COMPARISON OF LINEAR AND REVERSE LINEAR

PERIODIZED PROGRAMS WITH EQUATED VOLUME AND

INTENSITY FOR ENDURANCE RUNNING PERFORMANCE
DUNCAN G. BRADBURY,1 GRANT J. LANDERS,1 NAT BENJANUVATRA,1 AND PAUL S.R. GOODS 1,2
1
School of Human Sciences (Sport Science), University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; and 2Western Australian Institute
of Sport, Mount Claremont, Australia
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 11/13/2020

ABSTRACT however, periodized training elicited greater improvements in

Bradbury, DG, Landers, GJ, Benjanuvatra, N, and Goods, PS. endurance performance than nonperiodized training, highlight-
Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodized programs ing the importance of planned training structure.
with equated volume and intensity for endurance running KEY WORDS running economy, V_ O2max, time trial, training
performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1345–1353, load, linear periodization
2020—This investigation examined the effectiveness of 2 peri-
odization methods on endurance running performance. Thirty
recreational runners (25.2 6 7.4 years; 175.4 6 8.1 cm; 69.0
INTRODUCTION

P
6 9.8 kg) were assigned to 3 groups based on preintervention
test results: linear periodization group (LPG, n = 10), reverse eriodization is the process of planning a training
linear periodization group (RPG, n = 10), and control group program that considers all factors that influence
the overall performance of an individual (5,30,34).
(CG, n = 10). The LPG and RPG completed 3 training ses-
Fitness variables that govern performance are
sions (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised) per week in two 6-
often ordered within a training program to achieve peak
week blocks. The LPG went through a high-volume training
performance for a specific event or competition
program while the RPG performed higher intensity, lower vol- (24,34,35,38). This is performed while considering the inter-
ume training in the initial block. Training volume and intensity relationship between the key performance variables (32). As
was reversed in the second 6-week training block. All subjects such, the achievement of a specific training goal may enable
completed pre-training (week 0), midpoint (week 7), and post- other training goals to progress, resulting in improvement in
training (week 14) testing, which included anthropometric the overall performance (12,19,28,29). As a result, periodiza-
measurements (body mass and sum of 8 skinfolds), treadmill tion is widely regarded as the principle method of develop-
tests for running economy (RE) and V_ O2max, and a 5,000-m ing an athlete’s peak performance (15,20,24,30). Crucial to
time trial (TT) on a 400-m grass track. Greater improvements in periodization is the inverse relationship between volume and
the 5,000-m TT were observed in the LPG (76.8 6 55.8 sec- intensity (24).
Although most agree on the concept of periodization,
onds, p = 0.009, d = 1.27) and the RPG (112.8 6 83.4
there is debate on how the structure of a training plan should
seconds, p = 0.002, d = 1.51) than the CG (3.6 6 59 sec-
be organized to deliver the optimal performance (20). There
onds). No significant differences were found between the LPG
is a plethora of periodization methods that have been used in
and RPG (p = 0.321, d = 0.51). No group differences were many sports (e.g., linear or undulating) (31), with the optimal
found for V_ O2peak (p = 0.955) or RE at 9 km$h21 (p = 0.329) structure likely to be dependent on a number of factors
or 11 km$h21 (p = 0.558), respectively. However, significant including the type of sport or level of athletes. With this
improvements were seen in these variables after training: in mind, this investigation focuses on the implementation
V_ O2peak (p = 0.010), RE 9 km$h21 (p , 0.001), and RE 11 of linear periodization and reverse linear periodization for
km$h21 (p = 0.004). These results do not support linear peri- endurance running performance in recreational runners.
odization or reverse linear periodization as a superior method; When an athlete is training for an endurance event, the
commonly used method of periodization is linear periodi-
Address correspondence to Duncan G. Bradbury, 21146215@student. zation (32). The typical linear periodized program aims to
uwa.edu.au. build aerobic capacity first through a period of high-volume/
34(5)/1345–1353 low-intensity training before increasing the proportion of
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research high-intensity training (23). The logic of this approach is
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association to ensure sufficient level of aerobic capacity, so the athlete

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2020 | 1345

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodization of Endurance Running Training

can better tolerate high-intensity work in later training. The periodization, reverse linear periodization, and nonregulated
increase in aerobic respiration reduces the need for anaer- endurance training program on a 5,000-m running perfor-
obically derived energy that reduces metabolite accumu- mance. Thirty subjects were assigned to either the control
lation and enables athletes to exercise at higher intensity group (CG), the linear periodized group (LPG), or the
for longer (39) but also enhances the rate of recovery reverse linear periodized group (RPG). Groups were
between high-intensity bouts during interval training ses- matched based on sex, V_ O2max, and 5,000-m TT results.
sions (37). This improves the consistency of high-intensity Subjects in LPG and RPG performed the assigned training
training efforts in the latter half of the linear periodization program 3 times per week (2 supervised and 1 unsupervised
model. sessions), whereas subjects assigned to the CG continued
By contrast, the reverse linear periodization method is less with their own training. Endurance running performance
common but has been used in short- to middle-distance was monitored through changes in TT performance and
track events (1) and begins with a period of high-intensity key physiological variables: V_ O2max, AT, and RE. Assess-
training. The primary purpose of the high-intensity work ments occurred before commencing (week 0), at the end of
early on is to enhance anaerobic threshold (AT), lactate the first 6-week training block (week 7), and at the end of the
buffering, and lactate tolerance (1). An investigation by Can- second training block (week 14). All subjects were instructed
tos, Liedtke, and Palomo-Vélez (1) showed reverse linear to record any unsupervised training in exercise diaries
periodization to be more effective than block periodization throughout the training intervention.
for improving middle-distance performance. The authors
Subjects
also suggested that introducing high-intensity running train-
Thirty-five recreational runners, male (n = 26) and female
ing earlier innervates more muscle fibers, which synergizes
(n = 9), age range 19–45 (mean 6 SD: 25.2 6 7.4 years; 175.4
the activation of working muscles therefore eliciting im-
6 8.1 cm; 69.0 6 9.8 kg) with no less than 2-year running
provements in running economy (RE) (1). Continuous train-
experience and a 5,000-m personal best less than 25 minutes
ing or long intervals are then gradually introduced to further
(22.5 6 2.1 minutes) were recruited from local sporting clubs
the development of aerobic capacity and fatigue tolerance
and social running groups. Subjects were also required to
(1,24). Advocates for reverse linear periodization argue that
have run at least 15 km per week without complete discon-
beginning an endurance training program with shorter ef-
tinuation for more than 2 consecutive weeks, for 2 years or
forts will allow subsequent longer training efforts to be per-
more (14). They were assigned to 1 of 3 groups, LPG
formed faster because of an improved AT and RE (1). In
(n = 11), RPG (n = 11), and CG (n = 13), using a block
addition, longer intervals performed at a greater speed may
randomization technique to ensure that the groups were
be more specific to the demands of competitive endurance
matched by sex, 5,000-m TT performance, and V_ O2max.
racing and therefore be more appropriate in later prepara-
Five subjects (1 from LPG, 1 from RPG, and 3 from CG)
tory phases (18).
withdrew from the study because of illness. Thus, only data
Although linear periodization traditionally has been used
from the 30 remaining subjects (n = 10 in each group) who
in endurance training programs (31), there is a lack of empir-
completed the entire study were used in the analyses. A
ical evidence supporting a particular periodization method
power analysis was conducted (G*Power version 3.1.10),
for endurance running performance (20). Consequently,
which suggested 10 subjects were required to yield a statisti-
within the coaching community, there is reliance on past
cal power of 0.8 based on the data reported by Denadai et al.
experience and anecdotal evidence to guide the planning
(13). The investigation was conducted in accordance with
process (20). The aim of this study, therefore, was to exam-
the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
ine the effects of the linear periodization and reverse linear
Research and was approved by the University of Western
periodization models on a 5,000-m time trial (TT) perfor-
Australia Ethics Committee before recruitment of subjects.
mance and the key physiological factors, which underpin
Subjects were informed of the benefits and risks of partici-
endurance performance. It was hypothesized that, in recre-
pation before the start of the study. All subjects gave written
ational endurance runners, (a) the reverse linear periodiza-
consent.
tion method would elicit greater improvements in AT and
RE after a short period of training than the linear periodiza- Procedures
tion method and an unregulated group and (b) both period- All subjects attended 3 testing sessions, at week 0 (pre-
ization methods would demonstrate greater improvements training), week 7 (midpoint, separating 2 training blocks),
than unregulated training across all examined performance and week 14 (post-training). In the weeks between testing
measures. periods (1–6, 8–13), the LPG and RPG completed 6-week
training blocks, which consisted of 2 supervised training ses-
METHODS sions and 1 unsupervised training session per week (Table 1).
Experimental Approach to the Problem Subjects in the CG were asked to continue with their regular
A 3 (group) 3 3 (period) repeated-measures design with training independently. Investigators monitored the unsuper-
a controlled sample was used to examine the effects of linear vised training of all participants through training diaries.
the TM

1346 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Linear periodized training program.*

Week Session 1 Session 2

0 (testing) Treadmill test 5,000-m TT

1 10 3 800-m 85% TT 2-min rest 5 3 1600-m 80% TT 2-min rest
2 10 3 800-m 85% TT 2-min rest 5 3 1600-m 80% TT 2-min rest
3 10 3 700-m 90% TT 2-min rest 6 3 1200-m 85% TT 2-min rest
4 10 3 700-m 90% TT 2-min rest 6 3 1200-m 85% TT 2-min rest
5 10 3 600-m 95% TT 2-min rest 6 3 1000-m 90% TT 2-min rest
6 10 3 600-m 95% TT 2-min rest 6 3 1000-m 90% TT 2-min rest
7 (testing) Treadmill test 5,000-m TT
8 10 3 500-m 105% TT 2-min rest 6 3 800-m 100% TT 2-min rest
9 10 3 500-m 105% TT 2-min rest 6 3 800-m 100% TT 2-min rest
10 10 3 400-m 115% TT 2-min rest 7 3 600-m 105% TT 2-min rest
11 10 3 400-m 115% TT 2-min rest 7 3 600-m 105% TT 2-min rest
12 10 3 300-m 125% TT 2-min rest 9 3 400-m 115% TT 2-min rest
13 10 3 300-m 125% TT 2-min rest 9 3 400-m 115% TT 2-min rest
14 (testing) Treadmill test 5,000-m TT

*TT = time trial.

RPG began at week 14 and finished at week 0.

Testing Orientation. During each testing period, the following (RPE) was recorded at the conclusion of sessions using the
tests were conducted: Submaximal test for RE, incremental modified CR-10 scale (6).
treadmill test to exhaustion, and a 5,000-m TT. Both the Each subject was also required to perform one unsuper-
submaximal test for RE and the incremental treadmill test to vised training each week during the intervention period.
exhaustion were conducted on the calibrated treadmill (H/P Subjects were instructed to undertake the prescribed training
Cosmos; Quasar 3p Medical treadmill, Nussdorf-Traunstein, session on flat ground. For these sessions, the target work
Germany) at a gradient of 1%, in a climate-controlled intensity was based on the subject’s HRmax determined
laboratory (temperature was maintained at 228 C, and rela- during the graded exercise test (GXT). Subjects were
tive humidity varied between 50 and 60%). The incremental required to record running distance, duration, average heart
treadmill test to exhaustion was used to determine the rate (HR), and CR-10 RPE scores.
V_ O2max, velocity at the maximal oxygen uptake (vV_ O2max), To calculate training load, session duration in minutes was
and AT for each participant. The 5,000-m TT was conducted multiplied by the corresponding CR-10 RPE score. Session
on a 400-m grass track at least 48 hours after laboratory tests. loads were then summated to determine weekly training
The time between the last training session of a training block loads (17). The daily mean values and SDs of training load
and the first testing session of a testing week was no fewer were also calculated for the week (including zero load days).
than 3 days and no more than 5 days. Subjects were in- The daily mean was divided by the SD to determine training
structed to refrain from unsupervised training and alcohol monotony (16).
in the 24 hours before a test and caffeine 3 hours before
testing sessions. Subjects were instructed to record dietary Anthropometric Assessment. Body mass was measured with
intake in the first testing week and replicate it in the second a digital platform scale (Model ED3300; Sauter Multi-Range,
and third testing weeks. At the beginning of each testing Ebingen, West Germany 610 g) with subjects wearing as
period, subject anthropometric data (height, mass, and sum little clothing as possible. Skinfold thickness at 8 body land-
of 8 skinfolds) were collected. All subsequent testing sessions marks (triceps, biceps, subscapulare, supraspinale, iliocristale,
were completed at the same time of day. midabdominal, anterior thigh, and medial calf ) was mea-
sured using Slim Guide spring-loaded calipers to the nearest
Training Sessions. Each subject attended 2 supervised training 0.5 mm on the right side of the body (Creative Health Prod-
sessions per week at a minimum of 48 hours apart. At ucts, Plymouth, MI, USA). If the difference between dupli-
supervised training sessions, subjects completed a standard- cate measures exceeded 4% for skinfolds, a third
ized warm-up (2 km at 60–70% of maximum heart rate measurement was taken but only after the full profile had
[HRmax]) before commencing their assigned training set been completed in duplicate. The median of duplicate
(Table 1). Training intensity was determined based on the anthropometric measurements was used for subsequent
5,000-m TT performance, and the rate of perceived exertion analysis (33).

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2020 | 1347

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodization of Endurance Running Training

Figure 1. Mean 6 SE 5,000-m time trial times between the linear periodized group (LPG), reverse linear periodized group (RPG), and control group (CG)
recorded in week 0, week 7, and week 14 of the training intervention. *Significantly different to week 0 value (p , 0.05). †Significantly different to week 7 value
(p , 0.05). zSignificantly different to CG (p , 0.05).

Measurement of Running Economy. Running economy was with and validated by a 1-L calibration syringe (Model
defined as the steady state oxygen consumption in 5,540; Hans Rudolph, Kansas City, MO, USA) in accordance
ml$kg21$min21 obtained at each workload (8). Before the with manufacturer’s instructions. Expired oxygen and car-
test, participants warmed up at a running speed of 8 km$h21 bon dioxide concentrations were analyzed using Ametek
for 10 minutes then rested for 5 minutes. Subjects then com- gas analyzers (Applied Electrochemistry, SOV S-3A11 and
pleted 2 bouts of continuous running on the treadmill, 1 at 9 COV CD-3A, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and calibrated immedi-
km$h21, and another at 11 km$h21. These speeds were ately before and verified after each test using a certified gas
selected to be submaximal as a 25-minute 5,000-m TT equa- mixture of known concentrations (BOC Gases, Chatswood,
tes to 12 km$h21. Previous literature has used speeds Australia). Heart rate was monitored continuously through-
between 8 and 21 km$h21 (2,40). Each workload was under- out the tests and recorded in the last 15 seconds of each
taken until steady state was reached and lasted for a minimum stage (Polar Electro Oy Professorintie, Kempele, Finland).
of 3 minutes. The 2 running bouts were separated by a 5- Earlobe capillary samples were analyzed through a Lactate
minute passive rest period. A 10-minute rest period was given Pro 2 portable blood lactate analyzer (Arkray, KDK, Kyoto,
at the conclusion of the 11 km$h21 trial. Steady state was Japan). The V_ O2max is defined as the sum of the highest 4
defined as an increase of ,100 ml$O2 used determined consecutive 15-second V_ O2 values reached during the incre-
through expired gas over the final minute of both stages. Respi- mental test (expressed as ml$kg21$min21). To have reached
ratory exchange ratio (RER), V _ O2$kg21$min21, and HR aver- V_ O2max, a subject fulfilled at least 2 of the following criteria:
aged over 15-second intervals from steady state of each stage. a RER of greater than 1.1, a blood lactate reading above 8
Rate of perceived exertion was also taken through use of the mmol$L21, and a peak HR at least equal to 90% of age
Borg 6–20 RPE scale (6). Before testing, subjects were familiar- predicted maximum (36). The vV_ O2max is defined as
ized with the RPE scale and received standardized instructions the minimum velocity at which V_ O2max occurred (4). Indi-
on how to implement the scale. The scale was in full view of vidual AT was calculated through the D-max method (9). A
each subject during the RE test. third-order polynomial regression equation was established
on the lactate concentrations against workloads. The D-max
Graded Exercise Test. The initial speed was set at 10 km$h21 was identified as the point on the polynomial regression
for 3 minutes and then increased 1 km$h21 every 3 minutes curve that yielded the maximal distance to the straight line
until volitional exhaustion. Each stage of the test was fol- formed by the 2 end data points (41).
lowed by a 1-minute rest period to allow for determination
of blood lactate concentration through a capillary blood Time Trial. At TT sessions, subjects completed a standardized
sample. Throughout each test, pulmonary gas exchange warm-up (1 km at 60–70% of HRmax) followed by a 5-
was determined breath-by-breath (Universal ventilation minute rest. Each subject individually completed a 5,000-m
meter; VacuMed, Ventura, CA, USA). Before each test, the TT on a 400-m grass surface track. Subjects were instructed
oxygen and carbon dioxide analysis system was calibrated to run at race pace and given verbal encouragement
the TM

1348 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

throughout the trial. The time taken to run each distance RE at 11 km$h21, and sum of 8 skinfolds. Subsequent 2-
was recorded using a manual chronometer. Heart rate was way repeated-measures ANOVAs located any between-
recorded immediately after completion of the TT, and 60 group differences. Post hoc paired sample t-tests identified
seconds later, heart rate recovery (HRR) was recorded. In an the nature of any differences.
attempt to control factors that could influence HR and
HRR, subjects were asked to sit passively and remain still RESULTS
for the duration of the recovery period (22). Training Compliance
All subjects (LPG and RPG) were required to attend
Statistical Analyses
a minimum of 90% of supervised training sessions to be
Time Trial Performance. A 3 (group) 3 3 (time point) split-plot
included in analysis. Subject compliance was 94.0 6 3.4%.
analysis of variance (SPANOVA) was used to determine any
significant effects of training conditions at different time Time Trial Performance
points. Subsequent 2-way repeated-measures analysis of var- A significant time 3 group interaction (F(4, 54) = 5.423,
iances (ANOVAs) located any between-group differences. p = 0.003) was found in the 5,000-m TT performance. Post
Post hoc paired sample t-tests were used to identify any hoc analyses found that both LPG and RPG had signifi-
differences at specific time points. Cohen’s d effect sizes were cantly greater improvements in the 5,000 m than CG (F(2,
also calculated where the following descriptors were used: 36) = 6.705, p = 0.009, d = 1.27 and F(2, 36) = 8.801, p = 0.002,
0–0.2 (trivial); 0.2–0.5 (moderate); and .0.8 (large), with d = 1.51, respectively). No significant differences existed
only moderate to large effect sizes reported (11). between the LPG and RPG groups (F(2, 36) = 1.172,
p = 0.321, d = 0.51).
Training Response. Comparisons were made for equivalent Figure 1 displays the improvements in 5,000-m TT per-
training weeks where LPG and CG weeks 1–6 and 8–13 formance that occurred in LPG (76.8 6 55.8 seconds, 5.5 6
were compared with RPG weeks 13–8 and 6–1. A 1-way 3.9%), RPG (112.8 6 83.4 seconds, 8.1 6 5.5%), and CG (3.6
ANOVA was used to locate any significant differences 6 59 seconds, 0.1 6 4.6%) after 12 weeks of training.
between groups for both block and weekly training volume,
load, and monotony. Post hoc paired sample t-tests were Training Response
used to identity the nature of any differences. Significant differences were detected in training volume and
load between groups in training weeks 1–12 (Figure 2).
Physiological Determinants of Endurance Performance. A 3 A significant difference in training load (F(2, 29) = 12.535,
(group) 3 3 (time point) SPANOVA was used to locate p , 0.001) resulted between the 3 groups for total training
any significant effects for V_ O2peak, AT, RE at 9 km$h21, load during the high-volume training block (HVB). The

Figure 2. Mean 6 SE weekly training volume (A) and weekly training load (B) for the linear periodized group (LPG), reverse linear periodized group (RPG), and
control group (CG) during training weeks (1–12).

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2020 | 1349

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodization of Endurance Running Training

LPG had a significantly higher total training load than both 11 km$h21 (F(4, 54) = 0.757, p = 0.558). However, significant
the RPG (p = 0.015, d = 1.59) and the CG (p , 0.001, time effects for RE at 9 km$h21 (F(4, 54) = 9.795, p , 0.001,
d = 1.91). The significant differences in loads were located d = 0.69) and 11 km$h21 (F(4, 54) = 5.999, p = 0.004) indicate
within HVB in weeks 1–5 (Table 2). improvements at both speeds.
Significantly higher training loads were found in the HVB No interaction was found between groups and time for
than the high-intensity training block (HIB) within both the skinfolds (F(4, 54) = 1.312, p = 0.283). A significant time effect
LPG (p , 0.001, d = 3.52) and the RPG (p , 0.001, d = 2.21). was found (F(2, 54) = 31.961, p , 0.001) indicating a reduction
No significant differences were found between groups for within groups in the sum of 8 skinfolds measurement. Sig-
training monotony in the HVB (F(2, 29) = 1.121, p = 0.341) or nificant decreases were seen in all 3 groups (Table 3).
the HIB (F(2, 29) = 0.671, p = 0.519).
Significant differences in training volume were found DISCUSSION
between groups in weeks 1–12 (Table 2). No significant dif- To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study focused
ferences were found between LPG (24.59 6 2.49 km), RPG on analyzing periodized endurance running training and
(25.23 6 2.48 km), or CG (24.26 6 5.56 km) for mean subsequent changes to long-distance running performance.
weekly training volumes (F(2, 29) = 0.166, p = 0.848).
The results displayed a lack of group differences in the key
Physiological Determinants of Endurance Performance performance measures: V_ O2peak, RE, AT, and body com-
For the GXT, no significant time x group interaction was position. Consequently, the hypothesis that recreational
found for V_ O 2 peak (F (4, 54) = 0.166, p = 0.955) and AT endurance runners in the RPG would elicit greater improve-
(F (4, 54) = 0.680, p = 0.609). However, all groups dem- ments in AT and RE after a short period of training than the
onstrated improvement in these variables (F (2, 54) = LPG and CG was not supported. With regard to V_ O2peak,
4.998, p = 0.010 and F (2, 54) = 10.639, p , 0.001, d = subject training history may have placed them close to their
0.64 for V_ O 2 peak and AT, respectively). physiological upper limits of oxygen consumption (3). The
For the RE tests, no significant interaction effects were current group of subjects already had high V_ O2peak scores
found for the speeds 9 km$h21 (F(4, 54) = 1.183, p = 0.329) or as demonstrated at initial tests. Therefore, limited increases

TABLE 2. Mean 6 SD weekly training load, weekly training monotony, and weekly training volume (km) for the linear
periodized group (LPG), reverse linear periodized group (RPG), and control group (CG).

Training block 1

Group 1 2 3 4 5 6
Training LPG Mean 6 SD 31.70 (3.86)* 31.90(4.04)* 29.60 (3.34) 28.89 (3.17) 25.20 (4.52) 25.20 (4.52)
volume (km) RPG Mean 6 SD 31.80 (3.97)* 32.30 (3.89)* 30.20 (4.14) 29.60 (3.17)* 26.50 (4.20) 26.50 (4.20)
CG Mean 6 SD 25.20 (7.35) 25.40 (7.31) 24.50 (7.20) 24.40 (5.27) 25.30 (6.02) 24.40 (6.74)
Training load LPG Mean 6 SD 1,075 (188)* 1,097 (187)* 931 (159)* 925 (163)* 846 (181)* 780 (170)
RPG Mean 6 SD 739 (93)† 756 (90)† 747 (95)† 769 (85)† 735 (100) 769 (115)
CG Mean 6 SD 657 (216) 646 (210) 600 (198) 624 (132) 648 (122) 638 (197)
Training LPG Mean 6 SD 0.89 (0.17) 0.95 (0.24) 0.88 (0.12) 0.79 (0.13) 0.86 (0.17) 0.81 (0.13)
monotony RPG Mean 6 SD 0.97 (0.18) 1.00 (0.18) 0.97 (0.17) 0.94 (0.12) 0.93 (0.15) 0.92 (0.15)
CG Mean 6 SD 0.90 (0.16) 0.90 (0.16) 0.85 (0.17) 0.87 (0.19) 0.91 (0.16) 0.87 (0.21)

Training block 2

Group 1 2 3 4 5 6
Training LPG Mean 6 SD 20.40 (5.60) 20.80 (3.33) 22.70 (2.59) 20.70 (2.42) 18.50 (3.07)* 19.50 (2.51)*
volume (km) RPG Mean 6 SD 23.50 (5.21) 23.60 (3.08) 21.30 (2.81) 19.70 (1.58) 18.60 (2.11)* 19.10 (2.42)*
CG Mean 6 SD 23.40 (5.66) 23.50 (4.38) 25.10 (5.80) 22.90 (6.38) 24.10 (6.38) 22.90 (3.63)
Training load LPG Mean 6 SD 562 (113) 543 (79) 572 (55) 567 (73) 516 (85)* 548 (68)
RPG Mean 6 SD 651 (125) 683 (79)† 582 (77) 573 (78) 551 (75) 556 (78)
CG Mean 6 SD 624 (145) 628 (124) 667 (149) 621 (108) 647 (134) 630 (112)
Training LPG Mean 6 SD 0.80 (0.14) 0.79 (0.09) 0.92 (0.12) 0.89 (0.10) 0.90 (0.15) 0.95 (0.13)
monotony RPG Mean 6 SD 0.89 (0.14) 0.95 (0.12) 0.93 (0.13) 0.88 (0.11) 0.92 (0.13) 0.92 (0.13)
CG Mean 6 SD 0.83 (0.13) 0.87 (0.11) 0.93 (0.13) 0.87 (0.14) 0.90 (0.15) 0.87 (0.12)

*Significantly different to CG (p , 0.05).

†Significantly different to LPG (p , 0.05).

the TM

1350 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

to V_ O2peak could be expected, reducing the potential for

between-group differences. As these measures have been

Mean 6 SD 90.55 (36.33) 83.00 (33.70)* 78.35 (27.16)* 96.05 (31.59) 89.90 (27.92)* 79.10 (25.29)*† 88.05 (28.79) 85.55 (31.88) 78.60 (26.17)*†
shown to account for a large portion of interindividual var-

38.23 (3.49)*

43.93 (3.74)*
Week 14
61.07 (5.20)

13.83 (1.12)
TABLE 3. Mean 6 SD V_ O2peak, anaerobic threshold (AT), running economy at 9 km$h21 (RE9  km$h21 ), running economy at 11 km$h21 (RE11  km$h21 ), and sum of
8 skinfolds (S8SF) for the linear periodized group (LPG), reverse linear periodized group (RPG), and control group (CG) recorded in week 0, week 7, and
iance in endurance performance (12,13,21,26), it is likely that
improvements in these subqualities accounted for a signifi-
cant proportion of the improvements to 5,000-m TT
performance.
61.51 (4.57) The hypothesis that both periodized groups would be
13.55 (1.64)
39.80 (3.76)

46.24 (4.44)
Week 7

more effective in improving 5,000-m TT performance than

CG

the CG was confirmed. This concurs with previous research

that shows that a structured training plan is better than
unstructured exercise (7,25,28). It has been previously re-
59.57 (7.13)

13.33 (1.28)
39.78 (2.18)

45.21 (4.13)
ported that recreationally active individuals performing
Week 0

a 6-week program including 20- to 30-minute continuous

and interval-based training at 67 and 77% of vV_ O2peak under
supervision 3–5 times per week improves V_ O2peak and AT
by 3 and 8%, respectively, supporting the use of this type of
14.02 (0.67)*
Week 14
62.52 (6.15)

37.43 (3.98)

43.27 (3.81)

training for improving endurance performance (7). In addi-

tion, increasing training intensity and using more interval
training sessions has been demonstrated to induce greater
improvements in endurance performance than moderate
continuous running over an 8-week period in recreational
13.87 (1.14)*
36.68 (2.32)*
61.29 (6.71)

43.38 (3.49)
Week 7
RPG

runners (25). This may be due to the anaerobic nature of

intervals and the subsequent improvement to the important
AT. A structured program can also combine running training
with resistance training to attain even greater improvements
59.95 (7.13)

13.13 (1.30)
40.54 (5.02)

44.33 (3.89)

to endurance performance (28). The underlying purpose of

Week 0

periodization is to split the training program into specific

objectives, focusing on one objective before moving on the
next (20). An advantage of splitting training into objectives is
gaining the ability to use periods of high load training as they
14.53 (1.23)*
36.51 (3.16)*

42.44 (3.81)*
62.09 (4.70)
Week 14

may be followed by optimized recovery periods (5,20). This

will result in improvements to performance. Furthermore,
the manipulation or variation of training can reduce the
likelihood of training stagnation, monotony, and boredom
36.40 (2.67)*

(5,27). By contrast, the CG had relatively constant week to

60.36 (7.03)

14.00 (1.51)

43.27 (2.76)
Week 7
LPG

week training loads for entirety of the intervention.

Differences between structured training and nonstructured
†Significantly different to week 7 value (p , 0.05).
*Significantly different to week 0 value (p , 0.05).

training groups may have occurred as a result of training

history. In practical sense, coaches must take the level of the
Mean 6 SD 59.46 (7.58)

Mean 6 SD 13.67 (1.27)

Mean 6 SD 39.07 (3.23)

Mean 6 SD 44.57 (2.25)

Week 0

athlete in consideration when developing a training program

because training experience can dictate the response to
week 14 of the training intervention.

a training stimulus (27). Athletes may stagnate more quickly

than untrained people when exposed to new training stimuli
(10). As subjects in this study all had a minimum of 2-year
training experience, it can be assumed that subjects in this
study would stagnate without appropriate training variation.
This is due to the likely repetitive nature of training in rec-
(ml$kg21$min21)

(ml$kg21$min21)

(ml$kg21$min21)

reational runners and may be seen in the weekly training

loads of the CG. The training structure and variation of
AT (km$h21)

S8SF (mm)
RE11  km$h21
V_ O2peak$

volume and intensity likely prevented stagnation in the

RE9  km$h21
Variable

LPG and RPG, whereas the CG performed relatively con-

stant loads throughout the training period. This principle
may be responsible for differences in 5,000-m TT perfor-
mance between the periodized groups and the CG.

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2020 | 1351

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Periodization of Endurance Running Training

Furthermore, there was a lack of significant differences differences existed in between-group training volumes,
between total group training volumes indicating training differences existed in training loads, which may indicate
structure was likely responsible for group differences. This variances in physiological adaptations. These differences
highlights the importance in the role of the coach, and sub- suggest the order of equated (volume and intensity) training
sequent training program and session design that seem cru- sessions does have an impact on physiological adaptations
cial in improving key endurance parameters and subsequent but is also important in preventing stagnation.
running performance (7,25,28).
Although there were no significant differences between PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
LPG and RPG 5,000-m TT results, the differences between From the results, this study may be used to support previous
programs was evident with significant differences in weekly research showing structured training will improve endurance
training volume and weekly training load in training weeks running performance compared with training load matched
1–12. Furthermore, the different mechanisms of linear peri- unstructured training. The RPG improved by the same
odization and reverse linear periodization were evident as magnitude as the LPG with lower training RPE scores. This
session equivalent RPE scores were lower in the RPG than confirms the desired mechanism of the reverse linear
LPG for HVB sessions. Although the LPG relied on the periodization method and is therefore a valid method of
introduction of high-volume training early to improve aero- structuring an endurance running program for recreational
bic capacity thereby improving HIB repetition consistency level endurance athletes.
and interval recovery (5), the RPG introduced high-intensity
training first, which may have induced improvements in lac- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tic acid buffering and tolerance (peripheral adaptation). This The authors thank all the athletes who volunteered to
is one possible reason for the lower RPE scores seen in the participate in the study. The authors have no outside funding
RPG high-volume training sessions (2). A previous investi- or conflicts of interest to disclose. The results of this study do
gation that demonstrated reverse linear periodization to be not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or
more effective than block periodization for short-/middle- the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
distance running attributed the success of reverse linear peri-
odization to the principle of managing lactate through REFERENCES
training tolerance followed by clearance (1). Authors also 1. Arroyo-Toledo, JJ, Cantos-Polo, I, Liedtke, J, and Palomo-Vélez, CJ.
advocated early introduction of high-intensity interval train- Concentrated load on a reverse periodization, propel higher
positives effects on track test performance, than traditional
ing to maximize motor recruitment thereby training muscle sequence. Imperial J Interdiscip Res 3: 470–476, 2017.
coordination and improving synchronization (1). By con- 2. Barnes, KR and Kilding, AE. Running economy: Measurement,
trast, the LPG had higher RPE scores than the CG and norms, and determining factors. Sports Medicine-Open 1: 8, 2015.
RPG, which suggest a greater training stimulus. This high- 3. Bassett, DR and Howley, ET. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen
lights that while there were no significant differences uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 32: 70–84, 2000.
between the LPG and RPG for TT results, the mechanisms
4. Billat, VL, Faina, M, Sardella, F, Marini, C, Fanton, F, Lupo, S, et al. A
that allowed significant improvement are different. _ O2; max in elite cyclists, kayak
comparison of time to exhaustion at V
There were some limitations to this study, which are worth paddlers, swimmers and runners. Ergonomics 39: 267–277, 1996.
noting. There was a high intersubject variability across all 5. Bompa, TO and Haff, GG. Variables of training. In: Periodization:
performance variables that may have impaired the ability to Theory and Methodology of Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
detect statistical significance. However, groups were matched Publishers, 2009. pp. 79–96.
on pre-training test results allowing for group comparisons. 6. Borg, GA. Administration of the Borg Scales. In: Borg’s Perceived
Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics, 1998. pp.
Because of the moderate effect size between the linear and 44–49.
reverse periodized groups for TT performance, it is possible 7. Carter, H, Jones, AM, Barstow, TJ, Burnley, M, Williams, C, and
that a greater number of subjects recruited for this investigation Doust, JH. Effect of endurance training on oxygen uptake kinetics
may have yielded statistical significance for this performance during treadmill running. J Appl Physiol 89: 1744–1752, 2000.
variable. In addition, as periodization generally refers to periods 8. Cavanagh, PR and Williams, KR. The effect of stride length
variation on oxygen uptake during distance running. Med Sci Sports
of a season or more, it may be logical for future research to use Exerc 14: 30–35, 1982.
longer periods, so that differences after each training block can 9. Cheng, B, Kuipers, H, Snyder, AC, Keizer, HA, Jeukendrup, A, and
become more pronounced. This would allow the first trained Hesselink, M. A new approach for the determination of ventilatory
key performance variable to have a larger effect on subsequent and lactate thresholds. Int J Sports Med 13: 518–522, 1992.
training, therefore having a greater impact on other interrelated 10. Cissik, J, Hedrick, A, and Barnes, M. Challenges applying the
variables that may also have a greater impact on performance. research on periodization. Strength Cond J 30: 45–51, 2008.
In conclusion, structured endurance running training was 11. Cohen, J. The T-test for Means. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988. pp.
superior in improving endurance TT performance compared 20–27.
with unregulated training, which shows the importance of 12. Conley, DL, Krahenbuhl, GS, and Burkett, LN. Training for aerobic
training periodization and session structure. Although no capacity and running economy. Phys Sportsmed 9: 107–146, 1981.
the TM

1352 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

13. Denadai, BS, Ortiz, MJ, Greco, CC, and de Mello, MT. Interval experienced middle-and long-distance runners. Br J Sports Med 26:
training at 95 and 100% of the velocity at VO2max: Effects on 233–242, 1992.
aerobic physiological indexes and running performance. Appl Physiol 28. Millet, GP, Jaouen, B, Borrani, F, and Candau, R. Effects of
Nutr Metab 31: 737–743, 2006. concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy
14. Domaschenz, R, Vlahovich, N, Keogh, J, Compton, S, and Hughes, and V_ O2 kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1351–1359, 2002.
D. Exercise-induced tendon and bone injury in recreational runners: 29. Paavolainen, L, Häkkinen, K, Hämäläinen, I, Nummela, A, and
A test-retest reliability study. JMIR Res Protoc 4: 1–11, 2015. Rusko, H. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time
15. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol
Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999. 86: 1527–1533, 1999.
16. Foster, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to 30. Plisk, SS and Stone, MH. Periodization strategies. Strength Cond J 25:
overtraining syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 1164–1168, 1998. 19–37, 2003.
17. Foster, C, Florhaug, JA, Franklin, J, Gottschall, L, Hrovatin, LA, 31. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN, Stone, WJ, Ball, SD, Alvar,
Parker, S, et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. BA, et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized
J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001. programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular
endurance. J Strength Cond Res 17: 82–87, 2003.
18. Foster, C and Lucia, A. Running economy. Sports Med 37: 316–319,
2007. 32. Seiler, S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration
distribution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 5: 276–
19. Franch, J, Madsen, K, Djurhuus, MS, and Pedersen, PK. Improved 291, 2010.
running economy following intensified training correlates with
reduced ventilatory demands. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 1250–1256, 33. Slater, GJ, Duthie, GM, Pyne, DB, and Hopkins, WG. Validation of
a skinfold based index for tracking proportional changes in lean
1998.
mass. Br J Sports Med 40: 208–213, 2006.
20. Garrett, WE and Kirkendall, DT. Nature of Training Effects. In:
34. Stone, MH, O’Bryant, HS, Schilling, BK, Johnson, RL, Pierce, KC,
Exercise and Sport Science. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams &
Haff, GG, et al. Periodization: Effects of manipulating volume and
Wilkins, 2000. pp. 67–96.
intensity. Part 1. Strength Cond J 21: 56–62, 1999.
21. Ghosh, AK. Anaerobic threshold: Its concept and role in endurance
35. Stone, MH, O’Bryant, HS, Schilling, BK, Johnson, RL, Pierce, KC,
sport. Malaysian J Med Sci 11: 24–36, 2004. Haff, GG, et al. Periodization: Effects of manipulating volume and
22. Gnehm, P, Reichenbach, S, Altpeter, E, Widmer, H, and Hoppeler, intensity. Part 2. Strength Cond J 21: 54–60, 1999.
H. Influence of different racing positions on metabolic cost in elite 36. Taylor, HL, Buskirk, E, and Henschel, A. Maximal oxygen intake as
cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29: 818–823, 1997. an objective measure of cardio-respiratory performance. J Appl
23. Gotshalk, LA, Berger, RA, and Kraemer, WJ. Cardiovascular Physiol 8: 73–80, 1955.
responses to a high-volume continuous circuit resistance training 37. Tomlin, DL and Wenger, HA. The relationship between aerobic
protocol. J Strength Cond Res 18: 760–764, 2004. fitness and recovery from high intensity intermittent exercise. Sports
24. Haff, GG. Roundtable discussion: Periodization of training—Part 1. Med 31: 1–11, 2001.
Strength Cond J 26: 50–69, 2004. 38. Turner, A. The science and practice of periodization: A brief review.
25. Helgerud, J, Høydal, K, Wang, E, Karlsen, T, Berg, P, Bjerkaas, M, Strength Cond J 33: 34–46, 2011.
et al. Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve V_ O2 more than 39. Wakayoshi, K, Yoshida, T, Ikuta, Y, Mutoh, Y, and Miyashita, M.
moderate training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 665–671, 2007. Adaptations to six months of aerobic swim training. Int J Sports Med
26. Kindermann, W, Simon, G, and Keul, J. The significance of the 14: 368–372, 1993.
aerobic-anaerobic transition for the determination of work load 40. Williams, KR and Cavanagh, PR. Relationship between distance
intensities during endurance training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup running mechanics, running economy, and performance. J Appl
Physiol 42: 25–34, 1979. Physiol 63: 1236–1245, 1987.
27. Lehmann, M, Gastmann, U, Petersen, KG, Bachl, N, Seidel, A, 41. Zhou, S and Weston, SB. Reliability of using the d-max method to
Khalaf, AN, et al. Training-overtraining: Performance, and hormone define physiological responses to incremental exercise testing.
levels, after a defined increase in training volume vs. intensity in Physiol Meas 18: 145–154, 1997.

VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2020 | 1353

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.