Re: APRE vs. Linear Periodization?

July 4, 2010

,

Thanks for posting. This study is of interest, but for some of the wrong reasons

in my opinion.

I've always had an issue with the notion of 'linear periodization' (which

doesn't exist). The fact that it's now being referred to as traditional is even

more disappointing and misleading. No disrespect intended toward the authors,

but that's some sort of double contradiction in terms.

ly it's surprising to see this published in a respected, peer reviewed

journal. Dr. Bill Kraemer, editor in chief of JSCR, is a great friend and

mentor; and his editorial board is a who's who of experts in the field. But this

terminology - and the whole premise that it's based on - is really problematic.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports

Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

________________________________

The below may be of interest:

The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise vs. Linear

Periodization on Strength Improvement in College Athletes.

Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP.

J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract

-Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) is a method by which

athletes increase strength by progressing at their own pace based on daily and

weekly variations in performance, unlike traditional linear periodization (LP),

where there is a set increase in intensity from week to week.

This study examined whether 6 weeks of APRE was more effective at improving

strength compared with traditional LP in division I College football players.

We compared 23 division 1 collegiate football players (2.65 +/- 0.8 training

years) who were trained using either APRE (n = 12) or LP (n = 11) during 6

weeks of preseason training in 2 separate years. After 6 weeks of training,

improvements in total bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, and

repeated 225-lb bench press repetitions were compared between the APRE and LP

protocol groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical

significance was accepted at p </= 0.05. Autoregulatory progressive resistance

exercise demonstrated greater improvement in 1RM bench press strength (APRE:

93.4 +/- 103 N vs. LP: -0.40 +/- 49.6 N; ANCOVA: F = 7.1, p = 0.02), estimated

1RM squat strength (APRE: 192.7 +/- 199 N vs. LP: 37.2 +/- 155 N; ANOVA: F =

4.1, p = 0.05) and the number of repetitions performed at a weight of 225 lb

(APRE: 3.17 +/- 2.86 vs. LP: -0.09 +/- 2.40 repetitions; ANCOVA: F = 6.8, p =

0.02) compared with the LP group over the 6-week training period.

Our findings indicate that the APRE was more effective than the LP means of

programming in increasing the bench press and squat over a period of 6 weeks.

============ ====

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

July 5, 2010

I totally agree. This is the point I was trying to make in my reply. It always

feels to me that the current obsession many people seem to have with

" non-linear " (and that is the last time I think any of us should us that term -

non concentrated might be a better one) is a real step back.

The use of D1 athletes was highlighted as a strength in this study. No

disrespect to D1 athletes but they are not in the same ball park as top Olympic

athletes or other world class performers.

Once people start looking into block periodisation (also termed conjugated

mesocycles or concentrated mesocycles) they will realise where " Non-linear (or

non-concentrated) means belong. They might be effective at producing results for

lower level athletes but not for high level ones.

For anybody who is interested in this topic I highly recommend the following

paper:

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Citation/2003/12000/Periodization_Strategies.5.\

aspx

I believe it is a key text for any S & C coach.

One point I might make now is that Dr Kraemer has published a number of books in

which he promotes the term " non-linear " periodisation. He has also allowed a

number of articles into this journal that are highly contentious prompting in

one case a fairly heated reply from Dr Mike Stone. I think this highlights the

need for some in depth studies on concentrated means and high level

periodiastion. Due to the nature though such long-term studies are always going

to be rare.

Andy Mclean

Edinburgh, UK

>

> ,

>

> Thanks for posting. This study is of interest, but for some of the wrong

reasons

> in my opinion.

>

> I've always had an issue with the notion of 'linear periodization' (which

> doesn't exist). The fact that it's now being referred to as traditional is

even

> more disappointing and misleading. No disrespect intended toward the authors,

> but that's some sort of double contradiction in terms.

>

> ly it's surprising to see this published in a respected, peer reviewed

> journal. Dr. Bill Kraemer, editor in chief of JSCR, is a great friend and

> mentor; and his editorial board is a who's who of experts in the field. But

this

> terminology - and the whole premise that it's based on - is really

problematic.

>

> Regards,

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports

> Shelton CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

> ________________________________

>

> The below may be of interest:

>

> The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise vs. Linear

> Periodization on Strength Improvement in College Athletes.

> Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP.

>

> J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print]

> Abstract

>

> -Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) is a method by which

> athletes increase strength by progressing at their own pace based on daily

and

> weekly variations in performance, unlike traditional linear periodization

(LP),

> where there is a set increase in intensity from week to week.

>

> This study examined whether 6 weeks of APRE was more effective at improving

> strength compared with traditional LP in division I College football players.

> We compared 23 division 1 collegiate football players (2.65 +/- 0.8 training

> years) who were trained using either APRE (n = 12) or LP (n = 11) during 6

> weeks of preseason training in 2 separate years. After 6 weeks of training,

> improvements in total bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, and

> repeated 225-lb bench press repetitions were compared between the APRE and LP

> protocol groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance

> (ANCOVA) were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical

> significance was accepted at p </= 0.05. Autoregulatory progressive

resistance

> exercise demonstrated greater improvement in 1RM bench press strength (APRE:

> 93.4 +/- 103 N vs. LP: -0.40 +/- 49.6 N; ANCOVA: F = 7.1, p = 0.02),

estimated

> 1RM squat strength (APRE: 192.7 +/- 199 N vs. LP: 37.2 +/- 155 N; ANOVA: F =

> 4.1, p = 0.05) and the number of repetitions performed at a weight of 225 lb

> (APRE: 3.17 +/- 2.86 vs. LP: -0.09 +/- 2.40 repetitions; ANCOVA: F = 6.8, p =

> 0.02) compared with the LP group over the 6-week training period.

>

> Our findings indicate that the APRE was more effective than the LP means of

> programming in increasing the bench press and squat over a period of 6 weeks.

>

> ============ ====

> Carruthers

> Wakefield, UK

>

July 5, 2010

Hi Andy,

I think you nailed the key issues in your previous post as well as this one.

Kudos.

The linear/nonlinear thing is a step back (nicely put); but unfortunately that

terminology has been around long enough - and has enough of a koolaid flavor to

it - that it has traction now. So we have a dilemma similar to what we're

dealing with on a few other fronts too: how best to redirect people's attention

from nonsense that's passing for conventional wisdom.

Great point about D1 athletes being sub-elite. I spent much of my coaching

career at that level, and can probably count on one hand the number of athletes

who reached advanced status by most international standards.

Thanks for citing Periodization Strategies as a resource. I know reading that

can be a brain sprain - but hopefully it offers a few helpful ideas.

All the best,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports

Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

________________________________

Andy Mclean wrote:

I totally agree. This is the point I was trying to make in my reply. It always

feels to me that the current obsession many people seem to have with

" non-linear " (and that is the last time I think any of us should us that term -

non concentrated might be a better one) is a real step back.

The use of D1 athletes was highlighted as a strength in this study. No

disrespect to D1 athletes but they are not in the same ball park as top Olympic

athletes or other world class performers.

Once people start looking into block periodisation (also termed conjugated

mesocycles or concentrated mesocycles) they will realise where " Non-linear (or

non-concentrated) means belong. They might be effective at producing results

for lower level athletes but not for high level ones.

For anybody who is interested in this topic I highly recommend the following

paper:

http://journals. lww.com/nsca- scj/Citation/ 2003/12000/ Periodization_

Strategies. 5.aspx

I believe it is a key text for any S & C coach.

One point I might make now is that Dr Kraemer has published a number of books

in which he promotes the term " non-linear " periodisation. He has also allowed a

number of articles into this journal that are highly contentious prompting in

one case a fairly heated reply from Dr Mike Stone. I think this highlights the

need for some in depth studies on concentrated means and high level

periodiastion. Due to the nature though such long-term studies are always going

to be rare.

July 5, 2010

Hi Andy!

In a message dated 7/5/2010 3:53:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

andrewmclean66@... writes:

The use of D1 athletes was highlighted as a strength in this study. No

disrespect to D1 athletes but they are not in the same ball park as top

Olympic athletes or other world class performers.

.. I think this highlights the need for some in depth studies on

concentrated means and high level periodiastion. Due to the nature though such

long-term studies are always going to be rare.

I think your previous points are related. Yes. Long term studies are

always going to be rare. How many world class performers are willing to

change their protocols to accommodate a study, even one as short six weeks?

I think that reality is why having D1 athletes as subjects was considered a

study strength. It may be the " closest " researchers can get to elite-level

subjects.

The interest that many high school coaches have in results from six week

studies stems from the reality of coaching at the prep level, especially in

track and field, where many athletes come out in January and anticipate

running their fastest times by late May (end of season state championships).

Progress over six weeks becomes intriguing for this reason.

You are indeed correct in that the application to elite world class

performers is questionable, but how many of us will be coaching those kinds of

athletes during their developmental years? And if D1's are not in the same

ball park as world class performers, then I'd consider my situation as

being yet another notch down from D1's, since In the past thirty-six years--and

at three different schools--I've had just four athletes offered either a

partial or full-ride scholarship in track.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

July 5, 2010

Ken

You have pointed out, quite correctly,a reason why long-term studies are not

readily available on concentrated means using elite athletes. All of which is

fairly much logical and common sense.

The other important point I was trying to make was that the comparisons between

so called " non-linear " and " linear " means are often unfair as the so called

" linear " periodisation represented in many studies is usually something along

the lines of 4 weeks performing the same exercises at the same volume and

intensity. Whereas the " non-linear " periodisation has rudimentary fluctuations

in both volume and intensity. Not surprisingly " non-linear " comes out on top.

Being in these cases the better of two fairly poor programs. For examples check

out the book optimising strength training by Kraemer and Fleck. The

justification of " non-linear " periodisation based on these comparisons is

laughable.

However this is all a distraction the point that we were trying to make is that

mot only are so many of these studies are like this but also add the fact that

the terminology has been made-up to be extremely divisive. I mean who wants to

be linear when you can be non-linear? Right?

I personally believe, having spent many hours studying this area and training a

mix of high level, beginner and some elite level athletes, that the so called

" non-linear " models are irrelevant. They usually only consider outdated theories

on hypertrophy and maximal strength fluctuation between only the two means.

I understand the constraints that you are working under having only 6 weeks to

prepare your athletes but the models presented in periodisation strategies could

still be made to fit such a time frame, although any strength increases will

mean little if that strength is not realised or transmuted into usable power in

some way. A better solution still, and I'm sure you would agree, would be to

give you as a coach adequate time to prepare the athletes or even to ensure that

for safety as much as anything you be allowed to deliver some continuity in the

training of your athletes not just from a performance perspective but from a

health and wellbeing point of view as well.

By the way the book Block Periodisation by Vladimir Issurin contains many

examples of the use of concentrated mesocycles with top athletes in place of the

large scale studies we have all been wanting.

Andy McLean

Edinburgh, UK

>

> Hi Andy!

>

> In a message dated 7/5/2010 3:53:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> andrewmclean66@... writes:

>

> The use of D1 athletes was highlighted as a strength in this study. No

> disrespect to D1 athletes but they are not in the same ball park as top

> Olympic athletes or other world class performers.

>

> . I think this highlights the need for some in depth studies on

> concentrated means and high level periodiastion. Due to the nature though

such

> long-term studies are always going to be rare.

>

> I think your previous points are related. Yes. Long term studies are

> always going to be rare. How many world class performers are willing to

> change their protocols to accommodate a study, even one as short six weeks?

>

> I think that reality is why having D1 athletes as subjects was considered a

> study strength. It may be the " closest " researchers can get to elite-level

> subjects.

>

> The interest that many high school coaches have in results from six week

> studies stems from the reality of coaching at the prep level, especially in

> track and field, where many athletes come out in January and anticipate

> running their fastest times by late May (end of season state championships).

> Progress over six weeks becomes intriguing for this reason.

>

> You are indeed correct in that the application to elite world class

> performers is questionable, but how many of us will be coaching those kinds of

> athletes during their developmental years? And if D1's are not in the same

> ball park as world class performers, then I'd consider my situation as

> being yet another notch down from D1's, since In the past thirty-six

years--and

> at three different schools--I've had just four athletes offered either a

> partial or full-ride scholarship in track.

>

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, IL USA

>

July 6, 2010

Andy McLean wrote:

....the terminology has been made-up to be extremely divisive. I mean who wants

to be linear when you can be non-linear? Right?

-----

Another great point.

Actually why settle for either when we can be fractal? Ha!

Sorry for rising to new depths - I couldn't resist. Seriously I don't know

whether to laugh or cry about some of this stuff.

Regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports

Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

July 6, 2010

Personally I prefer " chaotic " . I hold several multihide belts that prove it too.

18th level, you bet.

Perhaps I want to make big money luring unwitting newbies to my new program,

" Suicidal Blonde: Get so fit people kill themselves to sit next to you " .

Obviously I have to sound like I have something nobody else has, or I'm so

innovative nobody knows what I do....<grin>.

thus we have the gurus and their high sounding, whiz bangie sorts of things all

the darned time. It's also how clunky non new things like kettle bells get pink

plastic coatings and starlets prance about using them....right?

I could use the big money, but I'm not sure I want the hassle of being a guru so

the world is safe from me at present. Back to lifting and ignoring most of the