Earlier this month I reported on a study of block

periodization that found it superior to a traditional (linear) periodization model. This

study lasted 4 weeks with well-trained cyclists in the two groups (Block and Traditional

periodization) doing the same workouts. The only difference was that the Block

group did 5 of the 8 high intensity training sessions (HIT) in the first week

and then only 1 HIT per week in the following 3 weeks. The Traditional group

did 2 HIT each week. They both also did low intensity training (LIT).

The results were rather remarkable. The Block group had an

increase in VO2max of 4.6%, peak power at VO2max rose 2.1%, and their power at

approximately their aerobic thresholds rose a whopping 10%. There were no

changes for the Traditional periodization group, which seems strange but may

tell us that 4 weeks of traditional periodization is not enough to stimulate

significant change. Perhaps.

So along comes a 12-week follow-up study from the same Norwegian group of researchers at Lillehammer University. They

used the same study design only did the above 4-week mesocycle 3 times for

each group. The results were even more remarkable. I’ll come back to that

shortly. But first let’s take a look at what the researchers called “high” and

“low” intensity workouts.

Using heart rate monitors, all workouts were divided into

three zones:

Zone 1 60-82% of max HR (MHR)

Zone 2 83-87% of MHR

Zone 3 88-100% of MHR

At 82% of MHR an athlete is usually in the vicinity of their

lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR), the point at which heavy breathing begins

and is marked by the sensation of being “redlined.” Some athletes’ LTHRs are at

a higher percentage of MHR and some are lower. (This is why I recommend LTHR

rather than MHR for setting up heart rate zones; it’s simply a more accurate

way of defining the most critical heart rate intensity for serious athletes.)

All of the cyclists (15 well-trained riders) in this study

did LIT in zone 1. Their HIT was in zone 3. These HIT sessions are critical to

understanding this study as these are more than likely what produced the

remarkable results.

All HIT was done as intervals. They did either 6 x 5 minutes

at zone 3 with 2.5-minute recoveries, or 5 x 6 minutes at zone 3 with 3-minute

recoveries. So they totaled 30 minutes of zone 3 in a single session. These are killer workouts. Extremely hard. If you

use my heart rate zone system, their zone 3 is the equivalent of my high zone 5b

and zone 5c. In other words, the athletes were doing intervals at right around

their VO2max. Other research has shown that well-trained cyclists can only maintain their VO2max velocity for

about 3 to 5 minutes. VO2max velocity and VO2max heart rate aren’t exactly the

same thing but I think it safe to say that each interval was nearly a max

effort. And the recoveries were very brief. For a VO2max interval I usually

assign a recovery after each that is about the same duration as the preceding

high-intensity piece. Here they did recoveries that were only half as long.

I wouldn’t recommend doing such a workout, let alone 5 times

in a week as the Block athletes did in this study. I can imagine how difficult

it must have been for the subjects to finish each subsequent session in the 5

HIT-session weeks (in weeks 1, 5 and 9).

But the results were, indeed, impressive. And as may be

expected, the numbers were higher than with the 4-week study I reviewed above.

In this more recent research VO2max for the Block athletes rose on average 8.8%

compared with 3.7% for the Traditional group. Power at 2mmol/L lactate (about aerobic

threshold) rose 22% for Block and 10% for Traditional. They also did a

40-minute time trial to see what average power they could produce. The Block

athletes’ rose 8.2% while the Traditionals’ went up 4.1%. The difference

between these time trial results was insignificant.

The protocol used for the Block group in both of these studies is similar to

what is sometimes called “crash” training as described in my Triathlete’s Training Bible, Cyclist’s Training Bible, and Mountain Biker’s Training Bible books. In this extreme training strategy, workload is greatly increased for

several days followed by several days of reduced training. This has been shown

to stimulate significant changes in fitness, but the risks are also extreme.

You can read more about it in my books.

This is an excellent study as research on periodization of

endurance athletes is rare. There are only a few as most use weight lifting as

their sport focus. And the fact that this one lasted 12 weeks also makes it

exceptional. The downside of all periodization studies is what I mentioned in

my last piece on the subject—both the subjects and the researchers know who is

following which protocol. That always introduces the placebo effect as a

variable.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that block periodization is

superior to traditional (linear) periodization for the advanced athlete. By “advanced” what I mean is someone who

has been training seriously and consistently for years, has attained a very

high level of performance, and is so close to their potential that producing

greater fitness improvements is extremely difficult to do. Most professional

endurance athletes and elite age group athletes fall into this category. They

would more than likely benefit from a block periodization program—if they know

how to do it. It’s not as simple as it seems from these studies and requires

careful planning to pull off.

Athletes who are not what I am calling advanced here are

still better off following a more traditional periodization program as

described in my books. For them a block plan may well produce a loss of fitness

since the training emphasis is focused on only one or two abilities in each

mesocycle.

Crash training may be done by either group but must be used

with caution as it can easily result in injury, illness and burnout. Again,

read more about it in my Training Bible books before attempting it.

Rønnestad BR, Ellefsen S, Nygaard H,

Zacharoff EE, Vikmoen O, Hansen J. 2012. Effects of 12 weeks of block

periodization on performance and performance indices in well-trained cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports [epub ahead of

print].

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

