Sorry for being late, but with some of the research Mike assigned to me with journal articles relating to ‘periodization,’ I think this blog topic is a good one for me to contribute to.
First of all, periodization is a structured exercise program that lasts anywhere from 2 to 12 months. It is essential for a quality periodization program to identify the athletic goals, whether the athlete or coach want to increase speed or strength, endurance or power, etc. Then the program will consist of workouts, and dosages (reps, and volume) for each day that is centered around acquiring those goals.
I reviewed three articles that researched the different methods when it comes to periodization. Linear, and nonlinear periodization were the two methods evaluated by the researchers at an attempt to determine which of the two is more effective. Linear periodization is a uniform progression over the arbitrated training cycle, that begins the cycle (first few weeks) with high-repetitions and low resistance, and decreases reps and increases resistance over each phase of the cycle. Nonlinear periodization is a rotation between high-reps and low resistance during one period, and low-reps and high resistance during another period usually a week later.
Two of the three studies yielded results that showed the nonlinear group ass the only one accruing strength gains. The other one that tested in-season college football players showed the linear program as the only one to yield strength gains.
The strength gains for the nonlinear group was attributed to the CNS being exposed to new stimuli because of its rotating demands on the body, and therefore avoided CNS exhaustion. And even though the other study showed that the linear program yielded better results, it still may have validated the thesis of the two studies even more.
The reason why is the training protocol for the two studies that favored NL was 3 days of training each week, while the linear study was only 2 days each week. Two days of training each week is not likely going to exhaust the CNS so linear programing will sufice. But on a week-to-week basis, some individuals do not have the tolerance for three days a week in the gym, so 3 days of the same prescriptions may bore them to the point of not exerting an acceptable amount of effort. So it is certainly conceivable that 3 days a week of a linear program, rather than 2 will exhaust the CNS.
Ultimately, hard-work is the determinant for the best results in a training program. An individual can certainly get great results whether the prescription is linear or nonlinear as long as they put in the effort. However, strength coaches deal with large groups on a regular basis and it is often tough to get the most out of their athletes because they do not have the convenience of constant intrapersonal teaching. Nonlinear prescription could be an invaluable substitute for that inability, for the athletes who neglect to constantly push themselves, and who are more likley to go through the motions once they identify the easiest method for accomplishing their exercise. With nonlinear periodization they need to be aware of the revolving demands. One week they are doing 12 reps of 185 on the squat and the next they do 4 reps of 315. Those prescriptions require two different fiber types and two different energy systems. By rotating it week to week it forces the athlete to adapt to the load on a short-term basis, and would also require more attention from the athlete which will be of great benefit to them.
Comparison Between Linear and Nonlinear In-Season Training Programs in Freshman Football Players, Nonlinear Periodization Maximizes Strength Gains in Split Resistance Training Routines, The Short-Term Effects of Peropdized and Constant-Intensity Training on Body Composition, Strength, and Performance