Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

All training and programming related queries and banter here

Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer

User avatar
Bolder
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:15 pm
Location: Australia
Age: 30

Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#1

Post by Bolder » Tue May 07, 2024 12:58 am



Mostly for bench press.

Adams
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:03 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#2

Post by Adams » Tue May 07, 2024 2:50 am

Only very quickly looked at it. I don't think the study means much and the results were obvious. The study was only 10 weeks long. Block periodization works better over a longer period of time. 4 week hypertrophy training is barely worth it. You're not going to gain enough muscle to make much change when you go into a strength cycle. It wasn't done over a long enough period of time. Of course training everything together would be better over the 10 weeks.

Then there is the training. The block periodization group weren't even doing bench press for the first 4 weeks, but they were using the bench press as the measure to test strength increases. Of course it didn't do as well. The group that actually trained the exercise will obviously do better.
They were also doing 10 x 10 on exercises during the hypertrophy block which no one would normally do.

Like most studies, this is a really poor one that means little.

User avatar
Bolder
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:15 pm
Location: Australia
Age: 30

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#3

Post by Bolder » Tue May 07, 2024 2:54 am

Adams wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 2:50 am I don't think the study means much and the results were obvious. The study was only 10 weeks long. Block periodization works better over a longer period of time. 4 week hypertrophy training is barely worth it. You're not going to gain enough muscle to make much change when you go into a strength cycle. It wasn't done over a long enough period of time. Of course training everything together would be better over the 10 weeks.

Then there is the training. The block periodization group weren't even doing bench press for the first 4 weeks, but they were using the bench press as the measure to test strength increases. Of course it didn't do as well. They were also doing 10 x 10 on exercises during the hypertrophy block which no one would normally do.

Like most studies, this is a really poor one that means little.
Of course, 4 weeks doesn't entail much meaningful hypertrophy gains.

Most of the research done like this is poorly designed.

User avatar
CheekiBreekiFitness
Registered User
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#4

Post by CheekiBreekiFitness » Tue May 07, 2024 4:03 am

The programming looks terrible. They should really hire a high level strength coach like Mike T (or somebody of similar caliber) when they design those studies.

Also, if block periodization is so suboptimal, why are there so many lifters that find practical success with it ? This is kind of silly. The instagram dude concluding from this study that block periodization has a "bad track record" is comical.

My belief is that all periodization strategies work, and that they are just a way of providing a diversified stimulus. You can choose to have a diverse stimulus across the week (DUP) or across the month (linear periodization) or across multiple months (block periodization).

The only pitfall is that if you use block periodization and you want to test a quality (say strength) then you must test it at the end of a block dedicated to it (end of your strength block). It should have been obvious to the authors because nobody in the real world would do what they did: if you want to compete in powerlifting /test your 1RM then you have to make sure the competition falls at the end of the strength block.

PS: Also bench press throws ? Really ?

User avatar
EricK
Marine Mammal
Posts: 2824
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:02 pm

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#5

Post by EricK » Tue May 07, 2024 6:38 am

CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 4:03 am PS: Also bench press throws ? Really ?
Image

User avatar
DanCR
Registered User
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#6

Post by DanCR » Tue May 07, 2024 10:10 am

Menno is a smart dude who undoubtedly is aware of all of the issues with the study, beyond those he mentioned. This is what happens when one must feed the content machine.

Adams
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:03 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#7

Post by Adams » Tue May 07, 2024 10:50 am

DanCR wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:10 am Menno is a smart dude who undoubtedly is aware of all of the issues with the study, beyond those he mentioned. This is what happens when one must feed the content machine.
I have no idea who this bloke is, but for him to put that this adds to block periodization poor track record in the literature and then say it’s best to have a year round training that covers all the bases instead of different training blocks, and mixed training beats block training for size and strength because of studies means he’s either an idiot or is dishonest. He loses all credibility with this.

User avatar
DanCR
Registered User
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#8

Post by DanCR » Tue May 07, 2024 10:52 am

Adams wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:50 am
DanCR wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:10 am Menno is a smart dude who undoubtedly is aware of all of the issues with the study, beyond those he mentioned. This is what happens when one must feed the content machine.
I have no idea who this bloke is, but for him to put that this adds to block periodization poor track record in the literature and then say it’s best to have a year round training that covers all the bases instead of different training blocks, and mixed training beats block training for size and strength because of studies means he’s either an idiot or is dishonest. He loses all credibility with this.
That was my point. When the content machine must be fed, credibility swiftly is sacrificed.

Adams
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:03 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#9

Post by Adams » Tue May 07, 2024 12:04 pm

DanCR wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:52 am
Adams wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:50 am
DanCR wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:10 am Menno is a smart dude who undoubtedly is aware of all of the issues with the study, beyond those he mentioned. This is what happens when one must feed the content machine.
I have no idea who this bloke is, but for him to put that this adds to block periodization poor track record in the literature and then say it’s best to have a year round training that covers all the bases instead of different training blocks, and mixed training beats block training for size and strength because of studies means he’s either an idiot or is dishonest. He loses all credibility with this.
That was my point. When the content machine must be fed, credibility swiftly is sacrificed.
Yep. I hate the majority of the online fitness community. These influencers causes more confusion for beginners than they help.

User avatar
Clearwater47
Registered User
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:59 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA
Age: 49

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#10

Post by Clearwater47 » Tue May 07, 2024 2:05 pm

I think most studies are poorly setup and misleading.
From what I can remember, Menno's studies usually aren't the worst offenders, but this one's not worth much, imo. It's a poorly designed study and these are the sort of results I'd expect based upon how it was run.

I DO think that Menno recognizes the shortcomings of it, and he does state "if you don't compete" which suggests he believes Block Periodization may be better for those who compete. But there's still a good possibility that someone (or many people) will write off Block Periodization as inferior based upon this study, which is pretty sad.

I've done Block Periodization for multiple years and had good results. I've also done concurrent (or "mixed session") periodization for multiple years and had good results. Both are viable options and really I think that if we're looking at long term (multi-year) progress there's not going to be a major difference between them.

Hopefully the people who read these studies (or follow the people that talk about them) can be level headed in interpreting the findings, because a lot of the shortcomings are pretty obvious to someone who's actually paying attention.

User avatar
DanCR
Registered User
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#11

Post by DanCR » Tue May 07, 2024 2:37 pm

Clearwater47 wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 2:05 pmHopefully the people who read these studies (or follow the people that talk about them) can be level headed in interpreting the findings, because a lot of the shortcomings are pretty obvious to someone who's actually paying attention.
Hahahaha

The comments sections for all of the “science based” dudes are wild.

User avatar
CheekiBreekiFitness
Registered User
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#12

Post by CheekiBreekiFitness » Tue May 07, 2024 9:47 pm

I have the firm belief that many people (including myself) would be better off with ignoring almost all of the "science based" lifting advice available on the internet besides very very basic stuff that can be explained in a few hours.

User avatar
Bolder
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:15 pm
Location: Australia
Age: 30

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#13

Post by Bolder » Tue May 07, 2024 11:51 pm

DanCR wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:52 am
Adams wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:50 am
DanCR wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 10:10 am Menno is a smart dude who undoubtedly is aware of all of the issues with the study, beyond those he mentioned. This is what happens when one must feed the content machine.
I have no idea who this bloke is, but for him to put that this adds to block periodization poor track record in the literature and then say it’s best to have a year round training that covers all the bases instead of different training blocks, and mixed training beats block training for size and strength because of studies means he’s either an idiot or is dishonest. He loses all credibility with this.
That was my point. When the content machine must be fed, credibility swiftly is sacrificed.
Yeah, definitely.

That's the problem with sensationalism.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 9:47 pm I have the firm belief that many people (including myself) would be better off with ignoring almost all of the "science based" lifting advice available on the internet besides very very basic stuff that can be explained in a few hours.
There's definitely some merit to the fact that the bro-lifters say that "science-based lifters are dyels" because they keep changing their routine so often that they don't end up progressing from it. Some trends would be "high-volume," "low volume," "short-rest periods," or "long-rest periods."

User avatar
DanCR
Registered User
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#14

Post by DanCR » Tue May 07, 2024 11:55 pm

CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 9:47 pm I have the firm belief that many people (including myself) would be better off with ignoring almost all of the "science based" lifting advice available on the internet besides very very basic stuff that can be explained in a few hours.
Fixed.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8611
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#15

Post by mgil » Wed May 08, 2024 1:34 am

Couple of good points here:

1. Most strength related pages run out of content and at some point just post this kind of stuff which is often contradictory because the design of experiment is poor.

2. A lot of these studies are done in an academic setting meaning that they are often trying to separate variables in a nonlinear process and they have 10-12 weeks per semester to do so. The amount of long term studies (like 6 months or more) is very small. At that point anecdotal evidence comes into play and has about as much credibility as anything else. This is because the response is nonlinear.

User avatar
CheekiBreekiFitness
Registered User
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#16

Post by CheekiBreekiFitness » Wed May 08, 2024 7:10 am

@DanCR Right on.

User avatar
DanCR
Registered User
Posts: 4292
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#17

Post by DanCR » Wed May 08, 2024 7:14 am

CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 7:10 am @DanCR Right on.
Haha, looking back, I’d have struck the “almost” too.

User avatar
quikky
Registered User
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#18

Post by quikky » Wed May 08, 2024 6:54 pm

The protocol for the hypertrophy block is 10x10 @9... With 90 second rest...

Image

This seems like a good example of a garbage in, garbage out study.

User avatar
CheekiBreekiFitness
Registered User
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:46 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#19

Post by CheekiBreekiFitness » Wed May 08, 2024 10:16 pm

I mean I think you can do 10x10@9 with 90 second rest. Just not with a constant weight. But I doubt that they actually did 10x10@9, I'm pretty convinced they'd be so wiped out for the rest of the day most people would quit the study. Once again the people who design the study have no idea what they're doing and probably don't even lift. If you're not a DYEL, the idea of a 10x10@9 every week on the squat should scare you on a spiritual level.

Adams
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:03 am

Re: Mixed-session periodization beats block periodization for strength and size (?)

#20

Post by Adams » Wed May 08, 2024 11:41 pm

CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: Wed May 08, 2024 10:16 pm I mean I think you can do 10x10@9 with 90 second rest. Just not with a constant weight. But I doubt that they actually did 10x10@9, I'm pretty convinced they'd be so wiped out for the rest of the day most people would quit the study. Once again the people who design the study have no idea what they're doing and probably don't even lift. If you're not a DYEL, the idea of a 10x10@9 every week on the squat should scare you on a spiritual level.
I'm wondering what weight I would be using by the 10th set. Considering I would be wiped after just one really hard set of 10 squats I would need to drop the weight a lot just for the 2nd set with only 90 seconds rest.

I need to read the study properly, but I bet like most of these studies they didn't do any warm up sets, so in reality the first set wouldn't be that intense. If I jumped into a work set without warm up sets the weight I used for the first set would be very low.

Post Reply