Court with five types of periodization

Someone is a triathlete, someone is a strongman, someone works with his hands, someone just looks like Silvester Stallone and at every turn looks for an opportunity to compare himself in arm wrestling.

While there are basics like progressive overload that determine how we get stronger, regardless of periodization, some schemes are simply more effective for adding weight to the axle than others.

In this article, I'll explore five types of periodization and indicate when it's a good idea to use them, and when, conversely, it's not a good idea at all.

Defendant #1: Linear periodization

I should say at the outset that any type of periodization is better than no periodization. It's just the way life works. Trying it on chance is not usually the optimal way.

Traditional linearization includes different phases: endurance, hypertrophy, strength portion, and actual power (strength cut is sometimes left out). In theory, it's a good idea to prepare the athlete for the big event at the end of the strength portion of the program this way. But it has a few problems:

• The trained qualities simply cannot be maintained during the different phases. For example, the strength from the first cycle goes away in the volume phase of the next cycle. Or the athlete will have trouble maintaining muscle during the strength portion of the cycle.
• Not all athletes need to tune their performance to a specific event. In fact, most have long, challenging seasons. And which part of the periodization should they train during such a season?
• Imagine how your joints might feel if one entire portion of your training was targeted solely for strength. Probably not much.

Some say that linear periodization is good for beginners because they'll do a lot of reps during the endurance phase. I fundamentally disagree.

A beginner like that can do 4-5 nice reps of a squat or deadlift. We want him to do 12-15 reps. So two-thirds of the way through the set, he'll have terrible technique. That's not how we want to teach anyone to lift.

To summarize, linear periodization is probably better than nothing, but it's not an effective training scheme for beginners or advanced exercisers who want to grow, get stronger, or both. You'll be better off with non-linear periodization, trust me.

Defendant #2: 5x5

The 5x5 method has recently been revived. In fact, it's a rather old method of periodization. Unfortunately, it is so popular that some individuals use it too avidly... all the time... all their lives. Unfortunately, I'm not kidding.

First the positives. 5x5 is a good way to make beginners into intermediates. If you've been doing 3x10-12 all your life according to bodybuilding magazines, 5x5 will definitely take you further. Even beyond the beginner increments.

I think the biggest mistake beginners make in their first year of training is not getting to lower weights, for 4-7 reps. Regardless if they are training for strength or size.

I think 5x5 is a great scheme for the first two years of training. It's enough volume for muscle growth, you can load some weight in there, and it's enough practice performing the exercises so essential for building strength.

Unfortunately, a lot of people stop here and 5x5 becomes that first high school miss for them, the one that let them touch it before they ditched it. She was fine and it wasn't easy letting her go.

I'm not afraid to say that in my experience as an athletic trainer, the biggest mistake intermediate athletes make is not going below five reps on the main exercises.

If we look at the research on the "development" of a strength athlete, we find that intensity and not volume is what drives the sustainability of improvement over a training career.

Untrained athletes can improve strength with as little as forty percent of their max. In other words, if your naturally well-built friend (theoretically) squatted 100 pounds on the first attempt, he would probably only need to train with a ten on each side of the axis to improve his squat.

As you gain experience, the minimum load for improving strength increases to seventy percent of the maximum (the maximum for roughly 12-15 reps for most athletes). Eventually, the advanced strength athlete will need 85 to 90% of the maximum to increase strength (or even just maintain it).

So what good is 5x5 to the advanced athlete? I remember Charles Poliquin often saying that the average exerciser can do about 5 reps at eighty-five percent of max. So only the heaviest set of fives will yield any strength response.

At 5x5, you'll do 25 reps. Only 5-10 of them (the first set or two) will have enough intensity for strength gains. And when you train even longer, even 85% won't be enough (you'll need 90 or more). So you probably won't find many good strength athletes who train strength with 5s.

Use 5x5 if you're a beginner or intermediate and want to get stronger. But don't use it for years. Eventually it will stop working.

Defendant #3: Wave periodization

If I can brag a little bit, I think I did a decent job.

Knowing this, I think it's worth mentioning that wave periodization can be used to build muscle. The lowest rep counts are good for activating more motor units and allowing you to use more load for the rest of the sets. It all happens in the right rep range for us.

To recap, wave periodization makes sense for building muscle, but I wouldn't wipe my ass with its potential for increasing strength.

Defendant #4: Percentage-based training

I've never been a fan of training with percentages. It certainly makes sense if we're talking about lower load and dynamic training, but I think this type of periodization just doesn't account for people getting stronger. Weirdly contrived, I know.

Think about it. The program in each of my last two books lasted 16 weeks, or 4 phases of four weeks each. It was no exception that people improved squat and deadlift by 100 pounds (45 kg), bench press and snatch by 50 pounds (22.5 kg).

Since it's impossible to keep trying new highs, with this type of training you're often training with a percentage of a high that's months old.

Let's say you squat 300 pounds (136kg) at the beginning of a 16-week program. I'll want you to use 78% of your max for 3 sets and 6 reps. That will be 235 pounds (106.5kg).

And let's say I ask you to squat the same weight 12 weeks later, when your max will already be 360 pounds 163 kg).

You'll be using much less weight than you could. In other words, training based on percentages depreciates very quickly, at least at the beginner and intermediate stages.

But percentages can be beneficial as well. If someone sets their standards too low. If someone is a little lazy and underestimates themselves a lot. Keeping that person tied down with percentages is a decent way to prevent them from becoming a complete dud in the gym.

This is one of the reasons why training with percentages has become popular in school settings. Because for every one athlete training hard, you have two or three more who don't want to overdo it because they're too hungover.

So training based on percentages is not a very good idea unless a) the person is very experienced and strong, b) has an accurate idea of their current max for one rep, and c) needs percentages to do any work at all.

Defendant #5: 8x3 or 10x3, etc.

Eight threes, ten threes, and similar schemes gained popularity thanks to Chad Waterbury. And for good reason. They're good for the typical reader who wants decent strength and looks.

24-30 reps is plenty for muscle growth. Threes are generally enough for some strength gains, specially for intermediate exercisers. So you get something from both worlds.

But you don't get the best of both worlds. Especially not the best for strength development.

For most people, the same thing happens with the 5x5 scheme. They fall below the required percentage of the one rep max and their strength doesn't grow.

Plus, that volume of training would probably wipe out advanced exercisers. I, for example, deadlift 660 lbs (300 kg). If a typical lifter can do a triple with ninety percent, that would mean me doing triples with 595 pounds (270 kg) I wouldn't just do ten triples with that. In fact, even 550 pounds (250 kg) would be a problem. It would even be quite dangerous.

Two months ago, I put 550 pounds (250 kg) on 3x3 and considered spending the rest of the winter in hibernation as I was tired. The thought of putting in 3 or 5 more sets is laughable. Truthfully, although I pull 660 lbs (300 kg), I get over 600 lbs (272 kg) about 4 or 5 times a year.

A person like me can benefit from such periodization. But he needs to incorporate it only occasionally during the year and reduce the percentage load slightly compared to intermediate exercisers.

The 8x3 and 10x3 schemes are decent for those who want to get stronger and grow at the same time, but may be too much for the advanced. Advanced exercisers should use them infrequently and with a lower percentage of the max. It's like 5x5. Use it, but not often. And definitely not forever.

Conclusion

If we're talking about periodizations that could be broken down, these five are obviously just the tip of the iceberg. You too, share the systems that work and don't work for you.

By Eric Cressey, Translated by Jaromír Uhlíř