USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Sports Med. 2021 Apr;51(4):625-651. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01414-5. Epub 2021 Jan 6.
Over the past several decades, periodization has been widely accepted as the gold standard of training theory. Within the literature, there are numerous definitions for periodization, which makes it difficult to study. When examining the proposed definitions and related studies on periodization, problems arise in the following domains: (1) periodization has been proposed to serve as the macro-management of the training process concerning the annual plan, yet research on long-term effects is scarce; (2) periodization and programming are being used interchangeably in research; and (3) training is not periodized alongside other stressors such as sport (i.e., only resistance training is being performed without the inclusion of sport). Overall, the state of the literature suggests that the inability to define periodization makes the statement of its superiority difficult to experimentally test. This paper discusses the proposed definitions of periodization and the study designs which have been employed to examine the concept.
在过去几十年中，分期训练已被广泛接受为训练理论的黄金标准。在文献中，有许多关于分期训练的定义，这使得研究变得困难。当检查分期训练的提议定义和相关研究时，会在以下领域出现问题：（1）分期训练被提议作为年度计划中训练过程的宏观管理，但对长期效果的研究很少；（2）分期训练和编程在研究中被交替使用；（3）训练与其他压力源（例如运动）没有同时分期（即，仅进行抗阻训练，而不包括运动）。总体而言，文献状况表明，无法定义分期训练使得难以通过实验测试来证明其优越性。本文讨论了分期训练的提议定义以及用于检验该概念的研究设计。
