This review has the objective, through the reading and analysis of scientific research, to demonstrate, if they existed, the differences between 4 different types of training periodization: I. Block Periodization (BP); II. Linear or traditional periodization (TP); III. Daily undulating periodization (DUP); IV. Weekly undulating periodization (WUP). The differents periodization models will be compared and defined, in order to better understand the world of periodized sports training. The difference between the models will be established by the literature, therefore, no experimental work will be carried out. The reference parameter to determine the possible difference will be the force expressed by the various reference samples, based on the test results they have undergone. Conclusion: What led to the development of this review was the desire to want to determine if there was a periodization protocol to follow, which could be considered better than the others. In the case in point, studies have been examined regarding linear or traditional periodization (TP); block periodization (BP); and wavy periodization, which in turn was divided into weekly (WUP) and daily (DUP) wavy. The periodization of the training was born in the 60s, and the first model to spread was what we now call traditional, or linear. This provides for an increasing intensity and volume of training, up to the competitive period where these 2 variables reach their peak. Vladimir Issurin, one of the main proponents of block periodization, has repeatedly defined the traditional model as obsolete. The limits of traditional periodization, according to Issurin, are mainly linked to the impossibility of building multi-peak performances, since the simultaneous development of different skills, typical of this approach, represent a performance limit. Another criticism of the traditional model concerns the competitive period of modern sport, which is increasingly wide, therefore a periodization of this kind could have been acceptable as long as the competitions were extremely limited, but now that we compete more and more frequently, a new approach should be used. Block periodization could be part of this discussion and provide an alternative to the traditional model, since it can generate multi-peak performance. In order for this to be considered effective, there are, however, some principles discussed in chapter 2, which the coach must always keep in mind. In this macro discourse between block and linear periodization we insert what is called wavy periodization. It is so called because the training loads follow, in fact, a wavy path, varying in intensity and volume. The trend is weekly in the case of WUP. Instead, waving the variables, which we discussed, daily is typical of the DUP model. The studies examined provided important information on the various models, Manchado et al., For example, in 2018 they conducted a study on 11 handball players, in 2 consecutive years, observing how both the BP and TP models managed to register improvements in the expression of strength, however for the TP model there were no improvements in the 10m sprint, contrary to what happened in BP. The other studies conducted that compared BP and TP tended slightly in favor of the first model, however, as shown by the study conducted by G.S Solli et al. of 2019, where 2 triumphant seasons of the skier Marit Bjørgen were taken as an example, both protocols can lead an elite athlete to reach the maximum goals during a sports season. Studies comparing BP with WUP have led to conflicting results, in fact S. Bartolomei et al. in 2016 they conducted a study on athletes from the world of rugby, wrestling and athletics, observing how, although both approaches were advantageous, the BP model produced significantly greater results in the Bench Press 1RM test. In 2016 always S. Bartolomei et al. Taking middle-class women as a sample obtained results that showed how WUP had been more effective than BP. Block periodization was also compared with DUP by S. Gavanda et al. in 2018. The 47 teenage American football players, taken as a champion, achieved significant strength, power and performance improvements in both periodization models. There is no shortage of studies that have compared corrugated models with TP. Here too the results are not unanimous, T.W. Buford et al. in 2007 they compared the TP model with WUP and DUP, the results that emerged from the tests submitted to the sample (men and women of medium level) showed statistically insignificant improvements. However, it is interesting to observe how TP and WUP showed results in similar percentages, while DUP recorded improvements in lower percentages compared to the other approaches. Studies conducted, however, on men with at least 1 year of experience in strength training (Prestes et al., 2009) and judoka (Franchini et al., 2015) have highlighted improvements in DUP. Although there has not been an increase expressed in cm in SLJ in the judokas, these studies have shown the effectiveness of the 2 models in the expression of strength and power, no statistically significant difference between the 2 has emerged. On the other hand, the results obtained with DUP in the short term are significant, showing that this model is the most suitable for generating positive results in the shortest time. In conclusion, the question asked at the beginning cannot be answered, as the experience gained through these studies shows how periodising is extremely difficult and full of variables to be taken into account, which make it impossible to determine an effective periodization for each discipline and for each subject. It is wise to say that the good coach, or trainer who is, must vary the models from season to season, constantly updating himself and, above all, not believing that he knows the winning formula for each situation.
© Copyright 2020 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. / Übersetzt mit https://www.DeepL.com/Translator