Ever wonder how top athletes seem to peak at just the right moment?
The answer lies in a powerful training strategy called periodisation.
This systematic approach to planning workouts isn’t just for Olympians—it’s a game-changer for athletes at all levels.
By strategically varying training intensity and focus over time, periodization helps you build fitness, prevent burnout, and hit your peak performance when it matters most.
Whether you’re training for your first 5K or gunning for a podium finish, understanding periodisation can take your endurance game to the next level.
Let’s dive into the different models. I have listed them in the order from most commonly used / easiest to understand to the most complex model.
This is the traditional model, involving a gradual progression from high-volume, low-intensity training to low-volume, high-intensity training as the competition approaches. It’s divided into distinct phases:
– Preparatory phase (building base fitness)
– Competitive phase (race-specific training)
– Transition phase (active recovery)
Best suited for: Novice to intermediate athletes, or those with a long preparation phase before a main event.
Strengths: Simple to implement and understand. Allows for steady progression.
Weaknesses: May lead to performance plateaus for advanced athletes. Less flexible for multi-peak seasons.
As the name suggests, this model reverses the linear approach. It starts with high-intensity, low-volume training and progresses to higher volume, lower intensity work as the competition nears. This can be beneficial for some endurance events.
Best suited for: Athletes in sports where maintaining power or speed is crucial even as endurance increases.
Strengths: Can help maintain power while building endurance. Useful for sports like rowing or swimming.
Weaknesses: May not provide sufficient base endurance for some athletes.
This model involves more frequent variations in training volume and intensity, often on a daily or weekly basis. It can be further divided into:
– Daily Undulating Periodisation (DUP): Training variables change daily
– Weekly Undulating Periodization (WUP): Training variables change weekly
Best suited for: Advanced athletes, those needing to maintain multiple fitness components simultaneously, or athletes with frequently changing competition schedules.
Strengths: Provides variety, potentially reducing burnout. Allows for simultaneous development of multiple fitness attributes.
Weaknesses: More complex to plan and implement. May not allow for optimal development of any single attribute.
This approach concentrates on developing specific abilities in blocks, typically lasting 2-6 weeks. Each block focuses on a particular aspect of fitness (e.g., aerobic endurance, lactate threshold, VO2max).
Best suited for: Elite athletes, those with multiple performance peaks in a season, or athletes needing to dramatically improve specific aspects of fitness.
Strengths: Allows for concentrated development of specific abilities. Flexible for multi-peak seasons.
Weaknesses: Requires careful planning to avoid detraining in non-focused areas. May be too intense for novice athletes.
This model emphasizes a distribution of about 80% low-intensity training and 20% high-intensity training, with very little moderate-intensity work. It’s gained popularity among endurance athletes in recent years but needs to managed very carefully.
Best suited for: Endurance athletes in sports like running, cycling, or cross-country skiing.
Strengths: Mimics the natural training patterns of successful endurance athletes. May reduce risk of overtraining.
Weaknesses: May not provide enough specific preparation for some events. Can be psychologically challenging due to the intensity of the hard sessions.
This involves alternating periods of high and low training stress, creating a wave-like pattern in training load over time.
Best suited for: Athletes prone to overtraining or those who respond well to frequent recovery periods. Strengths: Built-in recovery periods can prevent burnout. Allows for multiple peaks within a season.
Weaknesses: May not provide enough consistent stimulus for some athletes. Requires careful monitoring to ensure proper loading.
Originally developed for strength sports, this model simultaneously develops multiple fitness components and can be adapted for endurance athletes.
Best suited for: Multi-sport athletes or those needing to maintain a wide range of physical abilities. Strengths: Allows for simultaneous development of multiple fitness components. Can prevent boredom and staleness.
Weaknesses: Complex to design and implement. May not allow for optimal development in any single area.
This is a more complex model that applies similar training patterns across different time scales (days, weeks, months), creating a fractal-like structure.
Best suited for: Highly advanced athletes or those with very long-term development plans.
Strengths: Provides a coherent structure across multiple time scales. Can be highly individualized.
Weaknesses: Very complex to design and implement. Requires sophisticated monitoring and adjustment.
Sometimes, the most effective approach often involves combining elements from different models to create a personalised plan that addresses the specific needs and constraints of the individual athlete and their sport.