Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 12 weeks load-matched block periodization (BP, n = 14), using weekly concentration of high- (HIT), moderate- (MIT), and low- (LIT) intensity training, with traditional periodization (TP, n = 16) using a weekly, cyclic progressive increase in training load of HIT-, MIT-, and LIT-sessions in trained cyclists (peak oxygen uptake: 58 ± 8 ml·kg−1·min−1). Red blood cell volume increased 10 ± 16% (p = 0.029) more in BP compared to TP, while capillaries around type I fibers increased 20 ± 12% (p = 0.002) more in TP compared to BP from Pre to Post12. No other group differences were found in time-trial (TT) performances or muscular-, or hematological adaptations. However, both groups improved 5 and 40-min TT power by 9 ± 9% (p < 0.001) and 8 ± 9% (p < 0.001), maximal aerobic power (Wmax) and power output (PO) at 4 mmol·L−1 blood lactate (W4mmol), by 6 ± 7 (p = 0.001) and 10 ± 12% (p = 0.001), and gross efficiency (GE) in a semi-fatigued state by 0.5 ± 1.1%-points (p = 0.026). In contrast, GE in fresh state and VO2peak were unaltered in both groups. The muscle protein content of β-hydroxyacyl (HAD) increased by 55 ± 58% in TP only, while both TP and BP increased the content of cytochrome c oxidase subunit IV (COXIV) by 72 ± 34%. Muscle enzyme activities of citrate synthase (CS) and phosphofructokinase (PFK) were unaltered. TP increased capillary-to-fiber ratio and capillary around fiber (CAF) type I by 36 ± 15% (p < 0.001) and 17 ± 8% (p = 0.025), respectively, while BP increased capillary density (CD) by 28 ± 24% (p = 0.048) from Pre to Post12. The present study shows no difference in performance between BP and “best practice”-TP of endurance training intensities using a cyclic, progressively increasing training load in trained cyclists. However, hematological and muscle capillary adaptations may differ.

Highlights

  • Block periodization (BP) is a popular method for training organization used among coaches for elite athletes since the 1970’s (Issurin, 2010), and with scientific evidence for its effectiveness steadily accumulating

  • There were no differences in the effect of training between traditional periodization (TP) and BP in 5-min (p = 0.940) and 40-min TT (p = 0.612) power output relative to body mass, but when pooling the groups, training increased 5 and 40-min TT power output by 8.9 ± 8.9% (p < 0.001) and 8.4 ± 9.0% (p < 0.001), respectively (Figures 2A–C)

  • There was no difference between TP and BP in any protein content alteration from Pre to Post4 or Pre to Post12 (Figure 3)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Block periodization (BP) is a popular method for training organization used among coaches for elite athletes since the 1970’s (Issurin, 2010), and with scientific evidence for its effectiveness steadily accumulating. A recent meta-analysis, summarizing the literature, demonstrated a small benefit of utilizing BP compared to TP of intervals on both maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and maximal aerobic power (Wmax; Molmen et al, 2019) This meta-analysis highlighted that the results diverged between studies, which may relate to small numbers of participants and generally low methodological quality. A cyclic, progressive increase in training load is a common feature of periodized training programs (Mujika et al, 2018), i.e., a progressive increase in duration, intensity, or the number of intervals. Even though this is viewed as a “best practice” approach, it is still a less stressed feature in studies comparing BT and TP. The inclusion of MIT could, arguably, be beneficial for improvements in performance at submaximal work rates

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call