Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodized Programs With Equated Volume and Intensity for Endurance Running Performance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This investigation examined the effectiveness of 2 periodization methods on endurance running performance. Thirty recreational runners (25.2 ± 7.4 years; 175.4 ± 8.1 cm; 69.0 ± 9.8 kg) were assigned to 3 groups based on preintervention test results: linear periodization group (LPG, n = 10), reverse linear periodization group (RPG, n = 10), and control group (CG, n = 10). The LPG and RPG completed 3 training sessions (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised) per week in two 6-week blocks. The LPG went through a high-volume training program while the RPG performed higher intensity, lower volume training in the initial block. Training volume and intensity was reversed in the second 6-week training block. All subjects completed pre-training (week 0), midpoint (week 7), and post-training (week 14) testing, which included anthropometric measurements (body mass and sum of 8 skinfolds), treadmill tests for running economy (RE) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max, and a 5,000-m time trial (TT) on a 400-m grass track. Greater improvements in the 5,000-m TT were observed in the LPG (76.8 ± 55.8 seconds, p = 0.009, d = 1.27) and the RPG (112.8 ± 83.4 seconds, p = 0.002, d = 1.51) than the CG (3.6 ± 59 seconds). No significant differences were found between the LPG and RPG (p = 0.321, d = 0.51). No group differences were found for V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.955) or RE at 9 km·h−1 (p = 0.329) or 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.558), respectively. However, significant improvements were seen in these variables after training: V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.010), RE 9 km·h−1 (p < 0.001), and RE 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.004). These results do not support linear periodization or reverse linear periodization as a superior method; however, periodized training elicited greater improvements in endurance performance than nonperiodized training, highlighting the importance of planned training structure.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - Aug 2018

Fingerprint

Penicillin G Benzathine
Poaceae
Exercise Test
Education
Control Groups

Cite this

@article{ff728ee572294d038371cf8fc8832b18,
title = "Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodized Programs With Equated Volume and Intensity for Endurance Running Performance",
abstract = "This investigation examined the effectiveness of 2 periodization methods on endurance running performance. Thirty recreational runners (25.2 ± 7.4 years; 175.4 ± 8.1 cm; 69.0 ± 9.8 kg) were assigned to 3 groups based on preintervention test results: linear periodization group (LPG, n = 10), reverse linear periodization group (RPG, n = 10), and control group (CG, n = 10). The LPG and RPG completed 3 training sessions (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised) per week in two 6-week blocks. The LPG went through a high-volume training program while the RPG performed higher intensity, lower volume training in the initial block. Training volume and intensity was reversed in the second 6-week training block. All subjects completed pre-training (week 0), midpoint (week 7), and post-training (week 14) testing, which included anthropometric measurements (body mass and sum of 8 skinfolds), treadmill tests for running economy (RE) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max, and a 5,000-m time trial (TT) on a 400-m grass track. Greater improvements in the 5,000-m TT were observed in the LPG (76.8 ± 55.8 seconds, p = 0.009, d = 1.27) and the RPG (112.8 ± 83.4 seconds, p = 0.002, d = 1.51) than the CG (3.6 ± 59 seconds). No significant differences were found between the LPG and RPG (p = 0.321, d = 0.51). No group differences were found for V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.955) or RE at 9 km·h−1 (p = 0.329) or 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.558), respectively. However, significant improvements were seen in these variables after training: V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.010), RE 9 km·h−1 (p < 0.001), and RE 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.004). These results do not support linear periodization or reverse linear periodization as a superior method; however, periodized training elicited greater improvements in endurance performance than nonperiodized training, highlighting the importance of planned training structure.",
author = "Bradbury, {Duncan G.} and Landers, {Grant J.} and Nat Benjanuvatra and Goods, {Paul S.R.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000002805",
language = "English",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Linear and Reverse Linear Periodized Programs With Equated Volume and Intensity for Endurance Running Performance

AU - Bradbury, Duncan G.

AU - Landers, Grant J.

AU - Benjanuvatra, Nat

AU - Goods, Paul S.R.

PY - 2018/8

Y1 - 2018/8

N2 - This investigation examined the effectiveness of 2 periodization methods on endurance running performance. Thirty recreational runners (25.2 ± 7.4 years; 175.4 ± 8.1 cm; 69.0 ± 9.8 kg) were assigned to 3 groups based on preintervention test results: linear periodization group (LPG, n = 10), reverse linear periodization group (RPG, n = 10), and control group (CG, n = 10). The LPG and RPG completed 3 training sessions (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised) per week in two 6-week blocks. The LPG went through a high-volume training program while the RPG performed higher intensity, lower volume training in the initial block. Training volume and intensity was reversed in the second 6-week training block. All subjects completed pre-training (week 0), midpoint (week 7), and post-training (week 14) testing, which included anthropometric measurements (body mass and sum of 8 skinfolds), treadmill tests for running economy (RE) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max, and a 5,000-m time trial (TT) on a 400-m grass track. Greater improvements in the 5,000-m TT were observed in the LPG (76.8 ± 55.8 seconds, p = 0.009, d = 1.27) and the RPG (112.8 ± 83.4 seconds, p = 0.002, d = 1.51) than the CG (3.6 ± 59 seconds). No significant differences were found between the LPG and RPG (p = 0.321, d = 0.51). No group differences were found for V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.955) or RE at 9 km·h−1 (p = 0.329) or 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.558), respectively. However, significant improvements were seen in these variables after training: V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.010), RE 9 km·h−1 (p < 0.001), and RE 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.004). These results do not support linear periodization or reverse linear periodization as a superior method; however, periodized training elicited greater improvements in endurance performance than nonperiodized training, highlighting the importance of planned training structure.

AB - This investigation examined the effectiveness of 2 periodization methods on endurance running performance. Thirty recreational runners (25.2 ± 7.4 years; 175.4 ± 8.1 cm; 69.0 ± 9.8 kg) were assigned to 3 groups based on preintervention test results: linear periodization group (LPG, n = 10), reverse linear periodization group (RPG, n = 10), and control group (CG, n = 10). The LPG and RPG completed 3 training sessions (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised) per week in two 6-week blocks. The LPG went through a high-volume training program while the RPG performed higher intensity, lower volume training in the initial block. Training volume and intensity was reversed in the second 6-week training block. All subjects completed pre-training (week 0), midpoint (week 7), and post-training (week 14) testing, which included anthropometric measurements (body mass and sum of 8 skinfolds), treadmill tests for running economy (RE) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max, and a 5,000-m time trial (TT) on a 400-m grass track. Greater improvements in the 5,000-m TT were observed in the LPG (76.8 ± 55.8 seconds, p = 0.009, d = 1.27) and the RPG (112.8 ± 83.4 seconds, p = 0.002, d = 1.51) than the CG (3.6 ± 59 seconds). No significant differences were found between the LPG and RPG (p = 0.321, d = 0.51). No group differences were found for V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.955) or RE at 9 km·h−1 (p = 0.329) or 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.558), respectively. However, significant improvements were seen in these variables after training: V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (p = 0.010), RE 9 km·h−1 (p < 0.001), and RE 11 km·h−1 (p = 0.004). These results do not support linear periodization or reverse linear periodization as a superior method; however, periodized training elicited greater improvements in endurance performance than nonperiodized training, highlighting the importance of planned training structure.

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002805

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002805

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

ER -