Afonso José, Rocha Tiago, Nikolaidis Pantelis T, Clemente Filipe Manuel, Rosemann Thomas, Knechtle Beat
Faculty of Sport, Centre for Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Master Science Lab, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Front Physiol. 2019 Aug 7;10:1023. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01023. eCollection 2019.
Periodization schedules training periods according to predicted timings of cumulative adaptations and has been at the foundation of exercise prescription. Recently, a selected body of work has highlighted that original research may be providing support for variation, but not for periodized variation. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the timings of expected adaptations have not been tested. However, it is not clear if these problems are present in meta-analyses on the subject, since they might have selected a distinct body or work. Therefore, our goal was to systematically review meta-analyses on exercise periodization, to verify whether the included periodized programs have been contrasted to two types of non-periodized programs (i.e., constant or varied) and also if the predictions concerning cumulative adaptations were tested. : Cochrane, EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SportDISCUS), ISI Web of Knowledge, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus. : Meta-analyses comparing periodized exercise programs with non-periodized programs. : Humans following any form of training periodization. : A checklist was used to verify whether studies included in the meta-analyses compared periodized to constant or varied, non-periodized programs, as well as whether predictions concerning the timing of adaptations were tested. None of the 21 studies included in the two meta-analyses compared periodized programs with varied, non-periodized programs. The accuracy of the predictions concerning the proposed timings of adaptations was not scrutinized by any of the 21 studies. The studies in question have focused only on strength training, meaning they are limited in scope. The limitations found in these meta-analyses suggest that consultation of original research on the subject is advisable. : CRD42018111338.
周期化训练根据累积适应的预测时间安排训练阶段，一直是运动处方的基础。最近，一批选定的研究工作强调，原始研究可能支持变化，但不支持周期化变化。此外，有人提出，预期适应的时间尚未得到检验。然而，目前尚不清楚这些问题是否存在于该主题的荟萃分析中，因为它们可能选择了不同的研究主体。因此，我们的目标是系统地回顾关于运动周期化的荟萃分析，以验证纳入的周期化训练计划是否与两种非周期化训练计划（即固定或变化的）进行了对比，以及关于累积适应的预测是否得到了检验。检索数据库：考克兰图书馆、EBSCO（学术搜索完整版、护理学与健康领域数据库、医学期刊数据库、心理学文摘数据库、体育与运动科学数据库）、ISI 科学网、PEDro、PubMed、科学电子图书馆在线、Scopus。纳入标准：比较周期化运动计划与非周期化运动计划的荟萃分析。研究对象：进行任何形式周期化训练的人群。方法：使用清单来验证荟萃分析中纳入的研究是否将周期化训练计划与固定或变化的非周期化训练计划进行了比较，以及是否检验了关于适应时间的预测。两项荟萃分析中纳入的21项研究均未将周期化训练计划与变化的非周期化训练计划进行比较。这21项研究中没有一项对关于适应预期时间的预测准确性进行审查。这些研究仅关注力量训练，这意味着它们的范围有限。这些荟萃分析中发现的局限性表明，建议查阅该主题的原始研究。注册号：CRD42018111338。
