The Myth of Periodization

In the 1960s, US strength athletes, influenced by Eastern Bloc countries, started applying “periodization” to their strength training.  Periodization entails manipulating the amount of weight a trainee lifts; the number of reps performed; and the number of sets performed in a predetermined manner.  A periodized training schedule involves dividing a year of training into various phases with over-arching goals to (1) maximize strength and hypertrophy while (2) mitigating over-training. 

Inspired by so-called Soviet secrets, literally thousands of pages have been written on the application of periodization in strength training.  The problem?  The research is pretty clear that it doesn’t work.  Specifically, periodization has never been demonstrated to work any better than using any other script of sets and reps. 

Authors of the chapter titled The Myth of Periodization in the soon-to-be-published book “Myths of Sports Performance” discuss the history and research surrounding periodization.   They conclude: Periodization is a myth.

In order to maximize the benefits from our strength training, we do not need to pre-plan prolonged phases of training with pre-determined goals.  Furthermore, the specific incorporation of various weight, rep, and set combinations does not preferentially focus on benefits such as endurance, strength, or hypertrophy (so even if we wanted to pre-plan the year, our planning would be arbitrary). 

Instead, we are wise to thoughtfully incorporate variety (machines, manual resistance, free weights, various rep speeds, ranges of motion, advanced overload techniques, rep ranges, etc.) to make our training more engaging; take multiple days of recovery between workouts to prevent over-training; and train to momentary muscle failure.