<p>Block periodization of endurance training – a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

Abstract

BackgroundBlock periodization (BP) has been proposed as an alternative to traditional (TRAD) organization of the annual training plan for endurance athletes.ObjectiveTo our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the effect BP of endurance training on endurance performance and factors determinative for endurance performance in trained- to well-trained athletes.MethodsThe PubMed, SPORTdiscus and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: 1) the study examined a block-periodized endurance training intervention; 2) the study had a one-, two or multiple group-, crossover- or case-study design; 3) the study assessed at least one key endurance variable before and after the intervention period. A total of 2905 studies were screened, where 20 records met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality for each study was assessed using the PEDro scale. Six studies were pooled to perform meta-analysis for maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and maximal power output (Wmax) during an incremental exercise test to exhaustion. Due to a lower number of studies and heterogenous measurements, other performance measures were systematically reviewed.ResultsThe meta-analyses revealed small favorable effects for BP compared to TRAD regarding changes in VO2max (standardized mean difference, 0.40; 95% CI=0.02, 0.79) and Wmax (standardized mean difference, 0.28; 95% CI=0.01, 0.54). For changes in endurance performance and workload at different exercise thresholds BP generally revealed moderate- to large-effect sizes compared to TRAD.ConclusionBP is an adequate, alternative training strategy to TRAD as evidenced by superior training effects on VO2max and Wmax in athletes. The reviewed studies show promising effects for BP of endurance training; however, these results must be considered with some caution due to small studies with generally low methodological quality (mean PEDro score =3.7/10).

No Differences Between 12 Weeks of Block- vs. Traditional-Periodized Training in Performance Adaptations in Trained Cyclists

“…In the current study, no clear differences in performance or performance-related measures between the two periodization models were observed. These findings contrast the findings of a recent meta-analysis by Molmen et al (2019) , indicating a small benefit of using BP. However, the findings of the different studies included in that meta-analysis ranged from no performance-benefits of BP over TP ( Breil et al, 2010 ; Garcia-Pallares et al, 2010 ; McGawley et al, 2017 ), to moderate, positive effects on performance and performance-related measures (e.g., VO 2peak , W max , and W 4mmol ) in both trained, and highly trained athletes ( Breil et al, 2010 ; Ronnestad et al, 2012 , 2014 , 2016 ; Clark et al, 2014 ; Costa et al, 2017 ).…”

“…However, the individual, relative change in training load compared to habitual training load differed greatly and could be a reason for the substantial and similar improvements seen. The summary by Molmen et al (2019) indicates that BP only has a small benefit over TP in athletes with the weighted mean VO 2peak of 60 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 ( Molmen et al, 2019 ). It could be argued that the large and diverging improvements found in our participants would mask potential differences between BP and TP.…”

“…A recent meta-analysis, summarizing the literature, demonstrated a small benefit of utilizing BP compared to TP of intervals on both maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) and maximal aerobic power (W max ; Molmen et al, 2019 ). Furthermore, this meta-analysis highlighted that the results diverged between studies, which may relate to small numbers of participants and generally low methodological quality.…”

Intensity Control During Block-Periodized High-Intensity Training: Heart Rate and Lactate Concentration During Three Annual Seasons in World-Class Cross-Country Skiers

“…A recent meta-analysis (Mølmen et al, 2019 ) reported evidence for beneficial short-term effects of BP compared to TRAD regarding VO 2max and maximal power output development in trained athletes, highlighting that BP of HIT could serve as an adequate, alternative strategy with potentially higher training effects than TRAD. However, the long-term adaptations following BP of HIT is currently not well-understood and requires further examination.…”

“…Positive short-term effects of using BP of HIT to augment training responses have been shown (Breil et al, 2010 ; Støren et al, 2012 ; Wahl et al, 2013 ; Clark et al, 2014 ; Rønnestad et al, 2017 ), whereas a recent study of junior XC skiers reported no beneficial effects of BP over TRAD (McGawley et al, 2017 ). In addition, a meta-analysis concluded that BP of HIT is an adequate, alternative strategy with potentially higher training effects than TRAD for trained to well-trained athletes (Mølmen et al, 2019 ). However, all these studies have compared the different periodization models by matching the overall HIT volume, whereas in practice, athletes also use BP of HIT to increase the overall HIT stimuli (Solli et al, 2019 ).…”