Article Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or...
I came on this article when I studied the work of Chris Beardsley. Didn't have full copy of the text. Beardsley said it has not been followed
This relatively simple but radical criticism has unfortunately not been developed since it was raised in 2012. However, until a high quality study compares a randomized program with a periodized program and with a non-varied program, we will continue to lack an understanding of whether variation or structured periodization are of greater importance.
What is your opinion on this?
I would think periodizing is related to somewhat old visions. The block PER in which muscle hypertrophy (MH) is trained, there after strength, and finally power, is old fashion. The human body is created to do all kinds of RT. A varied PER in which MH, MS and MP is trained through out several blocks should be preferred. It would not make sense to train HT for weeks, and than not for months (if 6 week block). There can always be less focus on HT and more on MS and last muscle power.
Periodizing refers also to a certain planning factor, but any good training based on science is planned. Non-Per has the notion of being less scientific.
Of course for athletes this could be different as to bodybuilders or the general fitness public. However, I pressume variety with a somehow specific focus would be beneficial. This would be varied + non-varied at the same time. Why would you only train one feature of muscles?
You training the muscle but use periodization. The study interesting compare the strength and hypertrophy with the use of the periodization (non linear, block periodization etc) the same muscle.
FOR EXAMPLE - strength of the quadriceps (non linear x block periodization)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Organizational Psychology
- Training