What was I reading:

 

Major Take Home Points from the study

  1. Blocked periodization group were more likely (79.8%) to increase the area under the force-power curve than traditional periodization during bench press.
  2. Blocked periodization group were more likely (92.76%) to show a decrease in the load corresponding to maximal power during a bench press compared to traditional periodization
  3. No significant changes were noted in lower body strength (measured with an isometric half squat @ 90 knee flexion) and lower body power (measured with SJ and CMJ).

 

Methodological Concerns

  1. Disproportionate focus on upper body exercises. 4:1 days of exposure of upperbody exercises vs. lower body exercises. This does reflect a real world program geared on improving lower body strength or power. Likewise the change in upper body strength and power vs. lower body strength and power reflect the volume and frequency disparity in the program design.

 

  1. No plyometric exercises were used. This is a difficult point, because I understand that the purpose of the study was to control the exercises used while only changing the volume and intensity prescription. Note the total load lifted in both groups is the same.
  2. Subjects had low leg power. The subjects selected did not jump high.
  3. I don’t know if they controlled for rest time.

 

Thoughts

  1. Not everyone improves with the same program. 92.8 of the athletes in the blocked periodized group decreased the %1RM corresponding to maximal power compared to traditional periodization, but there were still 7% that did not. This percentage became worse when we consider the force-power curve between 40-100% of 1RM when 79.8% of the athletes showed an improvement with blocked periodization compared with traditional periodization. Understanding and predicting who are good candidates for a responder and non-responder are important. I don’t have access to their data set, because it would be interesting if there were differences in pre-existing strength levels at the start between responders and non-responders (references Cormie)

 

  1. Plymotrics/ reactive abilities are absolutely critical during power training. Not incorporating them into the program is virtually a sin in my mind. I would think that part of the differences between periodization models are the methods that can be used. Having a block dedicated to a quality exclusively will change the exercises that can be used. That being said it would be interested to see what would happen if exercises were selected based on their power specificity (Mcbride work).

 

  1. Programming is not exclusively about manipulating the “common” training variables (i.e. load, volume, velocity, rest time, etc…) but also choosing an appropriate exercise. For example, if we want to develop power – say we have a choice between squats (75% 1RM performed as fast as possible) vs. jump squat unloaded which is the better choice? I guess it depends but if you’re exclusively looking at peak power numbers jump squat wins by a country mile. Debating how peak power influences training adaptation will be saved for another time J. Not all roads lead to Rome. Some paths end in a dead-end. Choosing the right exercise is sometimes taking a completely different path. Consider the unique loading profile afforded by different exercises, for example:

 

  1. Eccentric load
  2. Rate of eccentric load
  3. Load profile (I will write about this at some point in the future)
  4. Accentuated Region of Force Development

 

  1. Power at system weight is very important. Majority of sports involve developing maximum power at system weight, i.e. jumping, sprinting, accelerating, and change in directions (agility). It was nice to see the others discuss the value of decreasing maximum power relative to 1RM. One major end goal of training is to improve sport performance by improving metrics within sport = dynamic correspondence.