WHY PERIODIZATION WORKS by Chuck Grissom Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 From: crg@nando.net (Chuck Grissom) Here is a post I made to misc.fitness (long before there was misc.fitness.weights) during a prior flame war over HIT vs. periodization (yes -- this new one is a rehash.) I spent a good deal of time training HIT before I swtiched to periodization, but *not* high volume. Anyway, here it is. Since I'm starting to get into another HIT vs. periodization squabble, I'd like to put a stake in the ground to explain what I mean by periodization, and explain how my definition relates to HIT and some other specific periodization models you may have read about. First, let's make some definitions. I'll give my own definitions for some standard words we've been using. If they're different from *your* preferred definitions, just bear with me long enough to understand what I'm saying below. * Intensity -- For a given number of reps, this is the percentage used of the weight for which the trainer could not perform an additional rep (i.e percentage of the weight which would cause positive failure at the given number of reps.) For example, if you can bench press 200 lbs. for 8 reps but would fail to get the ninth, but you do a set of 8 reps at 160 lbs., that set would be at 80% intensity (i.e. 160/200 = 80%.) * Volume -- This is number of sets x number of reps over a fixed period of time, like a workout or a week. * Periodization-- A workout scheme where the volume and/or the intensity of training is varied over a period of time. Note that this is a general definition which does not include any restrictions on *how* the volume or intensity is varied or on how the period of time is determined. This is *not* the 'theoretical models of periodization based on percentages of 1RM' that Rob Spector likes to harp on ad nauseum (although it *contains* such models as special cases -- see below.) Also, this definition doesn't say *anything* about any other specific aspects of the training, such as high reps/lower weight vs. low reps/ higher weight, how body parts are split (or not split) over training days, rep speed, etc. Now I'll show how this definition not only doesn't *conflict* with HIT, but *contains* it as a special case, as well as all of the specific periodization models I'm familiar with. Example 1: HIT In HIT, one trains at 100% intensity (i.e. all sets to failure) and low volume over an entire training period. The period isn't pre-planned, but ends when the trainer instinctively feels he is overtraining and takes a 'periodic break' from training. As a more specific example, suppose a trainer employs an HIT plan for 8 weeks before feeling he is overtraining (or not making progress) and takes a 2-week layoff from training. If we graph intensity vs. time, it would look something like this: Intensity 100% | --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- | 90% | | 80% | | 70% | | 60% | | 50% | | 40% | | 30% | | 20% | | 10% | | 0% | --- --- | ------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Week Example 2: Barry's pre-planned powerlifting cycle Suppose our hypothetical lifter can bench press 290 pounds for 5 reps and is aiming to hit 300 pounds for a set of 5 reps at the end of an 8 week cycle. He starts at 250 pounds for a set 5 and adds 10 pounds for the first three weeks, and then 5 pounds each week thereafter. He begins at 86% (250/290) intensity and bumps it up gradually until he is at 100% by week 6 and continues at 100% trying to improve to 300 pounds by week 8. This is the classic one-step-back-two-steps up type of plan, trying to coax the body to hit a new peak at the end of a preplanned period of time, maybe to coincide with a competition. The time x intensity graph would look like: Intensity 100% | --- --- --- | 98% | --- | 97% | --- | 93% | --- | 90% | --- | 86% | --- | ------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Week Example 3: Classical 'percentage of 1RM' powerlifting cycle This is the model Rob Spector likes to rag on, pointing out how he can 'prove' that this doesn't work. Lots of powerlifters have done quite well, thank you, on a program like this, including Ed Coan and Tamara Rainwater-Grimwood (first woman to bench 400+ lbs-- ouch!) It makes sense that the percentages chosen should be fine- tuned to the lifter in question, but really this just gives a way to lay out a plan of gradually increasing intensity similar to Barry's plan above. Consider a hypothetical lifter who can do a max single of 285 lbs. in the bench press and is aiming to hit 300 lbs. for a single at the end of a preplanned 9 week cycle. One way to lay out such a plan is to take a percentage of the projected max and start week 1 with 2-3 work sets of 10 reps at this weight. Then each week he adds another 5% of the projected max and drops a rep or two. By the end of the cycle he is applying maximal effort to low rep sets. More specifically, a plan might be: Week %max Reps Sets ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 60% 10 3 2 65% 9 3 3 70% 8 3 4 75% 7 3 5 80% 6 3 6 85% 5 3 7 90% 3 2 8 95% 2 2 9 100% 1 1 The intensity each week would depend on the lifter's physical characteristics (which explains why it might be better to choose percentages more finely-tuned to the lifter, which takes some trial and error) but the graph might look like: Intensity 100% | --- --- | 97% | --- | 93% | --- | 89% | --- | 87% | --- | 85% | --- | 80% | --- | 75% | --- | ------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Week Example 4: Stuart McRobert's 20 rep squat cycle Here is part of a workout plan Stuart McRobert published in one of his 'Hardgainer' columns in IronMan magazine a couple of years ago. He says to start the cycle with a weight you can do comfortably for 20 reps in the squat. Then add 5-10 lbs. per week until you can't get 20 reps anymore. By the end of the cycle you're doing 20-rep squats to failure which is definitely a killer. Suppose our lifter starts with 225 lbs. (he can do 275 for 20 reps to failure, but he doesn't know it. He doesn't need to know it to use this program.) He starts out at 82% (225/275) intensity, works up gradually to 100% intensity and then keeps going 'til he peters out. Assuming he tries to add 10 lbs. per week and finally fails to get 20 reps at 295 lbs., his intensity graph might look like: Intensity 100% | --- --- --- | 96% | --- | 93% | --- | 89% | --- | 85% | --- | 82% | --- | ------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Week Some notes about these examples: The main difference (intensity-wise) between Examples 2-4 and Example 1 (HIT) is that in the last three examples the lifter starts out at less than 100% intensity and gradually increases to 100%. In each case the lifter is training basically HIT-style at the end of a cycle, but in the last three examples he 'ramps up' to the high-intensity stuff. For some people, I strongly believe this fits more closely to the body's longer term adaptation/recovery cycles, which may span a few weeks. This belief is based on my personal experience (and lots of experiences I've read about) and on the well-known fact that elite athletes are *not* able to maintain peak condition over a long period of time (I'm not talking about football players here, Rob.) For some people (I believe it's a small number) maybe it works best to do the all-or-nothing thing from example 1---either train all-out (100% intensity) or lay off. For most folks I claim that it's better to start out with some subfailure training and crank up the intensity gradually to coax a higher level of performance (and resulting development.) The subfailure training at the beginning serves two purposes--providing some 'active rest' to allow the body to recover from previous all-out training and to help maintain and solidify prior gains *and* to help coax it into a strong high-intensity period at the end of the cycle. I'm certainly not claiming one-size-fits-all or that periodization is the 'ultimate' system. In fact each lifter must figure out just how to best 'ramp up' (if at all) to get the most out of his high-intensity training. But at least this gives a framework for figuring this out, unlike the standard HIT party-line, which specifically excludes subfailure training. I haven't even discussed the varying of volume part of this stuff, but it's easy to see that having another variable to tweak would just give a lifter another way to try to improve the 'fit' of the program to his body's adaptation/recovery ability. In fact, there are those who believe that increasing volume is necessary for advanced lifters to reach higher levels. We'll save that hot and controversial topic for another post. ========================================================================== Chuck Grissom That which doesn't ||| ||| crg@nando.net kill me only makes =|||================|||= 72227.2715@compuserve.com me stronger ||| ||| ==========================================================================