Periodization of HIT:
Two Different Paths to Success for the World’s Best Cross-Country Skier. Frontiers in physiology,
10, 375.

Stone, M. H. (2012). Periodization and programming for strength power sports-the short Reader's
digest version.