Periodized training programs have been used in the

ACOMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND BLOCK PERIODIZED STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAMS IN TRAINED ATHLETES SANDRO BARTOLOMEI, 1 JAY R. HOFFMAN, 2 FRANCO MERNI, 1 AND JEFFREY R. STOUT 2 1 School of Pharmacy, Biotechnology and Motor Science, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; and 2 Sport and Exercise Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida ABSTRACT Bartolomei,S,Hoffman,JR,Merni,F,andStout,JR.Acomparison of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 990 997, 2014 The purpose of this study was to compare 2 different periodization models in strength and power athletes. Twenty-four experienced resistance trained men were randomly assigned to eir a block periodization training program (BP; age = 24.2 6 3.1 years, body mass = 78.5 6 11.0 kg, height = 177.6 6 4.9 cm) or to a traditional periodization program (TP; age = 26.2 6 6.0 years, body mass = 80.5 6 13.3 kg, height = 179.2 6 4.6). Participants in both training programs performed 4 training sessions per week. Each training program consisted of same exercises and same volume of training (total resistance lifted per session). The difference between groups was in manipulation of training intensity within each training phase. Strength and power testing occurred before training (PRE) and after 15 weeks () of training. Magnitude-based inferences were used to compare strength and power performance between groups. Participants in BP were more likely (79.8%) to increase area under force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in load corresponding to maximal power at bench press compared with TP group, and a possible improvement (;60%) in maximal strength and power in bench press. No significant changes were noted between groups in lower-body strength or jump power performance after 15-week training period. Results of this study indicate that BP may enhance upper-body power expression to a greater extent than TP with equal volume; however, no differences were detected for lower-body performance and body composition measures. KEY WORDS program design, power development, resistance training, 1 repetition maximum Address correspondence to Sandro Bartolomei, sandro.bartolomei@ unibo.it. 28(4)/990 997 Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association INTRODUCTION Periodized training programs have been used in training of elite athletes over past several decades. Training periodization is a planned distribution of workload to avoid stagnation in performance improvement and to optimize peak performance for most important competitions of year (29). Sport scientists and strength coaches working with strength/power sports were among first to adopt a planned distribution of training loads to help athletes reach peak performance at most important competitions (6). The concept of periodization, its variants, and its subsequent developments are now applied at almost all high-level strength training programs. Although re are many books and scientific articles promoting importance of training program periodization, re are only a limited number of experimental studies that compare 2 of more commonly used periodization models: traditional periodization (TP) and block periodization (BP). The traditional model, proposed by Russian professor Lev Matveev at end of 1950s, has been used for a number of years by many elite and amateur level athletes (26). In this periodization model, macrocycle (e.g., training year) workload fluctuates from a high volume and low-intensity training toward low volume and high-intensity training (19 22). This inverse relationship between training volume and exercise intensity is also observed within each mesocycle (23). This traditional model of periodization has often been referred to as linear periodization in Western literature (1,4,28). Although Matveev s initial description of volume and intensity alterations in his periodization model was not clear (19 21), later publications demonstrated a nonlinear workload distribution using an undulating wave-like model (22,23). Block periodization is based on original idea of workload distribution that provides a concentrated training stimulus focused on a specific aspect of performance (35,36). This model was proposed by Verchosanskij (33,34,37), who adopted concept of step periodization that was first introduced by Vorojeb in 1974 (32,38 40). Verchosanskij attempted to contradict Matveev s vision and to adjust 990

www.nsca.com training paradigm to meet changing needs of athletes in 1980s (15). Interestingly, Stone et al. (30) published a oretical model for strength training in 1981 that was similar to proposed BP that was being published in Eastern Europe. The block model of periodization is made up of several mesocycles, each with a unique training goal. The progression of training blocks is performed in a logical order, which prepares athletes for next training block (13,29). Block periodization is first characterized by an accumulation mesocycle that demands a high volume of work performed at relative low intensity followed by a transformation and realization blocks (25,26). In North American literature, each mesocycle is generally referred to by ir training goals (5,7,12). The accumulation phase focuses on muscle hypertrophy, where transformation phase focuses on maximal strength and realization phase focuses on power and explosive strength. The realization block uses cumulative and residual muscular adaptations of previous 2 phases (15). The BP model is often referred to as classic linear periodization model (12,13), or block with linear increase (3) because in first 2 phases (hypertrophy and maximal strength) re is a constant increase in intensity with a decrease in training volume. The benefits of this training system are thought to be attributable to a conjugated sequencing model (26,29,33). That is, adaptations from TABLE 1. Exercises for both block and traditional periodization resistance training programs. Monday Bench press Dumbbell bench press Dips Skull crushers Triceps pull-down Thursday Squat Leg press Leg extension/leg curl Military press Upright row Lateral lift Tuesday Prone barbell row Lat machine Pull-up Dumbbell row Standing barbell curl Preacher curl Friday Inclined bench press Low row Prone lateral lifts Incline dumbbell curl Preacher curl each cycle are contributing to gains made in subsequent training cycles. To date, re have been only a limited number of studies comparing different periodization models in competitive strength/power athletes (12,13,18). Several of se studies and ors have compared linear or BP model to an undulating or nonlinear model (9,24,27,28), but only a few were Figure 1. Training volume (sets x repetitions) and intensity (in % of 1RM) during 15 weeks provided in TP group. VOLUME 28 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2014 991

Traditional versus Block Periodization Comparisons Figure 2. Training volume (sets x repetitions) and intensity (in % of 1RM) during 15 weeks provided in BP group. able to determine superiority of 1 periodization model over or. However, nonlinear model generally employed in se studies used a training design that altered training volume and intensity by each workout, and by weekly progression as suggested in TP model. Considering lack of study comparing traditional to BP models, it is purpose of this study to compare effect of traditional vs. BP on maximal strength and power in highly trained subjects. METHODS 992 Experimental Approach to Problem Participants experienced in resistance training (minimum of 3 years of training) were randomly divided into 2 experimental groups and provided a 15-week training program. The first group performed a TP training program that included an undulating model within each mesocycle, whereas second group performed a BP program that maintained volume and intensity of training throughout each mesocycle. All participants were assessed for strength (maximal isometric strength in half-squat position, 1 repetition maximum [1RM] bench press), lower-body power (squat jump [SJ] and countermovement jumps [CMJs]), upperbody power (peak bench press power and force/power curve), and anthropometrics (body mass and body composition) before and after training program. Subjects were not permitted to perform any additional training or participate in any competition during duration of study. Subjects Participants of experimental groups were experienced strength trained men who were strength trained at least 3 times per week for more than 3 years. All participants were strength and power athletes competing in track and field throwing events or in Rugby and American football in Italian Leagues. Subjects were randomly assigned to1offollowing2groups: Group 1 (mean 6 SD; n =14; age = 24.2 6 3.1 years; body mass = 78.5 6 11.0 kg; height = 177.6 6 4.9 cm) used BP program and group 2 (mean 6 SD; n =10;age= 26.2 6 6.0 years; body mass = 80.5 6 13.3 kg; height = 179.2 6 4.6 cm) used TP program. All participants signed an informal consent document, and study was approved by University of Bologna bioethics committee. Resistance Training Protocols The 15-week resistance training program for each group can be seen in Table 1. All participants exercised 4 days per week, and exercises performed were same for each group. The groups differed only in intensity (% of RM) and volume (number of repetitions 3 sets) used. Subjects were encouraged to increase resistance used per workout if y performed maximum number of repetitions required for 2 consecutive exercise sessions. Participants recorded all workouts in a logbook, which was collected by one of investigators after each workout. Feedback was provided in regard to changes in loading of exercises. The TP program consisted of three 5-week mesocycle with decreasing training volume and increasing intensity. Each mesocycle progressed from hypertrophy to strength to a power focus. Because participant progressed from 1 mesocycle to next, initial starting point was higher (i.e., increased intensity, lower volume) than previous mesocycle (Figure 1). In first week of each mesocycle, athletes had to perform 5 sets of 8 10 repetitions at 65 75% of 1RM with,2 minutes of recovery between sets. In second week, participants performed 5 sets of 5 6 repetitions

VOLUME 28 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2014 993 TABLE 2. PRE to group comparisons in strength and power measures.* BP group mean 6 SD TP group mean 6 SD DBP group DTP group p Threshold Bench press 1RM (kg) PRE 102.2 6 20.1 99.0 6 22.8 7 6 6 2 6 6 0.058 4.18 110.0 6 19.2 101.0 6 24.7 Max power bench press (W) PRE 455.0 6 114.2 431.9 6 111.2 44 6 96 14 6 42 0.312 22.22 498.9 6 78.2 w 445.6 6 105.5 AUC power PRE 21,661.8 6 4,120.0 21,633.5 6 5,641.1 2,527 6 3,551 526 6 1,983 0.123 939.08 24,188.9 6 2,537.8 22,159.5 6 4,867.5 Bench press maximum power load (% of 1RM) PRE 57.6 6 6.9 56.3 6 11.0 24 6 13 5 6 7 0.069 1.88 53.91 6 8.3 61.3 6 12.7 Squat maximum isometric strength (kg) PRE 134.4 6 30.7 125.6 6 47.7 7 6 8 9 6 15 0.647 7.34 140.9 6 34.1 135.4 6 42.9 Squat jump (cm) PRE 40.6 6 5.2 42.6 6 8.1 2 6 3 1 6 3 0.352 1.26 42.3 6 5.4 43.3 6 8.0 CMJ (cm) PRE 44.1 6 6.3 47.1 6 7.9 1.17 6 2.93 1.35 6 3.95 0.9 1.41 45.23 6 6.0 48.4 6 8.3 Positive Percent trivial Negative Mean effect Inference Bench press 1RM (kg) PRE 62.7 37.24 0.07 5 6 4.3 Possibly positive Max power bench press (W) PRE 60.5 35.18 4.3 30 6 50 Possibly positive AUC power PRE 79.8 18.79 1.4 2,000 6 2,100 Likely positive Bench press maximum power load (% of 1RM) PRE 92.76 5.70 1.54 29 6 8.1 Likely positive Squat maximum isometric strength (kg) PRE 2.44 85.87 11.69 22 6 7.6 Likely trivial Squat jump (cm) PRE 40.36 57.49 2.15 1 6 1.8 Possibly trivial CMJ (cm) PRE 13.6 66.7 19.7 20.18 6 2.4 Unclear *BP = block periodization; TP = traditional periodization; AUC = area under curve; CMJ = countermovement jump; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum. www.nsca.com

Traditional versus Block Periodization Comparisons Figure 3. Force-power curve in BP (A) and in TP (B) groups before and after training period. at 75 85% of 1RM. During third week of training, participants performed 5 sets of 3 4 repetitions at 85 95% of 1RM with 3 minutes of recovery between sets. During fourth week of training, power became focus with load dropping to 50 60% of 1RM and complete recovery between sets. The last week of each mesocycle was dedicated to recovery and assessments with only 2 light load workouts. The BP group also consisted of three 5-week mesocycles with first block characterized by a high training volume and low training intensity, which established accumulation phase and focused on muscle hypertrophy. In subsequent mesocycles, focus transitioned to maximal strength and maximal power (realization phase; Figure 2). During first training phase, participants used workloads ranging between 65 and 75% of 1RM (6 10 RM). During strength mesocycle, subjects used 80 95% of 1RM loads with low repetitions (1 6 RM). In power mesocycle, loads dropped to 50 65% of 1RM with complete recovery and maximal contraction speed. Performance Assessments All participants were assessed for strength, power, and anthropometry at baseline before initiating training program (PRE) and after 15 weeks of training (). All strength assessments were required to be performed before power assessments. 994

www.nsca.com Strength and Power Measures. During each testing session, participants performed a maximal effort isometric half-squat using an isometric dynamometer (Globus Iso Control; Globus, Inc., Treviso, Italy). The isometric half-squat test was conducted using a Smith machine with a fixed barbell and knee flexion angle of 908 between femur and tibia. In addition, maximal strength of upper body was assessed by a 1RM bench press using a Smith machine. Bench press testing was performed in standard supine position. The participant lowered bar to mid-chest and n pressed weight until his arms were fully extended. The 1RM test was performed using an incremental method beginning from a baseline of 30 kg and continued until failure in 10 kg increments. Participants were required to perform a single repetition with each load. During each repetition, power produced was measured and after attainment of 1RM a force-power curve was constructed. Area under curve (AUC) was calculated using a standard trapezoidal technique. An optical encoder (Globus Real Power; Globus, Inc.) was used for power assessment. The peak power and percentage of 1RM that revealed maximum power were also calculated. Intraclass coefficients were 0.95 (SEM, 4.66 au) for 1RM bench press and 0.95 (SEM, 7.90 au) for 1RM squat exercise. The SJ and CMJ were used to assess lower-body power. All jump measures were performed on a contact mat (Globus Ergo Jump; Globus, Inc.). For SJ, each participant began from a squat position with his hands on his hips. Before jumping, each participant was instructed to maximize height of each jump while minimizing contact time with contact mat. On a verbal signal, participant performed a vertical jump. Jump height was calculated based on flight time recorded by computer. For CMJ, methodology was similar with exception that participant began from an erect position and moved to a semisquat position before jumping. Each participant performed 3 jumps for both SJ and CMJ. Intraclass coefficients were 0.87 (SEM, 2.20 au) for SJ and 0.89 (SEM, 2.34 au) for CMJ. Anthropometry. Anthropometric assessments included height, body mass, and body fat composition. Body mass was measured to nearest 0.1 kg. Body fat percentage was estimated from skinfold caliper measures using method of Jackson and Pollock (16). The same investigators performed all of skinfold analysis assessments during each assessment period. Statistical Analyses A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test normal distribution of data. Data were statistically analyzed using a group (TP 3 BP) by time (pre 3 post) repeatedmeasures analysis of variance. Significance was set at p # 0.05. In addition, data were analyzed using magnitude-based inferences, calculated from 90% confidence intervals, using a published spreadsheet (14). All data are reported as mean 6 SD. Where appropriate, percent change was calculated as follows: (posttest mean 2 pretest mean)/(pretest mean) 3 100. Qualitative inferences based on quantitative changes were assessed as:,1% almost certainly not, 1 5% very unlike, 5 25% unlikely, 25 75% possibly, 75 95% likely, and.99% almost certainly (14). RESULTS Comparison of strength and power changes between BP and TP is depicted in Table 2. There were no significant main effects across time or group, and no significant interactions were noted for power and strength of upper- and lowerbody measures. Magnitude-based analysis indicated that changes in 1RM bench press and maximal power output in bench press exercise were possibly positive (62.7 and 60.5%, respectively) for BP compared with TP. The percent of 1RM corresponding to maximal power output decreased for BP, whereas increased for TP. These differences between groups were likely positive (92.8%). In addition, magnitude-based inferences comparing AUC for maximal power performance between 40 and 100% of maximal bench press performance also indicated a likely positive (79.8%) effects for improvements in BP compared with TP (Figures3A,B).ThechangeinAUCvalueinBPgroup suggests that an upward shift of force-power curve occurred and that is likely because of training program. Magnitude-based inferences for maximal isometric strength in squat exercise revealed a likely trivial (85.9%) difference in athletes of BP and TP groups from pretest to posttest, a possible trivial relation between groups for SJ (57.5%) and an unclear difference for CMJ (66.7%). No changes in body composition were seen from PRE (9.83 and 11.88%) to (9.24 and 10.88%) in eir BP or TP. In addition, re were no significant interactions for fat free mass and for fat mass percentage between groups after 15 weeks of training. DISCUSSION The results of this study indicated that a 15-week resistance training program using a BP model promoted a greater increase in strength and power expression in bench press exercise compared with using TP model. However, no differences were detected for lower-body performance and body composition measures. Both periodization models incorporated same total load lifted, thus differences observed for upper-body strength and power were likely associated with manipulation of training intensity during different mesocycles. Relation between strength and power is a fundamental component in many strength/power sports (15), and an increase in this parameter can lead to an improvement in specific sport performance by athlete. A wide variety of neuromuscular factors have been reported to contribute to high power production (17,31), including motor unit VOLUME 28 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2014 995

Traditional versus Block Periodization Comparisons recruitment, rate coding, and synchronization. Relative temporal proximity between power training and maximal strength or hypertrophy sessions in TP may have decreased ability of athletes to optimize power training due to fatigue. This could have potentially influenced limited increase in power observed in TP. Several studies have suggested that optimal load for power expression for bench press exercise is between 40 70% of 1RM (2,17). In this study, both BP group and TP group showed a value between 50 and 61% of 1RM. During 15-week training program, a reduction in percentage of 1RM that corresponded to maximal power in bench press occurred in BP group, but not in TP group. This is consistent with research by Baker (2) who found that stronger subjects produced maximal power at lower percentage of maximum load than did weaker subjects in bench press throw and SJ. Although this may be influenced by type of exercise, strength level of athletes, and training phase, a reduction in load that produces maximal power could mean a quicker muscle contraction and an early recruitment of high threshold motor unit. This effect may enhance improvements in rate of force development. This is supported by Baker (2), who suggested that optimal loads can shift toward a lower percentage of 1RM during phases with emphasizing speed-oriented training. This would be consistent with coaches designing yearly training programs that incorporate sprint and plyometric training programs during power phase of training. The last phase of training during BP model was completely dedicated to power, and intensity was lowered to accommodate maximum power generation, with workloads ranging between 50 and 65% of 1RM. In TP group, this was distributed at end of each of 3 mesocycles and produced lower results. The single week of lower intensity training at end of each mesocycle in TP may not be of sufficient duration to stimulate specific neurological adaptation in comparison to a concentrated 5-week training phase seen during BP. This study supports idea that BP can emphasize specific adaptation leading to use of lower loads more than a TP program. Limited improvements in both squat and jump performances were likely related to lack of plyometric drills in training routines of both programs and inclusion of lower-body strength training only 1 day per week. This is consistent with previous research that has suggested that training improvements in experienced, resistance trained athletes are dependent on training frequency and inclusion of assistance exercises (10). In addition, strength assessments for lower body were performed using an isometric measure and dynamic jumps. The lack of lowerbody strength improvements reported may also be a reflection of lack of specificity between exercises used during training program and those used for assessment. Previous studies have indicated that evaluating strength performance in a mode of training not specific to what was trained will not reflect magnitude of strength improvements (8,25). No changes were noted in body composition in eir training model. Considering that body composition of se athletes was lean before onset of study, lack of any significant change is not unexpected. This is consistent with previous studies examining 15-week periodized training programs in strength/power athletes (11,12). PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The results of this study indicate that a BP model may be more beneficial to TP model during a 15-week training program in eliciting upper-body strength and power improvements in experienced resistance trained athletes. In context of this study, no clear advantage was demonstrated in eir training model in regard to lower-body strength and power improvements. The BP model appears to cause an upward shift to force velocity curve and resulting in greater power outputs at lower intensity of athlete s 1RM bench press. This training model may be superior for training of athletes participating sports characterized by very quick muscular contractions, like javelin and discus throw of track and field events. REFERENCES 1. Apel, JM, Lacey, RM, and Kell, R. A comparison of traditional and weekly undulating periodized strength training programs with total volume and intensity equated. J Strength Cond Res 25: 694 703, 2011. 2. Baker, D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 30 35, 2001. 3. Baker, D. Cycle-length variants in periodized strength/power training. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 29: 10 17, 2007. 4. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8: 235 242, 1994. 5. Bompa, TO and Carrera, MC. Periodization Training for Sports. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 2005. 6. Cissik, J, Hedrick, A, and Barnes, M. Challenges applying research on periodization. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 30: 45 51, 2008. 7. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ, The Ultimate Training System. Periodization Breakthrough! New York, NY: Advanced Research Press Inc, 1996. 8. Fry, AC, Kraemer, WJ, Weseman, CA, Conroy, BP, Gordon, SE, Hoffman, JR, and Maresh, CM. The effects of an off-season strength and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in women s intercollegiate volleyball. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 174 181, 1991. 9. Harris, GR, Stone, MH, O Bryant, HS, Proulx, CM, and Johnson, RL. Short-term performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight training methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14 20, 2000. 10. Hoffman, JR, Fry, AC, Deschenes, M, Kemp, M, and Kraemer, WJ. The effects of self-selection for frequency of training in a winter conditioning program for football. J Appl Sport Sci Res 4: 76 82, 1990. 11. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Cooper, JJ, Kang, J, Chilakos, A, and Faigenbaum, A. The addition of eccentrically loaded and unloaded jump squat training on strength/power performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 810 815, 2005. 996

www.nsca.com 12. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Klatt, M, Faigenbaum, AD, Ross, RE, Tranchina, NM, McCurley, RC, Kang, J, and Kraemer, WJ. Comparison between different off-season resistance training programs in Division III American college football players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 11 19, 2009. 13. Hoffman, JR, Wendell, M, Cooper, J, and Kang, J. Comparison between linear and nonlinear in season training program in freshmen training program. J Strength Cond Res 17: 561 565, 2003. 14. Hopkins, WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value. Sportscience 11: 16 20, 2007. 15. Issurin, VB. New horizons for methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med 40: 189 206, 2010. 16. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497 504, 1978. 17. Kawamori, N and Haff, G. The optimal training for development of muscular power. J Strength Cond Res 18: 675 684, 2004. 18. Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, K, Triplett McBride, NT, Fry, AC, Koziris, LP, Ratamess, NA, Bauer, JE, Volek, JS, McConnell, T, Newton, RU, Gordon, SE, Cummings, D, Hauth, J, Pullo, F, lynch, JM, Mazzetti, SA, Knuttgen, HG, and Fleck, SJ. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 157 168, 2003. 19. Matveev, LP. Sport training periodization [in Russian]. Teor Pratk Fiz Kult 1958. 20. Matveev, LP. The Problem of Training Periodization in Sports [in Russian]. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers, 1965. 21. Matveev, LP. Periodization of Athletic Training [German]. Berlin, Germany: Bartels & Wernitz, 1972. 22. Matveev, L. Fundamentals of Sport Training. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura I Sport, 1977. (Translated from Russian by A. P. Zdornykh. Moscow, Russia: 1981). 23. Matveev, L. Training and Its Organization [Italian]. School of Sport Magazine of Physical Culture 18: 3 6, 1990. 24. Painter, KB, Haff, GG, Ramsey, MW, McBride, J, Triplett, T, Sands, WA, Lamont, HS, Stone, ME, and Stone, MH. Strength gains: Block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. Intl J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 161 169, 2012. 25. Pipes, TV. Variable resistance versus constant resistance strength training in adult males. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 39: 27 35, 1978. 26. Plisk, SS and Stone, MH. Periodization strategies. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 25: 19 37, 2003. 27. Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, De Lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D, De Cassia Marqueti, R, Figueira, A Jr, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2437 2442, 2009. 28. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250 255, 2002. 29. Siff, MC. Supertraining (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute, 2003. 30. Stone, M, O Bryant, H, and Garhammer, J. A hypotical model for strength training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 21: 342 351, 1981. 31. Stone, MH, O Bryant, HS, McCoy, L, Coglianese, R, Lehmkuhl, and Shilling, B. Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17: 140 147, 2003. 32. Tschiene, P. Annual Cycle of Training [Italian]. School of Sport Magazine of Physical Culture 2: 14 21, 1985. 33. Verchosanskij, JV. Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sport. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport, 1977 (Translated from A. C. Charniga. Livonia, Michigan: Sportivny Press, 1986). 34. Verchosanskij, JV. Principles for Construction of Training Program in Track and Field Strength Specialties [in Russian]. Moscow, Russia: Liogkaja atletika, 1979. 35. Verchosanskij, JV, Mironenko, V, Antonova, B, Chacatrian, V, Nikitin, D, and Levcenko, S. The development of a model of dynamics of power state of athletes in annual cycle and it importance for training [German]. Competitive Sports 5: 1982. 36. Verchosanskij, JV. The modern programming training sports. Roma, Italy: Scuola dello Sport, 2001. (Translated from Russsian by O. Jourtchennko). 37. Verchosanskij, JV. Special Strength Training: A Practical Manual for Coaches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts, 2006. 38. Vorobjev, A. Some problems in training ory. Teor Pratk Fiz Kult 10: 1974. 39. Vorobjev, A. A Textbook on Weightlifting. Budapest, Hungary: 1978. 40. Vorobjeva, E and Vorobjev, A. Die Adaption in sportlichen Training al seine der Formen der biologischen Anpassung des Organismus an Umwelt- und Entwicklungsbedingungen. Leinstungssport 2: 1978. VOLUME 28 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2014 997