A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs

Matthew R. Rhea, Brandon Alderman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

89 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively combine and examine the results of studies examining the effectiveness of periodized (PER) compared to nonperiodized (Non-PER) training programs for strength and/or power development. Two analyses were conducted to (a) examine the magnitude of treatment effect elicited by PER strength training programs compared to Non-PER programs and (b) compare these effects after controlling for training volume, frequency, and intensity. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were coded based on characteristics that might moderate the overall effects (i.e., participant characteristics and characteristics related to the training program). Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for each study, and an overall ES of 0.84 (± 1.41) favoring PER training was found. Further analyses identified the treatment effect specific to training variation to be ES = 0.25. Significant moderating variables included age, training status, and length of training program. As a result of this statistical review of the literature, it is concluded that PER training is more effective than Non-PER training for men and women, individuals of varying training backgrounds, and for all age groups. In line with the overload principle, additions to volume, intensity, and frequency result in additional training adaptations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)413-422
Number of pages10
JournalResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
Volume75
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Resistance Training
Meta-Analysis
Education
Age Groups
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Nephrology

Cite this

@article{09604dd9292c4141a81b9df65ff49338,
title = "A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to quantitatively combine and examine the results of studies examining the effectiveness of periodized (PER) compared to nonperiodized (Non-PER) training programs for strength and/or power development. Two analyses were conducted to (a) examine the magnitude of treatment effect elicited by PER strength training programs compared to Non-PER programs and (b) compare these effects after controlling for training volume, frequency, and intensity. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were coded based on characteristics that might moderate the overall effects (i.e., participant characteristics and characteristics related to the training program). Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for each study, and an overall ES of 0.84 (± 1.41) favoring PER training was found. Further analyses identified the treatment effect specific to training variation to be ES = 0.25. Significant moderating variables included age, training status, and length of training program. As a result of this statistical review of the literature, it is concluded that PER training is more effective than Non-PER training for men and women, individuals of varying training backgrounds, and for all age groups. In line with the overload principle, additions to volume, intensity, and frequency result in additional training adaptations.",
author = "Rhea, {Matthew R.} and Brandon Alderman",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/02701367.2004.10609174",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
pages = "413--422",
journal = "Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport",
issn = "0270-1367",
publisher = "AAHPERD",
number = "4",

}

A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. / Rhea, Matthew R.; Alderman, Brandon.

In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 75, No. 4, 01.01.2004, p. 413-422.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs

AU - Rhea, Matthew R.

AU - Alderman, Brandon

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to quantitatively combine and examine the results of studies examining the effectiveness of periodized (PER) compared to nonperiodized (Non-PER) training programs for strength and/or power development. Two analyses were conducted to (a) examine the magnitude of treatment effect elicited by PER strength training programs compared to Non-PER programs and (b) compare these effects after controlling for training volume, frequency, and intensity. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were coded based on characteristics that might moderate the overall effects (i.e., participant characteristics and characteristics related to the training program). Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for each study, and an overall ES of 0.84 (± 1.41) favoring PER training was found. Further analyses identified the treatment effect specific to training variation to be ES = 0.25. Significant moderating variables included age, training status, and length of training program. As a result of this statistical review of the literature, it is concluded that PER training is more effective than Non-PER training for men and women, individuals of varying training backgrounds, and for all age groups. In line with the overload principle, additions to volume, intensity, and frequency result in additional training adaptations.

AB - The purpose of this study was to quantitatively combine and examine the results of studies examining the effectiveness of periodized (PER) compared to nonperiodized (Non-PER) training programs for strength and/or power development. Two analyses were conducted to (a) examine the magnitude of treatment effect elicited by PER strength training programs compared to Non-PER programs and (b) compare these effects after controlling for training volume, frequency, and intensity. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were coded based on characteristics that might moderate the overall effects (i.e., participant characteristics and characteristics related to the training program). Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for each study, and an overall ES of 0.84 (± 1.41) favoring PER training was found. Further analyses identified the treatment effect specific to training variation to be ES = 0.25. Significant moderating variables included age, training status, and length of training program. As a result of this statistical review of the literature, it is concluded that PER training is more effective than Non-PER training for men and women, individuals of varying training backgrounds, and for all age groups. In line with the overload principle, additions to volume, intensity, and frequency result in additional training adaptations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12744278668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12744278668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02701367.2004.10609174

DO - 10.1080/02701367.2004.10609174

M3 - Article

C2 - 15673040

AN - SCOPUS:12744278668

VL - 75

SP - 413

EP - 422

JO - Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

JF - Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

SN - 0270-1367

IS - 4

ER -