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

[Bolder]

Mostly for bench press.

[Adams]

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.

[Bolder]

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.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

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 ?

[EricK]

PS: Also bench press throws ? Really ?

[DanCR]

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]

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.

[DanCR]

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]

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.

[Clearwater47]

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.

[DanCR]

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.

Hahahaha

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

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

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.

[Bolder]

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.

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."

[DanCR]

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.

[mgil]

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.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@DanCR Right on.

[DanCR]

@DanCR Right on.

Haha, looking back, I’d have struck the “almost” too.

[quikky]

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



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

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

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]

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.